• 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 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](http://johnaugust.com/2012/the-next-117-pages).

**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.

Scriptnotes, Ep. 40: Death and feedback — Transcript

June 7, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/death-and-feedback).

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

**Craig Mazin:** My name is Craig Mazin. [laughs]

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

**Craig:** And things that are interesting to screenwriters.

**John:** And inside jokes that no one else will ever know.

**Craig:** [laughs] You guys…

**John:** So, Craig…

— You guys, you missed some good comedy there.

**Craig:** You missed, uh…

**John:** And Craig cursed a lot, because he doesn’t curse on the actual show, but he cursed a lot in the intro here.

**Craig:** Yes, much, much cursing.

**John:** So, Craig, on Twitter after I posted the last podcast I said, hey, if you want to leave a good review — any review for us on iTunes. Not a good review, any good review, I would be reading aloud the ones that were marked most helpful. And, in that sense of like, oh, could be constructive feedback. I kind of was kind of fishing for more good reviews.

And then you and I were looking through this list to try to figure out like oh we were going to read these things. And kind of embarrassingly they’re all five star reviews. And they’re all kind of — it was going to just feel a little braggy to read them aloud.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, I guess I’m happy that people like the podcast. I would invite constructive feedback. And it was really my goal in sort of putting that out there on Twitter is if people have constructive feedback or things they want to talk more about, or ways we could improve this. But, I was going to read them aloud and now I’m not so sure it’s going to make sense to read them aloud.

**Craig:** Yeah, probably not. I mean, I will say I’m very, very grateful for the things I read on there. I was pretty shocked and surprised. I mean the Internet is kind of famous for hating. And, [laughs] it was just love. It was nothing but love, which makes me uncomfortable. So, thank you to everybody.

**John:** Today I thought we could talk about feedback, both why we solicit feedback and sometimes why we don’t really want feedback.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I should warn listeners that this might be little bit more meta of a podcast. Less nuts and bolts about the craft of screenwriting, and a little bit more about what Craig and I do, my website, Craig’s website that he gave up, which I think is a fascinating part. So we can start right there.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s true. I built a…

**John:** You don’t have that site anymore. Well, that site is still up there technically. It’s called ArtfulWriter.com, and there are still useful articles there, but you are not actively maintaining it. Is that correct?

**Craig:** That’s right. Yeah. I started that back in 2005, I think. So it was fairly early on in the whole bloggy phenomenon. And the idea in the beginning was just to talk about some of the things that you and I talk about quite a bit on here, some of the non-crafty things. I thought there was nowhere writers could go to actually learn how this whole thing worked in terms of the union, and the companies, and the business end of screenwriting.

And for awhile I just tottered along in anonymity and it was lovely. And then the strike came. [laughs] And suddenly this dinky little blog was getting profiled in the Wall Street Journal and 80,000 people a month were showing up, and it became nightmarish. Nightmarish.

**John:** You were seen as an opinion leader for an unpopular opinion I would say. Or not necessarily an unpopular opinion; there was a valued opinion and you were seen as one of the leaders of one of those opinions and therefore it attracted a lot of attention and a lot of disagreement on your site.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s fair to say. I was essentially the loyal minority. I was in dissent. And many, many people who I suspect drove around in cars that said “Dissent is Patriotic” came home and then told me that I was an idiot, [laughs] because I was ruining their thing. It was pretty remarkable actually.

The level of hypocrisy was astounding at times. People would use analogies… — These were people who were otherwise very stridently against say, for instance, the war in Iraq but would say things to me like, “You’re supposed to be a soldier, and soldiers don’t question their leaders.” It was nuts.

**John:** So on a typical blog post I remember you would be getting 50, 75, 100 comments back very, very quickly. It was sort of like how Nikki Finke gets a tremendous number of comments. But, you actually required people to register with their own names, so you could actually see who was making these points. That didn’t seem to stop people from making very long, very passionate points on your site.

**Craig:** No, they could use handles.

**John:** Okay, but they did have to register. I remember having to log in. Was that not the case?

**Craig:** They could register but they didn’t’ have to use their real names. They could use a fake name. And occasionally I would notice that certain people just because you can, you know, when you run a blog you have access to some of the information that comes in when people comment, specifically their IP address. And you can see, oh look, these 12 people who are screaming at me are actually one person, and then I would boot them for that, you know.

And I would boot them for being mean to each other, which they would do a lot. There were threads where it would get up to 300, 400 comments. But, you know, that really wasn’t why I stopped. I mean, that stuff all sort of fell off after the strike was over. And, frankly, I think it fell off also because history proved me correct I say with no false humility or false arrogance. It’s just factually correct.

I was right about almost everything. And there wasn’t much to argue about. So, I got bored. I just got bored. I’d been doing it for five, six years, and I always told myself if it ever felt like homework I would stop because I wasn’t like you; your method is to write a lot more smaller pieces. My thing was to sort of do longer essays. And so I would try and do one a week. And then it became one every two weeks. And then just frankly it got hard. And more than anything I ran out of stuff to sort of explicate in essay length.

So I just stopped. And it was a lovely feeling of stopping. And then you came calling and this couldn’t be easier. I just talk now.

**John:** It’s a half an hour of conversation.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I will say part of the reason for why I was interested in doing the podcast versus strictly just doing the blog is I got a little bored, too. I certainly got bored with comments. And I went through this whole Sturm und Drang with comments on my site where I took them down for awhile. I put them back on, but I sort of deemphasized them.

I just didn’t care to be the host of that party anymore. And I wanted to have my opinions. I didn’t sort of want to have everybody running around my house and touching my stuff anymore.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So as I’m looking now at sort of the next thing we’re going to do with the site, I have to make some decisions about are those comments going to stay, are the comments going to go. And I really am of two minds about it, because I do enjoy feedback when it’s helpful, constructive feedback. I just don’t know that having that feedback attached to my point is the best place to do that. I feel with Twitter or email or everything else that’s a better way of actually getting my attention of something that’s going on in the world.

And yet there are some situations where someone can add a clarifying point to the end of a post and it’s genuinely helpful. And that’s a thing that I don’t actually have to go in and modify myself because somebody has added that in. So, I’m trying to decide what the right next step is for me, for the site, for what I want to do.

**Craig:** Well, people who don’t run popular websites with lots of commentary could never fathom this: Comments are exhausting. The writing of the material is the fun part because you are expressing yourself, and frankly, you are the person who had the will to do it. So, you decided that you were going to create a website. You decided you were going to write a long piece. And in the case of you, and to some extent me, we also wrote things people were interested in reading. So, we weren’t anonymous blogs in the corner of the Internet; people noticed us. And so they showed up. And then the comments happen.

And the comments on the comments. And the fights in the comments. And the stupid comments. And the racist, and insulting, and nonsense. Just waves of nonsense. And you can’t help but feel like it’s reflecting on you. I mean, there’s that one school is, well, let’s just be completely libertarian, laissez-faire about it: everybody post whatever you want, and I don’t care, and I don’t touch it. The problem is you get defined by that. The way that, frankly, I think Deadline Hollywood is defined by its atrocious commenting.

And I didn’t want that. And early on I was really encouraged by how good the comments were. But then suddenly it was like you hit that weird tipping point where it goes from a little thing to a cool thing to a fascinating gathering of likeminded people who maybe don’t agree on everything but have the same demeanor, and then all of a sudden it’s yahoo time. And everyone’s there and it’s like a bad house party. It is the end of Sixteen Candles and the house is wrecked.

And that’s what happened to me. I don’t blame you. I mean, I’d boot ’em. Who cares? Look, if people want to say things, like you said, have them tweet you or something.

**John:** The house party analogy is apt, because you get tired of picking up the plastic cups.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And just like, you know what, go have a party in your own house and maybe I’ll come by and visit your house. Send me an e-vite that you’re having a party at your house and maybe I’ll come by and visit. But I’m not going to like keep inviting you over to my house for things.

When you first start a blog it’s very lonely. And you don’t really know if anybody is reading. You can sort of look at the Google Analytics, and it’s like, oh there are some numbers. But when you first start getting feedback, someone says something about the post you made, it’s really flattering. And that attention can be flattering. And so then you can also sort of game yourself. So, it’s like, well, I know how I can get more people to leave a comment, more people to see this thing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that becomes dangerous, too. One of the posts that sort of sent it over the edge was I did a post called No Trombones which was…

**Craig:** I remember that one.

**John:** So I went on my screed about, and I do truly believe that we do people a disservice by putting the band instruments in little kid’s hands. If we’re going to teach them music we should teach them piano, or guitar, or drums, and if they want to move on and study other instruments later on in their life, in junior high/high school, fantastic. We can still have marching bands. But, giving a little kid the clarinet is not providing them a future of music. It’s limiting them to one specific role in a bigger thing.

So, I wrote that post. It went kind of viral. I got 1,000 comments, almost like death threats, like how dare I say anything bad about trombone. And I got tired of it. And it wasn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back, but it was systematic of what I was feeling about my frustration with comments.

**Craig:** Yeah. People also don’t understand that when the commenters start going after each other, what will happen sometimes is you’ll go to dinner with your family, and you’ll come back and suddenly there will be an email like, “You have to do something about this. Somebody just libeled me.” And I’m like, wait, what?

So, I’ll click over and see, oh god, 300 comments just happened in the last hour and I have to read them to figure out what’s happening and who’s, because god knows I want to ignore it, but the problem is it’s on my site. I’m hosting it.

And I’m like I already have children, you know? I don’t need this. And then, of course, on top of that there’s a weird thing that happens where you suddenly realize I’m spending money and time to provide a service for people to attack me. [laughs] Why? Why am I doing that? I don’t get it.

There was one woman during the strike, a lovely human being, who commented that she wanted to punch me in the heart, [laughs], which I thought was great. I just thought that was great.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah. The specificity of that is really what sets it apart.

**Craig:** And the proportion. I just thought that she kind of got the proper way to respond to a debate over a poorly run union strike. That was the idea was punch people in the heart. That made sense.

But people questioned my credits. I was accused of plagiarism. I was accused of lying. I was accused of nepotism. Obviously I was a company sellout, and a hack, and a loser, and an idiot, and unfunny. And it just went on and on and on. And I have to tell you, I’ve got a pretty thick skin. And it wasn’t like any one comment made me go, “Oh, no, I feel bad.” It was just the sense that I was wallowing in filth all the time. Like I had to take showers. Yuck. I don’t want to read stuff like this. It’s gross. These people are gross.

So, you’re site doesn’t have quite that level of madness, but it’s…

**John:** I don’t. And largely because I’ve been talking about more things related to the craft and not so much about the industry. I don’t create so many targets for myself.

But just this last week I did post something which was a follow-up on something we talked about on the podcast. We had a reader, a listener — my default is to say reader when I should say listener — a listener named Biff who wrote in…

**Craig:** Biff.

**John:** …with his perspective on being an established screenwriter who’s finding it very frustrating and then changes in the industry. And a listener named Cordy wrote in an email with his perspective as a younger, newer writer who is sort of working his way up and finding the same kinds of frustrations. And so I posted Cordy’s thing as a first person, which is my term for when an outside person comes in with a post that’s really from his or her voice.

And so it’s one of the rare posts recently that actually generated 50 comments. And I was like, I dread it. And so I just now today read through the comments because I’d see that they were there, and I’m like I don’t really want to read these. But people were leaving comments and I guess because the ball started rolling and more people started commenting and responding. And some of them were meaningful. And I kind of wish they had come as an email rather than as a comment, but I thought, it’s still feedback, and I thought we would talk through some of it now because it’s an important topic.

**Craig:** Well let’s do it.

**John:** Let’s do it. Adam writes: “There’s something I don’t understand about this recurring complaint that script assignments are hard to land. To my ears it sounds like writers are saying either a) ‘I’m ready to write a script if someone else comes up with the idea and hands me a check to write it;’ or b) ‘I want someone to pay me for my own idea before I actually take the time to make a script out of it.’

“Either way, it’s a bizarre complaint. Granted, the industry may have worked that way once, but based on the reports from the front lines, it doesn’t work that way now. Now you need to write the story first and then get someone interested in it. This is not such a strange business model; you only have to look across the desk at the person to whom you’re pitching to find an example: Studios don’t get paid in advance for the movies they make…”

**Craig:** Ugh, what an idiot this guy is.

**John:** “…they have to make them first and then try to sell them to the public.”

**Craig:** So stupid. Yeah, you know, that’s absolutely true. That’s a great point. You know, novelists also don’t get paid to write their novels. They just write their novels and then they sell them and then they get paid. But novelists also hold their copyright. We’re employees, okay? You can’t have it both ways, Biff. Right?

If the studios want to hire us and everything is a “work for hire,” even the stuff you wrote on your own in your house is a work for hire commissioned by them, they own the copyright. They are the legal authors. We don’t get royalties. We get these negotiated residuals which every three years are up for dispute. We don’t get protection so that we can’t get be rewritten. We don’t get moral rights. We get nothing of that. Okay?

So the deal is this: if they want to treat us like work for hire commissioned writers, not commissionable but commissioned writers, employees, then yeah, we kind of do get to complain about the way they employ us, Biff.

**John:** Well this isn’t Biff, this is Adam.

**Craig:** Oh!

**John:** Biff was the good guy that you liked.

**Craig:** Biff, you’re cool. [laughs] Sorry, Biff. You’re awesome.

Adam, smarten up, dude. Look, I get this vibe all the time from these guys who are like, “What are these writers complaining about? So they want to get paid before they write?” Yeah. You know why? We’re professional writers. My plumbers like to get paid, too. They like to know I can pay them before they do the plumbing. I have to agree to the price. It’s not like they come in, they unclog my toilet and then I go, “Nah, I didn’t like the way you did that. Bye.”

**John:** Here’s the faulty logic in his own analogy. He says: “This is not such a strange business model. You only have to look across the desk at the person to whom you’re pitching to find an example.”

Well, actually no. If you look across the desk at the person you’re pitching to, that executive, he’s not getting paid based on what movies get made. He’s getting paid a salary.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** He’s an employee of the studio. And so he might not keep his job if he’s not able to make some movies, and hopefully make some movies that make money; although, strangely, many executives are able to keep their jobs for a very long time after making a very terrible movie.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But, you’re exactly wrong, Adam. The person you’re pitching to is an employee of the studio and is getting paid a salary not based on which movies actually happen or don’t happen. You’re not going to tell that executive, “Oh, okay, I’m not going to pay you anything for the next three years. But if any movies happen, then I’ll pay you then.” That’s not a viable business model for them, too.

Now I will say, producers are increasingly kind of in that bind, where produces are having a very hard time getting paid anything until movies go into production. So they kind of are working on spec.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** The same way that writers are frustrated to be on spec.

The other example I’ll bring up is a Broadway musical based on a movie. I’m gonna talk about Newsies. So, Newsies is, the plot of Newsies — to the degree that there’s a plot in Newsies — is the newspaper boys rise up to say, “No, you know what? We’re not going to keep paying for these newspapers on the idea that we have to sell them later. We should be able to buy…” Actually, this is a fault analogy now that I think more about it.

[laughs] Well, they’re basically doing spec work, though. The Newsies, the news boys were required to sort of like, yeah, if you make some money, great. If you don’t make any money it’s not our thing. Well, no. If they are in your employ and you are setting the terms for how they’re going to be working, you do actually have to pay them.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’re right about producers. Producers are stuck in a weird place where they don’t really get paid and all the work is on spec until the movie gets made. And, in fact, that is increasingly the result of studio antipathy towards producers. The studios, the corporations, in their bean counter ways have sort of looked out and said, “These guys are middle men. We don’t need them anymore.”

Now, as a writer you might be surprised to hear me stand up for producers. I won’t stand up for producers. I won’t stand up for the producing industry. I’ll stand up for good producers of which there are few. But the good producers deserve to be treated better. The bad producers, and there used to be about a billion of them all snorting coke in their little bungalows — yeah, good riddance. See you later.

The point is, while they’re called producers, they aren’t directing the movies or writing them, so you can’t… — I know for sure you can’t make movies without scripts. And I know for sure you can’t make movies without directors. And I know for sure you can’t make movies without actors. So pay them.

And, Adam, all I can say is good luck at your desk job at, uh, wherever you are. You sound like such a little tool. You work for like a guy in business affairs and you’ve absorbed that whole rhetoric and I’m here to tell you, bro, ain’t that way.

And by the way, beyond that, the people who really do pull the levers at these companies on the business end don’t agree with you either. They also know how important we are, and how important it is to take care of us. That’s not where the issue is. The issue is above their heads in the board rooms.

**John:** An anonymous socialist writes…

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** Yeah. “When people respond to this kind of thing with ‘You gotta make your own opportunities! (as the internet is sometimes wont to do) I wish they would be more specific. I am willing to do webisodes if someone knows the secret to monetizing it, etc. But this is my job, it’s how I pay my rent, and I can’t do it long-term for free anymore than someone who manages a cheese shop or something.”

Which I think is largely the point we’re making. I kind of provocatively titled this post Is Screenwriting Dead, which, again, I felt a little bad doing because I know it’s going to draw a lot of eyeballs.

**Craig:** Eh, do it. Do it.

**John:** Do it. But it’s also going to draw a lot of comments. But I wanted to differentiate between… I’m not saying that the craft of screenwriting is dead, or asking the question, because clearly we’re still going to have screenwriting. We’re still going to have, people will still write scripts. The question is whether the career of screenwriting can continue to last if we’re getting rid of the actual people being paid and employed to do it.

The problem with writing specs is that you have no idea if that spec is going to sell. And spec is really another word for gamble, like I’m going to gamble, I’m going to gamble on this idea that this idea will sell to somebody. That someone will read this and say, “Well this is fantastic. I need to buy this. I need to make this into a movie.”

And so the argument is going to be that corporations are gambling too by taking a chance on writers and stuff like that. Not really. Corporations are investing. This is investment. Corporations are buying up, ideally, a range of properties. They’re deciding which ones they’re going to make into movies, and the ones they make into movies, some of them are going to be hits. That’s investment. That’s picking a range of stocks.

Whereas you as the screenwriter, if all you’re doing is specking you are sort of buying only one stock and you’re putting all of your money into that one stock because that’s the only script you’re going to be able to write for quite a long time. To say, like, oh, well your business model should be, a screenwriter’s business model should be “I’m just going to write a spec, and I’ll sell a spec, and then I’ll sell another spec, and then I’ll sell another spec,” well, some of those are not going to sell. Some of those are not going to become movies.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And you are not going to be able to do this long-term unless you have a trust fund. And we’re back to trust funds.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] If it really is going to be that kind of model you’re going to have to have people who have some other source of income that they don’t actually need to be doing this which isn’t a model.

**Craig:** It’s not going to be that model. It’s just not going to be. Look, that model kind of almost sort of existed for a little while in the ’80s and ’90s. The truth is, when someone says, “Writers should just spec stuff,” they’re being ignorant of the business. The business doesn’t want your specs. It’s not like it used to be. They don’t want your spec.

The reason to write a spec now is to turn them onto your writing so that they can come hire you to write what they want. They don’t want your spec. They want what they want. Even while movies with silly underlying properties that aren’t story based crash and burn around us, they’ll keep making properties based on books, and they’ll keep making properties based on video games, and they’ll keep making properties based on old TV shows. And it’s never going to stop; that keeps going. A lot of the original material you see in Hollywood frankly comes from people that sort of negate the risk of the originality. And when I say risk of — I mean from the corporate side it’s risky.

So, when Todd Phillips comes in with an original idea, or Judd Apatow comes in with an original idea, it’s like, “Okay, well that’s not…” The point is we know that that is going to be done and it’s okay. Those guys have a track record. When Chris Nolan does it, it’s like, it’s okay. Inception? No problem. That’s okay.

**John:** If anyone other than Christopher Nolan tries to do Inception, no way.

**Craig:** Forget it. Forget it. They don’t want it. [laughs] They don’t want it. They don’t want it because they don’t even know how to make it. That’s the point. Their big panic is, how do we make something if we don’t have a great director and we don’t have a vision. So, when they just get a script they’re like, “Okay, cool…” — I mean, yes, it happens. I know now people are going to go, “What happened three weeks when we got…” Yes, correct.

But, the point is it’s the exception now, it’s not the rule. You can’t build a career around specs.

**John:** If someone else had written the Inception script, some Joe Smodcast wrote the Inception script, people would read it, and people would like it I bet. I bet it could place on the Black List. People would say, “Wow, that’s a really interesting script but it’s far too expensive and no one will ever make it.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And the truth is, no one would ever make it.

**Craig:** They wouldn’t. They wouldn’t make it. But what they would say is, “We want to make a movie with this actor based on this property.”

**John:** The guy who wrote that would be called in to have many meetings over town. Will Smith would fly him out to wherever the set is and he would sit in a long meeting with Will Smith. And Will Smith would pitch him this idea and he would spend six months developing this idea with Will Smith that might end up being a movie. It probably wouldn’t end up being a movie but he’d get paid for it maybe.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Yeah. So, I mean, good things could happen. But that script would not get made.

**Craig:** Right. Look at Chris McQuarrie. This is one of the best writers I know. And Chris McQuarrie broke into the business with this amazing original script…

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** …for The Usual Suspects. But, you know, even a guy like Chris McQuarrie, like right now for instance he is the writer and director of One Shot, which looks spectacular by the way. I think it’s going to be really cool. But it’s an adaptation of a novel, you know? Because that’s what the studios are making and Chris is smart enough to go, “Okay, I mean I could keep bashing my head against the wall to try and get more Usual Suspects out there, or I could apply my craft and skill to adapt a novel that’s actually difficult to adapt and adapt it beautifully and direct it.”

So, that’s where the business is. I mean, look, you don’t have to like it, but you can’t sit there like that one guy that refused to leave his hut on Mount St. Helens. [laughs] You’ve got to react. You have to adapt. And I think sort of planting your stick in the group and going, “Specs are nothing,” is so old man; it’s so like 40-year-old man in 1983 to me.

**John:** I want to go back to one point that Anonymous Socialist made. “When people say make your own opportunities — I’ll do webisodes if someone knows the secret to monetizing it.” I have full sympathy for that. And I get frustrated by the, well Kickstarter, we’ll do a Kickstarter and we’ll make it all happen with that.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** And here’s the thing: like somebody will be successful and do that. And things will get made. And god bless Ed Burns who has been able to make his movies on his terms for his budget and his price. That’s great. And I think it’s wonderful that new models are succeeding, but they’re not going to succeed for enough people for everyone to be able to make actual movies that people see in theaters.

So, I’m saying, like, yes, please write for any screen you want to write for. Don’t be precious. Experiment with new things. But the idea that, oh, that the future will take care of all that for you, technology will take care of that, the internet — the internet will do it! — is naïve and doesn’t speak to any understanding of not just the way the business is now but sort of how business overall is, or how economics works.

You say like, “Oh, well we’re going to make these. It’s going to cost us $10,000 each to make these little webisodes and we’ll put them on YouTube and then, money!”

**Craig:** Right. No.

**John:** And in the end, who knows what that is.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And some very smart people have not been able to make this work. And so certainly it’s possible that you will be the person to make this work, but please allow for the fact that it very well could not happen, too.

**Craig:** And let’s also remember, anything that makes it easier for you to break in makes it easier for everyone to break in. It’s not just you that can do this. It’s a thousand other guys with a thousand other ideas. The Internet makes it harder. I really do believe that. It makes it harder. There’s so much noise, so everything just becomes cheaper and more fleeting. The Internet is great for right now, today, this week, an awesome video that everybody’s talking about, and no one will be talking about it tomorrow. Nobody.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** It’s danger. Danger.

**John:** This project that we have coming out… — There’s a project we haven’t announced that we have coming out in the fall, and we shot a promo video for it. And so the question is, how close to launch should we release the promo video for it? And we really came down to we should release the promo video at launch. Like, at the minute you can actually do the thing, the minute the thing is actually available to purchase, that’s when you release the promo video. Because otherwise there’s no sense that you’re going to be able to hold onto any of that enthusiasm you’ve built up.

That idea of like, “Oh, it’s a long lead kind of this, and we’re just going to carefully sneak in and do stuff –” No. You have your one shot and it needs to be immediately purchasable/downloadable right then and there because otherwise the next face-eating man zombie is going to be running down the street in Florida and you’ve lost any attention that you had.

**Craig:** That guy’s cool. I mean, he’s dead now, but he’s cool.

**John:** Yeah, I have not clicked any links. And by the time this podcast airs it will be old news. Thank goodness.

**Craig:** But, by the way, there’s an even cooler guy. So, the man goes and eats another dude’s face which is obviously the result of some kind of PCP or Bath Salts psychosis. — I’m fascinated by this Bath Salts thing. — But then the next day a dude in New Jersey, I think, literally woke up and said, “What could I do to get face-eating guy out of the news cycle?”

So, police are called to his apartment where he has stabbed himself repeatedly in the abdomen. He pulls his own intestines out and throws them at the police officers. He threw his own intestines at them. And, lived.

**John:** Yeah. It’s not fair.

**Craig:** Which makes me think that we’re actually a lot more sturdy than we think. I mean, if you can take a handful of colon and just whip it at a dude, and the worst that we could say is, “You know, it was a rough week there in ICU, but you’ll be all right, buddy. You’ll poop again.” Smart. Remarkable.

**John:** [laughs] It is remarkable.

On that, let us wrap this little podcast up. My One Cool Thing is actually something that’s very sturdy, sort of like the human body when you remove its intestines. So, my One Cool Thing is US Verde Buffalo Grass. I don’t know if you’ve heard of what this stuff is?

So our front of our house, we took out the front lawn because we’re sort of on this hill and there was really no good reason to have grass because you couldn’t enjoy the grass, and it was taking a tremendous amount of water to water that grass. So we put in native plants in the front. It looks nice. It’s wonderful. But in the back we actually have some lawn area where a kid can play soccer or kickball or some elaborate sport she just invented that involves kicking the ball and then doing math, because she’s that kind of kid.

But normal grass is sort of a huge water drain. So, we ended up putting in this new stuff called UC Verde Buffalo Grass. And it’s actually kind of amazing. So what they did is they took Buffalo Grass and sort of refined it, and refined it, and refined it, and sort of cross-bred it with this different thing. So they came up with a Buffalo Grass that takes very, very little water but really resembles normal grass. And so you can buy it, and if you’re putting in a new lawn someplace, or you’re working on your old lawn and thinking about something new, I’d really recommend it. It’s worked out very well.

The caveats for it: it’s not the kind of lawn that you can roll out, nor can you seed it. You actually have to buy these little plugs. And you just buy these little sort of one-square-inch plugs and you have to plant them. And you plant them six inches apart, and so that’s tedious and it takes a long time. But once it grows in it has been really, really good. And we basically don’t have to water for like months during the year, which is great.

**Craig:** Does it feel like normal grass?

**John:** It really feels like normal grass. It looks like normal grass and it feels like normal grass. As it is first growing in it’s a little too soft, like you could sort of push through to the ground a little too easily. But now that it’s grown in denser it’s really, really strong. And the roots are much deeper than normal grass which is why you don’t have to water it so much. So, it’s been a good investment.

**Craig:** I like that. David Zucker is very environmentally conscious. And a few years ago he did that ridiculous — I mean, I can’t stop making fun of this — that ridiculous thing where he got the fake grass, you know, the synthetic grass that’s basically like fancier Astro Turf.

**John:** Recycled plastic.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s basically plasticy Astro Turf. So they got Astro Turf to leave that sort of terrible highway motel carpeting and to look like real grass, but the problem is, you don’t water it at all, but the problem is it heats up and just burns everybody that steps on it. [laughs] And it’s the dumbest thing ever. It kills me. I just think it’s so ridiculous.

**John:** But where I will… — We don’t have any of the plastic grass. Where I will say friends who’ve put in the plastic grass is where you have a place where grass just can’t grow because it’s too shaded by a tree. That’s actually kind of a great place for plastic grass.

**Craig:** Sure. That’s fine. I buy that. Although, you know, there’s other options there.

**John:** Yeah. There’s shade-living things.

**Craig:** Yeah, there are. There are shade-living things. There are wee people that appreciate the shade. If you give them toadstools they will come. They will come. And they will grant wishes.

**John:** The other good thing about this grass is it seems to be very dog pee sturdy, so your dog can pee all over it and it won’t do weird things. It won’t die.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** That’s a nice thing. Any cool things on your side?

**Craig:** Ah, man, you know, I’m just full of hatred, bro. I’ve got nothing but bile for the world. I felt, this was good though. I like this… — This podcast helped me expel some of it. That Adam. Not Biff, but Adam.

**John:** [laughs] Hey, do you think you’re going to keep your site up and running for perpetuity or would you take it down at some point? Would you restart it?

**Craig:** You know, I’ve been thinking about it. I don’t even know what to do with it because on the one hand I think, oh look, it’s like a weird mausoleum of stuff that happened. And I certainly wrote a lot on it. And there are things on it that weren’t sort of topical. I remember, for instance, I did a piece on just dealing with pressure which was sort of a useful thing.

But I don’t know. What do you think I should do with it?

**John:** That’s a good question. And let’s put that out for the listenership. If you have suggestions for what Craig should do you can do a couple different things. You could leave a comment on this post on the site, but that’s really the worst thing to do.

**Craig:** We don’t like comments.

**John:** My suggestion would be to tweet Craig. He’s @clmazin.

**Craig:** Yeah, @clmazin.

**John:** So tweet Craig and tell him whether he should keep his site up or down or do something different. I’m on Twitter, @johnaugust. Just @johnaugust.

And a few sort of housekeeping notes for the show. A lot of people aren’t aware that we are one of the few podcasts you’re going to find that actually has a full written transcript. A couple days after the podcast airs we post a transcript of the show. So if you go to the actual post at johnaugust.com, there will always be a link to it so you can see it there.

I had lunch with another writer who said, “Oh, I love your podcast. I never listen to it but I read the transcripts.”

**Craig:** Oh, cool.

**John:** So bless him.

**Craig:** Well done.

**John:** And, I should also say that anything that we mention in the podcast, or almost anything we mention on the podcast that seems at all interesting or relevant, there will be a link for it in the show notes. And so the show notes are always at johnaugust.com. You can see things about UC Verde Buffalo Grass and stuff that Craig mentioned. What did you mention this week? What would your show notes be?

**Craig:** A lot of hatred mostly.

**John:** And there will be a link to Craig’s site which may be taken down soon.

**Craig:** Hey, have we mentioned, you know, the thing that we’re gonna do?

**John:** Oh, that thing in Austin?

**Craig:** Yeah. Have we talked about it?

**John:** Yeah, we totally should do that. So, tell them.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, so John and I are both attending the Austin Film Festival or at least the screenwriting conference portion of the Austin Film Festival. You’ve been there many times I assume?

**John:** Four or five at least.

**Craig:** So we’re both longtime participants. Great, great thing. I feel like there are so few things you should ever spend money on, but Austin is great because they really do get an amazing breadth of screenwriters. I mean, last year I was there with Larry Kasden, and Scott Frank, and John Lee Hancock, and Haas and Brandt, and Alec Berg. It was just amazing.

And this year among the other things we’re doing there, John and I are going to be doing a live podcast, live. I mean, not live in the sense that you can listen while we’re doing it, but we will be in a big room full of people doing it. And it should be fun, and raucous, and maybe a little drunk.

**John:** We will have a special guest who I don’t think is quite confirmed yet. But, if we have this special guest I think that would be quite amazing. And it’s been a goal of ours for awhile to try to do a live podcast. And we’ve talked about venues in Los Angeles that we could do it, and we haven’t quite figured that out. So Austin is a good trial run because there’s already a bunch of people who want to hear. People talk about screenwriting.

So, that will be our first trial run. But, I will say if people, listeners, have suggestions for a place here in town that we could do a live show, we’d still definitely be into that. We talked about the Writers Guild Theater. The challenge with the Writers Guild Theater is it’s kind of huge and kind of expensive. So if you have a place that’s not so huge and not so expensive, that could be great. If you have a place that could serve alcohol, that might not be a bad idea either.

So, we’ll still keep that in mind. But I think the Austin Film Festival will be the first live Scriptnotes. So, there will be people in the room. We’ll record it. We’ll put it up just like a normal episode. But there will be people —

**Craig:** And if you are thinking about spending a few hundred bucks to learn from actual screenwriters… — Oh, and I should also add some great producers, too, like Lindsay Doran… — They just get great people there. It’s really worth your while. And it’s in October.

**John:** If you’re going to attend one film festival as a screenwriter, I’d probably go to Austin.

**Craig:** Sounds right to me.

**John:** Sundance is lovely. And you’ll see a lot of movies at Sundance. But the sessions you’ll go to in Austin are probably the most useful for an aspiring screenwriter.

**Craig:** And they do have movies there, too. The Duplass brothers I think premiered a movie there last time. It’s pretty cool. Awesome.

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

**Craig:** John, thank you right back. And I’ll see you next time.

**John:** See you next time. Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep. 38: 20 Questions with John and Craig — Transcript

May 24, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/20-questions-with-john-and-craig).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. 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. How are you, Craig?

**Craig:** Fantastic, John. Lovely day today here in Southern California, at least where I am in Southern California.

**John:** Ah, location is everything. You are ensconced there in highly defensible La Cañada Flintridge area.

**Craig:** Well right now I’m in Pasadena, but yes, when I go home then I go to the highly defensible La Cañada Flintridge area where, as I pointed out to somebody just a day ago, I can flee into the mountains and disappear within minutes.

**John:** It’s a perfect choice for you there.

**Craig:** Perfect.

**John:** One of the plan ahead things we didn’t actually do for this podcast is figure out how we’re going to answer all the questions that came in. Because they kept coming in, but then I was in New York and I wasn’t really checking questions, and then we started talking about other things. And so, so many questions have backed up.

**Craig:** How many questions are we talking about?

**John:** A lot. So we’ll see how many we can get through today.

**Craig:** Can you make sure that at least one of them makes me angry? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] I can guarantee it.

**Craig:** Oh, I’m so excited!

**John:** Woo-hoo! We’ll start with some easy follow-up ones. Micah has a follow-up question. “In episode 36 John talked about timers and how they fit into his workflow.” He says, “I’ve recently found timed writing in breaks to be quite helpful, and I’m experimenting with 10, 15, 20, 25 minute intervals, like the Pomodoro Technique,” which I’d never heard of, but I’ll link to it. It’s basically just setting a timer.

“I know it comes down to more of a personal preference kind of thing, but could you give us a breakdown on your typical work/break intervals? What’s your sweet spot?”

I have found that 20 minutes is about my sweet spot. So I’ll sit for 20 minutes, I know I can get through 20 minutes. If I’m doing really well I’ll sometimes just keep on writing, but 20 minutes is the minimum I’ll try to do. Like 10 minutes, I’m not really getting started on anything. 20 minutes I’ve at least gotten something done I find.

**Craig:** How structured of you.

**John:** Ah, I’m not always that structured, but it’s good. And Jane Espenson, whose name we often cite on this podcast, she has a thing called a Writing Sprint, which is like a 30-minute writing sprint. She’ll announce it on Twitter, like, “I’m doing a 30-minite writing sprint, everyone come join me; 30 minutes, no interruptions, just get stuff done.” And if that works for you, that’s great. That’s really the same idea.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s more my thing. I just sort of finally just go nuts.

**John:** Here’s a question that’s really tailored to Craig Mazin. David asks…

**Craig:** I hope this is the one that makes me angry. [laughs]

**John:** No, it’s gonna make you delighted. David asks, “What’s the best way to break up with my manager?”

**Craig:** [laughs] I love this question!

**John:** “Should I wait until I have a new one first, or just do it? I understand Mr. Mazin is an expert in this field. I’d love some advice, and a new manager.”

**Craig:** I don’t know if I’m an expert in the field. I have often spoken of my joy of firing people. So, if you have an agent, and this person does not indicate, then you don’t need another manager at all, frankly. But if you like having a manager then, no; just fire your manager and then if you want another manager have your agent help you sit down and audition some new ones.

If you don’t have an agent and you only have a manager, then I guess I would probably then say, okay, let’s talk to your attorney. Because if your attorney works in the business, they also deal with managers all the time. And maybe they could sort of at least suss out that there might be some interest in you as a client.

But, I guess my larger point is this: if you want to fire your manager, you should fire your manager. Because having a bad manager that you want to fire isn’t doing you any good. It’s doing you less good than not having a manager, frankly, in my opinion. So, fire away. Fire at will.

**John:** I agree. See, they’re not controversial at all. I think he should fire his manager.

**Craig:** Yeah. Fire. Fire. Fire!

**John:** Zach asks, “When writing out of order,” this is really I guess more for me, “when writing out of order, how do you organize your saved files? Do you just save them as brief scene descriptions and throw them all in a folder? Is there some more organized technique to it?”

I just throw them in a folder with a very simple name. So, usually if I’m writing stuff out of order, it’s early in the process. So, rather than working in one big file I’m just writing individual scenes. I’m usually hand-writing those and Stuart, or my assistant at the time, is typing them up. I will name what that scene is. And so it will say Bank Robbery. And so at the top of every page I just write Bank Robbery and Stuart knows to save that file as Bank Robbery. And it just sits in a folder.

I will avoid pasting all of those individual little files together for as long as I can stand to, so I don’t try to edit the whole thing for a long time — I build up a critical mass. And eventually I’ll go through, and it’s actually a really joyous day to put all those little pieces together and see what’s there like, ah, there’s my new script.

**Craig:** [sings] Oh happy day.

**John:** Sunshine happy days.

**Craig:** [sings] Oh happy day. I just love the idea that it was joy. That you’re putting your files together and it’s like Christmas for you and there I am like a jerk with one file.

**John:** Just one file.

**Craig:** One file. The whole time.

**John:** It’s kind of sad. The one thing I will say is that recently I had to go back through and look for my handwritten versions of things, and one of the nice things as technology has progressed is I used to handwrite these things and fax them to my assistant. And like there wasn’t — there was like a paper copy of the fax, but it wasn’t especially useful. And I would keep them in my notebooks, but I was like, “Why am I keeping this?”

Now, because I’m either taking photos of it and sending it through, or I would be faxing it to a sort of online account, there’s like a digital copy of all those handwritten things. So if I need to refer back to something, or in this case there’s a book that’s gonna show sort of my writing process on something, and I can show, “Oh, these are my handwritten scribbled pages for this movie from years ago.”

**Craig:** Everything is saved.

**John:** Everything is saved.

**Craig:** Everything. We live in a world now where nothing is ever lost.

**John:** Question for Craig Mazin, I think. “Quick serious question: Why join the WGA? This is not a joke question. I’ve recently joined” — this is Tom who’s writing this — “I’ve recently joined the WGA, or actually was forced to join after selling a feature script.”

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Yes. “And don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to have a band of writers watching out for one another. In general, writers are the world’s biggest pussies when it comes to defending themselves.”

**Craig:** Mm, yeah, that’s right.

**John:** Yeah. “But my question is much more basic than that. What’s in it for me? The welcome packet I got from them was a piece of hilarious corporate nonsense put together by lawyers. Literally the cover letter said something to the effect of, ‘We can’t keep you from unjoining the WGA, but just so you know if you withdraw from us you can’t ever join again. Ever.’ That was the welcome letter from a group of people who write for a living.

“My point is that, A) the WGA does a terrible job at expressing in clear language why I should want to be a member of their club, and B) does a terrible job of creating my sense of esprit de corps. So, could you and Craig talk about what being a member of the WGA does for the individual writer? I get what it does for the collective, but unclear what it does for the individual.”

**Craig:** Oh boy. Well, first of all, I sympathize with this person because we think of ourselves as living in a free country, and we think of ourselves as being in control of certain things. And even if things get super bad you can always pull a rip cord and bail out. If you work at a job and you hate it, you can quit. And if you don’t like the town you live in, you can move to another town.

The Writers Guild isn’t like that. [laughs] The Writers Guild is a very — and unions in general — are the strange carved-out exception where in fact, presuming you live in California or other non-right to work states as they’re called, closed shop states, you have to join the union. You have no choice.

What they’re talking about when they say you can withdraw is something called financial core. And very quickly basically a court ruled at some point or another that even in closed shop states a worker can essentially withdraw from the union and be only forced to pay the amount of dues that are used for the “financial core of the union’s activity,” which all unions basically extrapolate out to be about 95% of what your normal dues rate is.

So, if you go “financial core” and withdraw, here’s what you get: a 5% discount on your dues; you’re not allowed to vote on anything anymore, but you still have to work under the contract of the union. It is the worst exit door ever. [laughs] It’s not really an exit at all. In short, you’re in the union. So, the first answer to your question is: everything I’m about to tell you is irrelevant because you have no choice.

Now, I will tell you all of the things that are irrelevant. What’s good about being in the union? When you say I understand that there’s something good for the collective, but what’s good for the individual, ultimately they are one in the same when it comes to a union. The whole point is that the collective gets you things that you could not have gotten on your own. There are certain things in place that you would not get on your own. Those are very specifically: minimum salary for your work, credit protection for your work, residuals for your work, healthcare for your employment, and pension for your employment. Those are the big ones.

And, frankly, there’s little else the union can and will do for you. All those things that I just mentioned they already did for you, and people struck for those things so that you could have them which is nice. And essentially on a moving forward basis, the union’s job is to make sure that they don’t take those things away. That’s it. That’s the big deal.

There is not much else to it. There’s not much else to say. Look, I would much rather be in a club that I had a choice to be in, and if I had a choice, if I were given the choice, I would still stay in the Writers Guild because I believe that I am a direct beneficiary of the strength of the collective, as ridiculous and stupid as the collective occasionally is. But I would that it be a choice, sure. What can I say?

**John:** Let’s talk for a second about that letter, because I don’t see the actual letter in front of me, but he’s describing this letter being really off-putting. And I would say it’s a common experience or has been a common experience that, well, you’re suddenly kind of forced to join this thing and you don’t really know what it is that you’re joining. And you might say, “Great, I’m in the WGA — I don’t know what that actually means.”

Ian Deitchman who’s a friend and colleague of ours has been trying to get the WGA to do a better job with new member training and basically saying, “Hey, you’re now in the WGA. This is what it means. Come to a workshop that will actually be helpful to you so you know what’s in your contract, what some best practices are.”

They’re putting together groups — I’m mentoring one of these groups; I think you’re mention one of these groups, too — of the new writers who can come to you for advice on the stuff that’s coming up in daily life as a working writer. I think they’re trying to do better, but if this letter that came with your packet was awful, then that’s not better.

**Craig:** Yeah. The problem is that the Writers Guild as a union with a federal charter is beholden to quite a phonebook of legislation and regulation. And one of the regulations involves this financial core thing where basically the company side of things when they lobby the government, and this is all run by the government, they say, “Look, when people join these unions, these unions aren’t telling them that they actually have a choice between joining the union or becoming a ‘financial core non-member.'”

Why would the companies have an interest in you being a non-member even if you’re still beholden to the contract? Because I left off one other, I guess you could call it a benefit — if there’s a strike and you are a financial core withdrawn non-member, you can keep working. And they love that; obviously the companies love that idea.

So, the companies sort of said from a legal point of view, “Listen, when any union pulls somebody in and says you must join the union now, you must pay these fees, and you must pay dues,” and blah, blah, blah, the union is also required to let them know that there is this other option. So, unions tend to do that in the most dissuasive, creepy way possible, you know. “Oh, and we also have fish for dinner. It’s pretty stinky fish. And we also must tell you that fish with a certain odor can cause paralysis or death, but it is your option if you so desire.”

So, that’s why you get that awful, awful letter. Frankly, they should really just be really honest about it say, “Look, we’re forced by the government to tell you this.” But, you know, lawyers.

**John:** Lawyers. It feels like the WGA needs to do a better job with like a giant box of chocolates saying, “Hey congratulations, you’re in the WGA,” And then maybe a little bit further down the packet is like, “…by the way, here’s the required disclosure.”

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, you know, John, the WGA is — and I really do believe that in the face of zero competition no sort of energy or positivity can ever survive. There’s something about having a monopoly that just kills the human spirit.

There is no other Writers Guild. This is the only one you can join. They have no competition. You can’t go anywhere else. Even if you leave you can’t go anywhere else. And I think that the institution suffers like all monopolies from a kind of shrugging, “Uh-ha, well, you know, there’s really no incentive for us to do better.”

**John:** Are there any unions or guilds that actually have competition?

**Craig:** No. The union jurisdiction is carved out, it’s essentially when you get your charter, you get your jurisdiction assigned by the federal government which recognizes that you are now a certified bargaining entity for a particular jurisdiction. So, that’s why, for instance, when we went after the editors for reality TV, when we tried to bring editors into the Writers Guild it was doomed from the start, because IATSE has editors. That’s it. So game over.

I don’t know what we were doing.

**John:** Yeah. So, to clarify, a person can be a member of multiple unions, but only for different facets of their career?

**Craig:** That’s exactly right.

**John:** So I can be a member of the DGA and a member of the WGA, but that’s because one’s directors and one’s writers.

**Craig:** That’s right. So if you write and direct a film, you’re writing will be covered by the WGA; your directing will be covered by the DGA. If you act in the film than you’re covered by SAG. But, no other union covers screenwriting for television or film that I know of. We’re the only one. And we will be the only one for these companies.

**John:** A question from Lance, also kind of pitched toward you. “In the Done Deal forum, Craig posted,” and we’ll put a link to the actual post. “In the Done Deal forum, Craig posted the following in response to the usual intense debates on whether aspiring screenwriters should follow the so-called guru’s advice and lingo such ‘inciting incident,’ ‘plot point 2,’ ‘all is lost,’ etc.”

Craig apparently said, “‘You don’t think every single piece of crap I get sent to rewrite has ‘plot point 2’ in it? You don’t think they all have a ‘low point’ and a ‘refusal of the call’ and a hundred other tropes? These things are tools, not solutions. I will tell you this: if you talk about screenwriting to producers, actors, directors or executives the way some of you talk about it in here, you will get laughed out of the room.’

“This made me itch to a fly on the wall in those meetings. I was wondering if Craig and you could talk about the real lingo pros use in story meetings as opposed to the lingo that would get us slapped out of the room.”

**Craig:** Ah, we don’t use lingo. [laughs] There’s the answer. Forget the lingo. I mean, good God, it’s like my son is on a tournament baseball team, and the 10-year-old boys are so into the uniforms and the numbers and stuff. And I get it, but there’s a certain juvenile aspect to the trappings of stuff. Who cares what the lingo is? It doesn’t matter. If you’ve written a terrific script, if you have a great insight into a character or a moment in a story, or a theme, or the way something should develop, or just a simple idea for how to do a better car chase, that will come through. That’s what matters.

Not nonsense about pinch points and page act blah-blah-blah. I don’t use lingo. I don’t think I ever use lingo. Do you use it?

**John:** I don’t use it. I was thinking back through what I would actually say in a meeting if I’m pitching something or talking about changes to something. I will say Act 1 or Act 2.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Everyone sort of does talk that way. Everyone talks about movies having three acts. It really means beginning, middle and end.

**Craig:** Right

**John:** You’re saying something happens at the end of Act 2, people understand that that means near the end and they may have some sense of it’s at the worst point in the movie, the most difficult thing for the hero. But I wouldn’t say “inciting incident.”

**Craig:** Never. [laughs] Ever.

**John:** I wouldn’t say ‘second act climax.’ You would never say that.

**Craig:** God, good lord, no. And look, Act 1, Act 2, Act 3 is so common, it’s almost a lay person — I mean, everybody knows about that roughly.

**John:** You can say ‘set piece.’ Set piece meaning like a big action sequence, a big showcase moment in your story.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t even use that anymore. Sometimes I’ll just say sequence.

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** To be honest with you, and to be honest with the person asking the question — and I’m glad, I mean, I agree with everything I said on Done Deal, [laughs] so it’s good I stand by that.

**John:** It’s good that you agree with yourself.

**Craig:** I stand by that 100%. The lingo is being peddled to you by charlatans who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. To cover up their complete absence of expertise and insight, and experience in screenwriting, they invent lingo, lingo which appears to make them knowledgeable. The whole point of lingo is to shorthand things, right? Or, I suppose, to exclude other people and make them feel that they don’t belong. So, in this case, they’re using it in a kind of exclusionary way like, “Look, if you speak all these ridiculous words you’ll be in some secret club.”

No you won’t. You won’t. And the fact of the matter is I don’t want to speak in shorthand to anybody in a room. I’ll speak in shorthand about production, that’s different. When I talk to an AD, we’re talking in lingo because that world does require shorthand; a lot of details are going on and you’ve got to move quickly, and a lot of specific things.

But when I’m describing a story, the whole point is this: I’m telling a story for an audience, not for a bunch of lingo heads right? So I want to tell the story to the person who might buy the story like they’re in the audience. So no lingo. Da-da!

**John:** Done.

**Craig:** Done. I got a little angry there.

**John:** I was excited that you got a little bit angry there. I was hoping.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Lena from Moscow asks — we have a lot of international questions. I really just want to bring up the fact that we have a listener in Moscow.

**Craig:** Hello Lena.

**John:** Hello Lena.

**Craig:** [Russian accent] Hello.

**John:** [Russian accent] Hello.

**Craig:** Hello.

**John:** “I’m writing news stories for the largest news agency in the country, but it turns out journalism is not for me. I’m currently writing a spec for an animated feature film. Even if I manage all the problems with working visas and stuff, there will still be a major problem holding me back. The problem is that English is not my mother tongue.

“Granted, it’s no easy task for me to write in English, even though I love this language more than Russian. I’ve been studying English since early childhood and thanks to my teachers I don’t speak with this awful Russian accent.”

**Craig:** Oh, bummer. I love that accent.

**John:** “But it’s still not easy, and I can make mistakes and have issues with word choice. Do I even have a chance as a screenwriter? Or will I always be an outsider looking in?”

**Craig:** In animation I would actually say you’re okay because animation is so story-centric. It’s so about story. And so many people work on animated movies, so even if you wrote a scene and the English wasn’t quite there, or specific lines weren’t quite there, the whole point of the animation process is that story artists take those things and then expand them and use their own voices to retell the dialogue and to re-pitch it.

If it were live action I would say this would be a huge issue. For animation I think it will be a challenge, but it’s not a killer. I think the guy who does Rio, I don’t think English is his first language.

**John:** I was thinking Guillermo Arriaga, I think, is native Spanish speaking, but he writes in English and writes great in English. I think it’s totally doable. And I didn’t really clean up much of what she wrote in reading this aloud. She had one mistake in this thing and she had good vernacular.

I think she has a pretty good shot at being able to write in English if she needs to. That said, she may also want to partner up with a native speaker who is also a good writer and together they could do something great.

**Craig:** Yeah. But you know, I think she’s lined up in the perfect area which is animation, because it really is less about the specificity of any given word. It’s so much about story there, so I think she’ll be fine.

**John:** She’ll be great.

Ryan asks, “Recently my writing partner and I decided to showcase our adaptation skills by finding a short story that was published. We optioned it and adapted it into a short film that we both feel will be an excellent showcase of our talents not only as writers but as directors as well. However, we disagree on what avenue to take this for releasing it.

“My partner thinks we should break it up episodically and release it on Funny or Die, since it’s free and has a strong audience. I think we may lose some value by breaking the story into parts and want to submit it for festivals. What do you guys think?”

**Craig:** God, is it any good?

**John:** That’s a great question.

**Craig:** You know, I mean if it’s really… — You have to be honest with yourselves and show it to people, not your family, show it to people that are mean. And if they love it and you think that it’s going to work as a piece in a really coherent way at festivals, which is no easy task, probably I would say go the festival route, if it were good. What do you think?

**John:** I agree. If it’s good and it holds together best as one thing, it’s not even huge, it’s a short film. If it holds together best as one piece, keep it as one piece. And get as much traction as you can with short-film festivals. If they don’t bite, then break it into smaller pieces and let people see what you’ve been able to do.

But in the time it took you to write this question into us you probably could have submitted it to a bunch of festivals through Without a Box, or the online places that let you submit films to things. So, see if people bite. If they don’t bite, put it up yourself.

**Craig:** I mean, look, giving it away for free never goes away as an option. So, you know — I mean, look, don’t waste your time chasing rainbows, but if you think you’ve got a real shot at… — I mean, obviously the whole point, like you said, was to be noticed as filmmakers, so give it a shot.

**John:** Mark from Santa Monica asks, “Do you have advice on juggling writing jobs? I have a few different assignments at the moment, all under contract. Can you talk about how you and Craig handle dividing your time, managing different producer’s expectations for delivery times? Any advice would be useful.”

First off, I mean, most of the people listening are like, “Okay, great. So you have a couple paid jobs simultaneously.”

**Craig:** I know, they hate those guys.

**John:** Glorious problems.

**Craig:** And he’s under contract.

**John:** Under contract.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** So, first off, congratulations. You’re writing, and more than one person wants you to work on their stuff simultaneously. That’s great. I have found that it’s basically impossible to write two first drafts at a time. I can write one first draft and do a little clean-up on another project at the same time, but I can’t create two brand new things at the same time. I’m gonna either finish one and start on the second one.

And so some of your job as a screenwriter is figuring out how you’re going to stall people well enough and long enough so they can feel like you are doing the work when you’re kind of really working on the other project. Sometimes you can just be honest. Sometimes you have to be a little less than 100% honest about what’s on your screen as they call you.

But you can do it. Be careful what you promise. And don’t try to over-promise and then get stuck with a bunch of things you can’t finish. Or the panic that Craig talked about last week, that fear that I’m going to be caught having to scramble to get something turned in that won’t be my best work.

**Craig:** Yeah. That is the real danger here. And, yes, congratulations. Good for you. And now it’s important if you’re exhibiting the kind of work that’s going to get you multiple offers and people are even going to say to you things like, “We don’t care, we know. You can work on this one in the evening,” or whatever, just be aware that there is a cost to being a pig. And you will end up losing in the long run. I do believe.

First of all, great answer from John, and I agreed with all of it, particularly the part that says, look, you can’t be in the same phase of two different things at once. That’s a disaster. Like John, I have been in the situation where I was sort of outlining one thing and rewriting another, because you can shift; it’s two different muscles you’re working on. Okay, so you can do batting practice and then you can throw bullpen. But, if you over-promise and you start playing games it will burn you every single time. I really do believe that.

Personally, I don’t lie to anybody about that stuff ever. I take deadlines very seriously. And I’m incredibly honest about what’s going on and when I can deliver things. Down to the week. I mean, I’ll say, “Okay, well I think I can have this done by October 1 if we get going.”

And then they say, “Well we just need another week before we hear from so and so.” If that week goes by, now I just want to point out, “Now it’s gonna be October 7.” “Really?” ” Yes. Really.” That’s how I work it out. So, I’m very honest and I’m incredibly above board about everything like that. I don’t necessarily need to tell them because I’m working on something else at the same time. But what I do need to be honest about is when they’re getting the work. And I find if I give myself enough time to do the work properly, and I get it to them when I say, no one cares frankly. I could be working on 1,000 things at once; if the work is good and it’s on time, no one cares.

But you will not be able to do good work, and you will not be on time if you get piggish. So, don’t do it.

**John:** Yeah, the whole idea of “Oh, you could write this at night,” is an elaborate fantasy. Yes, you could write that screenplay at night if you were working at a sandwich shop, because then you wouldn’t have spent your whole day writing pages. But the idea that you are going to be able to write in addition to all the other writing that you’re doing is just not possible. It’s like, well, you’ve been working six hours a day, so maybe you can work ten hours a day. Well, you actually can’t write more than that.

I know writers who have been working on a TV show and then someone will say, “Oh, and why don’t you also write a pilot for staffing for next season?” And that becomes incredibly difficult because you’re trying to write all the stuff you actually have to do for your job, and then write a completely different thing on your own. Sometimes you’re squeezing that in on weekends, but you’re not going to squeeze it in at the end of the day. It just isn’t going to happen.

**Craig:** Absolutely true. And you also have to be aware of the fact that the people who are hiring you are kind of babyish themselves about this. They want what they want. So they’ve decided they want you to do it. You, for whatever reason — hopefully it’s because of your talent — have solved their problem of fear over their project. “This guy is gonna make it better. And my boss wants this guy, and so I’ve gotta get this guy.” They will tell you whatever you need to hear to say yes. If you’re like, “I don’t know, I’m busy,” they’ll come at you pretty hard.

Brother, the day you take the gig and they mail a check, that all goes away. That understanding, all that stuff is gone. Now, they want their pages. And they will turn on a dime on you on that stuff. So, just be careful.

**John:** Bucky asks, “I’m moving to LA later this year with my wife and two-year-old son to pursue a career in Hollywood.”

**Craig:** Ah! [laughs]

**John:** Ah-ha. Competition. “Looking for advice on moving to an area that is safe, has good schools, and is conducive to working in the industry. Your thoughts?”

**Craig:** That’s a good question. I mean, look, my reaction always is: okay, here’s a man with a wife and child and he’s moving to Los Angeles to pursue a career in screenwriting, and the immediate thing I think of is, “Oh, no,” because he’s not going to make it. And then what happens to his wife and his kid. And I’m scared. Now I’m scared for him. And I get scared for everybody who wants to do this, especially when people are relying on them.

I mean, I suppose I’m being sexist about this. Perhaps his wife is CEO of something so it’s not a problem.

But even that was sexist that the wife had to be a CEO to be successful. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah, she could just be a provider.

**Craig:** Right, she could just be middle management at an advertising company. Okay, so that was that reaction. Hopefully you have some sort of cushion and you’re taking care of your child.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** I think for, he’s looking for affordable, right? Safe, affordable…

**John:** Safe, affordable, good schools. He actually didn’t say affordable, so maybe he’s rich.

**Craig:** Well, okay, look, rich places are rich places, so that’s that. But assuming he means affordable, I think Sherman Oaks isn’t a bad bet. Studio City isn’t a bad bet, right?

**John:** Yeah. I would question schools. I mean, if he’s looking for public schools, those aren’t going to be the best choices in the world.

**Craig:** Public schools. Well, for elementary it’s not bad. Sherman Oaks has that Carpenter which is a pretty good elementary school.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, look, La Cañada where I live has great public schools. You can send your kids from kindergarten to 12th grade. They have excellent schools all the way through. Great little neighborhood. And you can actually find some affordable houses there now after the great collapse of 2007. So I always have to suggest La Cañada. It’s a great neighborhood.

**John:** Yeah. But you might as well be in Botswana; you’re really far away there.

**Craig:** You’re really not. Now, that’s where John has this classic Los Angeles bigotry.

**John:** I’ll fully accept it.

**Craig:** Bigotry. Because here’s the truth: if John has to get to Warner Bros. it takes him longer than it takes me. If John has to get to Universal, it takes him longer than it takes me. If he has to get to Disney it takes him longer than it takes me.

**John:** How about Fox?

**Craig:** Okay, if he has to get to Fox I grant you it’s a slog for him and a nightmare for me. But here’s the truth: at the end the reward is that you’re at Fox, so really who’s the winner? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** That’s smart — antagonize the entire studio. [laughs] That’s really not healthy for your career. All right, the real winner… — and nobody likes going to Sony. The real winner — because it’s so far away — for John the real winner is Paramount because he could walk to Paramount, but for me it’s 22 minutes. And you know if I say 22 I’ve timed it. So, the truth is I’m actually quite close. It’s a great place to live. And I’d like to think that geniuses like John Hancock and Scott Frank know what they’re doing.

**John:** When I was hiring my director of digital things, it ended up being Ryan Nelson, he was moving from Columbia, Missouri and needed to find a place to live in Los Angeles. And so I put up on the blog asking for suggestions for where should Ryan live. And so I sort of described his life situation and which neighborhood should he pick. And people had really good suggestions.

And it’s so interesting that they were picking cool neighborhoods because he was coming from a place in life where like a cool neighborhood was important. And this person has a wife and a two-year-old son, and your decision process is vastly different because you’re not looking for a cool neighborhood.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So that’s why Culver City could be great. Palms, which is so incredibly boring, might be fine, because Palms is right by Sony. It’s really cheap because they over-built apartments. That might be fine. They opened the blue line, the express rail down through there. So, there’s lots of places that are sort of mid city that could be fine.

And if you’re in Palms you’re pretty close to almost everything.

**Craig:** Not really. No, see…

**John:** I think you are. Because honestly if you take Venice you get to — except for the Valley.

**Craig:** Well, but except for the Valley, except for three movie studios.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Uh-huh.

**John:** Okay. I see the flaw in my logic.

**Craig:** And you’re not close to Paramount either.

**John:** But you’re not that bad to Paramount. Because I’m essentially at Paramount. It’s easy for me to get down to Sony.

**Craig:** From your place to Sony is what, 30 minutes?

**John:** Oh, 15.

**Craig:** 15? Really?

**John:** It’s super quick.

**Craig:** You just get on Venice and go crazy?

**John:** Yeah. It’s fast.

**Craig:** I know, Venice is pretty great.

**John:** I’ve actually run from my house down to Sony.

**Craig:** Out of fear? [laughs]

**John:** No, I was running from Sony. That’s a whole different situation. [laughs]

Our next question. Blaze from Poland asks — Poland! We have a listener in Poland.

**Craig:** Hello, Poland!

**John:** “When you see a finished movie, does it actually look like what you imagined when you put the words on a blank page? Or do you want to stand up and scream, ‘Wait, this is not what a dreamed up?'”

**Craig:** Neither. [laughs] I mean, it never looks like it did in your head because, let’s be honest, our minds do not properly represent physical space or time. They compress them. It’s very elastic. Your dreams are pretty good indications of that where you just are moving around and there’s these little cycads and things that occur. And, of course, let’s not forget somebody else is shooting it, and also they have to find real places that might not look like these things.

Sometimes it gets kind of close, but I think you need to get accustomed right now, sir or madam, to the notion that, no, it will never look like your daydream. And if you are so inclined to stand up and scream at that eventuality, this is not for you. It’s not gonna go well for you.

**John:** Yeah, unless you’re directing your movie it’s never going to look quite like you expect. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the first third of it where it’s just Charlie Bucket’s house is so much like what I imagined it would be. And I was so delighted. And getting into the factory is great. But then once you really see Willy Wonka, it was a completely different thing than what I sort of had in my head. Like, I knew it was Johnny, but they just made really different choices from what Willy Wonka would look like. And I love it, but it’s just very, very different.

A related thing is I wrote the lyrics to Twice the Love which is the song that Siamese twins sing in Big Fish. And so that whole sequence is kind of close to what I imagined it to be. There’s like the ventriloquist dummy and there’s other stuff like that. But I knew that once Danny Elfman signed on to do the music for the movie, he was going to look at my lyrics and then he was just going to ignore the melody that I had sort of planned out for it.

And so it was such a weird experience listening to the song because it’s the words I had, it’s just a completely different melody, and that’s a good analogy for what the experience of watching your movie is. It’s like it is what you created, but it’s also very different than what you created, and you just have to accept that.

**Craig:** I think that one of the things that makes good directors good directors is that they have enough of an imagination, a visual imagination, whether they wrote the script or not to imagine it in their own minds. So they see the movie or see the scene in their heads. Then they get what’s real, so they’re in a place. They pick a place that would look great. And then they start to work with that. So they don’t push a dream on top of what they have; they take what they have and they make it great, inspired by their imagination of things.

Sort of think of it as this — a classic mistake of people to try and say, “Let’s just shoehorn what we wanted to do into what we got.” Bad idea. Use what you got.

**John:** A related example just occurred to me. So Frankenweenie is a stop-motion animation movie. And as I was writing it I knew it was stop-motion animation. I’d done that before. I knew what the world was like. I know that we talked about doing it back and white. And so in my head I saw it black and white, but I really did see it basically live action.

And it was sort of like a foreground/background thing, where like I would see it animated and I would see it live action. And I basically had to write it like it was live action so characters wouldn’t seem overly puppety. But now that I see it in trailers and stuff, everyone can see it, it is puppets doing it all, and it very much has that sort of handmade feel to things.

And so it doesn’t look like the movie in my head in a perfectly fine and good way. I just couldn’t write little stop-motion puppets in my head. I had to write it like real people and let the clever animators figure out how to translate my real people to what the puppet equivalents are.

**Craig:** Yeah. This whole “it’s not what I dreamt of” is tough.

**John:** Andy from New York asks, “I graduated from college two years ago, and since then I’ve spent the last two years working for a startup Internet company. But I really want to be a screenwriter, specifically for television, and I came to the realization that I can’t do what I want in New York City. So I’ve quit my decent paying job and I’m giving up an amazing apartment to live in Los Angeles without a job or even a place to live yet.”

**Craig:** Gah!

**John:** “I have friends and family there. And I do have a few connections to the industry. But I’m 23 years old and I have nothing holding me back really, so I figure why not. Am I doing the right thing?”

**Craig:** Oh, well yeah…

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** …there you go. You’re 23. You have nothing holding you back. No one is relying on you to eat or survive. Yes, you’re doing the right thing.

**John:** He’s in exactly the perfect situation for why you should quit everything and move to Los Angeles.

**Craig:** Exactly. That’s pretty much the narrow slice of circumstances in which we can happily say, “Yes, congratulations; we’re not at all scared for you.”

**John:** He has a follow-up question. He says, “I love reading in pilot scripts, and something that has always stuck out to me is how race is mentioned in scripts. I’m an African-American male, and a lot of times minority characters have their race mentioned, but if their race isn’t mentioned, white is the assumed default. Occasionally there are times where race-neutral scripts surprise me, when certain characters aren’t Caucasian when they’re cast, but still, this is an issue that has always somewhat bothered me.”

**Craig:** Yeah. I think about it actually quite a bit when I’m writing. And I try when I’m… — If I’m writing a script for actors who are white, I don’t mention it, I don’t call out the race. And if I’m writing a script for actors who are black, I don’t call out the race. But if I don’t know who the actor is, I’ll say white, black, Asian, whatever I want. I don’t just default and say, “Okay, if I don’t mention it, it must mean white.”

And I know people do that and the reason is racism. [laughs] And I don’t mean virulent racism. It’s not like guys take their robes off after a tough day of cross burning and start typing up screenplays and giggle while they don’t refer to people’s race and go “Ah-ha!” It’s just sort of a passive… — look, I’m white, and people around me white, and obviously I mean white guy, I’m thinking a white guy. And a black character is like a specialty move for me, you know what I mean? At least that’s my feeling about it.

**John:** I wrote about this on the blog in relation to the Ronna character in Go in that Sarah Polley ended up playing. In the early drafts of the script, and when we first went out for casting, the description in the script was “18, black, and bleeding.” And so there’s no other reference made to her ethnicity in the script throughout the rest of the thing. But I’d envisioned a black actress playing this.

And so we went out to black actresses, and then we also sort of widened our search to actresses of every ethnicity. And we ended up casting the whitest actress in the world, Sarah Polley, who is wonderful. But when people read the early draft and they wrote in and said, “Hey, why did you change that?” It was important to me when I wrote it. And then as I actually saw people reading the script and everything sort of came together, it became much less important to me. And so I was like it’s not a crucial story point that she be African-American and we moved on.

Overall in scripts, I don’t tend to literally type out somebody’s ethnicity. I’ll often give characters a name that will strongly suggest that somebody is a certain ethnicity. So I will pick an Asian name for somebody with the assumption that we will find an Asian actor that will make sense for that. I’ll pick a Latino name because, why not?

And some of that is with the goal of having a more diverse representation in the movie. Some of it is the goal so that things are clearer for the reader, because if everyone is named Smith and Jones and Thompson, you’re going to get all those names confused. If somebody is named Gutierrez and Chang and something else…

**Craig:** Lipstein.

**John:** Lipstein. You’re much less likely to confuse and conflate those characters.

**Craig:** Yeah. Part of what we’re doing is sort of sending secret messages to the — not so secret messages to the casting people because then they call and they say, “Well what is this person supposed to be?” And casting people are meat markety. They don’t care about anyone’s sensibilities. It’s like, “Okay, do we go get black people, do we go get Chinese people? Do you want Chinese or do you mean Asian? Do you mean Vietnamese or Chinese?” They’re very much they’re shopping for people. And so they need to know the specifics.

Sometimes what I find myself doing for white characters is not calling out white, but calling out a nationality because white is actually the most generic and sort of uninformative term. Because, you could be talking about southern Italians or Swedes who look dramatically different form each other. And so…

**John:** And more importantly might have different cultural things that they would have.

**Craig:** Different cultural things. Different accents. Exactly. Whereas, and for me when I’m writing a black character it’s almost always an African-American character. I suppose if I were writing a drama or something that actually had African scenes that would be a different deal. But to me American white is, unless you’re talking about a real southerner, you know. I don’t know. I don’t really even get into dialectical stuff too much with American white. I just more like nationality stuff.

But, look, if the questions is is this partly because writers sort of get a little lazy about race? Absolutely. I think so.

**John:** I think you’re right.

Adrienne asks, and this is a question I’m completely paraphrasing because it was long, so I’m just going to boil it down to what I want. First question. Is it okay to refer to actors when pitching? Second question — how about when actually writing the script?

So, having a short and honest question I will give my short answer. Can you refer to actors while you’re giving a pitch? Yes. And that’s sometimes really, really helpful.

A lot of times, you’re starting a pitch, you’ll often talk about the world and then you’ll talk about the characters. You might talk about your hero and it’s “sort of a Matt Damon type.” And that’s okay to say that. That’s helpful for them. Give a couple examples for who the actor could kind of be. Or a lot of times you’ll describe and they’ll sort of come back to, “So is it like a Matt Damon?” It’s like, yes, it’s like a Matt Damon. And that’s okay, and that’s really helpful when you’re in the room.

Never say that in the script. You never want to put an actor’s name in the script, unless it’s like some really funny reference to some actor who’s dead or something. There might be a reason why it’s useful, but you’re never going to refer to an actor in the script because then any actor who is reading the script, or anyone who’s reading the script gets just paranoid about that actor’s name being in there.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. I agree with your first answer. First answer is yes. When it comes to writing names in scripts, the only time I’ve ever done it — in fact, it was recently for our script for Hangover Part III, really because it’s for the studio only. It’s like, look, here’s a part that we would actually love a certain person for. And since you don’t know about this person, we want you to know that this is the kind of person we’re thinking about. But that’s almost like an internal thing. That’s not like you’re selling a script. And that will come out when it goes out to other people.

So, yeah, I agree with you on both counts. Yes/no is the answer.

**John:** And sort of answering two questions at once, I would often — several times in the past — I have written Octavia in for a character when I wanted Octavia Spencer to be cast. Because it was an easy way to make sure like, oh, they will think of casting an African-American in this part and they will cast Octavia Spencer because her name is Octavia and she’s exactly right for the part.

**Craig:** That’s a sneaky way of doing it.

**John:** It’s sneaky, yeah.

Luke, from Melbourne, Australia asks, “How did the two of you meet and then later decide to collaborate on this podcast?” It’s a history lesson. And I honestly don’t know the answer to some of this. I’m trying to think when I first met you.

**Craig:** Well, I know we first spoke on the phone because I was starting a blog.

**John:** That’s right.

**Craig:** And we had the same agent at the time. And I called him up and said, “I want to talk to John August about this blog stuff.” And you were nice enough to talk to me. And so that was in 2005, I think.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then how did we start the podcast? This is a great story. See, what happened was John sent me an email and said, “Hey, would you like to do a podcast?” and I wrote back and I said, “Yes.” [laughs] There’s not much beyond that, I don’t think.

**John:** I think my decision on sort of why I approached Craig is you had had a very good blog that you had let sort of go fallow, and you had sort of gotten bored with it, but you had a lot of good things to say about the industry and screenwriting. And I had been on panels with you, and I’m like, oh, you’re well-spoken, you know what you’re talking about. So I figured you would be a good collaborator.

**Craig:** And I take umbrage very quickly.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** I get angry.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I love being angry.

**John:** Yeah. It’s fun to be angry. Strong emotions. Make you feel alive.

**Craig:** It makes you feel alive. Exactly.

**John:** April in Ohio. Her name is April, it’s not the month. April in Ohio. “Financially I can’t take the traditional route of trying to become a writer for TV/film by moving to Los Angeles and getting a low level job in the industry. I’m a 30-year-old mother of one working full-time while barely making ends meet. I’m finally taking the initiative to go after my dreams. I wrote a TV pilot, a spec of The Walking Dead, and am currently working on a feature script. My goal is to have at least five scripts by the end of the year to help build my portfolio.

“Would it be best for me to enter a screenwriting contest, enter writing programs to get my work noticed? My main concern with the writing programs,” probably referring to, like, the Warner’s writing program, “is that the majority of them are unpaid and the ones that are need you to have some kind of connection to the industry already.”

**Craig:** Well, look, April — here’s the bad news: the bad news is that you have the opposite circumstance from the gentleman that we said, “Yay, go; go move! You’re 23. Nobody cares about you.” You’re feeding a one-year-old. You have already the most important job there is. So, your options are limited. And I must tell you that even in success you will be in a state of crisis in screenwriting because there is no steady check in screenwriting. Success is not something that goes on and off like a switch.

It is a dimmer that waxes and wanes, and for some people burns brightly for six months and then does not return again. It is a dangerous path. It is a dangerous path; even if it works it will be a dangerous path. So, that’s the first thing I want you to understand.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with entering your material into contests. There’s nothing wrong with you sending it to people. There’s nothing wrong with putting it on the Internet and having people read it. Do all those things. Just be aware that this is one of those be careful what you wish for things. Because the worst possible circumstance would be that you’re just good enough to get out of town and go somewhere for five or six months with your child, but not good enough to actually make it on a permanent basis. That would be tragic.

And I have to tell you something else, not to be too depressing about it — that’s the majority of outcome for people who do get a break is that it’s not really a break. It’s like a little blip and then they’re gone. So, be careful. Make sure you put that kid first, okay? But don’t let me kill your dream. I’m not here to do that, I’m just here to protect you.

**John:** I would say I admire her work ethic, that she’s gotten stuff started, she’s gotten stuff done. She has a plan for how much she wants to get achieved. That’s great.

I wish that she was writing in to say, “I wrote a novel.” I wrote something else that’s more achievable from Ohio and that doesn’t rely on being in Los Angeles to do. Because I can picture her as, “Hey, I want to be J. K. Rowling,” and I’d say, you know what, you could very well be J.K. Rowling. And you could do all this because novelists live in every city across the country, everywhere around the world. You could do that from your home, and keep your normal job, and do this extra stuff. And there’s a clear path for success in it.

I know people who have done that kind of thing. I don’t know the people who’ve done what you’re describing, and that’s tough because I know a lot of screenwriters. I don’t know anyone who’s been able to do it that way. So, it’s not to say you couldn’t be the first, but it’s certainly a tough road ahead of you.

So, entering screenwriting contests? Sure. Writing programs? Sure. But your concerns are well-founded.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean John’s point, April, about novels is that there is actual success possible. And it is binary. Either you’re novel is a hit or it’s not. But it’s not like that with screenwriting. With screenwriting it’s fly out, hang out, take a meeting. Three months go by. “Great, we’re going to give you a job, but it’s week-to-week, and it’s not for that much money, but if we like you there will be more.” Okay, now you’ve been out here six months. “Oh, you know what? The show got cancelled.” “We don’t like you.” “Somebody else came in.” “Da-da-da, go back home.”

And go back home to what? Maybe that other job you had is… You know, there’s so many ways to get burned. I just, I don’t know, I get so nervous when I hear about people with very young kids jumping into this stuff.

**John:** I’m going to segue to another question here because it’s very much on the same lines. Tucker asks, “I make good money writing movie advertising. I’ve been doing it for a long time. I’ve written screenplays on the side for decades and I’ve always imagined I’d make the jump one day to full-time screenwriter. Recently one of my scripts hit and suddenly I was getting a lot of attention. I got a manager, had major agencies fighting over me. The day I had been working toward had arrived.

“Then I started having meetings. And more meetings. Came up with awesome stories for assignments I didn’t get. Then I find out what you get paid my level to do assignments and how long you work for nothing to get them, and it doesn’t add up. I don’t think ‘becoming a full-time screenwriter’ is a good career path for anyone anymore. Writing on spec makes sense, but doing that studio dance doesn’t make sense. They made it a loser’s game, suitable only for recent grads who live cheap.”

**Craig:** Man, I hope that there are some people at studios who listen to our podcast because I really — I want them to rewind and listen back. This is not some guy off the turnip truck with dreams of Hollywood. This is a working professional who works in marketing, who obviously works either at a big vendor or at a studio who’s been doing it for a long time, who knows all about it, and who put in his time and wrote a screenplay that you liked, that a lot of people liked, and he’s looking back at what you’ve given him in return and saying, “That’s not a job.”

Writing lines on posters is a job, but screenwriting isn’t a job anymore. I really want these guys who run the studios to think about what this guy just said, because it’s true. They are killing this as a career because of the way they go about hiring people, and the way they go about limiting development. So I’m getting on my Norma Rae soapbox once more and I’m saying, “Come on! Think about where this business will be ten years from now when the folks who came in the ’90s, under the system which used to develop stuff with, oh my god, two-step deals. When those people retire and all you’ve got are 23 year olds who have lots of energy but very little or no experience, and nobody in the middle, and nobody at the higher end, where will you be? Who’s going to write your movies?”

It’s killing me. Killing me. I mean, I wish I could say to this guy, “No, no, no,” but I can’t. And by the way, that’s what I did. I did what he did. The only difference between me and this guy is the year. I was writing movie advertising in 1995. And then I made the jump and there was a career to have. And now he makes the jump and he looks around and he goes, “What’s going on here?” Totally get it. It’s bumming me out.

**John:** Yeah.

Kenneth from Salt Lake City asks, “If you’re writing your own sitcom,” this is actually more a TV question, maybe I’ll answer this. “If you’re writing your own sitcom that really has no choice but to begin with a premise pilot,” a premise pilot meaning you’re setting up the world, you’re setting up the characters, and it’s classically, like, Laverne and Shirley become roommates. “Does it make sense to instead write a future episode of the show to use as your sample and try to sell it to networks?”

No. Most TV staffing these days, they’re not really looking for spec episodes of currently running series. Classically it was always like you write a funny spec Seinfeld and that’s what gets you staffed. That’s not really what showrunners are reading anymore. They’re reading original stuff. So, they want to read your pilot for something. So you write a pilot, an episode of a sitcom. And naturally a lot of pilots are going to end up being kind of premisey because you have to establish why this situation exists.

So, Kenneth’s question is, “Should I not write the premise version of it and just pretend like I’m writing six episodes into it” No. Because people have no idea what you’re doing. So, you’re going to inherently have some premisey stuff in a lot of these kind of pilots because you’re setting up a whole world and you’re setting up the basic nature of how things work.

That said, it can’t be so premisey, it can’t be just like Laverne and Shirley meet and decide to move into the apartment together. They don’t get the basic idea of what a normal show of this would be and who the characters are, and that you have enough different plotlines and different voices in there that people can see the range of what you can write.

**Craig:** Yeah. I like that answer.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** You’re welcome.

**John:** And by the way, we know everybody who’s writing TV these days.

**Craig:** I know. Well we know everybody.

**John:** We do know everybody, but surprisingly a bunch of our feature people are now TV people and they’re killing it.

**Craig:** Because of us. I really do feel like we’re the hub, and from us emanates all success.

**John:** Yeah. That solipsism of everything starting from us and radiating outwards?

**Craig:** Well, the fact that I even included you in “we” is a really nice gesture on my part. Because as we all know, you’re not real.

**John:** No. I’m just a filter that you apply in GarageBand to make the second voice.

**Craig:** You in fact are. [laughs] That’s right.

**John:** We’re going to plow through because I want to clear out these questions.

**Craig:** Plow man, let’s go. Let’s do this. This is going to be a huge — this is a mega episode.

**John:** Mega. So many, an hour’s worth of questions.

**Craig:** Woo!

**John:** Michael in Seattle asks, “I recently finished my first spec script. I used Movie Magic 6 to write it,” so this is a Craig Mazin question because you love Movie Magic.

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** “I like Movie Magic and would continue using it, but I found a problem. The studio wanted me to submit as a Final Draft file. So I converted from Movie Magic 6 to Final Draft 8, and what was a 119-page script is now 127 pages. What should I do?”

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. Okay. So, this can happen. And I wish I could blame everything on Final Draft, but I think it’s just the function of the fact that you’re moving from one thing to another. Check all of your margins in Movie Magic and then adjust the margins in Final Draft to mirror those closely. You will probably get very close to the same page count.

The other issue is the font, because Movie Magic has their Courier font, and Final Draft has their Courier font. And while theoretically they should all be the same, it doesn’t seem like they are. So, first thing first, check all the margins of all the elements. That means the document top and bottom margins and then the width margins for all of your character, dialogue, action lines, slug lines. Copy them over and make sure they’re the same numbers in Final Draft.

That should get you close. And if you’re still off by a whole big butt load, then you can cheat a little bit on the top and bottom margins. I mean, the point is you wrote a, whatever, 116-page script, or 111-page script, that’s legal. Make your script 111. Don’t do that thing where you squish the dialogue together though; I hate that.

**John:** That’s terrible. I would say if it looked okay as a PDF, you’re probably fine. So do what Craig did, and you weren’t cheating, it’s just some stuff just comes out differently.

One of my great frustrations, being the company that makes — we make FDX Reader which is the rival Final Draft reader for the iPad because the Final Draft one didn’t exist when we made it. When they launched the new, official Final Draft reader they said it keeps your real page numbers correct. And I was like, well, page numbers are this really arbitrary thing. And somehow Final Draft decided, like, “Well our page numbers are the correct page numbers.” No, they’re really not. There’s not one magic formula.

Well, there’s one magic formula for Final Draft that they use to figure out how they’re going to do page numbers, but that’s not the end all/be all/only way the page numbers could be figured out. So, it’s not that it’s correct in Final Draft and it’s wrong in Movie Magic, it’s just a difference.

**Craig:** It’s just different, exactly.

**John:** Paul in West Virginia writes, “I’m working an historical epic screenplay, something akin to Braveheart, so I’m already compressing 15 years worth of material into three hours, combining people, composite characters, whole events, etc. I think the back story is crucial for the story. If I include the scenes covering the back story, my protagonists don’t even show up until page 30.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** “If I just have her show up in the beginning and have another character just talk her through the back story, I can get to a long scene of exposition dialogue and violate the whole show-don’t-tell concept. Is there a happy medium?”

Yeah. Write a different script. Or write a different story from that world. You cannot have your lead character show up on page 30.

**Craig:** I mean, the only thing that comes close in my mind is Star Wars because…

**John:** Yeah. Luke shows up later.

**Craig:** Luke shows up really late. I mean, they stick with the robots for so long once they land — I’m sorry, the droids — once they land in the desert. There’s a great opening scene that’s sort of a classic prologue where the villain shows up, breaks the neck of some hapless guy to demonstrate that he’s evil, captures a princess to set the terrible events in motion, and then leaves. Then the droids land in the desert and they walk around for awhile, and then they get captured. And then you meet Luke.

But my guess is it’s still earlier than page 30.

**John:** It’s a lot earlier than that.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, come on.

**John:** It’s not gonna happen.

**Craig:** Have you ever been in a theater, sir, and about half an hour into the movie the hero showed up? What was going on for the first half an hour? Who were we identifying with? No. No. Stop.

**John:** Glad we’re helping him so much. We’re just saying, no, don’t.

**Craig:** [laughs] No, you can’t make it. Stay home. Don’t do this. It’s not a job.

**John:** Carmen asks, “Suppose you read an idea online, not a news article that sparks an idea, but someone is actually saying in a completely public forum, ‘I had this idea for a script.’ There’s no plot to the idea, no characters, etc, just a concept. Is there any shame in taking the concept and running with the plot that popped into your head after you read this person’s blatant putting-it-out-there of their idea? Would you ask that person for their permission?”

**Craig:** Well, I mean, she actually did use the proper word there which is “shame.” I mean, it’s not illegal. Ideas aren’t property. There’s a little bit of shame, yeah, I mean, I wouldn’t do it. I just have a little — this is going to be a shock to people who have seen my movies, but I have a little too much pride. The thought of taking somebody else’s idea because I can see a good idea and then running with it, when it’s not something that’s being given to me or offered to me just seems creepy. I wouldn’t do it.

**John:** This is a question of how specific is the idea. Because they’re saying the plot isn’t there, but just the idea is there. So if it’s like “it’s a witch who opens a bakery,” well, maybe that’s okay? I don’t know. If it’s about a witch, yeah, make a movie about a witch. Great, that’s fine. That’s not an idea. That’s just a general worldview concept.

The more specific the idea is, the more shame you should feel trying to get in there.

**Craig:** Even if it’s sort of big and generic like if somebody said, “Look, I’m trying to figure something out. I have a question because I’m writing this science fiction movie and my idea is that I’m doing Titanic in space. So it’s this huge, big thing that can go at light speed, but it’s marooned and slowly sinking towards a black hole. And there’s a love story, so I’m doing…” which actually now that I say it isn’t a bad idea for a movie. [laughs]

**John:** I think Titanic in space is generic enough that you shouldn’t feel too much shame in that.

**Craig:** I don’t know. I mean, somebody now is going to do Titanic in space which is bumming me out, so I should come up with a title now.

Um…Spacetanic.

**John:** For my own personal life, I will say that there was a movie concept that I had for awhile and then I saw that Warner put something into development that was kind of like it. And I was really angry about it for a sec, and then I realized, you know what, everything that guy is doing with that idea — it was a science-fiction kind of idea, not like the Dyson sphere but that kind of idea — well, there’s room in the world for more than one of those and I’m not going to feel too guilty about doing my own. So.

**Craig:** You know what, I think you’re an adult, I assume, the person who’s writing the question. You tell me. If you feel shame, don’t do anything that embarrasses you.

**John:** Yeah. But also I don’t want to put too much credence in the idea of like, oh, I had that idea for a movie. It’s like, well, an idea is nothing. If you didn’t have a plot, a story, characters, you didn’t have a movie. You just had…

**Craig:** You had a nothing.

**John:** Yeah. You had an idea for a poster.

Craig, we’ve come to the time for One Cool Thing if you have one cool thing.

**Craig:** You know what? My One Cool Thing is to end this, because this is over an hour. Did you realize this?

**John:** It’s a solid hour.

**Craig:** I’m gonna propose that we save our cool things for next time.

**John:** We’ll save it for next time.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, we answered a lot of questions. I think we did a lot of good today, I hope.

**Craig:** Crushed a lot of dreams. Broke a lot of spirits.

**John:** That’s also part of the… — It’s the whole omelets/breaking eggs, that whole analogy would apply here.

**Craig:** Our podcast motto is “It’s a Good Day to Die.”

**John:** Craig?

**Craig:** John.

**John:** Thank you. Have a good week.

**Craig:** You too, man. 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 (30)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (492)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.