Search Results for: residuals

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is episode 661 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, why is screenwriting, both the craft and the profession, so difficult? Why are the people who were really good in school not necessarily good at screenwriting?

Craig: Nerds.

John: We’ll take a look at what’s weird about screenwriting and why skills in other areas don’t always translate well. Then it’s another round of the three-page challenge where we look at submissions from our listeners and give our honest feedback. In our bonus segment for premium members, how do you talk about movies and series without spoiling them? We’ll offer our tips and tricks and suggestions.

Craig: We are five episodes away from 666.

John: Now, Craig, let’s talk about this because Drew brought this up. We need to think of something for episode 666, the number of the beast.

Craig: It’s almost going to line up with Halloween. It won’t but it’s close.

John: It won’t. It’s close-ish.

Craig: I feel like we should have Megana on because, A, it’s spooky season, B, 666, it feels like she would have input.

John: Yeah. Should we focus on devil and possession movies?

Craig: That’s a great idea, actually. The Exorcist is one of my favorite movies.

John: Let’s do it.

Craig: Yes. I am not a horror movie aficionado. I like a good horror movie, but I’m not somebody that subscribed to Fangoria when I was a kid and saw all those slasher films like the ‘80s. So Drew, you remember the ‘80s.

Drew Marquardt: Oh, yeah.

Craig: John and I would walk into a video store, not Blockbuster, didn’t exist yet.

John: Our local video store.

Craig: Local video store. There would be a wall, just a solid wall of videotapes of nothing but movies where people slashed each other with blades. They all had great names like I Dismember Mama. There were like twelve Prom Nights. I never saw any of them. Wasn’t necessarily my thing, but The Exorcist had a profound impact on me. I do think it’s an incredible film and well worth discussing.

John: Yes, let’s do it. I haven’t seen The Exorcist probably since it came out. Honestly, I think most of my experience with The Exorcist has been while my parents were out, I would be watching it on TV and get so scared that I have to change the channel.

Craig: That’s correct. The other film that we should probably take a look at is a movie that, and I’m going to get in so much trouble, but it’s too late at this point, right, for me, is The Omen. Because The Omen came out somewhat contemporaneously with The Exorcist, not inspired by, but it existed in part because of The Exorcist. The Omen is the film that made a big deal about 666. I think The Omen is an inferior film to The Exorcist. It would be interesting to compare and contrast.

John: Sure.

Craig: There are some wonderful things in The Omen. It’s still better than most movies that try and do possession stuff now, but not as good as The Exorcist. The Exorcist also, and we’ll get there at episode 666, is a fantastic example of a film that is in a genre where almost every movie is bad and somehow they were great. That’s fascinating to me.

John: Yeah. There’s lots of examples of police procedurals or we’ve got to find the killer movies. Then there’s Silence of the Lambs, which is just like such a cut above–

Craig: Something else, right? It’s not doing anything necessarily overtly different. It’s worth digging into what they do subtly that does make it better.

John: Fantastic. This discussion of the video store we used to go to, it’s reminding me of a conversation I had this last week with my reps. We were talking about how the business was overall. We’re saying like, “Okay, well, streaming has never come back to what it was before. There’s never going to be as many deals as there were.” They were referring back to, oh, but we’re now never going to get back to the era of made-for-home video and the ability to make a zillion movies because you knew you could make a profit off of them on home video.

Craig: Unless something happens. That’s the thing.

John: Unless something happens. It totally could happen.

Craig: Yes. I don’t think anybody saw home video on the horizon in the ‘60s, for instance. Maybe some engineers at early Sony and their Betamax experiments, they were thinking, “Oh, maybe.”

I always think of that moment in Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones shows Will Smith how the aliens have figured out how to make a tiny CD and that he’s going to have to buy the White Album all over again. The entertainment business is really good at figuring out ways to get us to buy the same thing we already own over and over and over. Some new format, some new thing. It’s almost inevitable. We all figured like, “Oh, streaming, I guess, one day would be–“ We just didn’t realize how fast and how intense it would be.

John: I think we all assumed that, okay, well, this is going to kill home video because you’ll just stream stuff. We didn’t realize there’d be a made-for-streaming boom that would change the industry, but then it would contract again and leave a lot of people– there’d be a musical chairs quality of it.

Craig: We had a bubble. I think that’s fair to say. What did Landgraf call peak television, peak TV? 600 and some odd, maybe 666? It was possibly 666 streaming television series. That’s obviously the work of Satan. What it’s back down to, I think a lot of people are thinking is some abnormally small number. I suspect we still have more television shows available now than we did, say, in the ‘90s. It was networks and some basic cable.

John: In addition to things that were made for streaming, we have things that were made for international audiences, made for global audiences that are available now. We’re watching series that are in English or other languages from other places too. There’s a lot more content still.

Craig: There is. There’s a ton of stuff. The contraction, I think the absolute number of television shows is it’s not something that’s going to make anyone feel better if they were employed within that bubble. I don’t think they’re going to sit there and go, “Well, but there’s still a few more than there were in the ‘90s.” It’s not exactly a relief. Contraction is difficult, even if it follows expansion.

John: Talking with my reps this week, we had a dinner. I’ve got a sampling of what they’re experiencing because you and I, we all have our own experiences and our friends we’re talking to. Reps, they’re making a bunch of deals all the time. I was asking them what’s happening? They say there are a lot of deals being made and pilots are selling, and stuff is selling, and pitches are selling, but there’s not flow. There’s a lot of one-off things that are happening and it’s busy, but not in a regular way and it’s not a predictable way. You can’t say, “Oh, this is how it’s building up to this thing.” The machine is shuddering.

Craig: It’s trying to figure itself out.

John: Which feels accurate.

Craig: That’s right. We have one predominant streaming service that is very successful at what they do, which is obviously Netflix. There’s Apple, who I don’t think care necessarily because they have more money than most nations. There’s Amazon, who I think presents their streaming service probably as some loss leader to make money off of their core business.

John: They want to make a lot of movies.

Craig: They do. I’m thinking about what your representative said about the flow.

Amazon and Apple probably aren’t going to create this rhythmic vacuum that you need to fill. Obviously, Netflix has that machinery. How Max and Peacock and Disney Plus function, am I missing one? Hulu? Hulu is Disney Plus. Paramount is Peacock?

John: No, Paramount is Paramount.

Craig: Oh, they’re their own?

John: Paramount CBS.

Craig: Paramount Plus. Paramount CBS. Right. Of course. How could I have possibly confused these? All of them, I think, are still trying to figure out how much, how frequently.

John: What’s the right number?

Craig: What’s the right number? What’s the right rhythm? That makes complete sense to me.

John: On the feature side, what I was hearing from them is that studio sides are saying the covers are bare for right now. There’s not the next thing to put into production. Summer 2026 is going to be super jam-packed, every weekend is full, which is great. Good problems to have.

Craig: The strike.

John: Yes, exactly.

Craig: That’s bottom line, right? It’s going to happen. It’s a really interesting thing. When I talk to people, what I often hear is, “We need stuff, but it’s hard for us–“ This is them talking about their own internal process as buyers. It’s not as easy as it used to be to get your bosses to agree to buy something.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: So you are responsible if you’re on a certain level at one of these places. I’ve talked to people, streamers and everywhere, and they’ll say, “I need to get five shows on the air next year. I don’t have them. I can’t get them to pay for the things I want. I can get them to pay an insane amount of money, but only when the algorithm says that it fits their thing. But I know that we already have those–“

It’s almost like we have a bunch of people making a lot of food on the street, and we have a bunch of hungry people driving around, and there’s somebody next to the hungry people going, “No, just keep going, or try something else, or go somewhere else.” I can see why it’s difficult. Yes, the machine is not functioning particularly efficiently right now.

John: It’s like a dating app where the algorithm is wrong and swiping one way or another way. You’re not matching up with the interested parties.

Craig: Yes. Yes. That’s actually a great idea for a dating app, where if you swipe right or left, it has to go through an intermediary who considers whether or not you’ve made the right choice.

John: Yes. I like that.

Craig: Maybe changes it.

John: Yes. Maybe you designate a friend who is actually a serious concierge there who’s like, “No, I don’t think that we want this.”

Craig: “Actually, you really should give this person a shot. It’s a bad pick, I know. Give them a shot.” I think that might be nice.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: Let’s get into that.

John: You don’t do app development, but my company does do app development. This is my segue into saying that we’re actually hiring a new person. One thing I’ve learned over doing 12 years of this podcast is our audience are the best, smartest people in the world. If we need to hire somebody for somebody, this podcast is the first place to start. That’s how we found the person who fixed our WordPress plugins, the video game that we’re doing. Let’s do this.

We are hiring a person to do marketing for us, for Highland, Weekend Read, Bronson Watermarker, Writer Emergency Pack, AlphaBirds, and we need somebody who’s more of a manager than a creative. Somebody who can oversee Instagram ad campaigns, app store search optimizations, really be able to tell us what’s working and what’s not, because it’s not in our skill set. We need somebody who just does this stuff that we don’t do especially well.

Craig: Where in the world will you find somebody that knows anything about social media optimization, SEO?

John: SEO.

Craig: Yes, I’m going to guess 89% of our audience is like, “I can do that. I’m already doing that.”

John: We should stress, you probably already are doing this. We don’t want somebody who’s like, “I could learn something.” No, you need to show that you actually have done this.

Craig: Some experience here.

John: Oh, we’re pretty flexible on what the position looks like. It could be part-time or full-time. It could be fully remote. It could be a Los Angeles person. You’re probably based in the US, but if we could hire you or contract with you overseas, this may be doable. Crucially, we need somebody who already knows and is in the Mac and iOS ecosystem, because that’s what we make. You need to be part of that space. You need to know what you’re doing here in this.

Craig: You need to be good.

John: You need to be good.

Craig: Do a good job.

John: We’re going to put up a link in the show notes to a webpage that talks through what we’re looking for. If you are that person or you know that person, take a look at that. If you are the candidate, submit your stuff.

Craig: This is exciting. Does the job pay $850,000 a year?

John: It does not. It pays an amount commensurate to what the job is.

Craig: That’s fair. That sounds fair. Yes.

John: We have some follow-up. Last week, we talked about Moneyball.

Craig: Moneyball.

John: It was such a good episode. Everyone completely agreed with everything we said on the show. There was no feedback whatsoever, right?

Drew: No, my inbox has turned into an AM radio call-in show.

Craig: That’s weird. Do sports fans have any opinions?

Drew: Oh, yeah. I get stats on Johnny Damon and his–

Craig: Johnny Damon. Great. Let’s have the Johnny Damon argument. I want to.

John: Craig, you were wrong about baseball. For one thing, there is a clock because now there’s a pitch clock.

Craig: Let’s talk about the pitch clock. We actually got that note from, I believe it was a scout with the Tampa Bay Rays organization, which is awesome. I stand quasi-corrected. One of the rules changes that I referred to, I referred to a bunch of rules changes in that episode. One of them, most importantly, is the pitch clock, which makes the game go faster. The word clock there, I think would better be described as timer.

It’s a little bit like the shot clock in basketball. You have a certain amount of time to do something, or there is a, in basketball, the foul or turnover, or in baseball, it’s a strike, or it’s a ball, depending on which side of the– but the game itself has no timer. You can have an at-bat that lasts one pitch long. You can have an at-bat that lasts zero pitches long. If there’s a guy at the plate and there’s a man on first, there’s two outs, and the pitcher picks that guy off first base, inning over, man at home didn’t swing, got no pitches.
You can have an at-bat that lasts 18 pitches, all within the confines of pitch clocks.

So yes, there is a small element of a timer, but the game itself, no one can tell you at the beginning of a baseball game how long that game will last. Everyone can tell you how long a football game will be in terms of game time play, or a hockey game, or a basketball game.

John: The larger point, in terms of being a clock and not being a clock, most sports are frantic. There’s just a lot of activity suddenly all at once. Baseball, yes, there are bursts of activity, but most of it is very open and people can take their time to do a thing.

Craig: Absolutely, and innings last as long as they last, and there are nine of them. In football, a series of downs, you can have possession of a football and you keep getting a new first down, that’s great, but the clock keeps getting eaten up.

John: Yes, so unless you’re able to stop the clock by doing the thing, yes.

Craig: You can stop, but when you stop the clock, there’s no more playing, right? Then everybody talks, and then they get back and then the clock restarts. While that is a good point from the scout that there is now an element of time, where there used to be no element of time– the only element of time that there used to be in baseball was, if there’s a visit to the mound, let’s say the pitcher is in trouble or there’s a situation that requires discussion, either the pitching coach or the manager would go out to the mound, bring in the infielders, and they would all have a huddle on the mound and chat.

The umpire, at some point, will mosey on over and go, “All right guys, it’s enough. We got to go get back to playing baseball,” When? Uhh when he feels like it. Like, “Ah, it’s enough.” That’s the only thing I remember prior to the pitch clock.

John: All right, more follow-up, we talked about residuals in 658 and the fact that they are now digitally depositable.

Drew: E&A writes, “While I appreciate the greater efficiency of having residuals be direct deposit, I would like to stand up for the joys of the home-delivered paper residual. It is always a cheery surprise, a bright spot in the day, the flash of green among the mailers, the happy announcement to the household, the ritual chant of, “Big money, big money, big money,” and finally, the reveal of a quantity which may range wildly, but which is always better than nothing.

Additionally, there’s the hopefully fond memories evoked by the source of the residuals, gratitude for the achievements of the WGA in securing these residuals, and sometimes even a sense of abundance in the universe. So until paper cuts or affluence dim our delight in the little green envelopes, this house will never direct deposit our residuals.”

John: I’m completely in agreement with E&A. I loved the green envelopes, and I loved opening them and I loved having– predict how big a check would be. I would say, “Oh, it’s from Sony,” and he would nail it within 1%. He was so good at it. It’s great. It just feels like found money.

Craig: A weird carnival skill.

John: It’s like, “I don’t deserve this, but it came and it’s great.” For the last three years, four years, they’ve all been going to my business manager anyway, so I haven’t seen them.

Craig: Yeah, I completely salute this person and the love of the green envelope and the excitement of that. No question. Partly it’s also just a function of age because I started getting green envelopes, I don’t know, in 1997? Yeah, after a while, you’re like, “Here’s another green envelope again.”

John: Here’s a proposal. The green envelopes are inefficient because those checks get lost and sometimes, they did get lost. It’s a good reason not to send them to people’s houses. Maybe we still do the green envelopes and inside it says like, “This is how much we just direct deposited for you.” Then you still get the feel, the joy of it, but you don’t have to deal with the check.

Craig: Sure. If they could maybe do that, that’d be great. What if there was an email that said– the subject header was, “Green envelope.”? You’re like, “Okay, when I open this email–“ Then there’s a bunch of texts just in case your email program gives you a little– no, it skips it. Then you open it and you scroll and there’s the number. That would be fine.

John: A little joy.

Craig: Yes. Why not?

John: All right, well, I’m going to propose that to the WGA. More about capitalizing off of a short what we talked about in episode 658.

Drew: Erin writes, I want to build on the excellent advice you gave Michael in episode 658 in which he asked what’s next after a short film he wrote won an Oscar qualifying award. If he wants to capitalize on the success, I would encourage Michael to write a feature version of his short film. Even if his short wasn’t initially meant to be blown out into a feature, there will be something, a theme, a character, what have you, that will make for a compelling feature script and he already has an award-winning short as a proof of concept.

The first question I’m asked when somebody sees and likes my short is, do you have a feature script? My answer is always yes, and because I always have a draft ready before attending any festival, it’s led to my scripts being read by reps and producers. I guarantee the director and/or producers are being asked this question, so he should also reach out to them to let them know he’s getting started on the feature so when they’re inevitably asked, “Is there a feature script?” they can reply, yes, Michael is working on it right now.

Craig: If you can. Not every short is expandable into a feature. I imagine many aren’t.

John: I think it’s good advice in general. Even if you can’t take this exact concept, something that’s in that space feels right because they like the short, they want something that’s like that but is a feature. That all tracks and makes a lot of sense.

Craig: Whiplash.

John: Yes, 100%.

Craig: It’s the theory of Whiplash, worked for Damien Chazelle, could work for you at home. I think that makes sense.

John: Totally makes sense. More on how to be a script coordinator. We’ve talked a lot on the show about the value of script coordinators.

Drew: Joshua Gilbert writes, I’m a long-time listener and a mid-level TV writer. Prior to staffing, I did all the writer’s office assistant jobs, writer’s PA, showrunner’s assistant, writer’s assistant, and script coordinator, the gig I did the most. As such, it occurred to me that if a YouTube video can teach someone to fix their sink, they can learn to script coordinate the same way.

So I created a two and a half hour training video in eight sections that gives step-by-step instructions for taking a script from first draft to shooting draft.

Craig: That’s interesting. Two and a half hours? There’s really two and a half hours of stuff to say?

John: There was two and a half hours of stuff to do to explain about how to do Roll20. You and I put those videos together.

Craig: That was extraordinarily efficient. Roll20, especially the old Roll20, they’ve streamlined it, was so unuser-friendly.

Listen, it may be that he’s just very patient in his explanations. Ally Chang, who’s our script coordinator on Blast Bus, I walked her through it. It was only about 30 minutes.

John: You’re approaching script coordinating from one point of view. You’re also a single showrunner who’s doing stuff and a single writer. People who are on more complicated shows, I think it probably is more complicated stuff. You’re integrating multiple things from different writers.

Craig: Yes. I could see that. There’s a little more traffic.

John: I’ve watched through it, too. He leaves no stone unturned.

Craig: Okay, so it’s an incredibly thorough, too. Thank God. I was just hoping that you weren’t like, “I watch it and–“ No, okay, if it’s super-duper thorough, then great. Look, either way, I just like complaining about things. He put it on there for free. It’s a free class. One more reason to not go to film school.

John: Yeah, film school doesn’t teach you how to be a script writer, though, either. It’s one of those– just someone shows you.

Craig: Yes, but that’s one of the jobs that we have.

John: It’s a job. It’s a job. It’s actually a union cover job.

Craig: Film school just teaches you the job that no one has to give you. Just why? Anyway.

John: All right, last bit of follow-up here is from Lori, and she’s talking about, Craig, you use this word calculating a lot. “You need to stop calculating.” You actually use it in a Scriptnotes book. A little follow-up on this.

Drew: Yes, she says, “What exactly does Craig mean by that? Does he mean that writers shouldn’t have a strategy or pursue a set of goals other than writing good screenplays? If so, how do those good screenplays ever get into the hands of someone who can do something with them?”

Craig: Here’s what I mean. Calculating means figuring out how to game the system. What do people want? What does the market want? If I did this and this and this, then maybe this and this and this. There’s so much effort that you can put into that kind of thinking. “Everybody knows that if you write a such and such story that they want it, they don’t want these unless there’s a this in it. I’m going to do that.” That’s calculating. Not calculating is writing something that you love, that you believe in, that is personal to you, that nobody else could do, or that just expresses your unique creative talent and then putting it out in the world. Then other people work on the calculating part.

In fact, part of our jobs as individual writers in our careers is to resist all of their calculations when their calculations go against what is the beating heart of the work. Otherwise it will turn into crap, which happened to me repeatedly in my career because I didn’t understand that part of my job was to defend against their calculation. I thought in a somewhat humble way, all these calculations must have value. These people are paid for these calculations and the emperor has no clothes.

It’s not about being strategy-less. You write something great, then you’re like, “I wrote this, and I need Renée Zellweger to be in it. It was designed out of my heart for Renée Zellweger. I need to get this to Renée Zellweger somehow.” That’s not calculation. That’s just makes sense. That’s creative desire. Saying, “I wrote this for Renée Zellweger, but what I’m hearing maybe is that Sabrina Carpenter is looking to do something in a movie like this. If I just change the age and change the this and make it more Sabrina Carpenter, then get it to the person that I know who knows her friend, then da-da-da–“ What have you done? No offense to Sabrina Carpenter. If you write something for Sabrina Carpenter, truly–

John: Yes, fantastic, love that. All right–

Craig: I know who Sabrina Carpenter is.

John: I was going to say, nicely done. Weirdly, a Sabrina Carpenter, Renée Zellweger axis, it’s clear. There’s a vector that connects the two.

Craig: I actually am proud of what I just did. I really am. It would have been a very old guy thing to be like, “No, instead I’m going to make it for Reese Witherspoon.” Eh, contemporary, doesn’t work. It wouldn’t have worked. It would not have been as cogent of a point.

John: I like this. This discussion of calculating actually ties in very well to our main topic today, which is about screenwriting being a poorly defined problem. This verbiage I’m taking from this blog post by Adam Mastroianni, which is about why smart people aren’t happier. I think it also really resonates with last week’s episode where we’re talking about how we measure and quantify talent.

In this blog post, he’s talking about how it’s not just physical attributes that we try to measure and quantify. We do it with intelligence too. If you Google the smartest people in the world, you’re going to find physicists, and mathematicians, computer scientists, chess masters.

Craig: Donald Trump by his own admission.

John: 100%. You’re going to do that because if accomplished things that you can point to and say like, oh, it was your intelligence that did that. You can measure that. But a couple of weeks ago, I went to this event with Hillary Clinton who spoke and, Jesus, that is a very smart woman.

Craig: Just a little.

John: Her intelligence is not quantifiable in that way. She didn’t invent a thing. She didn’t solve some mathematical problem. She ran the state department.

Craig: She ran the state department of the United States of America.

John: Not a small thing. The things that I would say, if I could point to her intelligence, she can take a question and then pull it into its parts and come up with, on the fly, this seven-minute answer that goes from the personal to the political to everything. That’s experience. And it’s honestly the difference between what we’d say in D&D terms is intelligence and wisdom. She has the ability to take this whole thing and pull it apart.

Really what it comes down to, and this is from this blog post, is that we tend to value and aim towards these well-defined problems. A well-defined problem– he defines in four things.

That there is a stable relationship between the variables. You can see how everything connects. There’s no disagreement about whether the problems are problems or if they’ve already been solved. There are clear boundaries. There’s a finite amount of relevant information and possible actions. And the problems are repeatable. So the details might change, but the process for solving the problems does not.

Craig: Science.

John: Science is exactly that. It’s the scientific method.

Craig: The results needing to be robust, repeatable. What a joy it would be to work in something where you could actually go, “The answer to this question is yes.” That would be lovely.

John: A lot of us, and I suspect you were as well, Craig, we were good at doing those well-defined problems. All standardized tests, the ACTs, the SATs, they were those things. We were rewarded for that. We’re told we are smart because we’re good at these things. Unfortunately, the career we’ve chosen to go into does not reward that thinking at all.

Craig: It does not.

John: We’re dealing with these really undefinable things. We don’t even know what the edges of this is. What do they really want from here? How am I supposed to do this thing? Am I making the right choice to go, “Should I move to Los Angeles?”? These are not questions with single answers. Many of the questions we get from our listeners are grappling with this. When we say, “Don’t be so calculating,” I feel like so often we see people trying to take these difficult situations and boil them down to well-defined problems.

Craig: Yes, because it’s comforting. You probably remember in math class, there was somebody that was sitting next to you who was struggling with a process. Let’s say quadratic equations.

John: Do you remember the first time your teacher did the quadratic formula or showed how you discover the quadratic formula? There’s no way you end up with such a messy formula. It’s so ugly.

Craig: And so beautiful.

John: Beautiful. It works but it looks so awful.

Craig: We are used to science boiling things down to elegance. E = mc² is so absurdly elegant. It seems like a joke. Most things are not that perfect. The Pythagorean theorem is so gorgeously a² + b² = c². But there was always a kid that didn’t understand the concepts and would turn to you at some point and go, “Just tell me what to do. Okay, so now what do I do? Then what do I do? Then what do I do?”

Meaning, break this down like I’m a computer, code it for me, so that I don’t have to understand what I’m doing. I just follow steps, which are certain. Therefore, I can’t get lost. It’s not actually a bad way to teach certain people certain things that they are struggling to grasp conceptually. However, if they need that, it’s probably not really worth it for them because ultimately, they’re not actually learning anything. They’re merely just obeying steps.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: What we have here in our business is a very– there’s an analytic way of doing things, and then there’s synthesizing things. We have to synthesize stuff. We have to make things out of nothing. It’s art, so it’s all objective, subjective at the same time. There are things that just we all agree on, then there are things that we cannot agree on, and then there are things that we find out most people agree on. There are things that no one agrees on, except 10 years later, they do.

Nobody can really teach this. Yes. What we’re taught is how to analyze, which is fair, and what we can test is analysis and memory. There is this concept, when we were learning about the SAT analogies, we were taught about this thing called the triangular non-relationship, which is that this– and these two things are only related because they both relate to something else, but they don’t directly relate to each other. I think that for people that are good in school and good at SATs, and also are good at screenwriting, those two things are not connected to each other, they’re connected back to one thing, which is a certain mind.

John: Yes, absolutely. Let’s think through some of the stuff that we’re dealing with as screenwriters that are these poorly defined problems and that we’re constantly grappling with.

What is this movie about? This movie I’m writing, what is it about? No, what is it really about? We know it’s not actually about the thing on the surface, it’s actually really about something else.

Who is this character? How do I show that to the audience?

What does this moment look like from the character’s point of view and from all the other characters in that scene’s point of view?

What do they say next and why?

What is the right title for this movie?

Am I using the word “being” too much?

How is this movie I’m writing different from every other movie ever made?

But how is it similar enough to a genre that people can relate to what the hell it actually is?

Then, completely independent of what’s happening on the page, the actual career of being a screenwriter is, how do I describe this thing to an executive? Who should I pitch this to? Should I be focusing on Sabrina Carpenter or Renée Zellweger? When should I send the follow-up email? Should I send the follow-up email?

I see this with my own daughter. She’s a sophomore now, and super smart, so good at so many things. She’s texting me, and it’s not about schoolwork, it’s about, what should I put in this box on this form for this internship I’m applying for? They ask me, “What is your desired hourly salary?” She says, “Should I put 15?” I’m like, “I think 20?” but there’s no answer here. I don’t even know what comes out of this. You’re nodding, because this is exactly what– you do it too.

Craig: We occasionally get these. It’s funny, Jessica is so independent and so much a force of nature. She reminds me so much of me when I was her age. Just all these things that a lot of people consider difficult that she’s just doing. But kinda had a little bit of a meltdown over figuring out how to pay the utility bill for her apartment.

John: We’re on the same page. We got a bill for power, but with some from the previous tenant, and it’s like, “What do you do?”

Craig: Actually, as it turns out, nobody likes doing that stuff. Everybody has to learn. I remember this as great, but it wasn’t great. It was stupid, but I still remember because this is one funny bit where Mike Myers on Saturday Night Live played a character maybe only once called Middle-Aged Man. He’s a superhero. He’s asked, “What are your powers?” He goes, “I can’t fly and I don’t have super strength, but I can explain what escrow is.”

These are the things that you sort of accrue. When you are in your 20s, you’re like, “What do I do with a utility–“ Those are all learnable things. That list of stuff that you put there. The other one that came to mind was, what is the tone of this? Also what is tone? What are we even talking about? These things are only defined by a strange passion and a confidence that comes from feeling good about it. It is all about feeling. When you look at people who are composing, why that note? Why not this note?

Feels wrong, feels right. For us, we have no choice but to actually find some genuine feeling. That feeling then we have to convert into some explanation to either get people to resonate with our same feeling and feel it or get them to hear a rationality that allows them to go along with it.

But for everybody else in our business, that area of what is it and I’m going to feel it and I know what’s wrong and what’s right allows for so much chicanery, charlatanism, fraud, confidence masquerading as knowledge, just bad faith, baloney, gaslighting, because it’s not science. Because I can’t just go, “Stop. Everything you just said is provably wrong and has been proven wrong.” Can’t do it.

John: Of course, we’re talking about this in a context of there’s now more data than ever and more data being used against us about the choices that we’re making. As we’re pitching to Netflix, they will say our metrics show that we need to have– we cannot show a dog in the first three minutes of the show or else, or there’s all this stuff. They have data. They can show that scientifically this is true, but of course, that doesn’t have anything to do with the actual feeling of what it is.

I love to contrast that development process to a film festival where they’re buying a film at a film festival. In that case, they’re emotionally responding to the thing they saw and it’s like, “Oh, this works for these reasons.” We want this movie and we are going to put this on our streamer.

Craig: I think our business has shifted, especially the feature business, very much in favor of that vibe in a way, there is more humility on the side of the buyers because they’ve almost finally admitted they have no idea. Therefore, instead of the old method, which is really– if you want to talk about something that changed our business, the old method of making movies was have a bunch of writers come in, hear pitches, buy scripts, have ten things in development that one of them eventually will be worthy of a green light and be made.

That’s gone away. Now it’s more like, hey, we’ve shown up with a script already, an actor, a director. Everything is here and we also have a budget. All you have to do now is just flip a lever, but all the components are in place. We basically cook the meal for you. It’s a frozen TV dinner. Just put it in the microwave, right? As opposed to, we would like to cook you a meal. We’re going to go gather ingredients. We can discuss if you want chicken or fish, right? And they like that.

John: The episode that Marielle Heller was on that you weren’t able to come for, we were talking–

Craig: Passive aggressive.

John: Sorry. It was a good episode.

Craig: I bet. Jeez.

John: We were talking through this new research study that showed that almost none of the movies that are greenlit came out of studio development.

Craig: Exactly. Which was all you and I knew. All we knew was studio development. In fact, the thing that we would complain about in the ‘90s was studio development and development hell and how we all knew we were going there and getting paid something and then we were just going to be strung out for a while and eventually it probably would just die on the vine like everything else.

John: We were getting paid during that time, which was important.

Craig: Important that we were getting paid. Now what has gone away is all of the money being spread around, but there is a little more certainty. It used to be, if you made a deal, there’s a 5% or 10% chance they would make your movie. Now it’s like we’re making a deal, it’s kind of a green light.

I remember the first time this happened to me, it was at Universal, and I think it was maybe Identity Thief where I came in to pitch the rewrite because it was a page 1 rewrite. There was a pre-existing script. There were two pre-existing scripts, I believe.

I came in with Jason Bateman and Scott Stuber and normally you would go in a pitch meeting, you would pitch to the head of the studio. Everyone was in that room, from Peter Kramer, who’s the president of production, but then Donna Langley also, and then Adam Fogelson?

John: Sure. That feels right.

Craig: Is that right?

John: Yes.

Craig: The guy that was the top of it. I’m like, “What the hell is going on?” When I walked out, I remember I was like, “Why are all these people in a pitch meeting?” He goes, “That was a green light meeting. The deal is if we’re going to pay you to write this, we’re making the movie.” That blew my mind. That was the first time I’d ever experienced that where that’s the deal now. Either no development or make movie. That in a way expresses humility on their end, I think. We don’t know. If you bring us all this stuff, fine.

John: What can we take from this is that, listen, I think there’s going to be moments where you’re going to have this instinct to reduce these difficult problems, these poorly defined problems, and you’re going to try to find edges of things that you can clean up and solve. I see people doing that with the obsession over like, “Oh, I need to get rid of all the widows and orphans in my script.”

Craig: Control.

John: Control. You’re trying to exert control over a thing that fundamentally doesn’t want control. You’re going to submit to a bunch of film festivals and screenwriting competitions so you can get scores and so you can be graded the same way you were graded when you were–

Craig: People love grades.

John: Yes. I miss them. Listen–

Craig: It’s validation.

John: I’m 30 years out of college but I miss that validation.

Craig: Absolutely. It’s validation. When I do see a lot of people on social media saying, “Congratulations to me. I was a semi-finalist,” and blah blah blah, I’m like, “I’m so sorry. It’s actually not relevant at all because there’s somebody who didn’t make it past the first round who has written something much better.” The people who judge these things don’t know either. Nobody in that world knows because the people that are at the highest level of our business also don’t know. They are constantly being surprised. Everybody agrees that this kind of movie doesn’t work until somebody makes one that does. Listen, if there was one genre we knew would not work, it would be to adapt a video game. That was the law. That’s the thing.

John: Two good series.

Craig: There you go. Superhero movies were just dead in the water forever. Musicals keep coming and going. I think Wicked is going to bring them back. Westerns disappear. Probably they’ll come back. That’s the joke. That’s the big joke. So why calculate? Just follow your heart.

John: Absolutely. All right, let’s take a look at some pages from our listeners. For folks who are new here, every once in a while we do a three-page challenge where we invite our listeners to submit three pages from something they’ve written, generally the first three pages. We give our honest feedback.

As a reminder, people want us to be reading this stuff. They’re soliciting this feedback. If we’re mean at any point or harsh, they asked for this.

Craig: That’s a weird phrase. They permitted this.

John: They permitted this. We’ll say that. If you would like to read along on these pages, you can follow the links in the show notes and click through. There’s PDFs for those. You can take a look and maybe stop this podcast, read first, and then listen to what we’re going to say about them. Let us start with Flunge-

Craig: Flunge.

John: -by J Wheeler White.

Craig: I apologize. If you guys hear a page flipping, it’s because I like a physical page.

John: Likes a physical page.

Craig: Forgive me.

John: Drew, for folks who are not able to look at the pages, can you give us a quick summary?

Drew: “In the middle of a fencing match, with seven seconds left on the clock, 17-year-old, Will Stetson, ignores all the onlookers and focuses on his opponent, Alexander. They stare each other down. We then cut to six months earlier where Will is elbowed in his high school wrestling match and starts punching his opponent in the face. Coach Vargas tries to hold him back, but when his opponent calls him a psycho, Will lunges at him and crashes into the scorer’s table. Later, in a school hallway, Coach Vargas kicks Will off the wrestling team. Will punches a locker. Outside the gym, a Mercedes pulls up in front of Will, driven by Alina, another teenager who is currently very angry.”

John: All right. Let’s start with this title page. I love this title page.

Craig: Flunge. Yes. It’s got a nice graphically designed title with negative space fencer in the middle.

John: Absolutely. Craig, do you know what a flunge is?

Craig: I absolutely do not know what a flunge is. A flying lunge?

John: Close to a flying lunge. It’s a combination of a flèche and a lunge. Flèche is where you’re racing up to your opponent, you’re running up to the opponent.

Craig: Oh.

John: The illustration in there is actually what a flunge would be.

Craig: It’s a flunge.

John: It’s a daring stab forward.

Craig: Flunge is going to be changed. That title is not going to last.

John: No.

Craig: Just going to be honest.

John: It looks great.

Craig: It’s fun for now.

John: Fun for now. Page 1 opens with, “Time left on clock, 7 seconds, score 14-14.” I think this is crucial information. I like having it here. I’m wondering how it’s going to be shown on screen. I don’t need it to be shown on screen on the page in a certain way, but I was wondering about that. I like that it’s 14-14. That you know that this match has been going on a while. You know that you’re near the end of this.

This setup reminds me of Challengers, and I don’t know how this is all going to be structured, but I feel like we’re going to be moving back and forth into this this match, which I’m excited to see. It may not be a true Stuart Special where we start at one point and then flashback in time. I think it is a back and forth.

Craig: This does feel like a Stewart Special, though.

John: Well, it’s a Stewart Special in the sense that it started at a time, and we can catch up to this.

Craig: Only because he’s a wrestler and then he becomes a fence– I doubt we’re going to go back and forth. I could be wrong. Also, it’s a television show.

John: Oh, a television show. Pilot, yes.

Craig: It’s possible, but I agree with you, the setup felt really exciting. First of all, I got excited by fencing because– listen, at this point just show me something, and fencing is fun. It’s swordplay and it’s exciting.

John: I had fencing in a movie that didn’t shoot, which I was really sad about.

Craig: Oh, you had a fencing movie?

John: I had a fencing movie.

Craig: Ugh. Do you want to sue this guy? John, that’s what people do.

John: Yes, absolutely. I had fencing in my movie.

Craig: This guy stole your idea.

John: Yes.

Craig: Jesus.

John: I’ll say that if there’s a contract lens that plays an important role in this movie, I’ve won. I’ve won the lawsuit.

Craig: You’ve won the lawsuit. It’s an interesting thing. We have a guy– this is how it opens. “William Stetson, 17, catches his breath. He’s in a full electric saber kit.” I assume that means that-

John: He’s wired up.

Craig: -fencing outfit. “Fencing mask pulled up, a single curl of light hair glued by sweat to his forehead.” Just be aware, that’s the kind of thing that they’re going to have a meeting about, and it’s going to probably look stupid. Maybe just say sweaty.

John: Yes.

Craig: “His eyes, consumed by a deep indecipherable fervor locked with his opponent’s, Alexander Sasha Su, 18.” Now, why do they both have their masks up? Is that a thing that people do?

John: Yes, between parries.

Craig: This is exciting to see on page, but just want to think ahead here. This is J Wheeler White, which is a fantastic comic book name, by the way. J Wheeler White, he owns a newspaper in Gotham, not in New York. They’re just staring at each other. If you’re staring at somebody, and they’re staring at you, the two of you are in a staring contest, that just feels a little weird.

If you’re staring at this guy, and he’s drinking some Gatorade, or doing something, and then he turns and sees you, and expresses something back, whether it’s hatred, jealousy, I’m going to get you, you lost, whatever it is, that creates a moment. I think, here, what’s happened is, they’re just staring at each other, which feels a bit odd.

John: I get that. Again, the reason why I would say Challengers is challenged. Have you seen Challengers?

Craig: I have.

John: Challengers is all stares across on that between people-

Craig: It is.

John: -doing stuff. I love it for that. In this first page, fans, teammates, former opponents, uppercase those. Those are other groups of people that we’re going to see. There’s a thing that J Wheeler White does where it’s a word then a single dash rather than a double dash. It’s consistent. It’s fine. It’s not what I would do.

Craig: I don’t do it either, but it doesn’t matter. I get it.

John: It’s consistent.

Craig: It’s consistent. As long as it’s consistent. It would be nice to know how big. It says hundreds of fans. Hundreds of people– that’s another thing you learn when you’re making stuff is, hundreds of people look like 12 people. Thousands of people look like hundreds of people.

John: I need a sense of– is this State Championships? What is this? That would tell us.

Craig: Olympics. State Championship. Is this a gymnasium? Is this Madison Square Garden? Just give me a general sense of the space. I think it would be helpful. What I really enjoyed was how this just flung us — flunged us — into a different thing, but this is way easier to do on page than it is to do– because the problem is match-cutting from eyes, especially when there’s a mask, even though it’s pulled up, it’s going to be visible. Eyes to eyes of a person that’s in motion, wrestling, it’s just not possible.

John: It’s not possible. There’ll be a sound pre-lap, there’ll be a thing, and then you just have to cut into it.

Craig: Exactly, so probably not– it’s exciting to read, but this is something that I actually think is fine, but later you’re going to have to fix it.

John: Absolutely. It’ll be on a foot and a step will go forward and you’ll realize you’re going to do a different space. There’ll be different ways to get there.

Craig: Exactly.

John: I’m loving everything on page 1 and on page 2. I thought the actual descriptions of what goes wrong in the match, and how it builds, I believed. It felt visceral and it’s funny.

Craig: Yes. I think the only thing that I would suggest here for this, because the point of this wrestling match is Will goes too far, right? He goes too far. He’s wrestling a guy, and he chokes him in a way that’s illegal, and ruins stuff.

John: He chokes him and then he starts beating him.

Craig: Well, because the guy fights back. Then he fights back again. It’s all precipitated by the fact that he’s choking this guy out, which is not legal in high school, or anywhere. That’s fine, but what I needed was something leaning into it. I think part of my issue was it just starts with this guy killing someone. That’s what he’s doing basically. How did we get to that? If you start leaning on someone’s throat– this is just logic stuff, and it’s important for tone. You’re in high school, you start choking this guy out.

Nobody says it– they’ll run in there and pull you off. You can’t kill somebody, and why would you think you could? The problem is this guy goes too far. I need to see him going too far, not already too far. Something leading into it would have been helpful.

John: Yep, agreed. Page 3, the one thing I want to scratch out here is mic drop. Vargas, the coach, says, “You smell like an f-ing litter box.” Mic drop. We don’t need the mic drop, he walks off. And at the bottom of page 3, we’re introduced to Alina Matero, 17, dark hair, clean girl aesthetic, currently very pissed off. That’s all we know about her. I liked that as the next thing we’re seeing.

Craig: I like that she seems rich. I’m guessing that he’s not. I don’t know what their relationship is, but she seems like she’s already heard about the wrestling situation. Again, tone. Page 3, Vargas, his coach says, “We were all watching Stetson,” which I think you need a comma there because it seems like we’re all watching Stetson. “We were all watching, Stetson,” that’s Will, “and good thing too, or that kid would be in an ambulance right now. Incorrect.

They watched him choke that kid out until that kid punched him to get him off of him. They didn’t do anything. And then, good thing you don’t know him.” I don’t know him either, and just because he goes to New Trier, I’m guessing that’s the school for rich kids?

John: Yes.

Craig: It doesn’t justify murder. This is so important. I need to understand why Will was trying to “kill” this kid. Why he was suddenly so vicious and so relentless that he would injure this kid and possibly render him unconscious.

John: Yeah so, thinking about that moment, if you switch it around and Will was the one who felt like he was threatened, or he was getting choked, and that he was the first person who blew up, and it was ambiguous whether the referee should have stepped in, that could have made sense.

Craig: This scene is broad. For me. This is what happens. The coach goes, “You did a dumb thing.” Will says, “No, I didn’t.” He says, “Yes, you did. You’re fired. You’re off the team.” “You can’t do that. Darn it.” Everybody deserves to be a character. Everybody deserves to be interesting. How does this really go down in life? I don’t think it’s like this. I don’t.

I think there is a possibility that as a coach you sit down with this kid– and there’s a scene where he says, “Just walk me through what happened. I want to understand why this happened.” Let Will explain. Just keep asking questions so that we start to understand Will, how his mind works, what the real problem was, and we’ll feel like maybe this coach is sympathetic, understanding, and the coach will listen to him, hear, get to the truth, and then say, “So you’re off the team. Sorry. Based on everything I understand, I appreciate it, I get it. You can’t be on a wrestling team.”

John: I hear you, and that is a version of the scene. I think there’s a way to keep the energy up the way that this scene currently does, but just with a little bit more finesse.

Craig: Actually, that was my problem.

John: That the energy was still too high?

Craig: Yes. We started with this exciting, flunging match, and then we go into an equally exciting and violent wrestling match, both of which it’s feeling like at fever pitch tempo, and then we get into this quick argument. The movie is going so fast, I felt like it’s a television show, it’s a pilot, you can breathe. If you look at Breaking Bad, everybody uses it as a great example because it is a wonderful pilot episode. It starts with, blah! And then it’s like, hmm.

John: It’s quiet. Yes.

Craig: It’s quiet.

John: There’s a description on page 3 that I did like. “Will tries to make himself big, arms out to his side, chest forward, steps to his coach, Vargas sighs.” That does a lot.

Craig: It does. Again, it’s a tone question. Will seems like an idiot here because you can’t big-guy your coach. What are you going to do? Beat him up. The coach isn’t buying it, but then I feel like, why would Will think that the coach would buy it and why is Will do–

John: I believe that’s a dumb high school character move.

Craig: To me, dumb high school characters are different to coaches that control their fate. Those are the people they don’t do this to. Those are the people that they get all solemn with because those are their father figures that they have daddy issues. Again, that’s part of what I’m saying here to J Will writers. The character right now of Will and the character of Vargas is angry coach, angry kid. I think we need to go a bit deeper in that, even in one page.

John: Great. Again, these are not well-defined problems.

Craig: No.

John: They’re all opinions and how it feels.

Craig: That’s right.

John: Before we move on, Drew, can you tell us the logline for what the actual–

Craig: For Flunge.

John: For Flunge.

Drew: “After being kicked off the team for one too many violent outbursts, a high school wrestler reluctantly joins the fencing team to keep his scholarship, unearthing a preternatural talent that may redefine the course of his life. An anime-inspired live-action sports drama series.”

John: Great. I don’t know that it’s a series. I think it’s a movie, but I’m curious–

Craig: It feels like a movie to me.

John: Feels like a movie to me. It feel like there’s a beginning, middle, and end, there’s a victory, there’s a thing.

Craig: It’s a classic. It’s like– What was that movie where Matthew Modine is a hockey player and then he becomes an ice skater? What was that one called? Look it up. It’s such a great idea. He was a hockey player who was like this, undisciplined, got kicked off, whatever personal problems, and gets stuck being paired up with an ice skater for figure skating.

John: It’s not Matthew Modine. It’s somebody who’s like Matthew Modine.

Craig: Oh, it is?

John: Yes.

Craig: It’s not Matthew Modine?

John: Oh, shoot.

Craig: Who was that?

John: He looks like Steve Gutenberg, but it’s not Steve Gutenberg. We’ll find it.

Craig: That’s why we need our search engine optimization person.

John: Hey, can you tell me about a movie where a hockey player then becomes a figure skater? He gets partnered with a woman who’s a figure skater.

AI: The movie is The Cutting Edge. It’s a romantic comedy from 1992 where a former hockey player teams up with a figure skater.

John: Who were the stars of that movie?

AI: The stars of The Cutting Edge are D.B. Sweeney, who plays the former hockey player, and Moira Kelly, who plays the figure skater.

Craig: D.B. Sweeney. D.B. Sweeney and Matthew Modine were odd– My guess is that they bumped into each other at a bunch of auditions back in the day.

John: 100%. Absolutely.

Craig: What a great idea. Anyway, this reminds me in a way of like, okay, an athlete has to transition from one thing to another. It’s actually been quite a few of these. It’s not merely The Cutting Edge. Although what a great title and D.B. Sweeney. Anyway, I agree with the feels feature. What are we doing in Season 3, episode 7 for this? That’s my question, but meh.

John: Let’s move on to our next one. This is Cows by John and Mark DiStefano.

Drew: “In a bar for cows, Callie, a black and white spotted cow, and Wade, a bro-y bull, sit drinking milk. While Wade tells her wild stories about his recent trip to Moodrid, Callie stares at the bartender Jade who is also a cow, they’re all cows. They’re joined by Astrid, a Highland cow who makes fun of Wade from making his trip to Europe with his entire personality. They give Astrid a hard time because her new boyfriend is on a reality dating show, Udderly Single. Astrid wants to throw a watch party for the show, and Wade offers to organize it.”

John: This is an animated, televised, or it’s a pilot for an animated series. Let’s get into it. For what it is, it’s a good version of what it is, but I also think it’s not the pilot episode, or it’s not the first scene of what this should be. This is a Zootopia situation where these are anthropomorphic animals doing a thing. While this conversation tracks, it basically feels like it’s maybe a Friends-like sitcom, but with a lot of cow puns thrown in. It’s probably not the best way to setting up this world for me.

Craig: Yes. What I was struck by primarily was how mundane this conversation is. If you took away the fact that they’re cows, this is a pretty boring scene, unfortunately, because it’s just banter. It’s mild banter, it’s quippy. I don’t believe any of these people. The things that they’re saying to each other feels very canned, Disney television canned conversation. It doesn’t feel real. I have no idea who I’m supposed to be following here.

John: Yes. I don’t know who the central character is. I don’t really understand what the relationship is between the three of them. They’re all there.

Craig: They’re just talking. They’re just talking about something. There’s a lot of page time dedicated to the discussion of where he went to Moodrid and they’re like, “You’ve told us already.” This is not a good use of the first three pages of anything.

John: It’s just one scene also, it’s just like one continuous scene. There’s not a lot of story is happening here.

Craig: It says “Interior bar.” Now these are cows, so we’re in a cow world. “Bulls and cows mingle, dance on two legs”– I don’t know how that works. I’m just thinking about physics. I guess they’re just animated people but they’re cows. It would be nice if they made that clear– “And swill large quantities of milk. Callie sits on a bar stool next to Wade. This bar, where is it?

John: The scale of things also would feel strange.

Craig: What is the scale? What is the decor? What is the music? It says they’re dancing. To what? Can you help me feel like I understand where I am? Because all they’ve done really is, this just feels like a scene from the middle of a middle-grade sitcom where people are talking. Not an introduction to a new world where it’s about cows.

John: Yes, exactly. Here’s where I think writing the scene is useful for you. It’s like this might be a chance to say, “What does it even feel like to have these characters talking to each other? If you just do this as an exercise, it’s like let’s have a conversation where they’re talking. You get some sense of what their voices are. I can’t tell you individually what the three different cows’ voices are. You get a sense of what their banter feels like and what the kinds of cow-related jokes and puns you’re going to be throwing in here a lot would feel like. As an exploratory, let’s crank out some pages. Great, but it’s not the first three pages of this pilot.

Craig: No. If for instance, your hero is a cow named Vanessa and Vanessa works at this bar. Vanessa has to go from the kitchen, around past the bar, past the dance floor, over to cross a few booths, get to somebody, it’s bottle service, or she’s bringing them whatever grass tenders and whatever they eat. As she’s walking by, she’s catching snippets of conversation.

These things are only valuable as background snippets. I don’t buy that we would want to focus our camera and our attention on them because it won’t hold our camera and our attention. What I would understand is, okay, I’m meeting somebody. She’s tired, she’s cranky. Oh, but she has to be nice to these people. Maybe she knows somebody who’s like, “Oh my God, when are you getting off? We have to get out of here and we need to talk about this thing.” She’s like, “Yes, I will. I promise.” Then someone’s like, “Hey, blah, blah, blah, give me a, blah–“ whatever, it didn’t make a scene. This isn’t a scene, this is just people– We’re just like, talking.

John: All that said, there’s nothing objectionable or wrong on these pages. Everything flows right, and it has the jokoid feeling that feels–

Craig: You said jokoid.

John: Jokoid.

Craig: That’s a problem.

John: Yes.

Craig: That is a problem.

John: It’s a problem, but what I’m saying is you don’t look at these pages and they’re like, “Oh, this is incompetent.” It’s not that.

Craig: No.

John: I feel like these brothers– I assume they’re brothers-

Craig: Yes.

John: -they can do this. This just wasn’t a very good example of the top of their craft.

Craig: Yes. I think they need to raise the bar a little bit on themselves because it’s in the form of. By the way, when I started, the very first stuff I wrote was exactly like this. It was exactly like this. It was in the form of, but it wasn’t. That’s part of the normal progress. Somebody needs to go, “Okay, it’s in the form of, so that’s good news.” You actually have internalized rhythm and general– like the idea of how to get information out without reading it off of note cards.

Now we have to think bigger, think better, and be more creative. Just always ask yourself, is the job to do the stuff I’ve seen, or is the job to do something that’s better, or different, or just truer to me that feels like it’s something that came out of me and not an imitation.

John: Drew, what was the logline for this?

Drew: “An ambitious cow and her cattle friends navigate careers and relationships in the cow-centric city of Bovine.”

John: Okay. So it’s either Friends or Sex in the City, and there’s actually a pretty wide range between the two of those.

Craig: Then I would love to– I actually don’t know the answer to this, but what was the first scene of Friends? What happened?

John: The first time in the scene of Friends is at Central Perk and Rachel is fleeing from her marriage. She shows up in a wedding dress.

Craig: Okay. There you go.

John: That’s a scene.

Craig: That’s a scene, there’s a situation, it’s on. That’s not happening here.

John: No, it’s not.

Craig: It’s not enough to say, “And they’re cows.” That’s the other thing. You can’t just say Friends, but they’re cows. What about cows? Look, I’ve written a movie about sheep, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: I’m obsessed with the things that make sheep sheep, but also make the individual sheep different from each other. What can sheep do that we can’t, and what can’t sheep do that we can? Why cows? What is that getting me other than, “Ha, ha, ha, they’re cows?” It’s got to be more.

Actually, that’s almost something that needs to happen in these first three pages, too. That a burden that Friends didn’t have was, why humans?

I need to know why cows.

John: The audience demands a certain amount of world-building and rule-setting in cow Friends that they’re not expecting in a friends-Friends.

Craig: And justification, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: What do we get, because they’re cows?

John: Let’s move on to our final three-page challenge. This is Never Die Alone by Yeong-Jay Lee.

Drew: A storm rolls in over a barge on Lake Superior. On the deck, men dig through their cargo of coal and pull out a gaunt young man with a neck tattoo. They chain him to an iron ball and push him overboard. We follow the body down to the bottom where the iron ball crashes through a sunken colonial boat, releasing a glowing sapphire, The Eye, which begins to float to the surface. Behind it, we see hundreds of bodies on the lake bed.

In the neighboring Sault Ste. Marie, a shabby car pulls up to a trailer home. Inside, Adam Withers, 17, asks his mom, Sarah, 37, if he can go and hang out with the new girl, Jenny. Sarah’s reluctant and sets a curfew for 12:00. Adam admits he’s lost his phone, which upsets Sarah, but she still lets him go. When he’s gone, Sarah returns to her phone call and cigarette.

Craig: You left out the fact that it’s The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

John: What’s this?

Craig: Gordon Lightfoot.

John: Gordon Lightfoot, right.

Craig: One of my favorites of all time. Love Gordon Lightfoot. One of my favorite Canadians. Never met him.

Drew: This is my neck of the woods.

Craig: He’s a genius, though.

John: Let’s start with the title page. I’d love to see contact information and a date. Just useful. People can find you.

Craig: Or at a minimum contact information.

John: I circled a lot of things here, and I want to talk just a little bit about stuff that got me tripped up on this first page. “I barge traversing the Stygian Lake in pouring rain.”

Craig: Stygian.

John: See, I didn’t even know how to pronounce that word. It’s a thing I’ve seen, and never actually pronounced it out loud.

Craig: The Stygian decks.

John: Yes, we’ll need the word Stygian. It’s dark.

Craig: It’s a bit ornate for this.

John: Also, because you’re saying barge, I know it’s the River Styx. Wait, so are we on a barge of the dead? I didn’t know if we were going to shore or away from shore, it’s traversing. I didn’t know where we were at, which becomes important because it’s clear that they’re headed away from shore because they’re going to dump this body.

Next two sentences, “A few men wearing raincoats pace the deck as the barge slows to a stop. Lights from a town dot the horizon. They unfasten a large tarp–“ Wait, they unfasten, the lights unfasten? It’s the men. This is one of those little small things where we’re reaching back, what is this pronoun referring to?

Craig: Yes. In the prior sense, we have a little bit of an issue here, too. Yeong-Jay, I think, you don’t have to use your full vocabulary-

John: No.

Craig: -which is impressive. When you say, “Lights from a town dot the horizon,” the way I just read that makes sense. What we read is, “Lights from a town dot the horizon.” Town dot. It just doesn’t work. You don’t need that so much. Lights dot the horizon or the distant lights of a town are seen on the horizon, if you want. Horizon isn’t a great word for night. We don’t really see the horizon at night. We just see lights in the distance. We don’t know if it’s the horizon.

More importantly, information. “Two dig through the coal.” You just want to say two– Again, what? Two? “Two dig” is not a strange one, T-W-O dig. “Two dig through the coal to reveal a face buried within. They extract a gaunt young man from the pile. He bears a neck tattoo, “Beloved.”

John: Is he already dead or not, important?

Craig: That’s my problem. I couldn’t tell if they were murdering a guy or they were just dumping a corpse. I think it’s a corpse. I hope it’s a corpse.

John: He’s unconscious, he’s not protesting.

Craig: Generally, we don’t describe corpses as gaunt young men. We say-

John: The body of a gaunt young man.

Craig: -they extract the body of a– Exactly. It’s important information because I just presume they were killing him.

John: Now, what happens after this is they are going to attach to the body, this heavyweight, it’s going to sink down, and they were going to follow this down. In an unlikely way, but in a way, that is very elaborate, it’s going to crash through the sunken thing and let loose this stuff. It felt like an opening title sequence. It felt very heightened in a way. It’s like, okay, is this whole thing super heightened? Great. If it is, but then the scene after this is not heightened. This is a very plain scene that made me wonder.

Craig: I’ve seen this transition before where you see something insane happen, and then we cut to many years later, which I assume this is many years later.

John: Oh, no, I thought it was the same time, but we don’t know. It’s end of music cue on page 2, but then we’re in a kitchen, and–

Craig: I don’t know what time. I need to know if this was earlier or later. I don’t know if this was the 1960s or ‘70s. When you play The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, it implies– When was that? The ‘70s? ‘70s. It implies that’s the timeline, even though this body doesn’t crash into the Edmund Fitzgerald, he crashes into an early colonial trading vessel.

Now, I will say that what happens here is awesome. The problem is it’s overwritten. I got lost in all the words. I’m just going to read it. “The iron ball carries him, the corpse, through the sundered wooden hull and into the captain’s quarters festooned with the trappings–” Two things. “Of a wealthy and worldly trader. The ball crashes into an ornate glass cabinet, scattering the antique curiosities within. Among them, a black leather coffer–” a lot of people won’t know what that is, “Imprinted with a cross. As it tumbles through the water, it unlatches–” I’m not sure–

John: What is it? Is it the ball we’ve been following or is it this coffer?

Craig: It’s probably the coffer, but opens, I think, would be fine there. “And The Eye drifts free. It is not an impossible sapphire–“ It is not an impossible sapphire. It is a sapphire “Glowing uncannily in the darkness.” I have a problem. Until that thing comes out, how the hell am I seeing any of the rest of this? I’m in the bottom of a lake at night.

Now, you may think, “Oh, magic light.” If you then do a light trick here, that’s part of the problem. Just like, “How do we actually do this?” Then it says, “It,” meaning the sapphire, “Floats toward the surface. As it rises, pull back to reveal hundreds of bodies scattered across the lake bed.” That’s cool. That’s a cool image to see all those bodies. Do they move?

John: Yes.

Craig: Does one of them twitch? Does something happen to make me go, “This was worth watching all that?” This is actually exciting stuff. It feels very Pirates of the Caribbean or Caribbean if you will. It’s your choice, but it’s overwritten, so actually I got lost.

John: Yes, I got lost, too. Now, I was missing a cut, too, at the end of this thing because we’re about to go to Sault Ste. Marie night, but it wasn’t clear that this was that we were leaving this sequence and going to a new thing. That’s where I thought I needed a transition.

Craig: Looking at it, I think maybe it’s not. That’s why I’m so confused because it says “Exterior Lake Superior – Night,” and then you’re right, it goes “Exterior Sault Ste. Marie – Night.” Maybe it’s at the same time. I generally don’t think that in the early 2000s, guys on boats who find buried bodies in coal, which is a weird thing to have on a boat in the 2000s, would just dump the body. It feels more like something that happens in the 1800s. Something feels– I’m confused.

John: I’m confused about times, too. We have two scene headers back to back that are both exteriors Sault Ste. Marie. Don’t do that. You need to–

Craig: Yes, that’s problematic for everybody.

John: Then we’re ultimately getting into this kitchen of a trailer home. We’re meeting Adam and Sarah, who’s apparently his mother. They’re speaking with a distinctive Yooper accent.

Yooper accent, for our international listeners, is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and it is a Finnish-Canadian thing. Just imagine it has a Finnish quality to it and the oo’s are different.

Craig: That’s why it’s Sault Ste. Marie?

John: Yes.

Craig: That’s just wrong. You’re just abusing the French language. Sorry, U.P.

John: Adam asks, “Can I go out with Jenny?” He’s 17 and he’s asking a can question, which is, sure possible, but I didn’t understand the relationship based on this can–

Craig: He’s 17 years old.

John: “I’m going out with Jenny.”

Craig: Yes, thank you. You have a driver’s license. Good. What is going on here? Why are you asking your mommy if you can go out?

John: Is she on a sex line? What is she doing? We don’t know. You’re setting up that we should be curious, and I actually need to have a little bit more information because at this point, I don’t know if she’s just customer service.

Craig: I think she’s in a meeting is my guest. I like that you were like, “Is she a sex worker on the phone?”

John: It’s night, though.

Craig: Oh, it’s night. There’s also a fawn drinking from the lake at night.

John: We don’t know if this is the same night where this body was thrown over or if it’s 20 years later.

Craig: We don’t know. Also, how late at night is this?

John: Yes, no idea.

Craig: I don’t–

John: We need this information. We know it’s before midnight because he has to be back by 12:00.

Craig: Right. Oh, yes, also 17, I guess, maybe.

John: He’s lost his phone. I don’t know.

Craig: You’ve lost your phone. What year is it again?

John: We don’t know what year it is. It’s an early 2000s Fleetwood trailer home, but it could be an old– Is it a brand new– 2000?

Craig: That’s right. We don’t know what year it is. If, for instance, it was back in the Nokia days, yes, you’d lose your phone and whatever. It’s fine.

John: It doesn’t matter much.

Craig: It doesn’t matter. I need to know. That said, look, Yeong Jay, this actually feels like there’s something awesome happening here. I love stuff like this. I love the use of the Edmund Fitzgerald. You’ve given us moments that feel like they’re from the 1800s, moments that feel like they’re from the ‘70s, moments that feel like they’re from the 2000s. We don’t know what’s going on. Pull back on the adjectives, there’s just a lot. Maybe if the other things were clearer, they would be more enjoyable, but when you have something awesome happening, let it be awesome. You don’t need to put as much ketchup on it.

John: Agreed. Drew, can you tell us the summary of what happens in this?

Craig: Never Die Alone.

Drew: “A despondent boy seeking a new lease on life discovers an eye of necromancy that grants him dominion over the dead and plunges him into a battle for his soul.”

Craig: A Necromancy of Thay. Obviously, he’s going to become a red wizard. Listen, necromantic magic is very powerful, as we both know. There’s a lot of great spells to use there. A couple of interesting cantrips. Chill Touch.

John: Toll the Dead.

Craig: Toll the Dead. Classics.

John: Classic.

Craig: Nerd.

John: It’s a–

Craig: But I like stuff like this. I see it’s a movie?

Drew: It didn’t say but I’m–

Craig: The idea of a teenager becoming a zombie lord is awesome.

John: Sure.

Craig: That could be awesome but who’s the villain? We need a little bit more of a sense of just read that again. It said what happens to him after–

Drew: “A despondent boy seeking a new lease on life, discovers an eye of necromancy that grants him dominion over the dead and plunges him into a battle for his soul.”

Craig: The last bit is the problem. Plunges him with whom? That’s the most important thing to know from that logline. Plunges him into a battle with a mysterious visitor for his soul, with Satan, with the spirit of his own grandfather, whatever it is. That just sounds existential, which feels boring. I think this could be cool.

John: Yes, it could be cool.

Craig: Yeong-Jay got a good vocabulary, I’ll give you that.

John: All right. I want to thank our three entrants into the three-page challenge this week.

Craig: Brave people.

John: Brave people. Thanks to everyone else who sent in your pages. If you would like to send in your pages, you go to johnaaugust.com/threepage, all typed out. There’s a little form there that you read through and click, and then you attach your PDF to it. If you’re a premium member, we will often send out a little email saying, “Hey, we’re about to do a three-page challenge, and we’re looking for things in a certain space,” and so that’s a benefit if you’re a premium member.

We really want to thank everyone who applied because you guys are heroes and let’s talk about the actual words on the page.

All right, let’s do our One Cool Things. Craig, my one cool thing is a movie I watched over the weekend called Strange Darling, and it is terrific. It is written and directed by JT Mollner. Everyone says– Which is true, that the less you know going into it, the better because it’s full of surprises, which is great.

That said, you need to know that it’s bloody because if you don’t like a bloody movie, you’re not going to want to watch that. Also, you’ll know from the very start that it’s in six chapters, but the chapters are not in order. What I think is so good about watching this as a screenwriter is you recognize, “Oh, that’s right. A story is told by the way the audience receives it and the order the audience receives it, not chronologically.”

The choice to put the chapters in this order is an incredibly important screenwriting decision, and you could not reverse it out of this. The story doesn’t work if it’s told chronologically. It’s such a great example of knowing what your audience is thinking and then being able to subvert those expectations by–

Craig: Putting things–

John: Putting things back.

Craig: Being intentional. That sounds awesome.

John: Intentionality.

Craig: I also have a movie.

John: Please.

Craig: My winkle thing. I think it’s a A24 movie, possibly, called My Old Ass.

John: Oh, yes. I think people love it.

Craig: It’s lovely. It was written and directed by Megan Park, Canadian. In my list of Canadians, it’s going to be hard again, to get past Gordon Lightfoot, but she has moved up the list. What I really like about it, it’s a comedy, but it’s like a weepy comedy. It’s a coming-of-age story. It’s very simple. It is simple, short. It’s a formula without being a formula, which I love. It follows the stuff about the formula that connects to us on a deep level, which is why the formula became the formula, without just feeling like it’s walking along a similar path.

It does its own thing. It felt to me incredibly current. It was easy for us when we watched John Hughes’ movies in the ‘80s to go, “Oh, this older person gets us. He’s generally speaking, in our world.” This felt like that for 20-somethings now. It just felt correct, felt true. It stars Maisy Stella, who was fantastic. She’s opposite two people. One is Aubrey Plaza-

John: Iconic.

Craig: -who was great. One is this guy, Percy Hynes White, who I wasn’t familiar with, but I think he was in Wednesday, and I think he was briefly canceled and then got uncanceled. I thought he was spectacular. The two of them together, I just thought it was just fascinating. It was really, really well done. There’s a high concept at it that they treat as low concept as possible. There’s no spoiler here, it’s in the trailers. I guess she’s 22 or whatever she is in the movie?

Drew: She’s 19.

Craig: 19. It’s all the same to me, I’m 53, it doesn’t matter. 19 years old. She’s about to leave home. She lives in Canada, which took me a while to figure out, but Maisy Stella is from Canada. She takes mushrooms with her friends, has a psychedelic experience, but the psychedelic experience is merely that her 39-year-old self shows up and just has a conversation with her, and starts telling her things. That high concept is played as low concept as possible. It’s almost like they saw a looper and went, “We could be even less invested in the who cares how this worksness of it,” which I thought was really smart. It was just very beautifully done, well written. Really well written.

John: Yes, I love that.

Craig: Also, well directed. I really appreciate directors who don’t make me look at how they’re directing so damn much and just let the story lead us and just get out of the way. It’s like invisible directing, my favorite kind.

John: That’s great. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilleli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you’re an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for a weekly newsletter called Interesting, which is lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great, you’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. Craig, thanks so much.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, so I was just describing this movie that I like so much, Strange Darling, and I didn’t want to spoil anything about it. So I wanted, in our bonus segment here, talk through how we discuss and convince people to see movies or talk about movies without ruining what’s actually in them. For example, I saw the new Joker movie, and there’s things I really liked about it, but things that I think didn’t work about it. It’s tough to discuss those things without revealing big stuff that happens in it.

Craig: For starters, I think, we overestimate our ability to convince people to do anything.

John: True.

Craig: We get excited about, I’m going to convince you to see this because I liked it. I see that you’re not leaning in hard enough. Let me give you another bit, or let me tell you that something happens that completely flips you out. When you get there, you’re going to be so happy. Then maybe you won’t because that’s how that goes. So I think we start to tread towards spoilers when we’re worried the people are going to do what we want them to do.

The easiest version would be to say, you’re describing this movie and you’re like, “You should see it. I think you would love it. If you don’t, I’m sorry. I think you’re going to love it. You just look in them like stuff happens that you will like.”

John: I also feel like anything that shows up in the trailers or shows up in the first three minutes of the movie, that’s–

Craig: Fair game.

John: Yes, it’s completely fair game.

Craig: Like My Old Ass. There’s not this moment– Obviously, in the movie, it’s like, “What? Who? You? What? What do you mean?” The characters can experience that. We all know from the trailers that’s what this thing is about, so that’s fine for us because it’s in the first, 10 minutes of the movie. It’s all the stuff that happens after. Yes, there is something big that happens that if I mentioned it or even refer to it obliquely, would be a massive spoiler. Even saying there’s a massive spoiler in a way is a spoiler.

John: That is one of the challenges, too. That’s what I was running into with Strange Darling, it’s like, if I say things about the performances or the surprising things in the performances, as you start to watch the movie, then you start looking for, “Oh, when is this surprising revelation going to happen?”

Craig: I had this wonderful experience– I think I might’ve mentioned on the show, of showing Bella Ramsey The Matrix. Not only had she not seen it, she knew nothing about it. That was so glorious. I was like, “So you’ve never–“ She’s like, “I’ve heard of it, but I don’t know anything about it.” I’m like, “I’m going to tell you nothing. Let’s just watch.”

And the delight– And it was experiencing it again in the best possible way, as opposed to, ”Oh yes, The Matrix, man, it’s going to blow your mind. It’s got this mind-blowing thing in the middle, it’s going to freak you out.” Then everything’s going to be, “Don’t worry, you won’t know what’s going on, you’ll be confused, but then you won’t be–“ None of that, just go ahead.

John: My experience with this recently was showing my daughter Too Many Cooks. It was fun watching it with her, because it was like, “Oh, okay, I sot of get it.” Then in the end it was like, “I did not like that,” because it goes to this incredibly dark place.

Craig: You shouldn’t like it, you should appreciate it.

John: Yes, absolutely.

Craig: Exactly. Sometimes you just want people to have the same experience you had, but by telling them anything about your experience, you’re ruining their chance of having that experience that you had. It’s hard.

John: There’s a movie that I’m talking about doing a remake of, and so I described it to Drew, but I had Drew watch it. I was talking through, “Oh, these are moments that I think are really good, but there’s something coming out that you haven’t hit yet that’s actually a really good version of this scene and this moment.” It’s that balance between you want to provide a framework for why it is you’re liking this thing, even if the movie is not necessarily great. What the potentials are there, and still not spoil the experience of actually getting there.

Craig: Then burdening the person with pleasing you. I just want them to watch something, I don’t need them to turn to me and go, “Oh, you were right, that is awesome.” I don’t want them thinking about me at all, just watch it. I always say to people, “Listen, I love this, you may not.” I say, “If you feel, as you’re going through, “Okay, I’ve seen enough of this, I get what’s going on.” Just stop. It’s fine, just bail out.

Drew: What do you do if, so I feel like I’m at a lot of parties or get-togethers where maybe one or two people haven’t seen a movie, but then like, you brought up My Old Ass, and there’s a thing I want to talk to you about, but John hasn’t seen it, so I don’t want to– Do you just say like, “Oh my God [beep].”

Craig: No, don’t say that.

Drew: Okay.

Craig: Also, just be patient. You’d be like, “Okay, at some point, when it’s just the two of us here,”–

John: Absolutely, when he goes off to get a beer then we’re going to talk about this.

Craig: Yes, I just want to talk real fast about this. I don’t want to pull you away from them or anything like that, but if you love it and you want to have that moment where you love something with somebody together, just be patient. If you do the thing, what happens is, I think people resent it. They resent it because they feel like, “You know what? Then I’m not going to see it, actually.” Fine, you love it so much that you need to talk about it, I don’t want it.

John: I listen to Slate Culture Gabfest, and on that show, they will often do a segment about a movie, but then if they need to, as their bonus segment, they’ll do like, “This is the spoiler part of this stuff, and then we’re going to talk about all this stuff.” That’s also another good approach. It’s just like, there’s the conversation you have going into it, and then the expectation that behind a paywall or behind a little divider curtain, “Here’s where we’ll talk about the other stuff.”

The same thing could be true for online posting. It’s like you put it in a place that is spoiler forum or you use the spoiler tag on things so that people don’t see the stuff that they don’t want to see.

Craig: So much easier in that format. Spoiler tag is great. Sometimes I’m looking for something about, let’s say, it was Baldur’s Gate 3, and I’m like, “Okay, I know this thing is supposed to be here, I can’t find it. Let me go and see what the answer is.” Then it’ll go on Reddit and someone will be like, “Oh, here it is.”

Then there’s all this other discussion, and people are really actually pretty decent about spoilers. Then you’re like, “I don’t actually want to know that, so I won’t click on that. I won’t click the fog of war there and reveal it.”

John: Yes, which is crucial. And the fog of war is actually the right, I think, metaphor for that. Because in fog of war, in gaming terms, is that as you pass through a space, you expose the stuff around you, and therefore you can start to see those things. Going in, you’re not supposed to know what the geography of a place is.

Craig: Right, sometimes there are movies where I’m like, “Look, I have no interest in seeing that movie. It’s not my genre, it’s not my thing.” People are talking about it, it’s annoying. I’m just going to go see what it is so that I don’t have to be annoyed and walk away from people. As if I’m going to see that movie one day, I know I’m not.

John: Mike’s thing is he’ll just like, “I will look up the Wikipedia article on it and just read it because I know I’m never going to see that movie, but I’ll know what actually happens.”

Craig: At least, I just don’t have to walk away from people. Sometimes people say, “Do you care if I spoil it?” I’m like, “Absolutely not. Just spoil away.” Never going to see it. I think the real problem is when we’re trying to convince people to do something that maybe they don’t want to do. It’s like we make a trailer that gives away too much with our mouths.

John: Yes. And I’m sure you’re constantly grappling with that on your show. It’s like in your ideal world you would love for everyone to come in completely clean and not have a sense of what– I haven’t watched the trailer for your show because I don’t want to know anything about how it’s going to be this season.

Craig: You don’t get hard information but you definitely learn things. It’s an interesting thing, adapting something that exists.

John: Yes, that’s true.

Craig: I don’t worry so much about the spoiler stuff because, to me, if you’re not in for the journey and the interesting things we do in a different format, then if you’re just watching it to find out the– It’s not Lost, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: I don’t need to know what happens. What is the island? There is none of that for us really. It’s not about that. It is why I had the nuclear reactor blow up instantly in Chernobyl because I’m like, spoiler, it blows up. Let’s just get that out of the way. It blowed up.

John: Yes, absolutely. Cool, thanks.

Craig: Thanks.

Links:

• Quote-Unquote Marketing Director – Apply Here!
• Veteran Script Coordinator on YouTube
• Why aren’t smart people happier? by Adam Mastroianni
• Middle Aged Man – SNL
• FLUNGE by J Wheeler White, COWS by John and Mark DiStefano, and NEVER DIE ALONE by Yeong-Jay Lee
• The Cutting Edge
• Strange Darling
• My Old Ass
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
• Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
• John August on Threads, Instagram, Twitter and Mastodon
• Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

Craig Mazin: Hi. Today’s episode features an enormous amount of profane language, and not for any reason. I just felt like cursing. If you have kids in the car or anybody that doesn’t enjoy that sort of thing, earmuffs on.

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

Craig: [Underwater voice] Hello, and this is Craig Mazin.

John: This is Episode 658 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we open our overflowing mailbag to tackle listener questions on collaboration, non-disclosure agreements, self-delusion, and when to switch jobs.

Craig: I like self-delusion.

John: Are you going to switch your job?

Craig: If I said yes, I would be engaging in some serious self-delusion.

John: Yes. Our bonus segment for premium members, which English words do we recognize but never actually use? We’ll discuss those words. We’re too chicken to try. I have a list of those.

Craig: Okay. That’s fun.

John: First, Craig, we have some actual news, a thing that has changed in the world. For as long as you have been a member of the WGA, you’ve been looking for your big green envelopes.

Craig: Oh my God. The WGA sent an update to us all. It was almost like, “Hey, we are now accepting your mobile phone number instead of your landline.” It was that overdue and out of date, but they are finally doing direct deposit of residuals into your bank account. Why it took them this long, I’m sure there’s a reason.

John: Yes. I can tell you some of the reasons why.

Craig: Yes. I’d love to know.

John: It was a subject of negotiation every time we went in with the studios.

Craig: Really?

John: Yeah. Because if you think about it, residual checks, they’re coming from the WGA, but they’re actually really coming from the individual studios. That relationship between the studios and the person being paid is complicated. Usually direct deposit is simple because you have direct deposit from just your one employer. Because they’re coming from all these different accounts, getting it all together to happen was an issue.

Craig: Just out of curiosity, because I don’t understand banking. I think everybody knows that about me. The WGA would collect the money and then it would conglomerate it into a paper check that came from the WGA to me. The companies weren’t paying me, right? The WGA was paying me.

John: The companies are ultimately paying you. There’s accounting that goes behind it too. It was more complicated than you would think.

Craig: It must have been.

John: Because obviously for 20 years we’ve been talking about this.

Craig: Right. It was crazy. The idea that paper checks were still– the cost of it all.

John: The cost of it all, yes.

Craig: Especially when you would get–

John: The checks would get lost.

Craig: Sometimes you get those weird residuals that are valued at less than the cost of the stamp.

John: It’s a good change. It just took a long time for it to happen. They’re rolling it out in phases, which makes sense.

Craig: Oh, you mean I’m one of the lucky ones that got it early?

John: Yes. Maybe I got it now, but my checks have been going to my business manager, so I’ve not actually seen the big green envelopes coming in.

Craig: Well, same. Nonetheless, I was happy for them. Business managers, particularly the large companies, the amount of those envelopes they have to process every week from writers and directors and actors, the opening of the things and the pens and the check and blah, blah, blah, so annoying. So, hooray. I’d love to really know–

John: What were the real obstacles, yes.

Craig: So strange, but thank God.

John: Thank God. We are a business that is being employed gig to gig, so all of our paychecks are coming through different services, but the same kind of payroll services that do things a lot. It makes sense that there should be some relationship electronically that they could figure out. So I’m not–

Craig: No, there is, obviously, because they did.

John: Yes. Making them partners.

Craig: It’s just whoever was responsible for this logjam, it is an interesting thing. Bureaucracies can harden themselves to things. When I was involved in the public schools in La Cuñada, here in California, which is a small school district, one of the first things that I encountered was that technologically, they weren’t just behind. They were so far behind, they were using software and a server that no one had really heard of or seen since the mid-‘90s. Basically, the guy who ran it was like– it was like when you’re trying to take your dog somewhere and they don’t want to go and they just plant their legs and you have to drag them. Eventually, he just got reassigned.

Somebody else came in and was like, “Oh my God. What?” But that was what they knew. The thought of a new system terrified everybody. They worried that the system will make them redundant. Sometimes there’s just this weird bureaucratic, what do you call it, cruft?

John: Cruft, yes.

Craig: Cruft.

John: That’s absolutely true. Sometimes it’s the gatekeeper, decision-makers, the doctors. Sometimes it’s the individual teachers who are so used to their one way of doing things, they don’t have the bandwidth to learn a new thing. Then other times, it’s just this acknowledgement that trying to change the system is going to be really difficult. My daughter’s at BU, and they changed the way this one financial thing works there. It’s just been absolute chaos to get bills paid.

Craig: That’s the thing that they all worry about. On the other hand, there are ways to transition to new technologies that are smooth, if they’re well thought through, well-planned. My goodness, the amount of meetings that must have occurred.

John: Oh, yeah.

Craig: It makes me shudder to think of having to sit through the quantity of meetings at the Writer’s Guild to transition to direct deposit. I don’t even want to think about it.

John: It’s going to be a lot. Well, as we talk about trying to transition people off of using Final Draft for everything, or the sense of colored pages, or the sense of locked pages, it’s tough because people are used to a thing.

Craig: Yes. And they’re afraid.

John: They’re afraid.

Craig: Oh, by the way, a little tip of the hat to our friends at Scriptation, because they sent me a free copy. Because I guess I mentioned on the show today, I was like, “I don’t have it.” Then they didn’t think like, “Oh, he can afford it.” They just sent me a free one. I would have also gone with if they had just been like, “Dude, buy a copy. Stupid.” They were very nice and they gave me one.

John: They gave me one too.

Craig: I downloaded it.

John: Nice. That’s the first step.

Craig: That’s the first step.

John: I agree, bit by bit. Back at Episode 654, we were talking about AI training. There was basically this service that was trying to hire WGA members to train on scripts.

Craig: Oh my God. Yes.

John: Peter wrote in and actually had his experience as a person who does this. Drew.

Drew Marquardt: Peter says, “I make between $20 and $30 an hour having conversations, editing text, and reviewing other workers’ conversations with AI chatbots. I work with General Models, LLMs designed to be personal assistants. I’m a 30-year-old actor, writer, and producer. To be clear, I’m not making it yet in the industry. I’m not yet in the Writer’s Guild. I audition for all kinds of projects and write all the time. I show up on my friends and colleagues’ sets to lend a hand when I can and will do whatever work I’m capable of.

There’s not as much of this happening right now and much less of it tied to a paycheck. I’d love to avoid this, but it pays my bills while I struggle to break into entertainment in a financially meaningful way. I set my own hours and my coworkers who are AI models are non-toxic, two things I highly value after working for years in the corporate service industry.

If I were a WGA writer, I would likely not volunteer to train a model specified to write, engineer, or filter scripts, even at $100 an hour. That said, as someone who’s been waiting for the chance to write and look at words all day and simultaneously make money, I’m extremely happy with this new position. I worry that I’m stealing from myself and my peers in the future, but the groceries I need to buy exist in the present.”

Craig: Well, that’s how they get you. Yes, you should be worried that you are stealing from yourself and everybody else in the future. Also, you should be worried about buying groceries, and this is how they get you. I think we were pretty clear when we discussed this last time that we certainly did not sit in moral judgment of somebody that needed to pay bills.

You need to pay bills. You need to pay bills. There are obviously other ways to pay bills. Everybody does have a choice. Peter has certain values. He doesn’t want to work in the corporate service industry. Do not blame him. He doesn’t want to deal with toxic coworkers. Don’t blame him. He’s training assistants, not AI writing.

From our point of view, okay. If I were an assistant out there, I would not like this at all.

John: Assistant is a pretty broad category. What Peter is doing is sort of making Siri better, like making those kinds of things. That’s also an assistant.

Craig: Yes, and hopefully that’s what it is. Then, okay, because I’m also a realist and I understand if Peter doesn’t do it, then Michelle will. Somebody’s going to do it. I understand this completely. I do think that we just have to be mindful that it’s not Peter’s fault. It’s the system and our business’s fault that it is driving people like Peter into the arms of the AI fuck masters.

John: I guess the language warning has to go on this.

Craig: Yes, I thought about it for a second. I was like, “It’s worth it.”

John: We had more follow-up from Kevin in San Francisco.

Drew: Kevin says, “Have you ever considered training an AI on the Scriptnotes transcripts? You could train an AI to create co-hosts that could fill in when one or both of you are too busy to record.”

John: Which one of us is going to be too busy to record, Craig? I wonder who would get filled in more often.

Craig: “It’s not my fault. I’m just trying to do my job.” Yes, we should totally do our job.

John: We totally have done that. You’ll remember this. Back in Episode 405, that was the one with Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone at the Ace Hotel, I had used a Markov chain generator, which is a very early rudimentary version of this thing, to create these synthetic statements of quotes from me and Craig, and we played a game called Bot or Not. We had to figure out, was that a real thing that we said or a robot?
Then in prepping for the script notes book, I had a resident genius named Yusefi train a version of ChatGPT-3, the older one, on the whole corpus of Scriptnotes to see if we could ask questions like, “Give me quotes from John and Craig talking about stakes.” We could search through the whole thing and then pull up the stuff because that’s useful. It’s not writing the stuff, but basically, can you gather up all the stuff–

Craig: Gather the things we’ve said.

John: We’ve said. It worked, but it was really kludgy, it was Python, it was really a brutal process. That was April 2023, and so just yesterday, I should say that nothing in the book is AI-generated at all, it’s 100%–

Craig: You’re goddamn right.

John: You’re goddamn right. It’s the stuff we said, edited by Drew and Chris and other folks who’ve just worked their asses off to do this, but yesterday, I went on perplexity.ai, which is one of the other big sort of LLM services, and I asked it to give me quotes from script notes in which John and Craig talk about stakes. That’s the only prompt I gave it, and holy shit, did it really come back with a lot. Craig, I’m going to show you the resulting page here.

Craig: I can get my glasses on for this.

John: All right.

Craig: It says, “In Episode 402 Scriptnotes titled How Do You Like Your stakes, John August and Craig Mazin delve into the concept of stakes in storytelling.” I have a problem with that first sentence, but that’s fine. “Here are some notable quotes from their discussion. John emphasizes the importance of understanding the stakes for each character. ‘When we talk about stakes, our key focus has to be our hero, our protagonist, and what are the stakes for that character?’” Okay, so it’s just– “But it’s important to remember that there should be stakes for most of these characters and they don’t have to be the same stakes.

Craig adds that different characters may have competing stakes. ‘For some characters in the show, the stakes are love. For other people, the stakes are I have to keep this government together, and If I fail, then there’s going to be chaos.’” Well, that one actually was sort of interesting because it introduced the idea of competing stakes based on what I said. That’s fairly impressive. Certainly, this looks like a book report from a very bland person.

John: I think what is remarkable, which is what we were trying to do when I had Nima train this himself, was it’s not hallucinating a bunch of stuff. It’s pulling quotes and you can actually click and see like, “Oh, that is where that this is from.” That is useful as a research tool, which I think is the kind of thing that I’m actually okay with. If it’s doing the job that a Google search would do, I’m much better with that than if it’s generating stuff.

Craig: I agree with you. Part of this is to not fall into the trap that a million math teachers fell into when we were growing up, which is to say calculators are cheating. No, they’re not. There’s really no benefit in knowing how to add three numbers together. There actually isn’t. If a calculator can do it, what’s the difference? If you want to be a mathematician, you have to understand the fundamentals behind that. I understand. Once you understand the fundamentals, what’s the point of requiring you to do it by hand? It’s stupid. It just comes down to [makes crazy sounds] I don’t think we should be that way with stuff like this.

If you say, “Listen, you have to go through by hand and pull all the things,” and it’s just drudge work, then yes, I’m fine with something that makes drudge work faster, sure. I would not be fine with saying, “Hey, ChatGPT-4…” is that what you use here?

John: This is actually perplexity.

Craig: Perplexity. “Hey Perplexity, go through all 600 and whatever episodes and write a book.” Nor, as the Australians say. Nor.

John: I agree. To your point about adding three numbers, there was a recent study, and I’ll try to find a link to it, that was talking about, I think it was college students who were encouraged to use AI to learn how to do certain things and basically studying how much did it help them when they were doing the thing right then, but how much did they actually retain in terms of their skills to actually do the thing? It helped them in the short term and it hurt them in the long term because they didn’t fundamentally learn how a thing worked. That’s the subtlety that I think we need to get past is that sometimes these AI systems are so good at doing certain tasks that we forget how to do them and we don’t understand the fundamental things behind this.

Drew, you have an example of this for Weekend Read, right? You were trying to– these duplicated lines that were showing up in a script that you were trying to clean up.

Drew: Yes, the OCR for a script had doubled every sentence, but it wasn’t perfect sentences. I tried to go to ChatGPT to have it make a Python code to just, or even a regular expressions thing to just take away that second sentence and it was nearly impossible.

John: The challenge is, Drew has the expertise to know how to ask ChatGPT to do a thing, but not really to understand how it’s doing the thing. It’s not a generalizable skill.

Craig: Yes, it seems to me that if you use these tools to take something you know how to do, but do it much, much faster, sure. That’s what– I can multiply any two numbers together. Doesn’t matter how big they are. Might take me a week if they’re really, really big. Calculator can do that instantly. So fine, do it instantly. I know how to do it.

John: Example of trying to use an LLM for a good purpose. This is when I tried this last week was, the prompt was, have a conversation with me in Spanish, correct me in English if I say anything wrong, and you can start your questioning with something about what I did today. It just becomes a back-and-forth conversation in Spanish. When I will freely make mistakes in front of this thing and will correct the mistakes, but then the conversation will continue. That was genuinely useful for me.

Craig: That’s actually a brilliant idea. That’s a really interesting way to learn a language. People generally say the best way to learn a language is just immerse yourself somewhere where you don’t know the language and you’re going to have to figure it out. If you talk to ChatGPT all day long and it’s speaking another language and it’s correcting you in that language, slowing down and repeating it, now that seems like a really good way of learning something. Did it insult you when you got things wrong?

John: I didn’t ask it to be snotty and insulting.

Craig: I would.

John: They’re very good at those tonal shifts, so I’m sure they could do that for you.

Craig: Did it ever sigh in exasperation? Like, “How many fucking times–“ there goes a language warning. “How many fucking times do I have to tell you? That’s a masculine word, not a feminine word. You goddamn moron.”

John: Yes. There’s a little of that.

Craig: That’s what I would set it to.

John: A little shame.

Craig: Because that’s how I learn best.

John: Absolutely. It’s well established that shame and abuse are really–

Craig: My love language.

John: We have more feedback on GitHub for screenplays. This is, again, I think that same episode we talked about how ideas of merging changes and like a bunch of whole established ways in coding, which you can– most people have been working on a code base and you can merge those changes. Someone with firsthand experience wrote in with their expertise.

Drew: “Tried and Failed writes, John and Craig are absolutely correct about Git being ineffective for script collaboration. I’m a software developer for a major innovative service vendor in the film industry. I was on a highly-skilled team that was instructed to build an internal screenplay-related tool with a Git backend and like a nice UI. We reluctantly built it and got it to production and the experience was awful for us and our poor users. The Git approach quickly descended into corner case hell.

Git works for code because the what and the why are explicitly expressed in code and comments with tightly bound atomic change sets. Screenplays are so different. They’re an incomplete product of sprawling intentions. A lot of what makes a screenplay effective happens off the page and the bones supporting that are rarely expressed atomically in text. I’ve used revision control for three decades and I assure you merging complex script changes was way more difficult than complex code changes.

As programmers, we dread huge unfocused pull requests, but with screenplay change sets, that’s the norm, not the exception. Revision control was the wrong approach.”

Craig: Yeah, seemed pretty clear to us. John, do you know what GitHub is called in the astral plane?

John: It’s something Githyanki?

Craig: It’s GithHub.

John: It’s GithHub, very nice, yes. Just for the D&D players out there.

Craig: Yes, GitHub is the wrong tool. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a great tool for collaborating on code, clearly. It’s very popular, but no. Screenwriting is not a matter of revision tracking. Revision tracking is secondary. Most of the revision tracking we do, we do even individually, just for ourselves. Then we show other people so that they can see what changed, not to make different changes. But when people are writing together, the changes should be happening together. When I was writing with Todd Phillips, we would sit side by side, computer in front of me. I would type because I type faster.

We would just talk through everything and just do it. That, to me, seems like still the best way, but there are solutions that aren’t so obsessed with revision tracking, but rather just we’re writing together. More like a shared Google Doc. Writer Duet sort of functions like this.

John: One of the points that he brings up here, which I think is really interesting, is that in code, you’re supposed to put in comments to sort of say like, “What’s actually happening here?” That would be a really great practice for writing in terms of like what is this scene? What has changed?

Craig: It’s so exhausting.

John: It’d be exhausting. One of the things we do in Highland is we have this thing called synopsis. Basically, we start a line with an equal sign. It doesn’t show up in the script, but it shows up in the actual editor. That is actually really useful for mapping out stuff. I wonder if it’d be a good practice to start just saying like, “This is what’s actually happening here. This is the intention, or this is why I changed this thing.” Because there’s an episode of a different podcast that’s coming out down the road, and a script that I’d written 20 years ago, they called to ask me about like, “Well, why is this thing this way?” I’m looking at the script, I have no idea.

I have no idea when this idea was introduced, but if it had some commenting in there, I could maybe figure it out.

Craig: I know that Final Draft and Fade In have a notes feature, which essentially, is the same thing. I never use it because, again, I just write for myself. Sometimes what I’ll do when I’m talking with people about– so I’ll sit with a director and we’ll go through the script, and we’ll have a discussion, and they may bring up a great point like, “Oh, you said this, but actually they don’t have the walkie-talkie right now.” I’ll just, I’ve set up a new revision level. I’ll just type my notes in bold, all caps. Then I go back, erase, and do the things that I want to change. That’s just for me.

John: I use synopses for the same thing, basically. I’m basically like bullet-pointing, like, “This is what’s going to happen here.”

Craig: Yeah, it’s a nice idea to think that we could go back and actually have a library of intentions, but writing’s hard enough. It’s just not– Also, I’m not sure to whom it would be super useful.

John: A thing we can already do is track changes, and so basically I’ll say compare this script to this script and see what changed, and with that sort of showing what changed, you can generally understand why, if you’re doing that close enough to the time that you actually did it. It’s like, “These are the reasons why I did that.” It would be a good practice to go in and, as you’re delivering a new script, just to spend the 10 minutes of like, “This is what actually happened in this draft.” Sometimes I can check the email that I sent with the draft and say like, “Here’s what’s new, here’s what’s different, and that’s a way to–” It doesn’t stick with the script.

Craig: It doesn’t. Season one, our script coordinator was very thorough about this. I think she would send a change log with every draft. Nobody read it. Nobody cared about it. They just looked for the asterisks, and then were like, “Okay, that’s the new stuff.” This season, I don’t think we did a change log. It just seems like nobody pays any attention to it.

John: In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, because there was no script coordinator. I was essentially the script coordinator. When I would send it through a color revisions, I would bullet point like, “These are the things that have changed.”

Craig: Oh, definitely. If it’s that kind of thing where I need people to know, but by the time we get into production, it’s all the product of meetings and things anyway, and generally no one cares. They are just, “Where’s my instruction set?” “Oh, I no longer have to do this with five people. I only have to do it with three people. Okay.” “We’re not shooting over there. We don’t have to build that anymore. Okay.” In development, it’s an easy thing to sort of say, “Hey, here’s what we’re doing. Here’s how it changed.”

John: Classically in TV, which is probably not your experience doing the show for HBO, but you would deliver an outline to the studio and then to the network, and they would give you notes back on this thing. In the follow-up phone calls and in the follow-up documents you’re sending through, you would make it clear like, “These are how we are addressing the notes that you sent through.” And that gives you some history on what’s actually happened here, but it’s not the same as what I think we’re asking for.

Craig: We do that with cuts. We’ll send a cut to the network and then HBO will have thoughts and then what I’ll do is I make what I call the little Christmas tree document. After absorbing them and looking through the material we have and also considering, do I agree? I will send back a response that’s basically, I just highlight their notes and I paint them either red or green. If I paint them red, I explain why I can’t or don’t want to do them. If I paint them green, I tell them how I either will be doing them or here’s the way we’re going to address this or we’re going to try at the very least. That stuff is all worth changelogging.

John: Well, we have a bunch of listener questions. It’s been a while since you and I’ve done this. Drew, help us out.

Drew: Yes, we’ll start with two questions on being torn between two jobs. SoVeryTired writes, “I’m a writer/director and VFX artist in LA. The lead actress from my last short has asked if I can help out with visual effects for a proof-of-concept pilot she wants to make. She’s made it clear this project already has a writer and director. She’s asked me to come on in a VFX artist capacity, which is my day job. My aspiration is to be a writer/director. My question is, how do you choose which projects to say yes to when you’re early in your career? I wouldn’t get paid much, if anything, for this. It’s definitely not about the money. I’ve asked to see an outline or script to see if it’s something I’m interested in.

Should I choose based on whether or not I’m interested in it or whether I think it has legs and might get picked up? I’m sure you’re going to say not to get involved if I don’t believe in the project, but nothing else I’ve made thus far has gotten me work. What if this project could be the one to get me noticed?”

Craig: What was the name of this person?

Drew: SoVeryTired.

John: SoVeryTired.

Craig: SoVeryTired, what you were sure of is incorrect. This sounds like you’re early in your career. Generally speaking, when it’s early in your career, I think the notion of opportunity cost is overemphasized. Your day is more elastic than you think. You have more time than you think. You have more energy than you think. Say yes, if you can. As long as it’s not clearly taking you away from something else.

It doesn’t sound like the conundrum is, “I am supposed to do this, which could help my career in terms of my creative output, but it’s not a lot of money. This over here is offering me a bunch of money for something that isn’t necessarily going to advance my career. What do I do? I’m torn between money or aspiration.” That’s not what’s happening here.

Nobody was healthy in the ‘90s, emotionally, and no one had any pride, because I did–

John: Or boundaries.

Craig: Or boundaries or anything. No one talked this way. No one. No one was like, “Oh, don’t do anything that your heart…” No, I did it. Nothing I did for 10 years had anything to do with what I wanted to do. I was just like, “Get me working. Get me knowing people. Get me experience. Have me prove to the people that do these things that I am reliable and talented.” Everyone’s path to that is different.

Your path to it was way different than mine. Your path was shorter. It was more efficient. I doubt there was much of a time where you were like, “Oh yes, I’m not going to do–“ you were 24 and you’re like, “I’m not doing that rewrite for this amount of money because it’s just not where my heart is, even though I have nothing else going on at the moment.” No, you just say yes.

John: I think saying yes is the right approach to most of these situations. I would say, you’re publicly saying yes, but internally, you should also be thinking about what is it I hope to get out of this experience? Do I want to meet some new people? Do I want to try this new visual effects tool that I’ve not gotten a chance to use? Do I want to get more stuff from my reel? SoVeryTired, you say that you are a writer/director, and VFX artist. If your goal is really to be a writer/director, do be mindful that you’re not only taking VFX jobs and never actually getting around to the thing that you actually want to do, which is writer/director.

There is a reality of people sometimes will distract themselves by taking a bunch of not-so-meaningful stuff because they know their main goal is hard. You’re young, you’re early in your career, do the things. If people are asking you to do a thing, say yes.

Craig: First of all, you’re not very tired. I’m sorry. You can’t be that tired yet. I’m very tired. I’m very tired. I just shot 12 hours a day for 7 months. I’m 53 years old. I’m very tired. You can’t be very– if you’re this tired already, bad news for you. Now, I’m making presumptions. Because even though it’s early in his career, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s early in his life. He could be 70 for all I know. Doesn’t matter. When you start, the one thing you really can’t afford to be is tired. This is when you’re supposed to have boundless energy. This is actually a pep talk.

I agree with John. If you go into this VFX thing, if it’s for a little bit of money or whatever, you’re hoping to get something out of it. Sometimes, you know what, you don’t know who you’re going to meet. That’s the crazy part. You don’t know who you’re going to meet on this gig. That person– how many stories are there of like two PAs meet, love each other creatively, write a script, become a thing? That happens.

John: Here’s what we’re not saying. We’re not saying you should do a thing that your spider sense says, “Don’t do.”

Craig: Of course.

John: If there’s people involved, you’re like, “I don’t think these are good people,” then that’s not worth your time.

Craig: Correct.

John: Don’t say yes to bad situations.

Craig: You want to basically say yes to things that you are actively interested in or things that don’t seem offensive and may therefore get you some additional experience. You want to be a writer/director? Well, bad news, hardest thing to be, rarest thing to be. We’ve talked a lot about shorts, which everyone seems to have and no one seems to watch, and the questionable value of those.

John: We have a question about that today.

Craig: Oh, well, you know what, maybe we’ll get to that question if I shut the fuck up. Once we do it, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: Once we do it, we do it. It’s been a long time. It’s been a long time since I cursed on this show.

John: On this show?

Craig: Yes. It’s pointless.

Drew: A second question here from Ben. Ben writes, “I’m an office coordinator in the facilities and real estate department for a major film studio. I took this job to make connections and hopefully get a job as a screenwriter. However, I find myself at an impasse today because of a few different factors. First, a lot of the connections and development that I’ve made were just laid off. Second, I just received an offer doing the same facilities job, but at a video game studio for double the pay. Finally, I recently got a publishing agent who also handles film and TV rights for my books, and I really enjoy writing novels now, not just screenplays.

If you were in my shoes, would you take the video game job and know that you’ll still be writing novels that have a slim chance of getting turned into movies anyway, or would you stay at the film studio and try to make more connections?

John: This one is so easy to me.

Craig: We’ve never had more of a slam dunk in our lives.

John: Take the video game job.

Craig: Oh my God.

John: You’re working in the facilities and real estate department for a major film studio. That’s nothing.

Craig: That’s like working in the facilities and office coordination area at Ralph’s or anywhere. It doesn’t matter. The fact that it’s at a studio is completely irrelevant.

John: If you worked at Universal Studios in the theme park side, you’re not any closer to the film and television business.

Craig: Correct. You’re just geographically close to the film business. Look, you made a mistake of perception. You thought, “Okay, if I work in the office and real estate section of a movie studio, I will be able to make connections to sell screenplays.” Never in a million years is that going to happen. You don’t come into contact with those people that’s not part of your job. However, it sounds like you’re very good at your job because this other company is offering you all this money to do it. Of course, also, you seem to like writing novels. Where are all your screenplays?

Your novels are doing well. They’re getting published. Maybe people are going to talk about adapting them. Great. Maybe you’ll be the person to try and adapt. Who knows? You are not at all in the right place to make “Connections.” Someone’s offering you double the money to do the same gig and you can still write novels on the side? This is like walking up to a 1 foot-high basketball hoop and dunking. John, dunking is the act of taking a basketball…

John: I know what dunking is.

Craig: Okay, just checking.

John: It sounds like this is your day job. Basically, they’re offering you a day job that pays twice as much because it seems like you really perceive yourself as a writer and possibly a novelist rather than a screenwriter. These are wonderful things. Many great novelists have come out of working day jobs their whole lives. It also sounds like this job is not taxing you mentally. It sounds like– I was an intern at Universal. There were three assistants above me and I was the intern below them. I had no responsibilities. I came home from work and I had not used my brain at all. I wrote my first screenplay those evenings.

Craig: Yes. When I was an intern at Fox Network, I was 20. My responsibility was to work for the assistant to the assistant to a guy. That meant xeroxing and covering phones for about 30 minutes where everyone was panicked I would screw it up. You’re absolutely right. When I got in my car, my brain emptied completely. I haven’t had that feeling since 1991.

John: It’s so nice.

Craig: It’s so nice to just know job ended. Go home. Think about not job at all because job done. Sounds like you got that nailed and you have time to write novels.

John: I bet because you’d be working at Starbucks and you’d have the same situation, you’d be exhausted because you would have been on your feet all day.

Craig: Exactly. Here you’re sitting in an office. You’re good at it. You answer some– you set up some people with some office space for– This one. Oh, one of the easiest ones we’ve ever had.

John: Love it. All right. Two questions here about career momentum.

Drew: Stu writes, “I was hired to write the pilot and Bible for two major sci-fi television franchises, each of which for various reasons never made it to production. I recently saw that the producers have now teamed up with a very well-known late-night talk show host to produce the series and they’re looking for a writer. Apparently I got fired without ever being informed I was fired, which sounds like Hollywood.”

John: I’ve been there.

Drew: “My frustration beyond the obvious is that I put a good four years of work into this project and I’m quite proud of it. Yet outside of a few offhand mentions buried deep in the internet, my contribution to the franchise seems to have been erased from our timeline. It seems childish to update my own IMDb page with the project in question. My question is less about what to do about this particular project and more what I should be doing to ensure that I can maintain industry visibility when I’m hired to write something that 9 times out of 10 will never make it out of development.”

Craig: Oh my God. What are we going to do with this generation?

John: First off, the easiest thing is you do not update your IMDb.

Craig: No.

John: No. No, absolutely not.

Craig: No.

John: Great. You were hired to write a pilot and Bible for two major TV franchises. I am assuming that got you reps. I don’t think this is going to be a situation like our mistakes on Hallmark movies. If these are major things, you have reps. They know the work you did. You got paid for them. They have those as samples that they can show around and give you additional work. Focus on what you’re doing next and you got to move past thinking about these two things that didn’t happen.

Craig: We have to talk about the value of recognizing and appreciating our failures. We fail all the time. In this case, a failure occurred. I’m not saying it was a failure of creativity. What you wrote might’ve been incredible, but here’s what happened. It wasn’t enough to get it made. Then the people that own the property had a conversation with some late-night talk show host who loves that property. No one has any interest in what you did. It doesn’t matter. They just hit reset and started over. You’re sitting here talking about all of those years and the pride and all the rest. You got paid. You took a job. You got paid. You took the money.

Welcome to being a professional in Hollywood. Put your pride away. Don’t go on IMDb with a, “Look at me thirsty, uncredited.” Every time anybody with an uncredited on their page, it’s a stain, as far as I’m concerned. All it says is maybe I did something, maybe I’m lying, or maybe I got fired. Either way, nothing good. What’s wrong with going, “Okay, lost. I lost that game.” Doesn’t make me a bad player. It just means you can’t win them all. I lost it. What industry visibility are you hoping to get from being a washout on a project? The only visibility you can get is a guy that got–

You weren’t even fired by the way. You weren’t fired. You were hired to do something. You did it. Job ended. That’s not even fired. It just means they didn’t want to keep going with you. That’s independent contracting.

Look, I know I have shame issues. I know that. I know that I’m not healthy, but it just seems like we have to get the pendulum swinging a little bit back towards, let’s not say shame. Let’s just say humility. This thing of, “Well, I worked on it, so therefore I deserve something from it.” You got something. Money, experience. Move on.

John: Now, down the road, if this project happens and it’s the same producers, you may still be in the chain of title for this thing. You may still end up with some credit on it.

Craig: Who knows.

John: Who know. You cannot be banking on that. You cannot be focused on that, because Craig and I both know too many writers who got so obsessed with this one thing that didn’t happen and it derailed their careers.

Craig: It’ll kill you. It’s a poison in your veins. To me, I am angry because I didn’t get to succeed on this. I’m not going to say I failed. I’m angry about this and I’m going to fight it in my heart and soul and also in the world somehow.

That’s one of the great poisons that can be in your blood in this business. The other one is envy. When you are watching other people and going, “Well, I should be where that lady is. It’s not fair that she’s there. I’m better than her.” None of that shit is going to help you ever. It’s only– not only to hurt you, it will keep you from succeeding all the time. There is nothing wrong.

By the way, Stu, the most Hollywood thing about you is that you worked on something that it didn’t work out. That’s the ultimate Hollywood professional thing. You don’t think that’s happened to me? You don’t think that’s happened to John? Not once, not twice, but maybe 10 times. It’s just what happens, man. You got to just– you got to let it go. Come on. Come on, Stu. Stu, be the guy that got that job. Don’t be the guy that lost that job.

John: Craig and I have both had conversations with– we’ve had folks on this podcast who were the subsequent writers on projects that we had initially done.

Craig: Yes, of course.

John: You roll with it.

Craig: Absolutely. Look, you and I have both sat in movie theaters, watching movies that are huge hits that our names aren’t on. We weren’t even sent a copy that we wrote a lot of. We took the money. It’s about not getting defined by these things and also not clinging to this one thing is like, “Look what I did.” Next. No one cares what you did four years ago.

John: Here’s the related thing, is I think we talk about writers whose career could derail because they get too obsessed about the thing that didn’t happen. There’s also writers who get too obsessed about the thing that did happen. The success that happened and like, well, that’s it for them. “I had this one success. I got this nomination on this movie was a hit,” and they’re not thinking about what comes after.

Craig: There is a well-known study. I don’t know if it’s apocryphal or not, but that when directors in particular win an Oscar award, the time between that and their next movie is way larger than the time between whatever the median director is and their next feature. It’s because there’s this awards paralysis of, “I must now be precious.” Keep going, man. Just keep going, kids. None of it matters. Did you sell something today? Celebrate. Celebrate for three days if you want. When Monday comes around, get back to work. Do the next thing.

John: I was watching a movie this last week that I thought was fantastic. I was wondering like, “Where is this director’s next movie?” Because this is 10 years and the next movie has not happened. I emailed my manager who figured he’ll probably know this. I said, “What’s the deal? Did this person get secretly canceled? Is there a problem? I don’t understand.” It’s like, “Oh no, apparently he wants his next movie to be something he writes himself, and he’s just having a hard time writing that script.”

Ten years?

Craig: John, see, he wants something. What he wants has nothing to do with how he does his best work. What he wants has everything to do with his pride. “I don’t want to share it. I don’t want somebody else to get it. It’s me. I’m the man. Me. Me.” Well, you’re not. There’s nothing wrong with that either.

John: I do wonder whether there’s a sunk cost fallacy. It’s like, “Now, I’ve spent seven years working on this thing. Maybe I’ll spend another three years.” He should have directed three movies in that time.

Craig: Cut, bait, move on. You can’t. Maybe it’s an offshoot of follow your dreams, do your passion, all that crap, that then leads people who are underemployed and under-credited to behave as if they’re not.

I still struggle to say no to things because I’m panicked that it’ll all end. I have to, because I don’t have the time. That’s because I’m working. There’s no part of me ever that was like, “What? I’m above that.” The only time that I was like, I was very focused on, “I want to try and do something that’s different than the things I’m doing.” And that’s why I did Chernobyl. I did it. And I got to tell you, while I was doing that, I was writing other stuff. I was rewriting things left and right for money.

Because Chernobyl, the entire thing, paid me about what I would make in a week and a half on production rewrites on some very good movies and some spectacularly awful ones. That’s okay. I needed money to support my family while I did this. I never, ever just hit the brakes and was like, “I am now God’s little special, passionate dream child.” I’m in a mood today.

John: You are in a mood today.

Craig: You know what? There’s nothing wrong with that.

John: Let’s move on to Michael here.

Craig: Stu’s probably like, “What the fuck? Jesus, just say, just say no.”

Drew: Michael’s thinking about the next thing. Michael says, “My first short film was recently turned into a film that has won several prestigious awards in my home country. However, the biggest surprise is that it won Best International Short at an Oscar qualifying festival in the States, making it eligible for a 2025 nomination.”

Craig: Congrats.

Drew: “I understand that being long listed isn’t life changing. However, I don’t want whatever potential opportunities that might come from this to pass me by. I’m uncertain about my next steps. Should I continue to focus on developing another short film, or would it be more strategic to shift towards a feature script or TV series? If I’m lucky enough to be in a position where I’m speaking to anyone about potential future projects, I want to make sure I have something in the chamber.”

Craig: I feel like I’m dying.

John: Craig’s shaking his head. You go to that third paragraph and it’s like-

Craig: I feel like everyone’s turned into a fucking agent.

John: Here, I want to make sure we’re catching this. My first short film script was recently turned into a film. Michael is not the writer director, is the writer of the short film script. Michael, I’m so happy for you. I’m so happy the short turned out great. You as the writer will get a very small bump off of this. The writer directors and directors get bumps off of shorts. You will not. Anything you’re doing now to write other stuff that people can see is what you should be doing. Writing another short is not the best use of your time.

Craig: There is literally one way to convert this into value for you, Michael. That is to have whoever sends your script, your next script to someone, whether it’s you or a representative, they get to say in that little thing, “This script is from so-and-so whose movie that he wrote got this award, this award and was long listed, shortlisted or even won an Oscar.” That’s it. Period. The end. Meaning there is nothing to get from this. It happened. They need scripts. There has to be a script. Keep writing. Stop calculating so much. Everybody is just, “How do I convert this into max?” Because that’s the way everyone fucking talks now. It’s unreal. I see it.

You know there used to be, there was a bunch of fake gurus and you hated them? There’s too many now. There’s not enough hate in the world. Everyone now is obsessed with strategizing. I’m like, “You want to cut through all the strategizing? Write a good script. Then you don’t need strategy.” Guess what? My former writing assistant for season two of The Last of Us, I won’t say her name or anything about it identifying because I haven’t asked her for permission. I’ll simply say this. This is an unassuming human being who has the least amount of strategizing of anybody I know. She’s just a very simple, cool, down-to-earth person who’s a bit shy, a bit diffident, a bit nervous.

Well she wrote a script. And I don’t know who initially saw it or got it but there’s a full seven studio bidding war over this thing going on right now. The strategizing got no further than her calling me in a panic going, “I’m terrified and I feel like no one’s really on my side during this.” I was like, “Well, who are your representatives? Who’s your lawyer?” “I don’t have one.” “Got it, done. Now you have my lawyer. Now someone’s on your side. Go with God and congrats.” No planning, no conversions, just writing a script. Which, by the way, Michael, that’s how you got into this position in the first place. You wrote a script. Just keep going. Oh my God. It’s over. Let it go.

John: I do wonder if some of the strategizing that we’ve seen over this last, I’d say the last 10 years has been more of a focus on that. I think, I wonder if social media and the way that you get the instant gratification of like the likes and the re-shares is an acceleration. “This thing has happened, so therefore I have to capitalize on it.”

Craig: Oh yes. It’s poisonous. Everyone thinks that that’s getting you something. It’s getting you nothing. You are all just huffing air and pretending it’s special. It’s not. There’s nothing happening there that matters. As a writer, nothing. Your screenplays matter. The self-promotion, the strategizing, the, “Look at me,” all that stuff, if it makes you feel good, great. Hopefully you recognize that, but it doesn’t matter. The scripts, that’s it. Write something. Keep writing. Stop talking so much about it. Do it instead. I say that as somebody who’s on episode 609,000, but that’s only because you make me. I’m your indentured servant.

John: The last thing I’ll say to Michael is if you had a good experience with this director who did the short and you want to do other stuff, that might make sense. If they are getting some traction and you can be the person getting traction there with them, you can get in some meetings, fantastic. That’s a way that you could actually get out of this.

Craig: You can certainly, you can contact the producers of the film. You can contact maybe the studio that’s releasing it. It’s an easy one for at least for somebody to pick up the phone and go, “You wrote a thing that we made, of course.” Like I said, short of saying, “Hey, this is what I did, therefore, you might want to read the next thing–“

John: If you’re on anybody’s radars, if you’re on the radar of a Sundance Institute and it helps you get into the Sundance Labs, if that’s the thing you’re interested in, could be useful.

Craig: Apply.

John: Apply.

Craig: Anyone can apply.

John: Anyone can apply.

Craig: There’s no strategizing.

John: Two questions on IP stuff.

Drew: Wendy writes, “We’re starting to show our pitch deck around town to gain the interest of an actor. We have an NDA that everyone so far has agreed to sign.”

Craig: NDA, everyone knows that term.

Drew: “We have interest from a verbal pitch by a well-known actor, and his manager is telling us that they don’t sign NDAs. Is this common practice? When I worked as a producer at Imagineering at Disney, we wouldn’t let anyone in the door without signing an NDA. I feel the same way with this, but wanted to make sure that was correct.”

John: I think that anybody’s willing to sign an NDA for you is surprising. NDAs are not common for me as an individual to go out and do a thing. Disney is notorious. You’re not allowed to walk in that Disney Magic Hat building without signing an NDA.

Craig: That’s for them. We shouldn’t also know that abbreviation. We should be innocent of these things. It’s a nondisclosure agreement. Anybody that comes and auditions for us, visits our set, walks near our props, has to sign an NDA. If you’re talking with people about maybe working on something together, I’ve never asked. I personally, I’ve never asked anyone to sign an NDA in my life. It’s sending a little bit of an amateur vibe, I think, to say like, “This actor, we want to talk with you, but we don’t really trust you.”

John: I think it’s Silicon Valley NDAs are more common. When you’re going to pitch a concept of a–

Craig: Of course, because it’s financial, it’s about investing. This is about collaboration. Unless I’m misunderstanding.

John: No, it seems like it is. My answer to Wendy is I don’t think you should be stressed about it. Just don’t worry about it. They’re not going to sign an NDA. Then take that as–

Craig: I can see where like, if your whole career– Wendy worked in Imagineering?

John: Yes.

Craig: I get, your whole career you’ve been signing NDAs. People have been signing NDAs. Nobody can go to the bathroom without an NDA because, “Oh my God, no one can know about the Star Wars hotel or whatever.” But that’s that. You might think like, “That’s been my life. Therefore, it’s what we should do.” No, not in this circumstance. It doesn’t feel like it to me. Look, hopefully you have a lawyer who is working with you, but I’m not really sure what it is that they’re going to disclose anyway that’s so damaging.

John: Drew, let’s jump ahead to Brandon, who’s also sort of IP.

Drew: Brandon writes, “An artist friend and I were originally planning a comic book idea called Monster Agents. I handles all the writing, he worked on art concepts for the characters. But due to his schedule, a comic doesn’t seem likely. He gave me full support and permission to move on with adopting our comic idea into a children’s animation series. I began adapting my own comic scripts to a television pilot and it’s gotten some fantastic grades from some screenwriting feedback services, with many people believing this would work great as a television series for kids. I’ve started organizing a pitch deck and this leads to my question. In any of my pitch materials or on the front of my screenplay, do I say, adapted from the comic book concept?”

“The comic book never left basic storyboards, character concept drawings and scriptwriting phases. Also, it’s me adapting my own work from one medium to another, so would that be weird to mention? Should I just present it as purely an original television animation concept?”

John: So we actually have an answer here. Source material is defined in the WJ credits manual as, “material assigned to the writer that was previously published or exploited and upon which the writer’s work will be based.” This was not a comic book that was published out in the world. This is still an original idea.

Craig: It wasn’t even made. The answer to your question is no. That would be like saying, “Adapted from an idea that I had.” So not adapted. It’s new. It’s a new thing. The fact that you talked about it with people or even the fact that somebody illustrated images that you’re not currently using to promote it or anything like that, no.

John: The degree to which this was a collaboration between you and this artist friend, if you guys, this was your joint thing that you were doing together, I think it’s shitty to try to cut them out of this. You have to have a conversation with them to what degree are they a story collaborator on this?

Craig: It sounds like the other person was like, “Go do it. I drew some things, but we couldn’t turn it into a comic book.” If in the development of it, monsters started looking like the monsters that the artist drew, that would be a discussion to have, of course. But no, it’s an original work.

What was common, I don’t know if they’re still doing it, but in the 2000s and 2010s, it was common for people to nearly self-publish some sort of graphic novel to then go to studios and say, “I wrote a graphic novel, it’s IP, let’s set it up here and then I’ll adapt it into a screenplay.” That was somehow schmuckbait for dumb executives who couldn’t tell. Basically, they were just selling you a screenplay, but they just wrote it and put some pictures on it and published it at some baloney press. You could do that, but why?

John: There’s no advantage to it.

Craig: No, not anymore, I don’t think.

John: All right, let’s do our One Cool Things. I have two one cool things. First off is the new COVID vaccine, a booster shot that I got yesterday. I got it in my arm. Craig, you don’t need it because you just got it.

Craig: I just had nature’s COVID vaccine.

John: You just got the COVID vaccine. It’s out there, so everyone should get it. I always recommend the flu shots. From the very start of the program, I would recommend the flu shots. Now it’s the COVID booster.

Craig: I need to pick a week where I’m okay with being a little gross for a few days because I do need to get the shingles vaccine. Shingrix.

John: I got my shingles vaccine. It did, makes you feel bad. The second one hurts more than the first one.

Craig: Is it a series of two shots?

John: It’s two shots.

Craig: Hurts like your arm swells up kind of hurts?

John: No. They just feel bad. The shot hurts a little bit.

Craig: Your body reaction?

John: Yes.

Craig: Remember the first COVID vaccines, how much they hurt? The next day, your arm was like, ow.

John: My arm was a little bit sore.

Craig: Oh man, it really hurt. Then everyone was like, “That means it’s working.” I’m like, “I’m sure it is.”

John: My second one thing is a feature they’ve added onto threads, which I think is actually really smart. It’s called Hide for Everyone. Basically, if someone is replying to your post and is just being a jerk, and you tap Hide for Everyone, it just sends them into a void where they don’t know that you’ve hidden it from everybody else.

Craig: This feature is one of the most brilliant things. Back in the old days when I was on the writers’ BBS-type forums, there was a setting on this old, I think it was V Bulletin, I think it was called. There was a setting called Send to Coventry. It meant that person would not know that anyone couldn’t hear them. No one else would know that person was talking. They would just go on and on. No one knew. They didn’t know. It was wonderful because some people, oh my God. Send to Coventry, so that’s what they’ve done here, which is brilliant. Love it.

John: The other feature is you can, if you’re getting piled onto for a post you’ve made, you can disconnect that post from the feedback.

Craig: I see.

John: It just sort of takes you out of that.

Craig: To short circuit the viral kickback?

John: Yes.

Craig: You know what really does that? The best version of Hide for everyone.

John: Stay off social media?

Craig: Stay off social media. That’s what I’ve done. I have the ultimate Hide from Everybody. Disconnect. It doesn’t seem to have slowed me down, even though strategically I’m not leveraging my social media reach. Barf.

John: Barf.

Craig: Barf.

John: Craig, you got any one cool things for us?

Craig: It’s an old one cool thing, but it’s a renewed one cool thing because it’s just so goddamn cool. Obviously Baldur’s Gate 3 was my one cool thing when I first played it through. Now that we’ve wrapped, I’ve picked it back up to do a new playthrough, which is a little painful at first because you have to like learn a new character and you’re trying to break your old patterns and you want to experience different things.

John: You’re on rails for that first little section too. I find frustrating.

Craig: Ish. But that’s the thing. On this playthrough, as a totally different character, I’ve just made a point of like, “I’m going to slow down and look everywhere.” And the amount of shit that I had missed-

John: Totally.

Craig: -is insane. I’m not even talking about things that were like, “Well you made this choice. That gets cut off for you. I’m talking about-

John: A Little geographic exploration.

Craig: Correct. It’s bananas. Larian is just a little miracle. It was, it’s honestly like a little miracle. It’s hard to believe. The first playthrough, did you by any chance fight Raphael?

John: I did. Yes.

Craig: You did? That’s a, that’s a tough fight. That’s the toughest fight in the game.

John: It’s a really tough fight.

Craig: 666 hit points.

John: Of course the special song that plays.

Craig: The special song, which is catchy.

John: On your first playthrough, I bet you did not do the Githyanki crush.

Craig: I did.

John: You did?

Craig: I did. That’s the thing. On my first playthrough, I didn’t go to the house of hope. I didn’t do that. That entire thing I missed. I’m just saying like, “Wait, here’s a whole weird house with a thing in it that was in the corner of a map that I didn’t know was there.” There’s so much stuff. I thought I’d picked through all of it. In Laroque and the wizard in Baldur’s Gate, that tower has so much shit in it that I was not aware of. Now I am. God damn, that game is good. It’s so good. You know what? We should play D&D tonight.

John: I think we will. We should go to your house and play some D&D.

Craig: Huzzah.

John: What do we eat for D&D?

Craig: You know what? Whatever you want. You tell me and I’ll order it up.

John: I think some Burger Lounge could be good.

Craig: Burger Lounge? Done.

John: It’s been a minute.

Craig: It works every time.

John: That is it for Scriptnotes for today. It’s produced by Drew Marquardt.

Craig: What?

John: Edited by Matthew Cilelli.

Craig: Oh God.

John: Outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions. You’ll find show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com

That’a also where you find the transcripts, and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have t-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. They’re all great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau, and hats. Hats are great. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on words we know, but never use.

Craig: Like GithHub.

John: Craig, thank you so much.

Craig: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Alright, Craig. The motivation behind this segment was I recognized that there were words that I knew, but I was never actually using. I’d be nervous to type them, but I certainly wouldn’t say them in a conversation. It’s like, “Am I going to get it wrong?” For example, I got reticent wrong on the podcast and people called me out. I was like, “That’s right. It does not mean reluctant. I was using it as that.” Here’s a word that I’ve heard you use. This is the one.

Craig: Decrement?

John: Yes. I’ve heard you in the course of D&D say dee-crement rather than decrement.

Craig: Sometimes I’ll say dee-crement. I don’t know which is better, pronunciation wise.

John: Dee-crement matches up well with decrease and with the opposite of increment, but it does go down. Yes. Then I also listened to this past week, wrote in to say we should talk about bathos, and do you even know what bathos is?

Craig: I know that it’s not pathos.

John: Bathos is an effect of anticlimax created by an unintentional lapse in mood from sublime to the trivial or ridiculous. You might say, “His epic poem has passages of almost embarrassing bathos.”

Craig: It’s not going to come up often.

John: It’s not going to come up all that often.

Craig: No. It certainly is going to come up constantly in the staff meetings at the English department, classics departments at various colleges.

John: I thought we might take a look through some words that I will see used, and I’ve never been tempted to try to use.

Craig: Let’s play this game. I’m certain to fail.

John: Desultory.

Craig: Desultory?

John: Have you ever used it?

Craig: No.

John: Desultory is lacking a plan or purpose or enthusiasm. “A few people left dancing in a desultory fashion.”

Craig: Okay. A fancy way of saying random.

John: Yes, random.

Craig: Purposeless. Aimless. Unfocused.

John: Yes, I think the fact that we have really good alternative things for it is-

Craig: Don’t need it.

John: Induritize.

Craig: Induritize?

John: Yes, to harden the heart.

Craig: That’s just ridiculous.

John: We don’t need it.

Craig: Because we have inure. Inure to. Induritize. That almost feels like a mistake.

John: It does feel like a mistake. Not necessarily a word. Ebullient.

Craig: Ebullient means with bravado and confidence.

John: Confidence and joy and enthusiasm. I get the word. I’ve just never been tempted to use it.

Craig: Nah, it feels like you’re an asshole if you use that word.

John: Importune. To importune upon somebody.

Craig: To importune is to, is that to prevail upon them in an interrupting way, to force yourself upon someone?

John: Yes. Again, I’ve not needed it.

Craig: It’s not necessary.

John: Assent, so assent not to climb up, but to give one’s assent to a thing.

Craig: That’s to give your nod of approval. That I do use all the time.

John: Yes, with your assent. I use it as a matching to dissent, but it’s not a word I would reach for.

Craig: Do you give me your assent? What it’s been replaced with is consent. People are obsessed with consent.

John: Consent, but they’re not the same word.

Craig: They are not the same word.

John: Consent is agreeing to a thing.

Craig: A mutual agreement. Whereas assent is, and I think a lot of times when people say consent, they mean assent. Which is, “I assent to you doing this to me.” Consent is, “We both agree this will happen.”

John: Expatiate.

Craig: Oh boy. I guess it would mean to send somebody away from their country?

John: That sounds right. Expatriate is how I think it would be. If you think about it. Expatiate is to speak or write in detail about, expatiate upon.

Craig: Couldn’t have been wronger.

John: Again, a word that we’re not going to use.

Craig: Also, I said wronger.

John: Do you ever use mettle? Mettle, like prove you’re mettle?

Craig: Yes.

John: I don’t think I’ve ever used it.

Craig: Yes. To test someone’s mettle? Sure.

John: Rakish is a word I know. I never use it.

Craig: A rake, a rake is sort of a slightly caddish guy. A rakishness, rakish audacity is one of the things in D&D. Rakish. You’re a bit suave and cool and sassy.

John: Confidently careless and informal.

Craig: There you go.

John: Censorious.

Craig: Censorious, so that’s with a C?

John: Yes.

Craig: I assume that means in the matter of a censor, meaning prohibiting things.

John: Prohibiting, it’s actually criticizing.

Craig: Like censure?

John: Yes.

Craig: I see, interesting.

John: Insipid is a thing, I know it’s negative, but I’ve never actually had the opportunity to use it.

Craig: Stupid, banal, boring, witless.

John: Here’s a word, peruse, which does not mean what we think it means.

Craig: No, it does not.

John: It’s drifted and now it just means-

Craig: Peruse is in the category of decimate, and has become the opposite of what it means. Peruse means to study something very carefully, but everybody uses it to mean briefly scan for something. Where decimate means remove one-tenth of something and everyone thinks it means remove 90% of something.

John: Harsh. Laconic. Laconic is using words, using a lot of words or using very few words?

Craig: Very few.

John: Yes, and to me it feels like using a lot of words, therefore I’ve never reached for the word.

Craig: Laconic is a classic SAT word that gets grouped in with terse, brusque.

John: Perfidy.

Craig: Perfidy is lying, it’s being a liar.

John: Yes, have you ever used it?

Craig: I’ve used perfidious. Perfidy as a crime, rarely spoken of.

John: Supercilious.

Craig: Supercilious is a wonderful word that means snobby, basically. It comes from, it basically means raising your eyebrow. Super above cilia, the eyebrow.

John: Nice.

Craig: It literally comes from like, “I’m better than you.”

John: With your word game background, you’re probably encountering some of these words that you’re not even reading that often, but they exist.

Craig: They’re part of my life.

John: They’re part of your life but they’re not necessarily things that I would, even knowing what they mean, I would be not inclined to put them in my own writing.

Craig: Supercilious, if I used that word, I would be aware that I was almost self-defining as supercilious. It’s a word that means, like sesquipedalian means a lengthy word. You’re a dick if you say supercilious. You’re being supercilious. Nobody’s going to be like, “That common word.”

John: The challenge here is they’re not dead words. They’re words that people could use and people can understand, but they’re nearly dead words because you can’t count on a person understanding what your intention is behind them. While they could probably pick it out of context, it’s tough.

Craig: If you note, quite a few of these words are either Latin or Greek-rooted. We tend in English to move more towards the Germanic, our Germanic roots and our Scandinavian roots. There’s no way that the Romans or the Greeks didn’t come up with snobby. That’s going to have to be from the Vikings, right? Something like that. Supercilious, yes, very Latin.

John: As we talked about on the show before, English is unusual in that. We had a whole bunch of words and then the French came in and we took all of their words too. We have a bunch of redundant words that actually have the same origin.

Craig: That is correct. We have both small and petite.

John: Yes, which is fun. Royal and regal, which is good. There’s also the words that on podcasts I hear mispronounced and I’m always so surprised when it happens. This last week I heard re-present for represent. It wasn’t that they were re-presenting something that they presented before. They actually just said re-present.

Craig: Like he represents a version of, yes, that’s wrong. It’s just wrong.

John: It’s just wrong. I hear prefix.

Craig: No. Who says prefix? Prefix, like prix fixe menu?

John: Prefix menu. Tell me your objection.

Craig: I thought you meant prefix.

John: Not prefix. Not the thing that comes before a thing. Prix fixe like a fixed price menu. People will try to over-journalize the rules they think they know about French and so they’ll say, so they’ll say “pree fee,” or…

Craig: No. There’s a weird thing. You’re talking about prefix. Now, by the way, with that, I understand people can mispronounce French words. Especially with Xs.

John: Sometimes they’ll be so insistent that they’re doing it right.

Craig: There’s something that Melissa pointed out to me that I didn’t believe was true. Then the moment she said it, I encountered it many times. A little bit like when her cousin pointed out that a lot of people say hythe. I was like, “No, they don’t.” Then literally for the rest of my life, I’ve just been hearing hythe from people. I just, hythe from very educated people will say hythe. It’s mind-blowing. There are quite a few people who pronounce the word concierge, “conciere”. That’s insane. If it ended in a T? Sure. It doesn’t. It ends in a G. Do we say garage instead of “Gara,” instead of “Garage?” It doesn’t even follow internal rules. Outrageous.

John: Drew, you were pointing out at lunch yesterday that you had confusion about a small wiener dog.

Drew: Yeah, I thought that dachshunds and “dash-unds” were two different types of dogs until probably my late 20s.

Craig: What is it you thought? You saw the word dachshund. You thought it was pronounced “dash-unds”.

Drew: No, I heard the word dachshund. I was like, “That’s a type of dog.” Then I saw the word dachshund and was like, “That’s a wiener dog.”

John: He thought like the dog he was seeing would be, a dachshund would be like a D-O-X-I-N or something?

Drew: Probably D-O-X-E-N is what it was in my head, but that makes no sense.

Craig: It’s actually logical, but hund, hound, it’s all there.

Drew: I wasn’t that bad.

Craig: It was there for you. You just needed to reach a little harder.

John: Those are the words that are like, where once you understand. I think we were talking about lunch also, about like cupboard, like the word, it feels like there should be a word C-U-B-B-A-R-D.

Craig: It is odd that cupboard is pronounced cupboard. We have a few of those strange, very English abbreviated pronunciations like that. I don’t know why. It’s actually, cupboard is a really interesting one. It doesn’t make any sense. I remember as a kid thinking, “Why? Mother Hubbard, H-U-B-B-A-R-D, has nothing in her cupboard.”

John: Coxswain, like the person at the head of the boat. There are those things, which a lot of times place names will be the same situation where it’s like, “It’s spelled that way, but you don’t pronounce it anything like that.”

Craig: Other than spelling bee purposes, no one who hasn’t seen the word coxswain would ever spell it the way it’s spelled. It’s impossible.

John: C-O-X-S-W-A-I-N.

Craig: Correct.

John: That’s insane. It’s coxswain and then it’s coxswain and it’s one of those cupboard things.

John: It’s shortened down. I think the only takeaway I would say from this is that if you’re going to reach for one of those words, or if you have a character who’s reaching for one of those words, just understand that there’s the context around it. Understand that if the person uses one of these ambitious words, that tells you something about the character.

Craig: If you look at the text of the architects, two semi-monologues in the second Matrix movie, there are more high vocabulary words per minute than any other movie I’ve ever seen. Some of those words are incredible, like sedulous, but that was the point, was that he’s vastly smarter than you. Certainly than Neo.

I just like that Keanu Reeves’ character never was like, “Wait, what’s sedulous?” Which we made fun of in Scary Movie 4, because it was funny, but what is sedulous? Why would you let somebody say that in passing and not go, ”Sorry, roll back? What does that mean?” He was just like, “There’s been more of me.”

You don’t know what sedulous means, Neo.

John: I have no idea what sedulous means.

Craig: I still don’t know what sedulous means.

John: We have answers in our pockets. What does sedulous mean? “A person showing dedication, diligence.” “He washed himself with the most sedulous care.”

Craig: Sure. Careful would have been a perfectly good word.

John: Absolutely. That’s an example. It’s like, it’s not a needed word anymore.

Craig: No. I think that the Wachowskis certainly must have gone to a thesaurus and said like, “This guy is going to use these words as part of his character. We want people to be like, ‘What, huh?’” Otherwise they would have just said careful, or diligent even as a slightly more elevated word.

John: My guess is that the word makes persistent English a little bit because I suspect there is seduloso or some other Latinate language might still use it in a way that keeps it alive.

Craig: No one, I have never heard anyone in my life use the word sedulous. Except the architect in The Matrix. He is the only one, ergo. He did say ergo, which I love.

John: Very good. Thanks Craig.

Craig: Thank you.

Links:

• Move Over Green Envelopes, WGA Rolls Out Direct Deposits For Residuals by Peter White for Deadline
• WGA Screen Credits Manual
• CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season
• Hide posts on Threads
• Baldur’s Gate 3
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
• Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
• John August on Threads, Instagram, Twitter and Mastodon
• Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 653 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we discuss a giant area of television writing we’ve barely covered over the 12 years of our program, which is multi-camera sitcoms, from Seinfeld to Friends to most of the Disney channel programs. These were the shows we grew up watching, and they still account for a sizable portion of the writing happening today. We’ll also look at the WGA’s Annual Report, which, gasp, shows that writer income was down for the years, for reasons we can’t possibly imagine. So we’ll try to get to the bottom of that.

To help us through all this, let’s welcome a writer-producer-director whose credits range from My So-Called Life to My Boys to The Carmichael Show to Superstore. She’s also the secretary treasurer of the Writers Guild of America West. Welcome to the incredible Betsy Thomas.

Betsy Thomas: Oh, John. Wish you’d follow me around and just do that all the time.

John: Absolutely. I’m your hype man.

Betsy: That was fantastic.

John: The first time we met – I think it was the first time we met – you had reached out to me, emailed me or called me, to say, “Hey, can we talk about me running for the board?” We had a drink. We talked through stuff. And I’m so happy you decided to run for the board.

Betsy: I am, most of the time. But yes, that was really fun. We had a drink, and then I was like, “Oh.” Then later, I was like, “Oh, you made an exception for me.” I was like, “Oh, I feel flattered.”

John: It was a Friday afternoon, so it was, “Let’s have a martini,” but I’m not generally a “let’s have a martini-”

Betsy: I know. I learned that later.

John: You can hear that laughter off to the side. That is Megana Rao, who is joining us this week.

Megana Rao: Hi.

John: Hi. Drew and Craig are both out this week. Thank you so much for stepping in.

Megana: Of course. I’m excited to be here.

John: Very relevant, because you’ve just been reading a bunch of multi-cam scripts, right?

Megana: Yes, I have. I am working my way through all the seasons of Cheers through the scripts that I can find in pdf form online.

Betsy: Wow.

Megana: Which is not intentional, but I just started reading the pilot, and I was like, “Oh, this is fun.”

Betsy: It’s very cool that you’re doing that. I hope they survive long enough that you can work your way.

John: We’re gonna talk about multi-cams, but in our Bonus Segment I’d love to talk to you about golf, because you are a golfer, and Megana and I know nothing about golf. I’m speaking for both of us. You don’t know much about golf?

Megana: I don’t know much about golf, despite my father’s best efforts.

John: Very nice. Your father golfed, but you do not golf?

Megana: Correct.

John: Have you ever golfed?

Megana: Yes, I’ve golfed with my dad a lot.

John: Only people who subscribe to the Premium membership will actually-

Megana: Get to hear [crosstalk 02:30] stories.

John: … get to hear all about Megana golfing. Before we get to that, let’s talk about some news. Deadpool and Wolverine opened this past weekend. It made a bazillion dollars. It was really good for movies to succeed. I’m just really happy when things are working. Overall, the box office is down a little bit from last year, but we also have a lot more movies that are still in the pipe coming out. I feel pretty good about it. I see you nodding your head.

Betsy: It’s great. It’s incredibly exciting. I hope this continues. It sure seems dumb that they had that five-and-a-half-month break where people couldn’t do any promo, and they decided to delay all the releases. That seemed like a real waste of momentum.

John: Yeah, it does seem like a bit of that. Deadpool and Wolverine was a movie that famously did have to stop shooting because of the actors strike. That pulled all the people away, which was a hassle for them, because there’s a ton of cameos in that movie, and all those people having to be rescheduled. As the actors strike was going on, I just felt like how they get out of this and how does that movie specifically pull all of its cameo people back in to do those shoots, the logistical nightmare of that seems crazy.

Betsy: Yeah, that’s hats off to the line producer.

John: Yeah, absolutely. Combat pay for them. More big movies coming out. I just want to celebrate when there is good news, because so often we see, oh, numbers are down. It’s like, numbers are actually doing pretty well.

Betsy: Yeah, it’s great. I think we should celebrate all good news all the time.

John: 100 percent. That’s my goal for 2024 into 2025 is celebrate the wins. Let’s do some follow-up. We talked last week about listener who had concerns – he’s part of a writing team. He said, “Oh, the WGA said the gains for writing teams that was not really the gains for writing teams.” We were like, “No, you misread it.” But Megana, could you help us out with some more follow-up we got this week?

Megana: Yes. Chris wrote in and said, “I wanted to reach out and respond to the conversation you had in this week’s episode about the gains in the WGA made for writing teams in the 2023 MBA. In addition to now having pension and health caps applied to each writer instead of the project, which as a screenwriter on a team I think is hugely impactful, we also won that writing teams making the weekly minimum on a TV show will now each receive P and H contributions on the full weekly minimum, not just the half they each take home. My writing partner and I mainly work in features, but I have to imagine this is a substantial win for early career TV writing teams, so I figured it was worth making sure people know about it.”

Betsy: It’s not just early career. Everyone’s getting the contributions based on minimums in television, so it’s huge. My husband has been mostly in a writing team. I’m writing right now a pilot for ABC. Even though we’re not writing partners, we’re a team. We’re co-writing it. So it’s huge to get those full contributions.

John: Yeah, it does really matter. A lot of the gains in the contract this year really did, I think, focus on people who are at that pivotal breakpoint. Script fees for staff writers is a huge win, and making sure that we outsize increases for people who are at that first rung of the ladder, to make sure they can make it to the second rung of the ladder.

Betsy: Yes. The script fees, that is just so huge. It’s something that I have to say. John, you were there when we got that. It was such a thrill, because it’s something we’d fought for for so long. After a certain point, you’re like, “Is that ever gonna happen?” So it was really exciting.

John: Yeah, it really was. Another thing we’ve been talking about on the podcast is about locked pages and colored revisions. I’m curious what your take is, because you work largely in multi-cam – uses the same color cycle, uses the same things. A thing we’ve been discussing is that, particularly for one-hour dramas, like what Craig is doing, they’re not using printed scripts anymore at all, and so this whole notion of colored revisions and locked pages maybe doesn’t make sense.

We’re proposing, what if we just got rid of it and just started numbering stuff and doing it that way? We asked for feedback, and man have we gotten a lot of feedback. Megana, can you help us out with the two things we got this week?

Megana: Yes. I’ll start with Megan, who’s a script coordinator. She writes, “I work as a writer and script coordinator. I wouldn’t say I like locked pages, but once you hit production, I find them useful. One big reason is communication across departments. If a scene is seven pages and I need to talk to another department to quickly resolve an issue, being able to identify the exact page is helpful. And anecdotally, I know art department folks who also write notes in the margins. When a new script is published, being able to know it’s only this one page changing, versus figuring out where in a scene the change is, is helpful to them in transferring those notes.”

John: I get that to a degree. We’re not proposing that you throw out starred revisions. I think starred revisions should be doing that job. The hope is that you can see what’s changed on the page or has changed in the scene, because there’s a star that says this is something new, something to pay attention to. Betsy, what’s your first instinct there?

Betsy: I’ll say in multi-cam, a lot of times you’re just fixing a joke. I think in a half hour in general, if it’s just like, oh, we did a punch-up pass and so there’s eight new jokes, then releasing an entire new script doesn’t make a lot of sense, just because I think a lot of people do still use paper. I don’t. But I think some of the actors do. They just grab the – for the scene. Sometimes in those cases, I think locked pages make sense, because now you’re only delivering 4 pages, 8 pages to the stage, not an entire 32, 35 pages.

John: But in the case of a multi-cam comedy, let’s say there are four new jokes. What if that joke caused page breaks to change, and so you have A and B pages? Is that a hassle in multi-cam? It doesn’t matter?

Betsy: Not really. To me, it’s all wasted paper. I’ll go with the flow on anything. But I do think that it feels like there are more changes in multi-cam than there are in single-cam in general, because oftentimes in multi-cam, the script is changing every single night at such a significant rate that it’s a whole new script anyway. It doesn’t really matter.

John: The thing we’ve been speculating about, at a certain point paper’s just not the best way to capture what the current state of the script is, and so maybe people should just be looking at basically the iPad, where we’re all looking at one source of truth, because that’s what they do actually on late-night variety shows. There’s not a printed thing anymore. They’re all looking at one central, shared document, and that’s what they’re generating the run of the show off of. They’re using things like Scripto to do that.

Betsy: Look, I think it’d be great if we all got away from paper. I listened to that, and I agree. I think getting away from paper and just having a few small ones, I think it’s great. As I said, I don’t use paper anymore when I direct, and I certainly won’t when I’m working on staff. I would much prefer to have this.

But it is true, I think, that still the habit is – and this is true, again, back to multi-cam, because you have a table read and then a run-through and then a run-through – you’re watching the run-through and you’re making notes on the script, your joke pitches, whatever. The same thing on show night; you’re down there with your scripts, and you’re pitching on jokes the whole time through the show. That you can do electronically, obviously, but it’s far easier to just do it on the page.

John: We have one more bit of follow-up on that.

Megana: Sandrine, an AD, writes, “The main reason for keeping locked pages is because of breakdowns. ADs make stripboards that list what scenes will be shot each day, but department heads also make breakdowns of their particular elements, particularly props, art department, and costumes. As writers, directors, and actors, we care that Larry’s motivation changed, but props just wants to know whether or not he’s still throwing the pillow on Page 37. Costumes wants to know if he’s still wearing day 2 nightclothes even though it’s day 3 morning. Those breakdowns are always by scene, but depending on how people organize, can also use page numbers. If new pages don’t impact them, departments will often just keep working with their original script.

“Scene changes as colored pages is much more straightforward than starred revisions. If I get new pages at 11:00 p.m. and have to send off sides to actors, there’s no confusion when sending pink pages versus having to confirm that draft if it only has revision marks. With how quickly things move, particularly the micro-exchanges that happen throughout the production department and with the others, that we work really hard to shield for director and producers, that small detail of clarity can make all the difference.”

John: I welcome Sandrine’s points here. I think one of the things I would stress is that we can’t just stop doing it and not replace it with something that actually takes care of the issues. I think locked pages and colored revisions are a solution that was probably a very smart decision solution for when we first needed to do this. I just feel like there’s probably a better way we could do it now, and I don’t want our inertia to keep us from trying these things.

Betsy: Also, if you use one of those programs, you can download the starred revision. It goes right in your script. You see what’s starred. It lets you know it’s new. It’s not that hard.

John: Absolutely. Some of the software’s already there. Let’s get to one of our two main topics here. The Annual Report from the WGA is out. Over the years, Craig and I have looked at the Annual Report as it’s been published to see where trends are, what’s happening. But Betsy, I don’t think all the guilds do the kind of Annual Report we do. I don’t see the same thing coming out of DGA or SAG or any of the other places. We’re very transparent about the number of people working, how it’s all going, our finances. That’s always been the tradition as long as I’ve been in the field.

Betsy: Yeah, we always are. I think the others have to. I think their membership may not be as-

John: As engaged?

Betsy: Yeah. Writers like to look for the drama and the mystery and the intrigue.

John: Most years, I would say there’s not a lot of mystery and intrigue and drama. As we’ve gone through this, things are growing, because streaming’s growing, or the number of feature writer jobs is decreasing, because that’s just a thing that happened. But this year, there actually is bigger news.

The top line is that a total of 5,501 writers reported employment in all work areas in 2023, which is a 19.5 decline from 2022. The total writer earnings, reported for dues purposes, declined 31.8 percent, to 1.29 billion dollars.

We should say right from the start here, that clause “for dues purposes” is doing a lot of work there, because particularly in television, writers also get producer fees that are not included in the dues process. The total amount that writers in this industry are bringing in is a lot more than 1.2 million dollars, but the 1.29 is how much gets reported to the Guild.

Betsy: Yes, that’s true. Also, did you hear that we were on strike?

John: Yeah. Absolutely. Some of the blowback has been like, “Oh my god, can you see they were down 31.8 percent?” We were on strike for five months, which is 41 percent of the year no one was working, and then there was a SAG strike afterwards. So it’s not a huge surprise that writer income was down.

Betsy: There was already a contraction. I think a lot of people were saying, oh, people are scared because of a potential strike. No, there was a natural – the contraction that we’re feeling now had already begun. I remember I had pitches to take out, and they’re like, “We don’t want to take it out yet, because nobody’s buying.” That had already started. We saw this as a reflection, by the way, in our Strike Fund Loan applications and whatnot.

There were a lot of people that had not been working since 2022 already. My last job was in November of 2022. Then we came back, but the actors didn’t. There was a lot of concern about production and not wanting to maybe start production until after January 1st. The above-scale fees that television writers make, they weren’t getting.

John: A thing we should also notice is that every year this report gets published ,and you see these numbers, and the numbers go up the next time it’s reported, because basically money comes in late. This is only a reflection of the amount of money that came in. If you go back to the ’22 Financial Report, it showed a 6.1 percent decline in earnings, but when they actually did the recalculation, it was up .2 percent. Some of these numbers will actually improve a little bit over time, but it’s not gonna change the minus sign in front of the number. Clearly, writers brought in less money this last year.

Betsy: Yes. I did.

John: I did too. Funny, that. As did Megana. In the report – and we’ll put a link in the show notes to the pdf – it breaks it down by TV and by features. TV took a bigger hit, which kind of makes sense, because those are things that are constantly ongoing. For features, there are people who were writing features before the strike happened, and they delivered once they could get back to work, so it didn’t take as big of a hit. TV employment was down negative 35 percent, and feature employment was down 22 percent.

I think where I get frustrated is when people say, “Oh, look how much money was not earned. You’ll never earn that money back,” and so that the strike was useless, because you’re never gonna get that five months of employment back. It makes me want to strangle people over a screen, because everything we have as the Guild, our health plan, our residuals, everything, was because someone was willing to go on strike and get that for future generations.

Betsy: Completely, I hate that too. I have also been told, “This cost me $500,000.” If that’s how much money you’re making, you’re in good shape to be able to ride this strike out in a way that a lot of other people weren’t. I try to be Zen about it. There are people that think about others and understand that the strikes are not just about today, they’re actually about tomorrow, and so this will affect me to some degree, but it’s gonna affect the younger generation far more, hopefully.

John: Writers who are not even in the Guild yet. Writers who are still in high school are benefiting from this. It was during the strike, not only were you part of the negotiating committee, you also had to work with the Strike Fund, the Good and Welfare loans. And I bless you for that, Betsy, because that’s such tough work.

Betsy: Thank you.

John: You were constantly being confronted by folks who were greatly struggling because of – as you said, it wasn’t just the strike. They were struggling before the strike, and the strike made their lives even worse. Can you just talk us through what those two programs are and how it worked?

Betsy: The Strike Fund committee, which is made up of the membership of finance committee and then we added a couple more people because of the workload. There basically are two pots to take loans from. One is the Strike Fund loan. You have to be a current active member. That loan is available to people who have been directly impacted. Their work was stopped because of the strike. You apply for that loan, and then there’s a repayment schedule. It can recur. The Good and Welfare loan is actually available all the time.

John: It’s a fund that’s always there.

Betsy: It’s a fund that’s always there. It’s a lifetime maximum of $14,000. Once you reach that, you’ve capped. You can’t get more. That does not require your work being interrupted by the strike. This could just be you’re showing financial hardship. Generally, people go to Motion Picture, and then we get handed people from that. But in this case, it was such an overwhelming need, and also, Motion Picture was so overwhelmed.

John: We should explain Motion Picture Television Fund. That’s an overall umbrella organization that helps people in the film and television industry suffering hardship.

Betsy: They were handling so many loans for so many different people and from so many different unions that their backlog was… We just then started handling it directly so that people could have answers and money quicker.

John: Great. Good and Welfare runs all the time. Strike Fund was just for this. But important to note, it’s not that we’ve burned through all the Strike Fund. We helped a lot of people, but it’s not like we zeroed out. It’s not like we ran out of money.

Betsy: I think in total, I think we had 20 million dollars in the Strike Fund, and I think we gave out 6. Some people are like, “Why didn’t you empty it out?” Because if you empty it out, then we don’t have anything for another strike. What it takes to build that fund up… It is one of the powers we have is knowing that we have the ability to help people. The AMPTP knows that. Our ability to be able to help people and weather the storm was a lot of our leverage.

John: For sure. In addition to writer income that’s happening in the course of the year, the report also talks through residuals. Residuals are this godsend that we have, thanks to previous strikes. For folks who are brand new to all this, residuals are like royalties that writers get in the film and television industry.

In 2023, the WGA collected 598 million dollars in residuals, which is up 3.5 percent. Feature residuals were down 14.5 percent. Basically, we talk about this all the time. Home video is in a freefall. It’s nowhere near the market that it was before. But this year, even streaming and new media residuals were also down for features. That’s the one place of hope people always had for feature residuals, and those were down a bit too. Again, those numbers are likely to drift up a little bit as more stuff gets reported, but it’s good to get an overall sense of where we’re at with residuals.

Betsy: I do want to point out one thing. The total amounts collected in residuals and interest from 2022 to 2023 almost doubled. It almost doubled in 2023. That’s extraordinary. The fact that it then came down a little bit in 2024, obviously year to date, is not as alarming. I don’t think it was ever gonna keep up with that pace of doubling. Part of that was because there were so many shows that had been grandfathered in to the old rates, but then we got those gains in streaming in 2020, and so for the new shows, those residuals finally kicked in. Think about the delay and once it finally is dropped in streaming. That was what was going to happen, hopefully, and it did.

John: The big things that the Guild does money-wise is it’s setting minimum rates, it is collecting residuals, but it’s also going after and enforcing the contract. The enforcement is real dollars here. For 2023, the Guild collected 75 million dollars in underpaid residuals, along with 2.3 million dollars in interest. Already for 2024, it’s collected 45 million dollars, and 1.7 million dollars in interest. That’s money that – no one else is gonna get that for you. The Guild has to go out there and shake people down and say, “No, you owe this money.” God bless. Some of our ability to do that, both in residuals but especially in late payment, is because we now have contracts for everybody, and we can see, “No, this person was due this. You gotta pay them.”

Betsy: The Guild just did a press release about just the late pay, just the fees that they went after because they had the contracts. They were able to actually enforce something without even needing the member to do anything. It was a benefit of the agency campaign. It was something that we won when we renegotiated that contract. It’s been huge in terms of getting writers late pay. Also, this is a thing now that is in the Guild’s system to be able to constantly be policing.

John: Absolutely. The email said the Guild collected more than 1.5 million dollars in interest for late payment for more than 1,000 writers. Some examples would be $14,400 for one individual feature writer. You add all those up, that’s a huge change for somebody, like, “Oh, here’s money I didn’t know I was owed. Here’s a check for $14,000.” That’s great.

Betsy: I would like that.

John: I would like that. Everyone would like that. This is also why you have a guild, because your agency is never gonna collect that money, or your manager, because they have relationships with those studios and they don’t want to piss them off. The Guild does not care about pissing off anybody. The Guild’s not mean, but the Guild’s gonna get money for its members.

Betsy: That’s the only thing they do. Literally, the people that work in that building, this is their entire career is just worrying about writers. I think when you’re on the inside, which, John, you having been on the board and negotiating committees – you really get to know the staff, and you really see how much long, hard work goes into trying to protect writers, deal with them in the kindest and most helpful way. It’s a staggering achievement, I think, what that building does on a day-to-day basis.

John: 100 percent agree. Let’s wrap this up. The back part of the Annual Report talks about the Guild’s financial situation. You’re on the committee. You’re a person overseeing this on a regular basis. Total assets, 137 million dollars. Total liabilities of 37 million dollars. That works out to 100 million dollars left around. I looked it up in 2022. That equivalent figure was 92 million dollars. Even despite the strike and everything else, we’re doing good.

Betsy: We’re doing great. The fact that we weathered that strike and we still have this kind of financial stability is because of the assets and the investments and very, very careful… It’s why we have the Strike Fund. The finances of the Guild are really healthy. I know that was one of those great rumors that people liked to spread during the strike, like, “Oh, this is gonna bankrupt the Guild.” The whole time, I’m like, “I’m looking at the figures every single month. We’re fine. We’re good.”

John: We’re good. Let’s get to non-WGA topics. Let’s talk about multi-cam, because over the course of doing this podcast for 12 years, we’ve talked to a lot of feature writers, lot of TV writers, but they’ve mostly been TV drama writers, or they’ve been single-camera comedy writers. We’ve talked to very few people about multi-cam. Multi-cam is your bread and butter. That’s where you’ve made your –

Betsy: It’s a mix. I do both. I think it’s partly because a lot of them are dead.

John: That’s why we’re not finding so many of those writers. But we definitely grew up on them.

Betsy: For sure, and they still exist.

John: They’re still exist, and they’re still hugely popular in reruns, but the current ones are still going. Big Bang Theory is a classic multi-cam.

Betsy: But also, The Neighborhood’s been on CBS – I think this is Season 8, 7, something like that. Night Court’s been a bit hit for NBC. There’s a new one just got picked up on ABC. Tim Allen. He’s a new talent that they decided to give a shot to.

John: A rocket ship to the stars. Definitely, I could see him. Really, it comes down to him and Glen Powell. Who is the hot new face? I made Betsy laugh.

Let’s talk through development process, because we have a sense of how stuff works in one-hours now, where there’s a writers’ room that’s putting stuff together, and then you build up a bank of scripts, and then you just go forth and shoot. You try to keep on top of stuff while shooting. Classically, multi-cam has been much more week by week by week, like we’re putting a thing up on its feet and then we’re writing the next one. Is that-

Betsy: Accurate?

John: Yeah.

Betsy: I think to some degree, yes. But I think you hope that you bank a bunch of scripts before the beginning of the year. It’s done a lot of different ways. I worked on a show called Superior Donuts. The way that show worked is we all group-wrote, which I think is really how Chuck Lorre does it too. By nature, you have to have several rooms going, because you’ve got one room who’s working on a script, a future script, you got one room that’s working on the current script on the stage, and so you have that.

It necessitates, I think, a lot more collaboration, multi-cam, because the problem is – it’s not like single-cam, which is why I like single-cam, because you write your script, and it goes to the table read, you have several days or whatever you need to do that rewrite, and then you’ve got your shooting script and you’re off to the races.

But in multi-cam, you get your notes from the network or the studio and everybody. “Okay, here.” Now, you do table read. Table read, you get notes. Then you do a rewrite. You have to get it done by the morning, because it’s gotta be on the stage when the actors get there at 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. That’s why sometimes you’re there late at night, because by the time –depending on when your table read is – and you get notes, and you get back to the room, and it’s 3:00. And then you gotta get Pinkberry, and so now it’s 4:30. It’s easy to be there at 11:00 or midnight. I think in many ways, multi-cam is a lot harder, in my opinion, job.

Then the next morning, you gotta be working on breaking Episode 3 or 4 or 5 before you go to run-through, which is at 2:00. Then the whole thing, you get another rewrite, another set of notes, rewrite. Same thing Wednesday, and then you get another set of notes. And then Thursday’s pre-shooting and camera blocking. So you need to have basically as much of a locked script as you can. Then you shoot on Friday. Let’s just say that’s the week.

John: Let’s talk about the difference between multi-cam versus single-cams. I think about a Modern Family as a single-camera show. In theory, they could’ve written the script well in advance and they made up a schedule. These are the sets we’re shooting. This is how we’re making this whole thing work.

When you think of multi-cams, you think of, okay, now the whole writing staff is there for tape night and where you’re actually shooting the whole thing and you can make those changes on the fly. But generally speaking, multi-cam’s all done in just one shot. You’re just doing the whole thing at once, versus splitting it out like normal production.

Betsy: Yes.

John: Those shooting nights must be really exciting but also terrifying, because if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, and you’re screwed.

Betsy: Yeah. There’s a famous story I’m gonna butcher, but it illustrates this. I think it was Bob Newhart. I think The Bob Newhart Show, in the episode, they had a character, and they kept calling him back. I think his name is Mr. Nakamura. I think I’m right, but I just pictured all these comedy writers going, “That’s not it!” The very first joke died. The writers were all like, “Oh, no. We have four callbacks coming.”

Sometimes it doesn’t go well, or you get a groaner or you get something and you’re like, “Uh-oh.” Then everybody furiously is getting together to try to figure out – “Let’s fix it. Let’s fix it.” In general, I think jokes are what you want to be fixing, not like, “Oh, they don’t understand. They don’t even understand this plot point.” That’s really bad. I’ve not been on a show like this, but I know friends, from what I’d heard, they would shoot the show, let the audience go, then rewrite whole scenes and reshoot them completely differently.

Megana: Wow.

Betsy: That gives me anxiety. I can’t even imagine that. I like to be prepared. Not that they weren’t prepared. I can’t work that way. It’s too chaotic for me.

John: Yeah, that sense of, this was the plan going in there, and it’s suddenly not working, and you’re just under such pressure, because you actually have your entire cast, you have the entire crew, and then in theory, a studio audience. Talk to us about studio audiences now. The shows that have laughter in the background, are most of those shot with audiences now?

Betsy: Yes. They have been. People talk about the laugh track, but the truth is, it’s not really a track. There’s mics. That’s what the studio’s done. Sometimes if you’re using something from the pre-shoot date – oftentimes you’ll pre-shoot scenes, get them in the can, and then you shoot it once in front of the audience, just to get their response and their reaction. Sometimes the audience show performance wasn’t as good or the camera had a bump on it. For some reason, you need to use the one from the – so somebody will borrow the laugh from the – even though that’s not what was under the original. It isn’t really a laugh track. It’s a falsehood. Those laughs are all from the audience itself.

John: Melissa McCarthy was talking about how on Mike and Molly, they would pre-shoot some stuff. If there was a scene where they were driving in a car, they would pre-shoot that, but then on the night of actual filming, they would just be sitting on apple boxes and doing the same scene so they could get the laughter and get the real audience reaction from that.

Betsy: That’s right. Some stuff you’ll play back, and then you’ll get the audience laughs for the thing you’ve played back – that car scene.

John: Shooting some multi-cams, because you’ve also directed, can you talk to us about how you approach shooting a multi-cam scene? Because we’re so used to the camera’s here or the camera’s here, but you’re having to watch a bunch of stuff simultaneously. You’re trying to make sure the performances make sense, but also that the cameras are capturing the performances in the right way. What are you thinking about as a director looking at a script?

Betsy: I was a theater major, so multi-cam is really natural for me, because it’s just a recorded play. That’s really all it is. You’re in this set. The way I always work – and I do this a lot of times with single-cam too – is I go to the best joke in the scene and I work backwards from that.

John: Interesting.

Betsy: Because I always feel like you want to make sure that that thing that it’s building to is landing in the best possible way. A lot of times I’ll look at that and I go, “I know I want this here. I know I want him leaning over the kitchen counter and grabbing for her at this moment.” Then I’ll try to go, “If that’s where I’m ending, where do I start, and where do I have everybody go?”

I like to have a lot of movement in scenes. There are directors that just put two people on a couch. As a writer, that’s death. I know how many scenes have died because a director… Because let’s face it – no offense to actors – with the exception honestly of Helen Hunt, who always wants business and wants to move, a lot of actors are happy just to be sitting on a couch.

John: Park and bark, yeah.

Betsy: I think if you let them do that, sometimes a scene can really die. I always try to keep a lot of life. I like it to feel like it’s natural, not like it’s artificial. I try to help the actors by giving them business that feels organic to what they should be doing and gives them purpose. That’s the other thing that I always think about when I’m directing is figuring out…

Then I also like to be flexible, so that when we get to rehearsal, I can say, “I was thinking this was my plan. What do you think of this plan?” Sometimes they love it and they’re like, “I was feeling like I didn’t want to walk on this moment. I wouldn’t want to be near him.” You’re like, “Great, then don’t do that.” Then you gotta just be flexible with the plan.

John: I want to rewind back. Let’s say this is a script you didn’t write, but this is a script you’re gonna be directing. You’re handed the script. You’re visualizing in your head, “This is the biggest joke. This is where I would see this going.” Are you then having a conversation with the writer, with the team, about putting that stuff in the scripts, putting the business in the script, or is that something you’re holding onto for yourself?

Betsy: No, I just have it, because we’re gonna rehearse, and it may or may not work. We may not like it. They’re gonna see it the next day. They’re gonna either go, “God, that scene worked great,” or…

Occasionally, if we’re deeper, it’s Wednesday night, I’ll say, “For him to get to the door in time to open the door and she’s there, I need one more line, because it’s too big a cross. He can’t get there.” That stuff I’ll say. I try to go up to the writers’ room after on multi-cams. I try to go up after our rehearsal day and go, “Everything worked great. This was beautiful. This thing is wonky. You’ll see tomorrow. But I think we’re missing some words here,” or whatever. I’ll give them a head’s up, because I liked that as a showrunner when I would get that head’s up, because it helps you start to think about and prepare as you go through the rewrite.

John: How do you as a director interact with the showrunner or other writers on rehearsal day? Basically, we recognize this thing isn’t working. Is it their responsibility to notice that and point that out? Is it your responsibility as a director to figure it out? What is the communication there?

Betsy: I would say it’s normally just like you put up the play, the thing, and then the writers are looking at it like, “How do we fix the script to make it better?” I think there are times where they’ll say, “Hey, we actually were thinking this instead of the way you staged it.” They’ll say that to the director. Then sometimes I’ll say, “I tried to make this thing work. We had it this other way. Do you want me to show you that? That didn’t feel right either.” We have a conversation.

I would say because I’m a writer – and I would even say I would identify as a writer principally. That’s where my heart is. That was my first guild. I always try to make the script work as best as I possibly can, and I’m super collaborative with the showrunner. I’m always like, “Come down to set. Come watch rehearsal. Do you want to just come down and be here for this scene? I can let you know.” I like to have them as involved as they possibly can be.

The other thing that sometimes happens with actors occasionally is, there can be some badmouthing of jokes or a little bit of eyerolling. I don’t like that. No one tried to do anything but a great job in the script, so you gotta give them what they wrote.

John: You talk about it’s basically putting up a play, but the difference is, of course, you then can go into the editing room and change the play after it was put up. Can you talk to us about the editing process as a writer, as a director? How much flexibility do you have in the editing room to improve something that was like, eh, on the day? Have you found things in multi-cam where that didn’t really work in person, but then it just killed in the edit? Is that a thing that’s possible to do?

Betsy: Yeah, I think it is. I think it’s less likely in multi-cam. I think there’s definitely more in single. Smash cuts don’t really work in multi-cam the way they do in single, but I will say there’s a couple things that do matter. I worked on a show called Outmatch. They would oftentimes be pretty long. The cut would come in long. I started saying to them, “If you think you’re gonna lift this page, you won’t be able to do that in editing, because people are making crosses.”

What I hate is, unlike single, it can be very difficult to make cuts, because people jump space and because it is a play. You have to be a little more disciplined as a writer to get a little closer to time. Obviously, you want a little bit of fat. Then I always try to think, “What are some things that might go away?” and making sure that two people are not moving during that, so if you want to take that lift, it won’t be hard in the editing room.

John: It’s a thing I hadn’t really considered, but shooting multi-cam, you’re not gonna have the clean singles often that you could use to jump people around in space. They would exist naturally.

Betsy: Yeah, you don’t have as many options.

John: When you are doing multiple takes in multi-cam, let’s say you run that, like, “Oh, that’s pretty good. We’re gonna do it again.” Will you change up cameras just so you have more options in editing?

Betsy: We do. The idea is you got the four cameras. Sometimes it’ll be like, the best two shot is over here actually of these two, so we’ll do a single and a single, but even maybe we’ll do I’ll say a two. But we work with a camera coordinator, and they really helped. You say, “I know I’m gonna play this joke in a two, so let’s make sure we get that in front of the audience the first time,” because it’s the first time they’re seeing the joke, which tends to be the biggest laugh. I don’t want to start in a single. I want to start in a two shot, so I make sure I have that.

John: It does feel weird that we bring in an audience to watch this thing and they’re seeing the action in front of them, but you also want them watching the monitors.

Betsy: It is, yeah.

John: Because that’s the show.

Betsy: I think in general they do seem to watch the monitors. They’re watching the actors, but I think when you’re rolling, I think they go to that, which is good, because a lot of times you need somebody in a close-up for something to play.

John: Now, Megana, you’ve been reading through a bunch of sitcom scripts. Can you talk through about what you’ve learned? We’ll put some of these examples scripts in – put links to them in the show notes. Talk to us about what you’re seeing on the page, because they look different than what we’re used to in single-camera.

Megana: Yeah, they look different. The ones pre-2000s are all two acts with a cold open and maybe a tag, and formatted differently. The action lines are all capitalized, mostly interiors. I was very surprised, roughly six scenes in a script.

Betsy: Depends. How I Met Your Mother was one that really broke that, where they had a lot of scenes. It was a single-cam multi-cam. Yes, the old-school way to do it is to do far fewer scenes. By the way, that makes for a lot more fun show night also, because you get through it quickly. The audience is completely engaged. If you don’t have to wait for a wardrobe change, if you’re able to keep it in that, it really makes the show, I think, really sing.

Megana: Much more characters, I’ve realized, than in most of the single-cam scripts that I’m reading. In a multi-cam, obviously, you’re gonna have a bigger ensemble, typically.

Betsy: Yeah, I think that’s true. When I think about my favorite moments in multi-cam, I directed a few episodes of The Carmichael Show, and there were some scenes in their living room which were hard to stage, because it’s a lot of people in that scene. You have Tiffany and Lil Rel and Jerrod and David and Loretta. It’s not that big a set. You’re also like, “How do I keep it where not everybody’s just sitting down?” because then it gets stagnant. It was really hard to direct.

Those scenes, sometimes they were seven, eight pages long. That’s a lot for actors to get through. Old-school ones, David and Loretta, who come from theater, who come from the stage, it’s not as difficult for. But I think a younger generation, they’re not used to that, particularly if you’ve not come from stages. But those scenes just pop. The audiences love them.

Megana: You mentioned being able to do smash cut jokes in single-cam. Are there any other differences you think of between multi-cam versus single-cam comedy when you’re writing?

Betsy: I worked on a multi-cam called Abby’s that was short-lived. Mike Schur was the EP. Josh Malmuth created it.

John: Is that the one that was all in a backyard?

Betsy: Yes, with Natalie Morales. Josh had a little bit of multi-cam experience when he was much younger, but I think I was the only other person that really had… The rest of the staff was young, and they only had had single-cam experience. I found myself a few times saying, “That doesn’t really work, and the reason it doesn’t work is because you have these run-throughs.” To stage a smash cut is weird. It’s like, smash cut to the car. Where is the car? We don’t have that set. Then you’re having two actors run over to sit in a… I don’t know. It can be really awkward, which doesn’t mean that you can’t do it in the cut. But it can be awkward in terms of the run-throughs and things like that.

Megana: I didn’t realize that all of these scripts were filmed sequentially when you shoot them in front of the audience. I don’t know why I didn’t put that together.

Betsy: Yeah, they are. There are also things that they’d say, “Oh, and then he blows up the mailbox.” I’m like, “How is that gonna happen in front of an audience? It’ll look terrible, because we can’t really do… ” I think there are ways to do things in multi-cam with special effects in post that didn’t used to exist, so I think there’s a lot more flexibility now, but there’s a reason that the great multi-cams were Mary Tyler Moore Show and Cheers. They were people just doing their thing, walking through telling funny jokes and leaving.

John: Absolutely. I want to talk about entering and leaving, because I think that’s actually a difference, because there’s the expectation in multi-cam that people come in, people enter, and they exit. That’s a thing that actually happens, which you just don’t see as much in single-cam. People are already seated or they’re already in the middle of a thing versus walking into a thing. Entrances and exits are so important and so funny, hopefully, if it works well.

Betsy: I think it probably comes from the energy that that brings to a scene, because again, it’s just like theater. If you’re watching a theater scene of four people sitting around a table for 10 pages, it’s fine, but it’s a different energy when somebody walks in with news, somebody walks in with a complication. It has a really different energy.

John: A lot of the things we’re gonna be linking to are older things, so Cheers or Friends. But this Night Court reboot is new. It’s from 2021. A thing I do notice is underneath the scene header, in parentheses, it says which characters are in the scene. Is that a common thing?

Betsy: Yeah, always.

John: Always. Cheers and Friends don’t do it, but this one does.

Betsy: They must’ve added it later, but it is part of what the coordinator does. Obviously, it’s because it gets back to this thing of all the departments want to just see, “Who’s in this scene? What cats do I have wrangle?”

John: The decision to make dialogue double-spaced, it looks so terrible to me, but it’s convention.

Betsy: It is. It’s a lot easier for an actor to read when they’re walking through with their script, because they don’t have it memorized. All these run-throughs, they’ve got their script.

John: They’re just holding it.

Betsy: They’re walking through the scene on the run-through day, reading from their script while – “And I love you too, sweetie,” and then they… We encourage them to not try to memorize it, because we want the words. I don’t want an approximation of the words. I want to know the exact words, because then I know what I have to fix. Somebody’s saying, “I really like you too, sweetie,” that means something very different.

John: Parentheticals are part of the dialogue block itself. Things just look different in ways that just feel arbitrary.

Betsy: I know. I know.

Megana: Your scripts end up being 40 to 60 pages long.

Betsy: Hopefully not 60. That’s really long. But yes, I would say in the 38 to 42 is the sweet spot, depending on the show. Then some shows, they spread. Who knows what? They just spread, and so it’s just better to have shorter page count. Other shows can get away – I think Friends scripts were usually pretty long, because that dialogue just went so quickly.

John: Let’s say you’re a listener to the show who really loves the multi-cam format and wants to work in that. Would you recommend they write a multi-cam script, or should they write something that’s more single-camera-y but has funny jokes in it? What’s gonna be a better thing to get them noticed and read?

Betsy: A time machine.

John: That’s a good one. First, invent time travel. Then show them your Friends script.

Betsy: I don’t think it matters anymore, from what I can gather. I just had this conversation with my husband last night. He said, “I hear spec scripts are coming back.” I was like, “Really?”

John: Specs of existing shows?

Betsy: Specs meaning specs of existing shows, so you write a Night Court. My friend Corey Nickerson wrote her spec years and years ago. She did a spec Mary Tyler Moore.

John: So exciting.

Betsy: But it was R rated. It got her a lot of attention, because it just was a really cool way to reinvent that idea. For example, I think if you wrote a Modern Family spec, I think that’s gonna work for a multi-cam just great. I don’t think you have to do one or the other. I think if you wrote a Baby Reindeer spec, I’m not sure that’s gonna really translate to the Tim Allen thing.

John: Yeah, somehow, yeah, I could see that being a talent. A guy who we were on the negotiating committee with was working on the new Frasier. That’s another example of a present-day sitcom that’s out there.

I remember when my daughter was young, she was obsessed with one of the Nickelodeon shows, and so I got her onto the set of one of the Nickelodeon shows. It was very much a classic sitcom-y kind of thing, but they filmed it arbitrarily in the afternoons. There was a laugh group. It was just a bunch of people in lawn chairs who’d sit at a TV and laugh with the jokes. It was the most uncomfortable thing I’ve ever experienced in my entire life.

Betsy: I’m trying to think of what the equivalent is. It feels like there’s some sort of sex worker equivalent. As a copywriter, you feel so cheap, because you’re like, “I didn’t earn that.” That’s what we had in COVID. We had the laughers in COVID, because you couldn’t have an audience. They would hire these, because then you could test them all. They could be properly COVID tested in the audience. I think it bothered all of us, and particularly actors or standups who are used to earning those laughs. It feels real dirty just to get a big guffaw. You’re like, “It wasn’t that funny. Now it feels like you’re mocking me.”

John: I just remember the producer would walk over to laughers between, like, “Can I get a bigger laugh on this joke?” I’m like, oh, no. Finger on the scale there.

Betsy: It is. It’s got real fake orgasm vibes.

John: It does. Let’s talk about some listener questions. Megana, can we start with this one from Annie?

Megana: Annie writes, “I hooked up with a director who loves one of my scripts, a feature film. He’s put a lot of work into moving the project forward and recently found a producer who’s on board. I trust the director’s taste, and we have good communication. The producer, not so much. I don’t want to be all precious. After all, a script produced is better than one on your hard drive. On the other hand, if the result is completely awful, then what? Any tips on how to navigate this process?”

John: I think we’ve all been in situations where like, “Oh, I really like your perspective, and this other person’s, I don’t, and I am stuck with both of you.” It’s a tricky place to navigate.

Betsy: My advice would be talk to the director as politically savvily as possible. Just say, “Here’s where I’m struggling. I feel like we’re very much in the same page of what this movie is. I’m not feeling like the input from the producer is rowing in the same direction. Tell me how you feel about their notes, how you’re experiencing. Maybe I’m not understanding something or I’m not seeing something,” and see if they can be – because they may be feeling the same way, and by you saying that, be like, “You know what? I actually feel the same way.” Or they may say, “Oh, I’ve worked for this person before, and take this with a grain of salt.”

John: The opposite situation is worse, when you agree with the producer, and the director has terrible notes and terrible instincts. Then you’re gonna get replaced and things are bad. It’s not gonna work out well. Ultimately, that director is responsible for executing your script. Yes, the producer’s gonna have an important function, but you’re better off seeing eye to eye with the director than with the producer.

Betsy: Yes.

John: A question here from Cayenne.

Megana: Cayenne asks, “Sometimes when writing dialogue, I find my characters being sarcastic or deadpan, saying what is phrased like a question but flatly and more as a shady statement. I like to write these with no question mark, because it feels like it makes their tone much clearer. For example, ‘Oh, really?’ versus, ‘Oh, really.’ But I’ve had a friend proofreading catch these, insisting that they’ll snag a reader out of the scene more than help. Do you have any opinions on when or when not to break grammatical norms to communicate tone?”

Betsy: I use punctuation however the hell I want. But also, you can say “flatly.” You’ve got parentheticals available to you. I usually do a combination of parentheticals and punctuation. I don’t know. I hear what the person proofing it feels, but I also think I want to know what the tone is more importantly than anything else.

John: I agree with you. I think if it’s crucial, then that parenthetical could be in there. But I do like that question marks actually kind of have a sound now. Putting a question mark on or taking a question mark, you can kind of hear it. We mentioned a couple weeks ago, someone had two question marks at the end of a sentence. I can hear what that sounds like. It felt appropriate.

This last week there was a press release that came out from Kamala Harris’s campaign, and one of the bullet points was, “Trump is old and quite weird?” with a question mark. That question mark was absolutely perfect. Choosing to put the question mark there or put a question mark on a thing that’s otherwise a statement is a total valid choice. Everything on the page matters. Don’t worry about it being grammatically perfect.

Megana: Just an example to look at, because we’ll probably link the Friends pilot in here, they set up Chandler as droll, and he doesn’t have any question marks in his sarcastic statements. It’s just a period.

John: Let’s do one more. This one from John.

Megana: John writes, “I’m writing a screenplay where, in Act 3, the protagonist is hit with a massive flashback of memories while standing in a room with other people. Like 5 to 10 pages of flashbackery. It’s important stuff and informs what happens next in the story. My question is, during the flashback, what’s happening in current time and space? Has it been presumably caused? If so, can you return right from a flashback and assume no time has passed? Is it better to return by jumping forward a bit in time, or is there a better way to handle this?”

John: I definitely have felt this, where I was like, “Oh, wow, we’ve been gone a long time. Was he actually in real time experiencing all this together?” If you’re gonna be gone for more than a minute, I think you gotta return to the present tense with some sense of, okay, just tell us whether he was experiencing this too, or was this flashback for us, or was it the thing that he was experiencing at the same time.

Betsy: I agree. I would also say use it to the advantage of the scene, in other words that time didn’t just stop for everybody. But it’s like, were they boring? Was somebody in the middle of telling an incredibly emotional story and you just went into flashbacks? Then you come back and they’re like, “And then he died.” You can use it in all kinds of different ways. I would say I always try to think what is the real. Then the real is, if I’m going into a bunch of flashbacks that take three minutes of screentime, that’s three minutes the other person has been doing something, or the other people have.

John: It is weird to do the introspection of what was actually happening while I was having these thoughts. Sometimes it’s in a place where nothing else was happening. I will time travel while I’m in the shower. Nothing else was happening. But if I’m time traveling during the middle of recording this podcast, you two would notice that.

Megana: It happened a few times actually.

John: It has, where I’ve just been like, “I’m not in here anymore.” It has come time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is this article by Mary HK Choi for New York Magazine, or The Cut. I always get confused what’s what there. The headline is What My Adult Autism Diagnosis Finally Explained. I’ve seen other people talk about adult diagnosis of autism. It’s like, okay, sure. But her description of where she was at and how it made things click together was really fascinating. Then I like that she also pushed beyond to say, yes, but also I’m an immigrant and some of what you’re seeing here is also just a pretty understandable response to what my situation was. Yes, there’s probably some brain stuff, but there’s also probably some cultural stuff there, and it’s impossible to disentangle them.

I thought it was a really great article. There were so many things I wanted to highlight and underline. She’s a workaholic who’s, quote, “bad at Christmas,” which is such a great character description.

Betsy: That is great.

John: It’s so good. This is a article by Mary HK Choi. Everyone should look it up.

Megana: Awesome. My One Cool Thing is Season 2 of Unstable.

John: Tell us about Unstable. You watched the whole first season, and you should watch the second season now too?

Megana: Yes, I watched the whole first season. Everyone should watch the second season. This is the show that I had to leave my beloved Scriptnotes producing job for.

John: Absolutely. You can see Megana’s name on screen as a staff writer on Unstable Season 2.

Megana: Yes. It is a single-cam comedy on Netflix starring Rob Lowe and his real-life son John Lowe. There’s also Fred Armisen, Sian Clifford. This season has Lamorne Morris. It’s a delightful, quirky comedy. The episodes are 20 minutes long. Check it out.

John: Delightful and very exciting. Here’s the secret about Netflix, which we should just tell everybody. Start watching it and just watch the whole thing, because they really care about things being completed. Be a completionist. If you don’t have a chance to watch it all when you first sit down, maybe just let it play, so you get credit for it. Then you can go back and watch the episodes again.

Betsy: Who has time to watch an entire series in one sitting? I’m lucky to get through one.

John: I know.

Betsy: I don’t know. I guess people who don’t have kids. I don’t know.

Megana: I have a lot of time to do that.

Betsy: If you’ve had a couple glasses of wine at dinner and it’s… If it’s 9:45 and I’m not on my way to bed, something’s wrong.

John: You and me, we’re right in that zone. I could start watching something, but it’s already 9:00, so soon that means I’m gonna be tired and I’m gonna want to be upstairs.

Betsy: That’s exactly right. I feel bad, because you guys had cool things. But you could prepare. All I’ve done – this is a callback to the flashback.

John: Please.

Betsy: All I’ve done this entire time you guys were saying yours was – my brain was racing through, “Come up with a cool thing!” I barely heard either one of you. You know what I saw that I really enjoyed is a little movie called Wicked Little Letters.

John: Tell me about this.

Betsy: It’s a English movie – as John knows, we love all things English – with Jessie.

John: Jessie Buckley?

Betsy: Yep.

John: Jessie Buckley from Chernobyl.

Betsy: Yes. She’s delightful. It’s Olivia Colman.

John: Come on.

Betsy: It’s written by this fantastic writer, who’s also an actor, named Jonny Sweet.

John: Great.

Betsy: That we’re somewhat obsessed with. It’s a delight.

John: Great. Wicked Little Letters.

Betsy: It’s on streaming now.

Megana: It’s on Netflix. I’m glad you recommended it, because I saw it and I was like, “This looks really good,” but I haven’t heard people talking about it.

Betsy: It’s a delightful romp. It has some serious stuff, and it’s also loosely based on a true story.

John: Fun. You’ve not heard anybody talking about it until Betsy Thomas shows up to talk about it. Now, that broke the dam.

Betsy: Exactly. I just made Jonny Sweet a billionaire.

John: Absolutely. The little title will go to the top, what’s trending now on it, just because of your recommendation.

Betsy: Exactly.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with, this week, special help from Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli, who also did our outro this week. A special outro in celebration of the Olympics. It’s Scriptnotes themed in celebration of the Olympics.

If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com, where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies and other gear that’s all great. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net. You get all those back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on golf. I want to hear about golf.

Betsy: That’s the least honest thing you’ve ever said.

John: Betsy, as always, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.

Betsy: I had a blast, you guys. Thank you so much.

Megana: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: I actually am genuinely curious about golf, because there’s things that I probably never would do myself but I’m still curious about, and golf is one of those, because this is my perception of golf: It’s hot and sunny out, two things I don’t like. I’m gonna go walk around carrying a bag of things, trying to hit a ball poorly while talking with people. None of these things are clicking for me, but they do click for you. Tell me, what got you into golf?

Betsy: First of all, the birthplace of golf, it’s not hot and sunny. It’s actually the opposite.

John: It’s Scottish.

Betsy: It’s cold and windy and rainy. What is it? A lovely walk spoiled is what I think somebody called golf. Of course I can’t remember who. I’m trying to think of how to say to somebody who doesn’t play golf what’s good about golf.

Golf takes extraordinary amount of skill, practice, discipline, mental tenacity. You are always kind of just playing yourself. Even when you’re playing in a match, you’re playing competitively, the person you’re trying to beat is usually the person in your own head. That’s what I struggle the most with.

You have however many shots to get to the hole. But there are so many different versions of those shots. Tennis, you’ve got however many you have. But golf, it’s so much more complicated and more difficult. It’s a game that is very difficult to master. You can continue to play it until you’re old. It’s very social. You get four to five hours with your loved one, your friends, whoever.

John: A thing you brought up today, which I’d never really considered, is it’s less like poker and more like Solitaire, because you’re really just playing yourself. It doesn’t really matter how everyone else does. Ultimately, you’re gonna compare your scores, but you’re not playing against each other directly, the way you are in tennis or really almost any other sport.

Betsy: You are in match play. I’m playing in our club championship this weekend. Tomorrow’s my first match of match plays. It’s a bracket, and you have to win. When you are playing somebody else in a match, you are playing them directly. Hole by hole is what you’re winning.

John: How they perform really has no bearing on how you perform directly.

Betsy: No, except for if they’re on the green in two and they’re putting for birdie, and I’m in the fairway, I’m like, “Uh-oh, I have to get up and down, or I’m gonna lose this hole.”

John: Megana, you said your dad is a golfer?

Megana: He is a golfer. He’s a big-time golfer.

John: Did he golf before he came to the States, or how did that all start?

Megana: No, it’s really a hobby that he picked up, gosh, I think when I was like – it was once we moved to Ohio. Him and his friend just started golfing. Now they’re out there on all of the hot and sunny, humid days in Ohio, because there’s very limited days that you can golf there.

John: Your dad’s a doctor, so that also ties in. I think about doctors golfing.

Megana: Yeah, I guess some of his friends who are doctors also golf. My mom’s gotten into it recently.

John: Oh, interesting.

Megana: It’s a cute thing they do together.

John: My dad golfed some. I remember my mom decided, “I’m gonna take lessons so I can golf with him.” I would sit in the car at the edge of the golf practice range where she’d have her lessons. She just hated it. I really respect my mom for just stopping. She was like, “I don’t like this.” She just stopped. Learning it’s okay to quit was just such an inspiration to me.

Megana: I do feel really inspired when I see that. Betsy, when did you start golfing?

Betsy: I got clubs for my 30th birthday.

John: So not as a child then.

Betsy: So four years ago.

John: Four years, you’re already playing in the championship. That’s really great.

Betsy: Yeah, I’m the wunderkind.

John: Why did you get clubs? Did your husband golf?

Betsy: No, my friend JB Roberts, who is a manager here in LA, but we went to college together, he just decided I should be a golfer. I was an athlete. I was always an athlete. I was a tennis player. I played lacrosse growing up. I had hit the golf ball. I’d hit around a little bit. But I was not a golfer. I had no clubs, whatever. He had decided I should be a golfer. He got my friends to all pitch in and buy me clubs and lessons for my 30th birthday. That’s what began it. It was great though, because I really did enjoy it.

Then when I met my husband, Adrian, he is a very good golfer. We found that out on our first date. Then that gave us a thing to do together. We’ve been able to have that, and now our son is an excellent golfer. The three of us do golf trips all the time. We’ve been to Scotland. We get to travel.

One of the things I love about it is, A, you can drink. It’s like, oh, I’m getting my steps in and I have a vodka tonic. But here’s the terrible thing about the elitism of golf. It has some of the most beautiful land in the world – are golf courses. You get to see spectacular places wherever you travel. You get to see some of the most gorgeous landscape. As a family, we travel, and we always have this thing that we do together.

I know it sounds weird. It’s like, how is that romantic? Adrian and I are going to Ireland in October for our 25th wedding anniversary, and we’re gonna play golf. It’ll be just the two of us walking around a course together for five hours or four and a half hours. It’s actually beautiful and lovely. I know it sounds strange, but it is weirdly romantic.

John: You’ve done a really good job selling golf. I actually am much more appreciative of a thing now. The other perception I have of golf has always been people making deals over golf. How useful or not useful has it been in terms of the industry that you work in to play golf? Do you golf with industry folks? How does that tie together?

Betsy: I don’t really, but I think it’s more of sexism, because there aren’t that many women that play golf. I think that it’s a thing that guys do, because the guys all play Saturday morning together. In the club we belong, there are a lot of showbiz people. I don’t really have that, because I play with my family or I play with the ladies. We’re not normally doing that kind of thing. But I do think that is a real thing. I think there’s a lot of friendships that are formed through that.

John: Megana, was your dad golfing – do you think it was also part of, not even assimilation, but just a way to become more American? Was that a goal at all?

Megana: That’s an interesting question. I’m from the suburbs in Ohio. There is one really big golf course in the middle of our town.

Betsy: Where?

Megana: It’s Yankee Trace Golf Club in Centerville, Ohio. Are you familiar with Ohio at all?

Betsy: I am.

John: You’re saying you and Adrian are not gonna be traveling to Centerville, Ohio on your next romantic golf trip?

Betsy: I don’t think so. I’m not thinking. But there are some amazing golf courses in Ohio, actually. That’s why I was asking.

Megana: Yeah, there’s the NCR Country Club golf course, which is the National Cash Register, which is a huge part of Dayton, Ohio lore.

John: I love it.

Megana: But a lot of his friends that he golfs with are Indian, so I don’t know if it was totally an assimilation thing. He really wanted me to get into it because it is such a mental game. I don’t know. I was just such a hormonal teenager. I think he was like, “This will help,” and it did the opposite. It made me so mad.

John: It wasn’t a Venus and Serena Williams situation where suddenly-

Megana: No, absolutely not.

Betsy: I will tell you about the doctors thing that it is one of the great things. There actually are a lot of doctors who play golf, and it’s one of the great things about golf, because I turned my ankle really badly and couldn’t put weight on it, and it was like, “Oh good, there’s Dr. Dave. He’s head of orthopedics at Children’s.” I was like, “Hey.” He checks it out. Then the guy we were playing with is actually an acupuncturist and a Chinese medicine doctor. He took me into the gym, and he did a bunch of pressure point stuff on me. I said to Dave, “What should I do?” He’s like, “Ice and vodka, in any combination.” See?

John: Absolutely. The cure for most issues though really.

Betsy: That’s so true.

John: Betsy, an absolute delight having you on.

Betsy: I just had a great time.

Megana: Thank you.

Betsy: Unstable, I’m gonna watch it.

Megana: Please.

Links:

• Betsy Thomas on Wikipedia and IMDb
• Megana Rao on Twitter and IMDb
• WGA West Annual Report
• Writer Earnings Fell $600 Million Due to Strike and Industry Contraction, WGA Says by Gene Maddus for Variety
• Cheers – “Give Me a Ring Sometime” by Glen and Les Charles
• Cheers – “Father Knows Last”
• Night Court – “Pilot” by Dan Rubin
• Friends – “Pilot” by David Crane & Marta Kauffman
• What My Adult Autism Diagnosis Finally Explained by Mary HK Choi for The Cut
• Unstable – Season 2 on Netflix (hooray Megana Rao!)
• Wicked Little Letters on Netflix
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
• Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
• John August on Threads, Instagram, X and Mastodon
• Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, with help this week by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2024/overwritten).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 650 – wow – of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, how do you rewrite without overwriting. We’ll discuss tips and techniques for not bogging down your script. We’ll also look at a bunch of items in the news, including the sale of Paramount and a potential IATSE deal. And in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we’ll discuss the Recording Industry Association of America’s lawsuits against the AI music generators like Suno and Udio about copyright infringement and how this might relate to folks who write movies and TV.

To help us do this, we welcome back a very, very special guest, the creator of The Good Place, and all-around good guy, Mr. Mike Schur. Mike Schur, welcome back.

**Mike Schur:** I’m honored to be here for number 650. Nice round number.

**John:** Round numbers are our specialty here. We just love when we hit them. Chris McQuarrie always comes back for every 200 episodes, which is exactly how much you want Christopher McQuarrie. No more, no less. I could have you back every 50 episodes, it’d be great. Basically a yearly visit.

**Mike:** Could I come back every 650th episode?

**John:** Good lord, that would be a lot. Episode 1300, we’ll book you.

**Mike:** And 1950.

**John:** Drew, make a note now. Somebody will contact us down the road saying, “Hey, you said that Mike Schur would be back on Episode 1300.” We’ll try to hold to it.

**Mike:** God, that’s so many years away.

**John:** That’s 12 years away. That’s a lot.

**Mike:** I’ll be ready.

**John:** You’ll be ready. Let’s get into some news here. Mr. Mike Schur, you were on the WGA negotiating committee with me. We talked through a lot about all the stuff in the WGA strike and of course, SAG-AFTRA strike. IATSE was the next big union up. It looks like they may have reached a deal.

**Mike:** Yes. This is very exciting. Tentative congratulations to IATSE leadership and also all IATSE members. This was the last big piece of the Hollywood union labor negotiations that had to be completed. There’s a lot of consternation about whether or not there would be another strike at a fragile time in the business. It seems like they have reached an agreement, which is wonderful. I hope all IATSE members are happy with what they’ve negotiated.

This is an especially tricky one, trickier even than SAG or the Writers Guild or the Directors Guild, in part because IATSE itself is comprised of so many different sorts of people. It’s an all-purpose trade craft union. It represents a lot of different folks who do a lot of different jobs on movie sets and TV sets and stuff like that. To find an agreement that satisfies everyone is a very difficult task.

I don’t know if you’ve talked to folks about it. Anecdotally, the folks that I’ve talked to seem to generally be pretty happy with what was achieved. Is that your experience too?

**John:** That is my experience. As we’re recording this just yesterday, the full details came out, so I don’t know that people had a lot of time to parse every little bit of things. But let’s talk through some of the top line stuff that they’ve told us.

If you’re on a set and you’re working more than 15 elapsed hours, you move into triple time. This is an effort to combat the endless days of production. It’s a bigger penalty if you move into 15 hours. Now, there’s been some push back saying 15 hours, it still means that you’re working crews 15 hours. That’s still the problem. There was a desire for a hard cap on the hours, and they didn’t get that. But triple time should incentivize, hopefully, productions to stop at a certain sane hour.

There’s new protections around artificial intelligence. Obviously, that’s a thing we’re very focused on in the WGA negotiations. There’s new language that says that employees cannot be required to provide AI prompts in a manner that would displace a covered employee. That sounds complicated. But it was always going to be complicated with such a broad cross section of members who were doing this stuff. The AI concerns of an editor are not the same as the AI concerns of costume designer or a production artist. They’re all doing very different things. As a general solution, maybe this is helpful. Have you talked to any folks about the AI concerns here?

**Mike:** Yes. Your point is well taken, because just as one example, I’m finishing a show now that I did for Netflix. It’ll be on in November, I think. I was talking to one of our sound engineers. We’ve recorded a scene at Pier 39 in San Francisco, famous location in San Francisco where sea lions come and they hang out on these docks. It’s very cute. The problem with sea lions when they gather en masse is that they bark a lot and they make recording dialogue extremely difficult.

We looked at the first version of the scene, and it was nearly inaudible. Two actors are talking, and all you hear is “arr arr arr arr” in the background. I was like, “Oh my god, we’re screwed. We’ll never be able to use this.” The sound engineer, he’s like, “Give me four hours,” and sent it back, and it was completely audible and the sea lions were gone. I said, “How did that happen?” He was like, “We have tools for that now.” Those tools essentially are AI tools. It’s like this extremely powerful computerized program that finds the wave form of a certain sound, combs through the track, and removes it.

There are aspects of AI that these folks use in different capacities in different jobs that are wonderful, that are beneficial to productions, that help everybody. They help actors. They help writers. They help productions. Then there are ones that are meant to essentially replace those people. The idea of trying to legislate at this moment in a time a rule or a series of rules that does nothing but help and doesn’t hurt is a very tall order.

Again, we are just now going over the details of this agreement, but it appears that what IATSE has done is not that different from what we did in the WGA, which is to say we tried to put up some guardrails, we tried to put up some fences that loosely captured what it was that we were trying to preserve, and largely kept out what we were trying to keep out.

In places where it’s impossible to get granular and really pin down exactly what we’re talking about, we just reserved our right to continue to fight in the future. That is a huge key. That was a huge key for us in the WGA negotiations was that the staff did so much work in crafting language that essentially reserved our rights to continue to try to legislate what we thought needed to be legislated. It appears to me, at least from first glance, that that’s what IATSE did as well. Is that your read on the situation?

**John:** It is. Earlier this summer, I was at a conference in Italy, and I was on a panel talking about AI. I was the lone voice, weirdly, who had to defend, like, okay, we need to make sure that the AI that’s coming online is being used by workers rather than to replace workers. It sounds like that what’s they’re trying to go for here. Your example with the sea lions is exactly that. We want to make sure that this is a technology that’s being used in the furtherance of a person’s career and profession rather than to replace that person or profession.

One of the things I try to always underline when I talk about AI things is I try not to use the word tool, because tool is a positive term. No one is anti-hammer. But tools can be used as weapons. That’s why I always try to make sure that I’m saying technology, because technology is a more neutral term, and recognize that you can use technologies for good means or for bad means.

As people who are negotiating on behalf of workers, you want to make sure these technologies are being used by the workers in the furtherance of their job. It feels like that was the spirit of these AI protections. Again, language similar to the WGA, in the sense of they cannot require you to use AI technologies, and they may prohibit you from using some of these AI technologies, because they’re concerned about things like copyright infringement. Just like as we get into in our Bonus Segment, that’s going to be a real worry.

If one of their concerns is going to be like, okay, what if a director or a production designer uses one of these technologies to generate some image? That image ends up becoming ruled as being infringing on copyright. Yikes. There’s all these concerns they have too.

**Mike:** For the record, I am deeply anti-hammer. Nothing good has ever happened with a use of hammer.

**John:** Mike, your position as being team screwdriver is really well known. This is where it’s gonna go from here on out. Like all negotiations, they got wage increases, so percentage increases on the basic rates that go up. Theirs matched pretty close to what SAG-AFTRA got, which is great. It’s a bigger bump in the first year, smaller in the next two years. They got additional money for their health plan, which is important. Their streaming residuals, it’s important to understand, doesn’t go to the person itself. It goes to fund the underlying health fund, which is important. Keep them solvent.

**Mike:** I have heard a couple folks say that there was some ongoing debate and maybe a little bit of dissatisfaction – and I hope I’m not speaking out of turn here – regarding specific details of the VFX editors wing of IATSE. This is a big thing, because obviously, there are entire movies now that are essentially being made through the hard work and labor of visual effects editors.

I don’t think I can speak authoritatively about what exactly they got and what they didn’t get. That I would assume though will be something that is revisited in pretty much every IATSE negotiation going forward, because I don’t think that VFX editing is going to get less important over time in the movie industry specifically. But again, in the handful of folks that I’ve spoken to who are covered by IATSE, some costume designers, some hair and makeup folks, some editors, people generally seem to be pleased with the gains that were made, which is wonderful. I hope that that’s not a non-representative sample of the membership. I hope that most of the folks…

Like in anything else in the WGA, negotiations, for example, in SAG, there are always going to be some folks who end up feeling like they didn’t quite get what everybody else got. I think that’s doubly or triply so for IATSE, because again, you’re talking about grip and craft service and art directors and costumers and all sorts – studio teachers is one thing – groups covered by IATSE at all of these different individual important parts of the engine that drives the locomotive.

The thing that people should understand about IATSE is these groups of people are all individually vital to a production. It’s very hard to imagine making – take your pick – Bridgerton without costume designers. That’s not possible. It’s very hard to imagine making the Three Body Problem without video effects designers. Individually, all of these people are absolutely vital. It’s just that they are all collected into one union, and so it’s going to be very difficult at any moment for IATSE to reach an agreement that every group of people feels that their needs are addressed.

But importantly, it feels like this was a big step forward for them, especially compared to previous negotiations they’ve had that have left I think more people dissatisfied with the result than are currently dissatisfied with this one. Congrats to them again.

**John:** There are people out there who are trying to sell the narrative that the WGA strike and the SAG-AFTRA strike were basically giant wealth transfers from hardworking writers and industry people to Netflix and to AI, and that what should’ve happened is that the WGA should’ve partnered up with the studios to take on the AI companies, and it was idiotic to have ever gone on strike. Your opinion there, Mike?

**Mike:** A couple things. First of all, I think IATSE would be the first to say that a large reason that they got what they got was because of the strikes, because the WGA and SAG drew a line in the sand and said we’re not going to just take these minimal gains in the basic salaries of our employees, but rather, we’re going to fundamentally try to shift the way that studios think about compensating the labor who work for them. It’s a completely false read to say, “Look, IATSE did it. Why couldn’t you guys do it?” Because IATSE did it, because we did it. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is partnering with the studios to do anything is a pipe dream. It’s not like the studios are like, “Guys, please, I beg you, come partner with us to take on AI companies.” It’s quite the opposite. The studios are deeply interested in AI, for a number of reasons, some sinister and some not sinister, which I think you and I both learned.

I would say for those of you listening out there, John was the AI expert, so to speak, of the WGA negotiation committee. You were the guy I think who understood what AI was and how it was positioned to affect us as a union, and all unions, better than anybody. We all took our lead from you. I was very grateful for that. I think you educated a lot of us over the course of many months about what exactly AI was and what it was trying to do.

AI went from a thing – when we first got together to discuss our agenda, it was 23rd on the list of things that we felt was important. There were a lot more big, famous problems. So-called mini rooms were a huge problem in television. Free work was a huge problem for screenwriters. Minimum guarantees of duration was a huge thing for late-night and variety writers. Then 23rd on the list was like, hey, we should do something about AI. By the time I’d say we were deep into negotiations, right around the time when negotiations fell apart, most of us in the committee had come around to a position of like, oh, wait, AI is maybe the most important thing, or at least it’s a top five issue I think facing labor.

Part of the reason for that was that we came to realize through those negotiations how much it mattered to the studios. That was something that I don’t think we totally understood. But we were told flatly, “Stay away from this. Guys, don’t try to do anything with AI. That’s a nonstarter.” When your adversary in negotiations says don’t try to do anything with this issue, that’s how you know it’s a really important issue.

The idea that it is as simple as labor unions saying to studios, their employers, “Hey, let’s wrap our arms around each other and take on this other adversary,” that’s absurd. That’s such a facile way to try to understand the role that AI is playing in the world and in Hollywood in particular. That’s not an option.

It’s not an option to go to the studios and say, “Look, I know that we’re on opposite sides of a lot of issues here, but why don’t we team up and fight these companies against their advancements in AI,” because the studios are deeply interested and invested, financially and otherwise, in what AI might be able to do for them. The whole point of our approach in the AI negotiations was to say, “Hey, if we don’t do something about this, this is what will replace us.” Anyone who believes that it was as simple as us teaming up with studios to fight the advancement of artificial intelligence does not understand what is happening in the world right now.

**John:** I’m not quite sure what the name for the logical fallacy is. It’s not a straw man, but it’s things should just magically be different, basically like, “Oh, you guys should’ve done this thing, which I don’t know if it’s completely impossible or not, but that’s what you should’ve done.” It’s like, “Oh, okay, great, we’ll do that thing that’s actually not even a possible thing. That’s what we will do.”

**Mike:** It is at least adjacent to the content of a straw man, because you’re basically just saying, “Why didn’t you just do X.” It’s like, because X is not possible. That’s why. The one thing that I will say about the Writers Guild staff, which is a tireless group of people who are largely anonymous even to WGA members, but whose only purpose in life is to protect writers and help writers get what they deserve, is that in the years of study that went into the negotiation in 2023, they did not miss something as simple as, “What if we team up with the studios to [inaudible 00:16:49] AI?” I promise you that in all of the if-then scenarios that they worked out, that was not available to us as an option. Saying, “Why didn’t you just do that?” is very silly.

**John:** Absolutely. I think the other criticism I’ve seen about the WGA and “the strike was a mistake” was about this was a terrible time to go on strike, because the industry was going through a change and transition, and so you just made it easier for them to make the cuts that they wanted to make, and the idea that you’ve hastened the inevitable thing that was going to happen. You can’t hasten inevitability. It’s a weird place to land. It’s like, yes, things are going through a transition, and that’s probably why it’s very important to take a strong stand and defend what you can.

**Mike:** Of course. The number of things that contributed to what has happened to the industry in the last five years is large. It’s a large number of things. COVID, for example.

**John:** Oh, god.

**Mike:** If anything hastened anything, it was COVID, in my opinion. There was an out-of-control land grab that was going on where these companies were all starting their own streamers and they were all making this transition from over-the-air broadcasting or cable broadcasting to try owning all of their content in perpetuity in every territory on earth. In order to do that, they had to build up their libraries. In order to build up their libraries, they had to throw a ton of money at a ton of people to try to make a ton of stuff very quickly. Then COVID hit, and it really shook everything up.

One person I remember I talked to, a high-placed industry type person I was talking to right after COVID started, and I said, “What does this mean for us?” This person said, “It means Netflix wins forever.” The reason that they said that was that Netflix had a lead in the race. Disney Plus was racing to try to catch up. But in the race to be essentially everyone’s number one option for entertainment, they had such a huge lead. Then when COVID hit and everyone had to stay in their houses, the other companies hadn’t yet been able to get to the point where they had the same amount of stuff that Netflix did. As a result, everyone watched Netflix, and Netflix became even more indispensable to people’s lives.

That one thing that no union had control over led to the companies really taking a step back and saying, “Okay, wait a second. Are we gonna ever be able to beat them? Should we even be trying to beat them? Can we find another niche or another avenue that we can drive down in terms of making our in-house streamer more viable or more attractive to people?” Not to mention the fact that also coinciding with that was all production stopped for a very long time.

The same kind of person who says, “Why didn’t you just partner with the studios in order to team up against AI?” would probably say something like, “Why didn’t you guys just stop COVID? If you had just stopped COVID, then-”

**John:** 100 percent.

**Mike:** There were things that were completely out of anyone’s control, including the studios and networks. The correction that was happening was already deep into its history by the time that we were even able to begin negotiating. It’s also worth saying that a lot of the stuff that the Guild tried to do and accomplished in 2023, our original plan was to do it in 2020. We went into that negotiation saying, “Look, things are already changing. Because they’re already changing and we see where this is going, we need to make some moves here.” Then COVID hit. You can’t go on strike when you’re not allowed to leave your house and collect in large areas and have big discussions when there’s no cure for a very deadly disease that everyone’s afraid of.

Both WGA and I think SAG did what we did as quickly and efficiently as we possibly could have. It is not the case that there was an easy alternative to what we did either temporally or structurally. I was and will always be very proud of the union and proud of SAG and all of the other unions that fought for what we fought for. I don’t believe that there was any strategic mistake in what we did, in terms of when we did it or how we did it.

There’s always going to be naysayers or folks who look back and go, “You just should’ve done this.” But the number of moving parts here, the number of variables and difficult-to-control aspects of this situation that we all found ourselves in was so numerous, so enormous, that any reading of what we did, what all of the unions did, that falls into the category of like, “Why didn’t you just do X?” is just facile and unhelpful.

**John:** 100 percent. I think as listeners are hearing people give the, “They should’ve just,” or, “This was a mistake,” or, “This cost the industry X number of dollars,” just remember these were necessary things that were done in the time they needed to be done, and the gains that were made last for the next 50 years. Yes, there was short-term pain, and the pain was real. The strike lasted as long as it did because the studios chose to not come to the table and make a deal. That doesn’t mean you can just magically wave it all away. There were real, important things to be fighting for. Most of the things we fought for, we ended up winning.

**Mike:** That’s another important part of it, I think, is part of those arguments amount to, “Here’s how much you lost, and here’s how long it will take you to recoup it.” That is a classic management-side argument for why unions should never strike is, “You’re just gonna lose this and it’s gonna take you that long to get it back.” That’s true. That’s 100 percent true. The point is if you don’t give up those contemporary gains for future gains, that’s in some ways-

**John:** We would have no residuals. We would have no health plan. All of the things we have are-

**Mike:** All of the stuff we had were because people made short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. It’s a classic argument made by the folks who own stuff to the folks who don’t. That’s what they say is, “You’re just gonna lose all this money right now.”

I’m a big sports fan. I know folks who have worked in the management of sports unions. I talked to them a lot during the buildup to the strike and also during the strike about the similarities and differences. One of the things that I was told repeatedly was, one of the reasons it’s so hard, for example, for the NFL players union to go on strike is that NFL careers are so short. The average NFL career is a year and a half long. Guys wash out. They get hurt. They wash out of the league instantly. They’re always being replaced every year by younger guys because that sport is so brutal. A huge reason that it’s hard for them to have a massive labor action is that what you’re going to give up in terms of what you’re gonna have in the future, that could be literally the entirety of the earnings potential of a significant part of your union. It’s a much bigger problem.

It’s always a problem for a union. Always. The pain is real. The pain that was suffered by Writers Guild members was real. We knew it was real. We knew how serious it was. We thought about that probably more than anything else, I would say, while we were negotiating. But unlike NFL players, hopefully a writer’s career is more than one and a half years long, which is what it is in the NFL.

That was our job and the job of leadership was to weigh those things against each other, to say is it worth the pain, the real pain, the potential loss of apartments and houses or cars or people having to move or having to get other jobs? All that stuff that was very, very real and very painful, we’re weighing that now against what we want the union to get out of the next 25, 35, 50, 75 years. It’s a very difficult calculation to make. The Guild what not have done what it did unless we really felt like it was worth it.

**John:** In addition to sometimes calling for strikes, WGA also does things in between those periods, including going after people who violate the MBA. An announcement this past week that the WGA reached a settlement for a total of $3 million for 24 affected writers for CBS shows who were having writers doing writing work, covered Article 14 work, during times in which their writers’ rooms were officially closed.

This is a thing that the Guild does all the time. They’ve collected more than $100 million through enforcement of the contract over the past two and a half years. This is just another example of going after situations where writers come to the Guild and say, “Hey, they’re having me do this stuff. They’re saying it’s not covered work because the writers’ room’s closed.” The Guild won here.

**Mike:** I don’t understand why we didn’t just partner with the studios to get this money more easily.

**John:** Exactly. We could put up a phone call, say, “Hey, guys.”

**Mike:** “Guys.”

**John:** “You really should be paying them for this. You should be paying their weekly pay, their pension, their health, the parental leave contributions you owe. You should really be paying these things.”

**Mike:** I do a presentation every year at the Writers Guild Showrunners program, which is a wonderful program that helps people who are maybe just about to take over their first show or have recently become a showrunner for the first time. It amounts to just epigrammatic wisdom that has been passed to me from all of the people I’ve worked for and with over the years or spoken to.

One of the things that I like to say is that you need to think at all times when you’re a showrunner about to whom you are loyal. You have a loyalty to your show and the characters in that show and the writers who work with you and for you. You need to be loyal to the studio that’s paying you and the network that’s airing your show. But also, you need to be loyal to your union.

By the way, the point of this is sometimes those loyalties come into conflict in that moment of decision that you need to make about, “Where is my loyalty right now at this moment? Is it to my employees? To my studio? To my network?” Whatever.

The reason I add the union into the equation – there are many reasons, but one of them is decisions like this, because without maybe knowing it directly, or without closely following it, the union has your back all the time. It is constantly doing things like they just did, which is to say identifying places in which the studios have cheaped out, have tried to skirt the rules, have gone through the back door and are trying to get work out of you and your fellow writers that they’re not paying for.

I don’t even blame them. You don’t blame a snake in the wild for attacking its prey. That is just what it’s designed to do. These companies are designed. Their only loyalty is to their shareholders, really. They’re a capitalistic entity, like a company. Its only job is to figure out how to make more money and spend less money. They’re constantly probing and testing at the boundaries of what they’re contractually obligated to do, and figuring out ways to not spend money.

The union is the safeguard against that. That’s why we have a union is for things like this, where this staff put together this incredibly difficult presentation and arbitration case to say, “This is what they’ve done. This is why it’s not legal. This is how much they owe us.”

At the end of the day, it’s really wild. If you look at it, it’s one company – one of the many companies that employ writers – owed $3 million for this one thing. This is one aspect of the MBA that they were skirting, and it’s $3 million. $3 million for CBS, Paramount, whatever they are now, Skydance, I suppose, that’s a rounding error. That’s an accounting error on their annual report. But for the writers-

**John:** 24 affected writers. It’s not gonna divide evenly between them, but that’s serious money.

**Mike:** That’s serious money. That’s yearly income that makes an enormous difference in the lives of them and their children and their partners and their lives. Again, the reason that folks in this guild have to remember and keep in their brains that they are loyal to their union is because this is the function, the raison d’être of the union, is to find these places where writers are getting screwed and try to unscrew them. It’s really wonderful. Congratulations to the staff and the Guild in general.

**John:** These 24 affected writers first off may not have been aware that they were owed this money. But individually, they had no leverage to get this money. Their agencies weren’t gonna be able to get this money for them. Their managers couldn’t get this money for them. That’s the job of the union is to say, “Here’s the contract. This is the violation. Pay up.”

**Mike:** Yeah, and they did. The great thing about decisions like this, or the Bird Box decision, which was another huge win for the Guild in terms of money being denied screenwriters, is that now there’s precedent. Now, it becomes much easier to go to the other companies that are trying to pull similar shenanigans and say, “Listen, we know what you’re doing. We fought it once. Here’s what happened. Just don’t fight this. Don’t pretend like you’re not doing this. We know you’re doing it. Here’s how it played out. In the other case, save the money that you’re gonna give to your lawyers and just instead give that money to the writers like you should’ve the first time.”

**John:** Absolutely. You hinted at it, but the other big news of this past week is that Skydance has apparently purchased Paramount. The deal is so complicated. I’ve read a couple of explainers talking about how Skydance bought National Amusements, and based on voting shares and who has voting stock and non-voting stock, and there are three steps they have to go through. You have to close your eyes and turn around four times. But at the end of this, Skydance Corporation will in theory own Paramount, CBS, Viacom, which I think to me is really good news.

Of all the outcomes of this, I was happiest about this. I want to make sure that the Paramount brand stays. I want to make sure that not just the mountain logo but the idea of what Paramount is continues. It feels like this was the best way to see that happen.

**Mike:** I totally agree. Paramount is iconic in this town. It’s where Peewee Herman ended up in Peewee’s Big Adventure. It’s in Hollywood proper, which I think symbolically matters. It’s right on Melrose. Those gates are iconic.

**John:** Those gates in front of which you and I both picketed quite a lot. We had many conversations in front of the gates of Paramount.

**Mike:** We did. That was our home base during the strike. But I think more than symbolically important, this is important because among the many scenarios that we heard as possibilities were an extant studio buying Paramount and just folding it into – is Warner Bros gonna somehow borrow even more money and buy Paramount? Is Comcast gonna buy Paramount? Whatever.

The reason that that would have been worse is because consolidation is bad for labor. Consolidation means that there are fewer individual places who have the means and opportunity to buy scripts from screenwriters and from TV writers. Skydance, which has been their partner on some of their biggest movie franchises in their history, Top Gun and Transformers and-

**John:** Mission Impossible.

**Mike:** … Mission Impossible and stuff like that – the fact that Skydance is actually the company that’s buying them means that they stay an option, another option. It’s hard enough right now to sell anything, a TV show or a movie or anything. If Paramount had essentially been absorbed by one of the other places that buys stuff, that just means there’s one fewer place that buys stuff.

The independence of Paramount as a buyer and the installation of showbiz veteran types to run it would send the message of like, “We’re in the business of Hollywood. We are gonna keep buying stuff and making stuff.” That is only good for the writers and actors and directors and IATSE members who are hoping to have viable careers in the industry.

**John:** I’m excited to see what’s next. I’m excited to keep Paramount around as a company, as a brand, but also as a buyer, as you said, because it’s not a theoretical example. When Disney bought Fox, a bunch of people lost their jobs, but we also lost a major buyer. Yes, there are still things that are put out under the Fox brand. Great. But it’s not the same. We’ve lost a huge place to develop stuff.

**Mike:** You could argue that we lost more than one, because when Disney bought Fox, we lost Fox in general, but also Hulu became completely controlled by Disney-

**John:** Totally.

**Mike:** … where it hadn’t been before. I would have to think back, but I’m sure there were projects that I took out to the marketplace where I pitched individually to Disney, Fox, and Hulu, and then suddenly all three of those were one thing. You’re pitching just to Disney. If they want to buy it, they might say, “This is good for Fox network,” or, “This is good for Hulu,” or, “This is good for Disney Plus.” But it’s all one person. If that one company decided they didn’t want to buy it, it took three options off the table. That is nothing but bad.

**John:** I remember going back even further, there used to be a brand called Fox 2000. I remember projects which we pitched to Fox, Fox 2000, and Fox Searchlight. The fact that they’re all folded into one amorphous mass now is not good. The more buyers, the better.

**Mike:** Exactly. I’m happy, happy, happy that this worked out the way it did.

**John:** Drew, let’s have you hop on for a second, because I wanted you to talk about Weekend Read, because you are the person, along with Jonathan Wigdortz, who’s been assembling the scripts for people to read in Weekend Read. For folks who are not familiar with it, Weekend Read is the app our company makes for reading scripts on your phone. Makes it handy. But what you do, Drew, is pulling together a list of new scripts every week on a theme for people to read if they’ve not had a chance to read these scripts. Tell us about what you put into Weekend Read this week.

**Drew Marquardt:** This week’s theme is Frankenstein’s monster. I was thinking about all the different iterations of that myth or character. We have, of course, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Young Frankenstein, but also Edward Scissorhands and Poor Things and Ex Machina, Stranger Things, Rocky Horror, Weird Science, all that good stuff.

**John:** Fantastic. If people want to read these, Weekend Read is in app store. Just download it on your phone. Also works on iPad. You can take a look at all these scripts, which is great.

Drew, while we have you, last week on the show we asked if any of our listeners were experienced WordPress developers, because we were having a problem with the Scrippets plugin we use on johnaugust.com. Sometimes we want to put little short snippets of scripts in a blog post, and we developed this thing called Scrippets, which is no longer working within most recent versions. You guys are of course fantastic as always. We got, what, six or seven people write in to help us out.

**Drew:** Maybe more. Maybe a dozen.

**John:** We are good. We have solved the problem. Thank you to everybody who wrote in. You guys are the best. We have the plugin fixed. I want to thank again our tremendous listeners for getting that figured out.

Let’s do some more follow-up here. Back in Episode 646 we talked about script revisions. Drew, can you help us out with what our writer said here.

**Drew:** Unlocking the ADs wrote, “I’m producing an indie feature right now. As we’re shifting from blue pages to pink, lo and behold, the writer director did not lock the script pages when they made revisions over the weekend. So the second AD is kvetching, ‘In the production trailer, the pages won’t line up. Everyone’s gonna have to get a whole new script.’ I tried to broach the subject. ‘But aren’t the scene numbers still the same? Does it actually matter if the page numbers change? Who uses the actual page numbers?’ Needless to say, I got my head bitten off by the whole AD team, because it’s the way it’s done. However, I didn’t get an answer as to why it’s the way it’s done, and certainly no answer as to who uses the page numbers. If or when this comes up again, how can I approach this to try and convince some folks stuck in their way?”

**John:** Mike Schur, let me get you up to speed. When Craig was on the podcast most recently, we were talking about locked pages. Craig said that he is done with locked pages and that he believes that we should just stop doing that. For next season of The Last of Us, he says, “We’re not gonna lock pages anymore.” You just finished production. I assume you had locked pages. You were a traditional show. Tell us about that. I saw your reaction there when I said not lock pages. Tell me what you’re thinking.

**Mike:** I don’t know what it’s like in the movie world. In the TV world-

**John:** We lock pages in film too.

**Mike:** Right, but what I was gonna say is, I don’t know how you feel about it. I feel Craig here, because it’s basically this aspect of getting scripts to the set to be actually produced, where when you make a change, you end up with… Let’s say when you lock a script, you make a change. You add a back and forth in the middle of the scene. You end up with this weird thing where there’s one line and the rest of the page is completely blank.

**John:** With a giant Sharpie X across it to really show that it’s blank.

**Mike:** Yeah. It has always been a mystery to me of what the big advantage is. It has been explained to me before by ADs and by script coordinators. I have at various times been like, “Okay, yeah, I guess I understand what that means.” But it makes everything look chaotic to me, and odd. You end up with a lot of pages of different colors mixed into these scripts. It makes things look more – I don’t know if the word is unprofessional, but it makes it look like someone made a mistake.

**John:** Exactly.

**Mike:** It is one of these “this is the way things have always been done” old saws that you hear about all the time. I can’t argue for it. I really can’t. You should have a script coordinator or an AD come on and make the argument for locked pages. But to my mind, it seems like it creates more confusion than it does clarity.

I will say this though, to argue the other side. My first job was at Saturday Night Live. There was a Microsoft Word template that we use to make our scripts. That was a huge improvement over the previous version, which had been that writers in the early ’90s wrote their sketches longhand and then gave them to assistants who then typed them into the format. Writers in the early ’90s apparently didn’t even have computers in their offices. By the time I got there in ’98, we at least had computers in our offices. We all had this really primitive Microsoft Word template that we used.

There was this bananas system, because you talk about a show with a lot of changes. There’s changes happening 10 minutes before a sketch is made. The process by which we made changes in scripts or rewrote scripts or then handed those scripts to the script coordinators and script assistants, who then went over those changes with the cue card folks, it was so primitive and so bad. It was like, “Please, someone has to change this.”

The argument not to change it was, this show is chaotic by its nature. We have all learned this system, and this system, just barely, works. To change it or to try to improve it, the stakes of it were so high, because if it didn’t work on the season premier and everything was chaos and the cue cards didn’t get written properly, then it’s live TV, and everything would fall apart. The argument not to change it was, “Look, it’s not perfect, but everybody knows what this is and everybody functions with this system in place. And so we’d rather leave it in place than change it and risk complete collapse of the system.”

I don’t know if that’s why we do it this way still or whether an AD or a script coordinator would tell us right now, “No, you guys are idiots. This is the real benefit of this.” I don’t know which of those things is true, but one of them is true, or perhaps both.

**John:** So many things to respond to here. First let’s talk with Saturday Night Live, because we had Simon Rich on the show this last week, and he was talking about his time on Saturday Night Live, which I think was after yours. My belief is that the current system in Saturday Night Live is that they’re using Final Draft for most of the show, but the Weekend Update segment is being done in Scripto, which is the system that’s used to do a lot of late-night shows. Colbert actually I think owns or is an investor in Scripto. That’s the online-only software for writing that stuff, because basically, it’s like a big Google doc where everyone can throw in on the same thing. That segment is written in there.

But then as we look at normal scripted film and television, I really wonder whether we’re keeping this metaphor of colored pages, because they’re not really colored pages anymore and locking pages from a physical paper type of universe. We’re trying to drive this into this digital world that we’re in, because Craig says on his show there are no printed scripts. Everything is always a digital thing just for security purposes.

I really think we could probably break with this. Would it be an adjustment? Yeah, but I think we’d come out the other side better and we’d actually save money and save time, and there’d be less confusion rather than more confusion. I really think we can do it, because even the script supervisors, maybe some of them are still using paper, but from what I’ve heard, they’re all using iPad version stuff that they’re using to track what’s actually being done.

**Mike:** This show that I just finished the first season of on Netflix was the first time that I, when we would rehearse a scene, almost all of the actors who had scripts that they were referring to had them on iPads. A lot of the writers, most of whom at this point are way younger than I am, are following them on iPads and making notes on their iPads.

It was the first time that it really felt to me like I am officially a dinosaur, because I can’t do it that way. It’s too deeply ingrained in me. I have to be holding a script. I have to be able to flip pages. I have to be able to make notes on a piece of paper. Now, it should be noted in other areas of my life. I refuse to read books on a Kindle. It’s very hard for me to read on my phone. Just too many years of physical paper to make this change now. Just put me on a raft and shove me off the shore and let me float away and die, is the way I feel.

But when I saw the actors using the iPads to keep track of what they wanted to do, that was when I felt like we have crossed the Rubicon here. We are now fully in a digital world on the physical set of the show. It did make me feel like the idea of like, “Hey, can someone print out copies of these changes I just made and get them to me?” was extremely antiquated. I might as well have been saying, “Could you please shovel a shovel full of coal into the steam engine so the locomotive can move down the tracks?”

I think you’re right. I think that we’re probably two years away from most productions saying, “This is pointless. Why are we printing out these pages? Why are we locking these pages at all? Why aren’t we just refreshing the Google doc or the Scripto doc or the Final Draft document?” We’re just gonna text it to everyone, email it to everyone, and then everyone will have it on their individual device. Then we will know definitively. We’ll just timestamp it and everyone will know. “Okay, everyone refer to Scene 326, Version 6.4,” is what we’re doing now. That will probably ultimately be how it lives forever and ever afterwards.

**John:** How do we make this transition happen? I’m wondering whether we could actually just get together a group of showrunners and ADs and maybe some scriptees and other folks who really are affected by this and say, “Hey, what if we were to just actually stop doing this? How would this change your lives? What things do we need to be aware of?” Because maybe there are some aspects of that. I’m always mindful of the Chesterton’s Fence metaphor. Things were built a certain way for a certain reason. Don’t tear down that fence until you know why it was there. But I think we know what the fence was for, and I think we’ve realized we don’t need that fence anymore.

**Mike:** Saving paper is the 1,000th most important benefit of this, but it’s not nothing. Paper does clog up people’s lives. I have in my office still at Universal, stacks and stacks and stacks of scripts that I just don’t need and never really needed. It would’ve been a lot easier. I think probably the reason for the system remaining in place is just stubbornness or habit and that there is a better workflow.

I think it’s probably the case that if the show that I worked on were to go to a second season, I would probably sit down with the ADs and with the scriptees and with everybody, with the actors to some extent, to say, “What’s a better system we can devise? There must be a way that we can all get on the same page here.” The thing is, that better system will still allow – the folks who want to have a paper script can still have a paper script. You can still print out individual scripts. It’s just that the workflow will probably be streamlined a lot with a better, more digital system.

**John:** I’m finishing edits on the Scriptnotes book. One of the things I’m wrestling with is we have a little chapter about rewrites during production and A and B pages and how not to lose your mind doing this. I’m reading these paragraphs like, “Should this even be in there? Should this whole idea just go away?” Because no one benefited from A and B pages. It was a hack for a physical time that we’re just not in anymore.

**Mike:** You’re probably right. It’s a little bit sad, because there is something magical about holding a script in your hand. I honestly think that to me – and this is, by far, not one of the 25 most important aspects of the process – but I really like read-throughs with physical scripts. I think there’s something magical about holding a tangible product in your hand as the rubber meets the road, as it comes out of the theoretical work of the writers’ room and becomes the literal work of the whole staff of people, the actors and all of the department heads and everybody else. I think there’s something wonderful about holding that product in your hand tangibly.

I have this thing I do at the end of every table read. We get to the end, and I say, “End of episode,” or whatever, and everybody claps. I flip back to the front and I write my name on the front, which I started way back at I think Parks and Recreation, because I remember thinking there were so many copies of this script. I had made notes in mine, and I just wanted to write my name on the front, so that I could easily identify it in case it got lost in a shuffle. I get up and I hug people and I shake people’s hands and then I can’t find my script. I just wrote my name on the front right after we were done. I’ve done that every single read through of every single of episode of every single show.

I would be a little bit sad if I were doing that with an Apple Pen, flipping back to page 1 of a doc, of a pdf. But again, that is just habit. That’s not making anyone’s life easier. I think it’s probably time for all of us who live in this dinosaur age that I live in to give up on some of the little traditions or habits or whatever you call them, to make the workflow go a little easier for everybody.

**John:** Let’s get to our main topic for today, which is rewriting and overwriting. This comes from a friend of the show. Drew, would you mind reading this for us?

**Drew:** “I’m rewriting a project, and I am resistant, not because I don’t want to write more, but because I’m not sure that the rewrite is going to be better. It’ll just be different. How do you weigh that? I’ve watched a couple friends who have producers attached to projects, and they’ve taken on so much feedback that at this point in their rewrites, I’m like, this has lost the pacing and weirdness of your voice. It feels overwritten. In TV I’ve been in writers’ rooms where there’s also this balance of, we’ll write this thing for the executives and take it out later. So sometimes overwriting seems strategic. I’m curious to hear your take on how you’d weigh that as creators.”

**John:** Overwriting. I’ve definitely felt this in my own drafts at times. I’ve felt this in other people’s drafts too. I haven’t gone through and produced a lot of people’s stuff that wasn’t my own. But in looking at people trying to incorporate notes sometimes, they’re both trying to incorporate the new notes and preserve everything else that was in there. You just feel like a bunch of stuff is wedged in there that is not helping to serve the story. Mike, do you see this in TV happening too?

**Mike:** This is a huge thing in TV. Yes. A couple different things are being raised, I think, by this question. The easiest one to address is the thing of, “We’ll write this in for the executives and take it out later.” That’s not overwriting to me. That is strategic management of your relationship with your studio or your executives. I think that’s a separate issue.

The overwriting thing is a real problem. I think one of the most important skills you can learn as a writer and as a showrunner is the art of the surgical fix. Most of the lessons that I’ve learned about writing came from The Office, which was my first sitcom job.

I worked for Greg Daniels, who is a true genius of the genre. He’s got an enormous, juicy brain. He’s the guy who sees the matrix code of scrips and of storytelling. But he also has this thing where he would become fixated on a problem in a script and he would spiral. He would be like, “Oh, no, we’ve ruined this somehow. We did this. This character’s motivation is unclear,” or, “The plot doesn’t make any sense if you have this scene in it, because this is what the characters are going through.” Sometimes he would get so spirally that he would just lie down on the floor, and on the dirty, disgusting carpet of the office we were in.

There was this one moment in particular where we did a readthrough and it went really well, but this one piece of the story was, I would say, overwritten. There was too much stuff in it. He was a character who had a motivation. I don’t remember the details. There was a character who had a specific storyline, a specific motivation. We had written in this scene for this character where he was saying something to someone else that muddied that motivation. There was too much going on. We had added too much stuff.

Greg was really freaked out by it. It was late on a Thursday night. We were starting to shoot it on Monday. It was like, “Oh, god.” We were all texting our husbands and wives and loved ones and saying, “I don’t think I’m coming home for dinner.” Greg was expounding out loud, as he lay on the floor, the exact specific reasons why this scene was screwing up the story. I was like, “Oh, boy, we’re really screwed. We’re going to be here forever.”

Then I said out loud – and I thought I was being stupid – I was like, “What if we just cut those two lines?” There was a beat, and then Greg was like, “Yeah, I think that’ll work.” He just popped back up and he went into the script and he cut the two lines that we were fixated on. I was like, “Oh, okay. Thank god.” The surgical fix is a key weapon for writers, especially in TV, because I think a lot of overwriting comes with good intentions.

**John:** Totally.

**Mike:** You are trying to make everything really clear to the audience. Especially in comedy, clarity is vitally important. People have to know what the characters are thinking and feeling and why they’re doing what they’re doing in order for the jokes to land. Sometimes when you add a bunch of stuff to try to make it more clear why they’re doing what they’re doing, you end up with a bunch of just muddy, mushy stuff that actually does the exact opposite. The surgical fix, the, “Wait, these six words in the middle of this sentence are making everything muddy and stupid,” and if we just remove them, then you’ll breathe a sigh of relief, because the scene will flow so much better.

The fix to an overwritten scene, in my experience, can often be fixed with a good analysis of what’s wrong and a surgical strike on the dialogue. That’s my instinct every time I feel like something is overwritten, is to try to say, “What are the clauses or phrases or sentences that are making us feel this way, and what happens if we just remove them?” Very frequently, that seems to be the answer to how to fix it.

**John:** As a feature writer, a lot of times I’ll get a script for a rewrite, and it has been through multiple writers before. One of the things I’ll notice is it’s overwritten because the writers before me, with very good intentions, were trying to address the notes and problems of the script that they were handed, what they were being told to fix and to rewrite. They’re addressing those problems, but those problems aren’t the problems of the script right now. There’s all this digital crap in there that can just go away. What I’d love to be able to do is just go through and do a clean pass that just takes away all this cruft that’s built up over the months or years or drafts that this script has been around. When I give the script to the people, like, “Oh my god, this reads so much better.” It’s like, “Yes, because I took out all your dumb notes from all the previous drafts, because they were not important.”

Especially I think in feature land, so often you’re doing a rewrite, you’re doing a polish, you want to show how much work you’ve done. You’re making changes that show the work you’ve done, because literally, it makes a little star in the margin to show, “Look how much I did.” Often, the stuff that you’re doing is not actually really improving stuff. It’s just adding. When you talking about removing clauses, removing sentences, in a lot of cases I’m removing scenes that just don’t need to be there anymore. They’re repetitive. They’re not speaking into the actual story we’re trying to tell.

When it’s your turn and when you’re getting notes to address a thing, I really look for what are ways to do things in a better or different way that’s not adding stuff to it. How do you make sure that you’re best addressing both the note and what the movie wants to be, which could mean scrapping that scene that you have and doing a different scene actually to use these goals, rather than trying to graft on this idea to a scene that really wasn’t built to support it. It’s being smart. You say surgical, but sometimes it’s just rebuilding a thing so it can actually support this note, rather than trying to adapt what’s there.

**Mike:** There’s two things that I think are really important. One of them is, there’s different kinds of overwritten. The kind that you’re talking about is a bunch of different people have given a bunch of different notes, and a bunch of different people have then gone in and tried to address those notes. As a result, you get this mish-mosh of stuff.

The question that kicked off this discussion is that sometimes those rewrites, those endless patches that people have put onto scenes, have made it so that it doesn’t seem like there’s a voice in the script. You don’t get the sense that this is the result of a person’s idea or work. Those rough edges, those uniquenesses, are what can often make the difference between a movie that you as a viewer love and respond to emotionally and make you feel something, and a movie that feels like a processed hot dog that’s just bland and mushy and not very interesting.

Look, different movies have different objectives and goals. If you’re making a $300 million summer blockbuster, the goal isn’t to celebrate the uniqueness of the artist’s voice. The goal is to just make a giant, loud, fun, entertaining thing. But the movies that I think we as viewers really just connect with or respond to are the ones where it feels like, wow, one specific person did this one specific idea and executed it.

I don’t know, I think of Nicole Holofcener’s movies, which I love. No one can write a Nicole Holofcener movie except Nicole Holofcener. Part of the reason is because there are rhythms and specificities to her voice that make it unique. If someone came in and took a Nicole Holofcener movie and took a bunch of notes from the studio and addressed them, it would just smooth everything out and make it bland. There’s that kind of rewriting or undoing of overwriting, which is like, let’s try to get back to the feeling that this is a unique idea from a unique artist.

There’s another thing that happens in comedy, and it happens in comedy movies. I’ve been a part of a number of comedy movie rewrites. But it happens within writers’ rooms too. The people who are writing jokes for a TV script or a TV movie script when there’s a rewrite, like a round table rewrite, are coming into that process bringing with them the most recent shows that they’ve worked on.

You have a comedy movie, and you get a writers’ room together. The writers’ room has writers from Barry and then The Bear and The Great and whatever, Everybody Loves Raymond, going back as far as you want. When you’re going through a scene and you’re pitching different jokes for a different scene, those writers are going to write jokes in the style of the kinds of shows that they have recently worked on.

As a result, when you sit back and look at the entire script, you’re going to be like, “This is a joke from The Great, and this is a joke from Everybody Loves Raymond, and this is a joke from The Office, and this is a joke from Rick and Morty.” It’s going to have no thematic consistency to the humor. It’s going to be just this crazy hodgepodge of whatever tone and style was the funniest in that moment. Sometimes you’ll see a comedy movie script where that’s the problem. It’s not just that it’s overwritten. It was overwritten by people who had very different senses of humor.

The hardest thing to do as a comedy showrunner, or I would imagine as a comedy screenwriter, is to remove a joke that you know is funny because it doesn’t fit the tone of the project you’re working on. It’s a really hard thing. I have had to defend that decision to a number of writers in TV writers’ rooms over the years, like, “Yes, this joke is funny, but also, it’s tonally off,” or it’s a character-damaging joke. Suddenly, this character takes on a color that we don’t want him or her to, or it just screws something up.

The point of a comedy show isn’t to just make as many jokes as you can, regardless of what their tone or style is. The idea is to have the show feel holistic and feel like there is a singular humorous voice at work. There’s room for variance within that, of course. Part of the real joy of working on a TV writers’ room is that you know Megan Amram is going to write a very different kind of joke from Alan Yang or Andrew Law or Jen Statsky or whoever the person is. But all of those jokes have to feel like they’re part of the same general holistic crew of humor writers. If they don’t, if those jokes are too crazy, then they just shouldn’t be in the script.

A big part of undoing overwriting to me sometimes in comedy rooms is saying, “Is this joke funny? Yes, it’s hilarious. Should it exist in this script? Should it be said by this exact character at this exact moment? Maybe not.” It’s painful, because jokes are hard, man. They’re hard to come by. Removing one that you know is funny is a very hard task. But I think when you are the steward of the show, of the tone of the show, of the style of the show, it’s a decision you have to make a lot.

**John:** You and I both live in Hancock Park. Some of the streets in our neighborhood are traditional asphalt, and some of them have been replaced by concrete. The concrete streets are really, really nice. The problem comes though if they have to cut into the street or if there’s some damage to the street. They fill it with asphalt. Of course, other neighborhoods, you might have just potholes and things like that too. So often, I think when you run into overwriting and things that [inaudible 01:02:31] it literally is, you fill that pothole. You took out that hole, but the patch is really not feeling great.

I think what we’re asking for is – it sounds like a lot of work to actually go through and repave that street, but you gotta repave that street. You gotta make it smooth, because ultimately, you’re trying to deliver a nice, smooth experience for the reader and ultimately for the audience with this scene that you’re writing. Just avoid filling the potholes, if you can.

**Mike:** This is one of the most difficult lessons that I learned. I have to relearn it again and again and again. When you read a script through, which in the TV world you’ll read every script through 75 times. Every time you go through it, every time you do a readthrough, but then you do a rewrite or you’re reading it at home or whatever, there are moments in the script where you get a little feeling in your chest, where you’re like, “Eh, there’s something wrong with that. It’s okay. It’s okay. It’s okay.” Then you keep going.

You can convince yourself that that pothole was filled in the right way, but you’ll just keep having that feeling. If you don’t fix it, if you don’t do the work to really dig up all of the surrounding area and cut out the part that’s mushy and replace it with something more sturdy, you will have that feeling all the way through shooting, all the way through editing, all the way through sound mixing. You’ll never get over that feeling.

Paying attention to that feeling when you have it is a really good skill to develop, because you can convince yourself, because it sounds like so much work to dig up that whole scene or throw away that whole scene or conceive of a new scene or conceive of an entirely new chunk of a script. It sounds like so much work. If it’s a B-minus patch, it’s very easy to convince yourself that everything is fine. But if you have that feeling, that feeling is never going away. You’ll never suddenly read that part of a script and go, “Yeah, no, I was wrong. Actually, it’s totally fine.” You will always feel like it needed to be fixed. The sooner you fix it, the better off you will be in the end.

**John:** To continue this metaphor, there’s a hole in the road and you see it coming up there. One of your strategies might be like, “Okay, I’m going to just put up some cones and drive around that hole.” You can feel that. That often feels like, “Wait, why are we doing this thing? Why are we zigzagging around this thing that’s a natural place to go?”

I think what we’re urging you to do is – probably the goal is to drive through that place and build a new thing that can go through that. But if that’s not really possible, you probably need to back up and just take a different road. Rather than try to do a little zigzag around it, actually just take a different route to get there, because maybe there’s no scene that can actually do what you’re trying to do here and you need to just find a different way to approach it.

**Mike:** This metaphor is surprisingly resilient.

**John:** It really is.

**Mike:** It’s really holding up under the stress we’re putting on it. But yes, it’s a perfect way to put it, which is to say, if every time you drive down a certain route – which is to say get to a certain part of your script – you find yourself having to dodge and weave, and you’re barely hanging on as your car wheels around in this complicated way. You got to where you were going. You reach your destination on the other side. But you have to just understand that there is a better path.

I don’t know how far we want to extend the metaphor. But there’s no GPS. There’s no, “Hey, find me the best route here,” which is what makes it so annoying, because it requires you to erase six pages of your script and then pace around your room and think, “Okay, here’s where I am. Here’s where I need to go. How can I get there a smoother way?” It’s really annoying. It’s one of the most annoying parts of rewriting.

I would say that, going back to the original question, oftentimes the reason that there’s a problem in the route to begin with is it’s been overwritten. A bunch of different people did a bunch of different things and patched this route together. Someone needs to come in and say, “Wait, I’ve got a better path here.”

**John:** You also will recognize that there’s times where you read through the script, you’re like, “Wait, you actually took a whole loop there and then you finally made it. In trying to get around this problem, you went way out of your way to get there.” We feel that as an audience. We feel like we are repeating this moments. “We already saw that house before. Something is deeply wrong here.”

**Mike:** I will say, on the plus side, there are few things in writing as satisfying as realizing that you can cut-

**John:** I love it so much.

**Mike:** … six pages of a script and replace it with two lines. The earliest lesson of show business that anyone remembers is leave them wanting more. You would always rather do something more quickly, unless the whole point of it is to be patient and deliberate. If you’re talking about plot mechanics, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line is a good adage to remember. If you’re finding you’re taking this crazy, loopy journey to do something that isn’t that hard or shouldn’t be that hard to do, try to find that straight line. I think that’s a good lesson.

**John:** Cool. It has come time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. First off is the book Project Hail Mary, which is by Andy Weir. He’s the guy who wrote The Martian. I’m reading it right now, and I’m really enjoying it. I debated whether to read it or not, because it’s being made into a movie right now. Drew Goddard wrote the script. Chris Miller and Phil Lord are directing it. They’re all friends. They’ll all come on the podcast hopefully to talk about it. I could just wait and see the movie when it comes out. But I’m excited that I’m reading it now.

I’m going to encourage listeners to read the book, because it’s going to be a challenging adaptation. I’m really curious what they’re going to do with things that appear in the book and how they’re going to make it all work. I think if you read the book now, yes, you’ll be spoiled a little bit on some of the surprises that happen in the movie, but I think you’ll also be delighted to see, “Oh, they made this choice. They made that choice. This is what they did with point of view on things.” It can be a good exercise to have read the book first before seeing the movie. That’s my recommendation for that.

My second One Cool Thing is a game. It’s a game that we actually made here in the office. Pretty much every Friday we play this game called AlphaBirds, which is a word game. It’s like Boggle or Scrabble but much easier and simpler. You can drink a beer while playing it. Years ago, we printed 100 decks and sent them off to some friends and left it at that. But enough people asked for it that we actually went through and printed a whole bunch more. We got the proper trademark on AlphaBirds with a little TM at the end, so we can sell them legally. They’re now available to anybody. If you want to play this game, it’s a fun little card game. It’s available on Amazon, or if you go to alphabirdsgame.com, you can buy it through there. There’s a code, Scriptnotes, that saves you five bucks off of it if you want to play AlphaBirds. It’s a great little game that Drew can testify is quite a bit of fun to play.

**Mike:** It sounds like a fun office. You guys have a fun office.

**John:** Every Friday after 4:00, we stop and we play some games and drink some beers.

**Mike:** That’s fantastic. My One Cool Thing is when I was making the show The Good Place, we had a philosophical advisor who is a professor. His name is Todd May. He actually appears in the finale of The Good Place, playing himself. He’s the best kind of philosopher to my mind, which is to say he’s a philosopher whose writing you can actually understand when you read it. It’s a very rare thing in the world of philosophy. Todd has a new book. It is not out yet, but it will be out within a month. I think August 6 is the publication date. The subject matter is wonderful and hilarious. The title of the book is Should We Go Extinct? A Philosophical Dilemma for Our Unbearable Times. He is literally answering the question of would the universe be better off if humans just went extinct.

What’s great about him as a writer and what attracted me to him to begin with is he takes on these incredibly huge, thorny problems, but he writes about them with a tremendous amount of empathy and humanity, in a very clear and straightforward way that anyone can understand. You do not have to have studied philosophy in college or any other place in order to understand it. He argues the pros for us going extinct. He argues the cons for us going extinct. He makes compelling arguments on both sides. I read the book. He sent me a copy of it when it was in galleys. It’s 176 pages long.

**John:** Love it.

**Mike:** It is not overbearing or exhausting. I encourage everyone to check it out when it comes out next month.

**John:** Mike Schur, you introduced me to Todd May years ago. I just emailed with him this morning.

**Mike:** Really?

**John:** There’s a thing of mine that he’s reading through which is philosophically oriented. He’s giving me some notes and thoughts on that, so thank you for making that introduction.

**Mike:** Absolutely. I hope you enjoy his book. It’s really great.

**John:** I’m looking forward to it. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, with help this week from Jonathan Wigdortz. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Vance Lovett. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today.

You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies and glassware. They’re all cool and great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on AI music. But Michael Schur, what an absolute pleasure having you back on the show. Thank you so much.

**Mike:** It is an absolute joy to be here. I will see you for Episode 1300.

**John:** I’m so excited.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Mike Schur, we’re springing this on you. But about two or three weeks ago, the Recording Industry Association of America filed these two lawsuits against these AI music producers called Suno and Udio over copyright infringement. I was a little skeptical at the start, because in general, I think the music copyright stuff has been overblown and overdone.

I remember the Blurred Lines lawsuit. I thought that was actually crazy, because did the song Blurred Lines feel like a Marvin Gaye song? Yes. But did it actually infringe? Can you actually say this is the same notes, the same thing? Could it be mistaken for a specific Marvin Gaye song? I think not. I was skeptical of this lawsuit, and then I listened to some of the examples. Let me play a few samples here from this lawsuit.

(AI song samples)

What we just listened to, obviously, that sounded like Mariah Carey singing All I Want for Christmas is You. But that was not prompted for Mariah Carey. It was basically like, give me a Christmas song that’s a pop song that’s in this style, and that’s what it generated was something that was basically-

**Mike:** Whoa. Really?

**John:** Yeah, really.

**Mike:** Oh, no.

**John:** The prompt did not even include the words Mariah Carey. It just generated this. Apparently, for the one that sounded like Green Day there, “A reproduction of a nostalgic acoustic ballad by a pop band famous in the 1990s whose name rhymes with mean nay, whose lead singer has a name that rhymes with Millie No Marmstrong, with a sense of musical urgency.” They’re really trying to tip it in there. But for the one that sounded like the Beach Boys, it didn’t reference the Beach Boys at all, and it comes up with Good Vibrations.

**Mike:** Wow. That’s intense. I had not heard those before. That American Idiot is just the song American Idiot which a very slightly different chord progression, it sounds like. The Mariah Carey song was just the Mariah… I thought you were playing the Mariah Carey song so that you could then play a song that was a ripoff of the Mariah Carey song. I didn’t know that that was the ripoff. That’s intense, man.

**John:** What the lawsuit brings up, and I think what we’re grappling with, is it infringement to make these things or to use these things in other ways? Is the copyright infringement the existence of a model that could create these things, or is copyright infringement only when you use these things to create a knockoff of a song? I think that’s not quite clear where we’re at there, because it’s clearly not copyright infringement to listen to a song. If you then, having listened to that song, make a song that is functionally identical, that’s the problem.

**Mike:** I would say this entire conversation has to be prefaced, at least on my end, by saying, boy, am I not a lawyer and do I not know what I’m talking about. But this was the fear that the Writers Guild had. In fact, the two main fears I would say that the Writers Guild had were, one, how is the work that we have written being used to train AI, and two, what is AI going to do with that work?

The nightmare scenario is that they feed all of our scripts into a machine, and the machine breaks them down into their component parts and understands the mechanics of storytelling and so forth. Then someone says, “You know what we need next summer is a romantic comedy set in New York, featuring a character who is a police officer and a character who works in an advertising agency, and the meet cute is that the police officer arrests,” and then blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then the computer searches the database and finds 600 romantic comedies, Nora Ephron’s and yours and whoever’s, and spits out an entire script in .01 milliseconds that is a fully realized screenplay with story beats and moves and characters and jokes and whatever.

What has happened is a bunch of human-designed material has been mushed around and muddied up, and then something is spit out that is entirely derivative of that work. No one whose work went into the programming of that computer gets paid for it. Also, no one wrote that script really, and so they don’t have to pay anybody. That’s the nightmare that we were addressing.

The thing about songs that I think is different is that there’s only so many variations on a three-minute pop song. I think we’ve all had the experience of hearing songs and going, “You know what this reminds me of is this.” That doesn’t mean that the person who wrote the second song was consciously thinking of the first song. How many songs have the same chord progression? Thousands and thousands and thousands of songs.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Mike:** There’s a fundamental difference, I think, between pop songwriting and screenwriting. But at essence, the questions are the same. The questions are, should the people who are the humans who create these things be compensated for some way when those things are used to program a machine that could spit out versions of them that the people didn’t write themselves.

**John:** Absolutely. To that extent, I say A, yes, they should be compensated, but B, there’s this larger existential question of what are we losing. What are we losing from the fabric of being alive on earth? If we outsource the work of creativity to machines that are only creative inasmuch as we have programmed them to be creative, that’s the part of it that really makes me not sleep well at night is I don’t know what humanity is.

If the most fundamental work of humanity, which is to say artistic endeavor, is outsourced to a machine that only exists because we built it and we fed all of our previous creativity into it and asked it to kick out new versions of things, that’s the part that is so unsettling, so uncanny valley, and so unappealing to me. I think without being a lawyer, without knowing the legitimacy of these claims, I wholeheartedly support the idea that the recording industry is trying to stop this from happening.

**John:** So many different threads we can pull at. I’m going to try to pull at a bunch, and it’s going to probably be a very messy sweater by the end. As we went into the WGA negotiations, we talked about the Nora Ephron problem. Basically, if you train a model on all of the scripts of Nora Ephron and you ask it to generate a new Nora Ephron script, who should get credit for that? Literally, who should be credited as the writer of the screenplay? But also, shouldn’t she or her estate have some ability to determine how that all works?

Looking at the parallels between songwriting and screenwriting, one of the things about these examples we just played, All I Want for Christmas is You, it’s so clear that this is the same thing. It’s based on the same thing. Or even American Idiot, we can see this is the same thing. But that analogy does not hold especially true for movies, because so often, movies are referencing each other.

These movies are similar, but rarely do we have a situation where you say, “That movie is actually just this movie.” We will have lawsuits saying, “Oh, this was actually based on my screenplay,” or there was some sort of chicanery happening behind the scenes, but almost never do we say, “This movie is exactly the clone of this movie,” except for weird cases where it was some Nigerian knockoff of Star Wars, which we love for its just sheer ballsiness.

That’s not a thing that we’ve had to worry about so far, but in theory, we could be worrying about this, where the version of this software that’s not making songs but it’s making video could just say, “Make me a Star Wars,” and it just goes off and it makes you a Star Wars. That’s coming eventually. Music is always the canary in the coalmine for where these things are.

I want to play a little devil’s advocate here, because we say that these things are trained on all of the stuff and then they are generating new stuff based on what they’ve done. That’s also the process of culture. The process of culture is reading and watching everything that has happened out there. Then a human being or a group of human beings takes that and synthesizes it and creates a new version of it. I think our concern is that there’s not a human in the mix, and also that the new version in this case isn’t new enough. It’s not original enough. It just feels like a shitty copy rather than something new and a synthesis that actually pushes stuff forward.

**Mike:** This is the philosophical question involved in all of this, which is right now the technology in its nascency is bad, in the sense that if you say, “Give me a song that kind of sounds like a Christmas song with female voice,” it literally just spits out All I Want for Christmas is You by Mariah Carey.

Now, given the ways in which computational power advances, the speed at which software gets better, the difference between the iPhone 2 and the iPhone 15, which didn’t take that long to get from A to B, you would imagine that in three years if you say, “Give me a Christmas song with a female voice,” it’s going to just generate a Christmas song. There will be new lyrics. It won’t sound like Mariah Carey. But it will be the result of Mariah Carey’s work and the work of a lot of other artists, a lot of other songwriters, a lot of other performers.

Right now we are able to hear those clips and say, “Oh my god, this is horrifying.” In three years, I don’t think we will, because it’ll just play a song, and we will say, “I like that song,” or, “I don’t like that song.” But it will just be a song. It won’t be so obviously derivative and ripped off.

The philosophical question that we’re really asking, I think, is do we want to live in a culture where we are no longer allowing or relying on human ability and instinct to be the primary generator of pieces of art, creativity? I think there will be some people, some futurists, and some folks who are like, “Who cares? It’s art. It’s art. Art is art. What does it matter?” Maybe they’ll think, in a post-modern Banksy way, that it’s cooler. Was it really art when, who was it, Duchamp put the urinal in the museum? Is that art, or is it just a urinal that he threw into a museum? I’m not unsympathetic to that argument.

I think there’s an argument to be made that says this is where we are in 2025 and going forward is we as a species have invented these powerful machines. The powerful machines have capabilities because we programmed them to have capabilities. You could make the argument that it is no less valid a piece of art to have a person program a machine that looks at the history of songwriting and generates its own songs than it is to have a human generate those songs. I don’t think that’s an invalid argument. I think there’s something to that.

We always talk about what separates us from the animal, like it’s our ability to cognitively reason or it’s our ability to maintain complex relationships with other members of our species. I have always felt like the thing that separates us from the animals is art. It just is. There’s occasionally a story about an elephant in Thailand who can paint, and that’s really cool and awesome. There’s occasionally a story of a crow who will create a sculpture by picking up little buttons and pieces of metal and making them into something. Yes, fine, the exception that proves the rule. There isn’t a hedgehog that wrote Casablanca.

When I get into this discussion, and we had many of them over the course of the WGA negotiations, the thing that I feel the most deeply – not that I reason out the most or that I focus on in contractual language the most – but the thing I feel the most is, I fear the loss of something fundamentally human when we have gotten to a point where anyone can say to a piece of software, “Hey, give me a two-hour movie about a guy running a bar in West Africa during World War Two.” Then you get a pretty good screenplay. I fear what that means for us as a species. That’s not an argument that we could make to the folks that run movie studios. It’s not an argument that could be made to the folks who run AI software companies that generate pop songs, because their response will be like, “Sorry, man. Sorry that you fear this, but whatever.” It’s the philosophical component of this that makes me lose sleep at night.

I think there is a difference between someone looking at the world that they live in and painting Guernica or putting a urinal into a fine art museum, and a piece of software saying, “Here’s a random object that represents a sort of unpleasant part of humanity. I’m going to just install that into a museum and call it art.” I think there’s a fundamental difference when you insert the middle man of technology between the artist and a thing they’re creating.

**John:** One of the things you’re pointing to is intention, is that Duchamp has an intention behind that, Picasso has an intention behind when he paints Guernica, and the AI does not have an intention other than to please the person who typed in the prompt. I think another thing you’re getting to is, in the WGA negotiation, the WGA is negotiating with the studios, and that is the one place we can negotiate. We had to really draw lines around what our relationship with them was going to be like in terms of AI.

With something like this, it’s like, yes, you can say maybe it’s governmental reaction to AI companies or what the laws are going to be, but it’s really societal, because it goes beyond our borders. It’s just like, what choices are we going to make about what is okay and what is not okay? Collectively as a group and individually, what do we feel are the right paths through there?

As I look at AI in my own life, I’m always thinking about is this use of AI replacing a person’s work that I would otherwise be going to? Going all the way back to your example of taking the sea lions barking out of the back of this audio, there are other ways they could’ve maybe addressed that without AI, but it would not have as successful or nearly as efficient to do it.

**Mike:** Efficient, yeah.

**John:** This was a right choice, and I feel like very, very defensible. But I think we have to ask ourselves, any time we’re using one of these technologies, is this the right use of this? If it’s to create a knockoff Mariah Carey song, I think the answer is no.

**Mike:** Just to go one step further – and again, these are philosophical arguments. I’m not sure that they would sway a lot of people, but they’re how I feel. The process of making something like a TV show or a movie, it amounts to 10 phases of creativity with 10 different groups of people.

In TV, the final phase is a sound and color correction mix, where you are in a room in a dark studio and there’s a group of people around you and those people all have different jobs. There’s dialogue mixers. There’s sound effects mixers. There’s a music editor and a composer who’s composed music. You’re putting the final ribbon on the thing that you have spent months, if not years, creating. It’s incredibly collaborative. It’s really magically a team sport at the end.

By the way, every one of these phases is a team sport, regardless of whether you’ve written something completely by yourself or with a group of people. They’re all team sports. The shooting process is a team sport. The editing process is a team sport.

Its final phase is one of my favorites, because we are now done with everything. We have edited the picture the right way. We have chosen the right takes. The actors have done their jobs. The costumers and props people and art directors and caterers, everyone has done their jobs as well as they can do them. We’re at the very end. Now we’re going to make sure that everyone who watches this gets the best possible viewing and auditory experience. Every phone ring in an office comes at the right exact moment. Every little bit of dialogue. Maybe the actor got a little choked up when they said this line, and we want everyone to see exactly, hear exactly how they got choked up. It’s like painting a grain of rice. It’s like a group of people all coming together to paint this grain of rice and get it perfect.

When the sound editor presents that cleaned-up audio of that scene in San Francisco, and what he has done in this case is remove the stuff you don’t want to hear, so that you can hear the stuff you do want to hear, he has used AI to do that, and he’s used a computer to do that. But he has been there the whole time, combing through every moment, just making sure that every single little thing is exactly right, and by the way, at various times, has put some of those seal noises back in. When you cut to a shot, there’s a moment where you cut to a shot of the sea lions. At that moment, he undid what the AI had done, so that you could hear those seals barking, because we want the audience to hear them bark at that moment and not at other moments.

What I’m getting at here is that yes, that software program made his job a lot easier and a lot more efficient, but it’s still his job. He is still doing the work of going moment by moment and examining every nook and cranny of that scene with his headphones on, staring at wave forms on a computer and getting everything exactly right. That is not a thing that you could tell an AI to do. It’s impossible, because that requires the observation and thought and careful work of a human being observing what you’ve made and thinking, when we do we want to hear what and when and how and why.

I find that in other words, if you told me that right now we could replace all of the people in that room with software programs and that the process of sound mixing and color correcting an episode of TV could be 10 minutes long instead of four hours, which it often is, that sounds horrible to me. That sounds awful. That’s a worst-case scenario for how you complete the final phase of the thing that you spent so much time working on, because what I want it to be is a group of people who are thinking about doing what they’re doing and have, like you say, an intention. The intention is let’s make this piece of art as good as we can make it.

I think that the philosophical argument becomes pretty non-philosophical when you think of it that way, when you think of it as, what do we want this to be. We want it to be the product of a group of people who are all thinking really hard about how to make it as good as possible. Thinking really hard about something is not a job for an AI. It just isn’t.

**John:** Mike Schur, thank you so much for all your philosophical musings on this topic and everything else. I’m going to let you get back to that sound mix and be done with those sea lions. Absolute pleasure talking with you.

**Mike:** Thank you, buddy. Talk to you soon.

Links:

* [Mike Schur](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1321658/) on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schur)
* [Weekend Read 2](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/weekendread/)
* [IATSE tentative basic agreement](https://basic.iatse.net/)
* [David Ellison’s Skydance Taking Over Paramount After $8 Billion Investment](https://deadline.com/2024/07/david-ellison-skydance-paramount-takeover-1236002996/) by Dade Hayes for Deadline
* [WGA West Reaches $3 Million Settlement With CBS Studios Over Writer Fees and Benefit Payments](https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/wga-west-cbs-settlement-writers-mcgyver-hawaii-50-seal-team-1236066838/) by Cynthia Littleton for Variety
* [Project Hail Mary](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/611060/project-hail-mary-by-andy-weir/) by Andy Weir
* [Alphabirds](https://alphabirdsgame.com/)
* [Should We Go Extinct?](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/760946/should-we-go-extinct-by-todd-may-introduction-by-michael-schur-creator-of-the-good-place/) by Todd May
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* Craig Mazin on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@clmazin) and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/)
* John August on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@johnaugust), [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/johnaugust)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Vance Lovett ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Drew Marquardt](https://www.drewmarquardt.com/) with help from [Jonathan Wigdortz](https://www.wiggy.rocks/). It is edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/650V2standard.mp3).