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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: scriptnotes.net

Scriptnotes, Episode 577: The One with Daniels, Transcript

February 24, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. Heads up that today’s episode has just a little bit of swearing in it.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: Whoa, whoa, my name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is Episode 577 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we’re sitting down the writing/directing team of Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, collectively known as Daniels, to discuss their film Everything Everywhere All At Once and all the stuff that led up to it. Welcome, Daniels.

Craig: Daniels!

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, thank you guys.

John: Oh my god, hello.

Daniel Kwan: As a longtime listener-

Daniel Scheinert: Congrats, 577.

Craig: Woo!

Daniel Kwan: Wow. I know, it’s crazy. I’ve listened to every episode. That’s not true, but I’ve listened to a decent chunk, so this is very exciting. Thank you for having us.

Craig: A decent chunk is a lot, so thank you.

John: We’ll happily take it. We want to talk to you about Everything-

Craig: Everywhere.

John: … and how you got started, how it all came together. If you could stick around for our Bonus Segment, we would love to talk to you about music videos and other things you guys shoot that are not movies, because somehow, we’ve made it through 576 episodes, and we’ve never talked about music videos and commercials and all the other stuff that writer-directors get to make, which is I’m sure a crucial part of your learning process.

Craig: (singing)

Daniel Kwan: That’s exciting.

Craig: God, I love that music video so much.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god.

Craig: That is a music video that occasionally, if I’m feeling down… If you don’t know what we’re talking about, Turn Down for What. If I’m feeling a bit down, sometimes I’ll just turn it on. It’s instant mood lift.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god.

Craig: I’m sure for the two of you it’s nothing but traumatic memories, but for me it’s instant mood lift.

Daniel Kwan: You have no idea. I’ve gone to so many weddings since that video has come out. Any time I’m at a wedding, someone tells the DJ, “You have to play Turn Down for What.”

Daniel Scheinert: “He loves it.”

Daniel Kwan: Truly, it’s now a traumatic experience hearing that song. Even you jokingly saying that is making me want to leave.

Craig: Good. That’s my job on the podcast is to try and shorten the length of each episode by driving people away.

Daniel Scheinert: I like this.

John: Let’s talk about it. Let’s get into how you guys got started, because I first met you guys up on the mountain at Sundance Labs. You guys were great. You had a crazy script. I don’t think I worked with you guys directly on it, but I hear all these stories about, “It’s a farting corpse movie.” I’m like, “These guys are geniuses somehow.” That’s when I first saw your shorts, but I don’t know how you guys got started. Can you give us the recap of the origin story for you as a team?

Daniel Scheinert: Totally. We met in college, didn’t get along. We were taking an animation class. I participated too much. He thought I was an asshole. He didn’t participate enough. I thought he was wasting his money at film school.

Daniel Kwan: Classic rom-com.

Craig: I love it so far.

Daniel Scheinert: Our Harry Met Sally didn’t take as long. It didn’t take a decade. It was a year before we had a summer job as camp counselors for the New York Film Academy, which I don’t necessarily recommend, but I do recommend as a job. It’s a great job.

Craig: Get paid by them but don’t pay them is what you’re saying.

Daniel Scheinert: Exactly. Most film schools are [crosstalk 00:03:08] as far as how much they cost.

Craig: I love you.

Daniel Scheinert: They’re pretty great as far as who you might meet. We both have camp counselor vibes. We like to make art that way. We bonded and got very jealous of the kids. After work, we started making some short films together that the internet liked.

Daniel Kwan: I think the through line is that our collaboration has just been a series of accidents. We just decided to do a short film together. It was actually just like a quick test. I wanted to teach him aftereffects. He wanted to teach me how to shoot live action stuff. We put it online.

Daniel Scheinert: He had a new camera. Then it was like, “Oh, let’s try out the new camera.”

Daniel Kwan: “Let’s test this out.” We did something stupid together. Scheinert put it on his Vimeo account, and we were put on the front page of Vimeo. We were like, “Whoa, what happened? I’ve been trying to get on the front page for the past eight months, and we just did this thing randomly.” It just kept happening.

Daniel Scheinert: He was so jealous, because it was my page.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Craig: Did you suspect that maybe Vimeo just puts white people’s videos on right away? Was there like a little bit of a, “Hm, hold on a second.”

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, I don’t want to-

Craig: “I’ve been working pretty hard at this, and this guy literally-“

Daniel Scheinert: You were here first.

Daniel Kwan: Vimeo is racist. That’s a whole other conversation, not the Vimeo is racist thing, but just the way our race actually has played into our careers is fascinating.

Craig: We’ll dig into it. We’ll dig into that.

Daniel Kwan: Long conversation for later. I will say that we accidentally started working together. Through this very strange Pavlovian response, we got some rewards, and we’re like, “Let’s do it again.” We just kept doing it. Next thing we know, he asked me if I wanted to help him on a music video. We’re like, “Sure, let’s try that out.” We did that. A month later, someone from London says, “Hey, I saw your music video that you did for free. What if we gave you $12,000 to make another one?”

Craig: Hello.

Daniel Kwan: We’re like, “Sure.” We quit our jobs. I was working at DreamWorks Animation at the time as a low-level designer, and Scheinert was working at a VFX company as a runner. We quit our jobs, went to New York, did a music video. Then another month later, someone was like, “Hey, you want to do it again?” It just became this slow-motion thing where our identities became entrenched and we had to figure out our process. We like to say that the algorithm gave us an arranged marriage. The internet accidentally put us together.

The relevant part of the story is even the leap from music videos to screenwriting, feature-length screenwriting, was an accident. We were finding success in music videos. We got a manager, Josh Rudnick, for anyone who cares. He’s incredible. They started sending us scripts, and none of them were speaking to us. None of them felt like the kind of thing that we would actually feel passionate enough to spend years on.

Even though neither of us considered ourselves writers at the time, we took a step back and we’re like, “Hey, we’ve been writing all these music video treatments for a few years now, dozens. Every couple months, we just write a new idea.” It was like a boot camp. We were like, “What if we just tried doing that ourselves? None of these scripts are going to be the thing that makes us want to direct a feature. Let’s try to write our own way.” We naively jumped into screenwriting, thinking that it would just be like a long music video. Oh boy, we were so wrong, but lots of lessons learned. That was our path.

Daniel Scheinert: One of the lessons that’s fun, it was through writing music videos that we discovered our writing process. We didn’t even think we were screenwriting when we would do this. We would listen to the song. We were usually attracted to a story, not just visuals. We would structure our little short films based on the verse, chorus, verse, chorus of whatever song and designing moments that pop, to try to set them up and create. We were very much like visual screenwriters at first, because there’s no dialog in a music video. We would have to break it down beat by beat and time it out and find the rhythm of the scene. That still informs how we write.

Craig: You’re pulling something out that’s actually quite profound, that I don’t think we’ve actually talked about in our four billion episodes, which is that the very simple structure of a classic pop song, verse, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, is something that provides a fundamental and essential shape to a story, even though we don’t realize it’s happening. We are all taught, and I don’t know why it works. I guess our brains are designed around verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, but it does-

Daniel Kwan: I have a theory that I’ll tell later.

Craig: Tell me.

Daniel Kwan: Continue.

Craig: Tell me now. I need to know.

Daniel Kwan: I had a roommate in college who was a musician, very heady, philosophical guy. He was telling me about this essay about the pop song and why it’s so important to the human experience. It’s because it’s meant to imitate sex, reaching towards climax. There’s the tease. There’s the lift. There’s the comedown, the teasing again. Now you bring it to the bridge. That’s when you’re getting really close. You hit that climax. It feels like this really beautiful, cathartic experience packed into five minutes, which I think is incredible and very narrative. Very narrative. It’s got three acts. You’re right. It’s a really perfect way to think about story. Even when we were just doing music videos, people would tell us that, “Your music videos sometimes squeeze more story into four minutes than some features do.” Some people might say that’s a bad thing. For us, it was an exciting challenge.

Craig: We’re going to get into that. When we start digging into, which I’m sure will happen soon, into Everything Everywhere All At Once, I definitely want to talk about the… You guys call it maximalism? What is the word that you use?

Daniel Kwan: Maximalism, yeah.

Craig: A whole lot. There’s so much. I don’t know. John, should I short circuit things by talking about it? Should I just ask my question?

John: I think there’s actually a very nice segue though between the videos you’re doing… If you looked at Turn Down For What, we’ll put a link in the show notes to Turn Down For What, a tremendous amount happens in there visually. You’re constantly adding new layers to things. You’re literally falling down through the floor, into a new layer, a new layer, a new layer of a story. I want to talk about your short film, Interesting Ball, the 2014 film, which was an ongoing series of vignettes that all tie together and feed into one big thing. What is the process for you guys developing those ideas? You talk about [inaudible 00:09:42] song and then having to figure out what is speaking to me. That’s fine if it’s one person. If it’s both of you, do you have to give veto power over what ideas are happening? What is the process like for figuring out, “Okay, this is how we want to do this thing. This is a story. We should follow on this.”

Daniel Kwan: Before I answer that, I just also want to include Foster the People, Houdini is another one that has a very dense story, and then our Simple Song by The Shins, also way too much story in five minutes, just in case people want to see what we’re talking about. It’s too much. It was great.

Craig: It’s a great song.

Daniel Kwan: The collaboration, like I said, it’s all very accidental. It’s all very organic. A lot of times, we just constantly pitch things back and forth. The things that stick are the things that we chase, which is why me as an individual director and Scheinert as an individual director, we would be making very different things on our own.

Our Venn diagram is so specific and strange that it has to excite us both in order for us to chase it. It’s not fun to drag someone along on a journey that they’re not fully committed to. That really hones and sharpens what the story can be or the potential for what it is. Oftentimes, it is the stuff that scares us the most, because on our own, I don’t think I would be quite as brave. Together, it’s like, “Are we going to bite off way too much? Are we going to chase after something that we probably shouldn’t be chasing after as storytellers? That sounds exciting.” I think that’s something that at least within our relationship, that’s the strongest part of the Venn diagram is that’s risk-taking.

Daniel Scheinert: I think I maybe get a kick out of tricking Dan into making his craziest ideas actually happen.

Daniel Kwan: There’s that too.

Daniel Scheinert: I’ll become the cheerleader for the weird ones. There’s rarely veto power. In fact, in some ways, there’s tons of it. We’re just looking for that thing that makes us both excited. Over the years, we’ve learned to not sweat it if an idea falls flat for the other person and just be like, “Huh, okay. I trust his taste. For some reason, that idea doesn’t sing to him.” Then sometimes it’ll come up again a few months later. There’s a movie idea that I’ve been pitching to Dan for years that just recently got consumed by this other idea that we’ve been working on. I’m like, “Oh, it’s actually happening now.” It took years of throwing this dumb idea against the wall for it to finally find its home.

Daniel Kwan: It’s a slow-motion passive veto. If it gets buried by time, then that’s the veto. I think this is an acting metaphor that an acting coach once told us. The reason why you don’t want to say no is because you want to allow the bush to grow in every direction it needs to grow before you start trimming. Otherwise, you won’t know what shape it can be. I think that’s a part of our process working with actors, but also a part of our writing process is just letting things grow. If it’s meant to die, it’ll die. You never know what the bush could be until you see it in its biggest, most unruly form.

Daniel Scheinert: I love that metaphor.

Craig: There’s something beautiful about the permissiveness of your process, where you do allow each other to say and come up with ideas that maybe other people would reject out of hand. One of the things that struck me when I watched Everything Everywhere All At Once, or can we abbreviate it to EEAAO, is that…

Let me back up for a second. John and I, I think, do a decent job of generally educating people about screenwriting. I think in all the time that we’ve spent looking at say the Three Page Challenges and things, I think we are good at helping people get better, but I’m not sure that we’re good at helping people be Good with a capital G. I think that there’s something innate. Obviously, there is talent that exists. Watching your movie, I felt overwhelmed in the best possible way, by quality of ideas. There were not 1 or 2 or 12 fresh ideas. Movies oftentimes give you zero fresh ideas. There were 1,000 fresh ideas.

Daniel Kwan: Wow.

Craig: By the time I got to the Everything Bagel, which I think may be the single best metaphor ever immortalized on film-

Daniel Scheinert: Oh my god.

Craig: … I was just overjoyed by the amount of original thought. I just want to dig in a little bit to ask you guys, are you aware of how original all of these thoughts are? Is it something you pursue very purposefully? Do you worry about losing connection with some of the necessary conventional things, which I think in your film you did not lose touch with? How do you manage this fire hose of brilliant thought?

Daniel Kwan: Oh my gosh, thank you. That is such an incredible compliment. Regarding the bagel metaphor, I feel like Twitter would disagree, but it’s okay.

Daniel Scheinert: [Crosstalk 00:14:40].

Craig: I quit Twitter.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Craig: Fuck Twitter. They’re wrong.

Daniel Kwan: I should quit. The first thing I’ll say is, in college I remember I heard someone say something funny and snarky about success that has always stuck with me. They said if you want to be successful, you either have to be the best or the first. From the very beginning, I was like, “I will never be the best, but I can be the first.” That was definitely a very inspiring moment. That was something that me and Daniel had a proclivity for is just surprising each other. That’s why the duoship works is because half the time, that’s all we’re doing. We’re trying to surprise each other, either with a joke or even with an emotionally resonant idea. How do we surprise each other so that we can surprise our audience?

A lot of it comes out to the fact that I’m realizing now as an adult, I’ve been recently diagnosed with ADHD, and people with ADHD are novelty seekers. I’m the truffle pig. That’s how my brain is defaulted to think about the world and look at the world. I think a lot of people look at it and they’re like, “Oh my gosh, this is way too much.” To me, I’m like, “Welcome to our brains. This is just how we think.”

I’ve been reading a lot about neuroanthropology, this idea of taking anthropology and going back to ancient traditions and the ways that brains worked back then to decode and understand how we can hack our minds for the modern world or whatever. One of the things they talk about is how important innovation is and novelty seeking is for the human condition.

A lot of people can be like, “Oh yeah, it’s just new for new’s sake,” as far as our movie goes. It’s whatever. It’s just random and fun. I do think that the newness and the freshness of our stories is very much intentional, because I think humans are so fickle. You learn a moral to a story or you learn this beautiful, life-changing idea, and two months later, you’ve already forgotten why you felt that way. I think we were constantly having to remind ourselves, as humans and as storytellers, these very simple, universal truths. Unless we wrap it in something new, it’s hard to penetrate our very hardened, logical, cold brains. Innovation to us is really fun and playful and inspiring but also feels important as a vehicle for story.

John: Innovation and novelty are amazing tools. They’re definitely going to help you find some new territory, but they’re not going to get a movie made. They’re not going to get a script written. How do you go from… You have all these great ideas. They’re great ideas you could’ve had in a dorm room, but you’re not actually getting them to a movie. You’re not getting them to a script stage. What is the process from these great ideas to, “Okay, now we’re agreeing on the words on the page to create this story.” What is that conversation? You have great abstract ideas, but you also have to agree on what is the scene.

Daniel Scheinert: It’s nonlinear. It’s still confusing. We’re still figuring it out. I do think that, back to music videos, we discovered our process on these short-form projects and discovered that we enjoy biting off something ambitious that we would have to keep trying to polish straight up until the final day. That the story wasn’t going to work until the effects were done was a fun way to make a story. I feel like that gave us the courage to write scripts, because we never look at our scripts as a final product at all.

Daniel Kwan: Great advice for a screenwriting podcast.

Craig: Nobody buys screenplays. It’s true.

John: It’s true.

Craig: They’re meant to be transformed.

Daniel Scheinert: They’re meant to be a blueprint to this other thing. That was a really freeing thought, I think, for both of us, because it meant we didn’t have to fight tooth and nail about exactly what the lines were, because we were like, “That’s just the line for now.” It gave us, I think, the courage to just write in a very iterative way, that wasn’t super OCD about the details. We did a ton of outlining, wrote a draft, went back and re-outlined it, drastically wrote a draft.

Daniel Kwan: We should send you guys… My whiteboard has an outline.

Craig: Please.

Daniel Kwan: It’s got 30 timelines across the thing.

Craig: Oh my god.

Daniel Kwan: It’s tracking everything. It’s a mess.

Craig: I would love that.

Daniel Kwan: It’s hilarious. I think that gets back to, process-wise, not only are we looking for innovation on a moment-to-moment and idea-to-idea level, but structurally I think that’s where we find the most inspiration, and that’s how we organize all of it.

With Swiss Army Man, structurally what we wanted to do is we wanted to ask, “What if we started this movie with just the worst idea ever, a man who is farting so much that he’s able to be used as a jet-ski but it’s cathartic and beautiful? What if we started with that image and we still found a way to justify this film’s existence?” It felt like a very interesting challenge to us. The classic line that Paul Dano used to use at all the Q and As was, “It was a film that started with a fart that made you laugh and ended with a fart that made you cry.” It’s a semiotic experiment. It’s very academic. Structurally, that was what we were going for, and everything else was trying to be thrown into that bucket.

With Everything Everywhere, we asked ourselves, “Okay, what if we could create a multiverse movie that went to too many multiverses? What if we took the hero’s journey and deconstructed it beyond anything recognizable, where you had way too many stories, way too many wants, way too many needs?”

Originally, we wanted the whole film to fully collapse. Basically, we wanted the main character and the audience to not care anymore, to actually believe in nihilism, like, “Nothing matters. This story doesn’t matter.” Then we were like, “Okay, but what if structurally we got there, but then we still found a way to pull everything back together and make it make sense?”

When we came up with that structure, we were like, “Holy shit, this is amazing, because this reflects the lived experience right now that everyone… ” Twitter and social media and the constant news cycle that we were experiencing. We started writing this in 2016. Everyone knows what was happening then. This film was very much… That structure was like a reflection of that moment.

To us, we’re like, “Okay, great, we have a lot little, fun, innovative ideas, but we have this very big, structural, big swing that we’re excited to use as a blueprint for us to drop those ideas into.” That structure has stayed the same. I don’t know how many drafts we did, but many, many, many drafts. That structure was always the goal throughout, even though entire characters got thrown away, scenes got rewritten. Everything changed except for that structure. I think that’s something that maybe some people miss in the innovation conversation when talking about this script in particular.

John: We’re looking at a script that you guys sent through. It’s not quite clear what the script is that we’re looking at, because it has side-by-side the Chinese dialog for characters, it has some ADR stuff and other things thrown in. What was the script that you first went out to actors with? What was the first script that you had that’s like, “Okay, this represents our intention of the thing to make.” How long was that script? The script we’re looking at is about 125 pages. It has the end at Page 83. Then it restarts at 86. All At Once begins 124. Was the script you were going out to actors with similar to the script we’re looking at?

Daniel Scheinert: It was relatively similar, yeah. It was an interesting thing when the movie was done and we were like, “What script do we release?” I always think it’s funny when you get these award [inaudible 00:22:30] with a screenplay, and you’re like, “I think they hired a kid to transcribe the finished film.”

Craig: Exactly. It’s usually not a kid, but that is exactly correct.

John: We know a guy who does that.

Craig: In fact, we know somebody who has done that quite a few times.

Daniel Scheinert: We didn’t want to do that. We kept in stuff that got cut out. We wanted to keep in the stuff that changed, like when we did pickup shoots and ADR and stuff. That cracked the movie open. That was part of the writing process. It’s like, “That is screenwriting we did, so I guess we’ll put that in there.” It’s a mix of things.

I was just going to summarize that first we went out to Michelle years and years ago. We met with her right before Crazy Rich Asians came out, which I think was 2018 or something. That was pretty different script. I don’t think that character had a grandpa in it.

Craig: You mean you were Hongless at that time?

Daniel Kwan: Yeah, we were Hongless. [Crosstalk 00:23:25].

Craig: I have a huge problem with that, because James Hong is the greatest actor of all time.

Daniel Kwan: Agreed.

Daniel Scheinert: I think in that one, it wasn’t a Chinese New Year’s party. It was a wedding. Joy, the daughter, was getting married to her partner and hadn’t invited her mom. To Dan’s point, it had the same structure, like about a family, it goes to too many universes, come back, they hug at the end. Then we refined it. Michelle helped us refine it. Going out to different actors… We’d sometimes talk to actors and go home and be like, “Oh, that conversation totally helped you crack why the wedding’s a bad idea,” for example.

Daniel Kwan: The one thing I’ll add is it changed a lot, it changed a lot, it changed a lot, but the most important thing we learned on Swiss Army Man was making sure that the script was good enough before we shot, because we were rewriting as we were shooting, and it was miserable. What we ended up doing with this script is… Even though it was constantly changing up until the shoot day, by the time we were shooting, it mostly remained blocked. It was pretty close to the final thing. The script that you guys got is pretty close to our shooting script. The only difference is we added some ADR and stuff like that. Otherwise, the structure of it, the order of it, what you guys are seeing is basically what our crew saw when we started shooting, which I’m very proud of. It was very important to us.

Craig: I don’t know how you could’ve… I’m thinking about your poor first AD. Literally, I was thinking about your poor first AD while we were watching the movie. I’m in Calgary, watching it in this lovely little theater, and my mind is blown, but at some point, I think it was maybe one of the first super-montages, where we see Michelle Yeoh a thousand different times in a thousand different places, where I was just like, “Is the first AD okay? Did they take care of him?” because the thought of doing that movie without a locked, I mean locked script gives me hives just thinking about it.

Daniel Kwan: I think we knew that, and then we also got lucky, and Rod, our first AD, was also very good at his job and very zen about it.

Craig: You would need to be, I would imagine.

Daniel Kwan: He was just like, “We got this, guys.” Sometimes I’m like a part-time AD when we’re shooting. I worry about that a lot. I’m teaming up with whoever it is, to just be like, “What was the schedule today? What do we have to get? What are the priorities? If we get behind, what are we going to cut out? Does it matter? If we have time, what’s the fun stuff we’re going to sneak in there?” trying to manage expectations.

Craig: How many days did you guys shoot?

Daniel Kwan: It was 8 weeks, 38 days.

Craig: Wow.

Daniel Kwan: Then we had several days of pickup shoots and stuff during COVID, but they were small.

Craig: If by several you don’t mean 14,000, I am amazed. It’s really amazing how much you did in the time you had. Question for you. You’re making this movie. From your point of view, I hope you felt that you had covered all these brilliant bases. You had written this really interesting story full of very specific… We always go on about specificity. I can’t think of more specific writers than the two of you. It’s not just hot dog fingers. There’s cheese inside of the hot dog fingers.

Daniel Scheinert: Oh, cheese.

Craig: Every single thing has been thought through. I hope it was cheese. Maybe it was something else. Was it mayonnaise?

Daniel Kwan: Mustard.

Daniel Scheinert: Mustard.

Craig: Oh, it was mustard. I thought it was cheese.

Daniel Scheinert: That says a lot about you, actually.

Daniel Kwan: It’s whatever you want it to be.

Craig: It had that American cheese color. Fair enough. Mustard. See, even specific enough that it was mustard. You also had these incredible costumes. Stephanie Hsu, who I became obsessed with after seeing your movie, is in like 400 costumes that are each brilliant. At any point, or perhaps at lots of points, did the two of you look at each other and say, “Either we are going to succeed fantastically or this is going to be pointed at and laughed at for all time?”

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, you’re getting at our sweet spot.

Craig: Good.

Daniel Kwan: It’s the big swing. It’s the disastrous, ambitious… I don’t want to speak ill of other movies, but I actually love these films. It’s films like Southland Tales.

Craig: It’s funny, I was thinking of Southland Tales, because we’re big Richard Kelly fans here.

Daniel Scheinert: Totally.

Craig: I really like that movie a lot, but it’s out there. That one, people didn’t quite connect with the way that they did with your film.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly. I think I find that film so inspiring, more inspiring than most other films, because he just went for it and he put everything in it. It was trying to be political and funny. It was way too ambitious.

Craig: Weird.

Daniel Kwan: And weird. Films like that, they were our North Stars for this film. We were like, “We want to do what they did, but can we stick the landing? Can we stick the landing in a way in which our mothers might actually appreciate the film?”

Daniel Scheinert: A lot of times, we’ll pick something bonkers and something really broad as our two North Stars and be like, “Oh, can we land somewhere in the middle?” It was It’s A Wonderful Life and Southland Tales. Those are very different movies, but it’s fun to bounce between them.

Craig: Incredible. That’s a fun way to walk into a pitch at A24 and say, “Southland Tales.” They’re like, “Goodbye.” That’s awesome. The bravery is really just something else. When you say stuck the landing, it’s a wonderful phrase, because I do feel like the way I feel when I watch Olympians do really complicated things. If they don’t stick the landing, they’re probably just going to break their neck and die. I feel like you guys are so brave, braver than I am. That’s for sure. You’re just like, “Here we go. Might not live.” Amazing.

Daniel Scheinert: We also have a bag of tricks we’ve collected over the years that make it not as scary for us as it would be for other filmmakers.

Craig: Tell us about those.

Daniel Scheinert: You mentioned Interesting Ball. That was an experimental film that we made for almost no money. Part of the experiment with that one was the script was five short films that we thought would be fun to intercut. We didn’t actually know what would cut to where or how it would work. Even on the day, some of them were too ambitious, and we only shot some of the script. There was a whole sequence with these broformers where a bunch of dudes hug and turn into a big mech warrior made of dudes. That’s a hard thing to photograph. We ended up shooting only pieces of the script and being like, “I don’t know, let’s see if it works in the edit.” That one, we spent a long time in the edit. It was very hard finding this flow. It was wild to see just how much you can fix in the edit. It was part of the experiment of that short film.

We held onto that while making this. In this case, we designed how it would cut. It was in the script, so that we wouldn’t overshoot it or have to figure it out on the day. We did know in the back of our heads, we’re pretty good at montage, we’re pretty good at finding music to guide an audience through a scene that isn’t good. We’ve fixed our movies in the past a lot. We had some crutches that made a scary screenplay not as scary for us as it was for the producers.

John: It sounds like you guys have a good faith in Future Daniels. Writer Daniels have good faith in Director Daniels, and Director Daniels have good faith in Editor Daniels. You’re going to do your very best at that moment to give Future Daniels what they can use. You know that in the future you guys are going to be able to solve some of these problems and you’re not catastrophizing things on the day. If you can’t get that shot, if your shot list doesn’t get completed, it’ll work out. You’ll find a way through it.

Daniel Kwan: That’s such a wonderful way to put it. You’re collaborating with past, present, and future versions of yourselves. I think that that trust comes from the fact that we’ve gone through the process so many times in a very quick amount of time. I recently calculated. I think we’ve done about a dozen commercials, a dozen music videos, maybe close to a dozen short films, seven or eight TV episodes, and then of course we’ve done three features between the two of us.

Because we were able to do that so quickly, we really quickly understood what our strengths were within each other’s sections, the pre-production, the production, and the editing, in a way that… Even in the writing process, we always say that we want to start writing a movie that we have to grow up and mature to become the directors who can direct that movie. Right now we’re working on another film that is way too big, way too ambitious. We are not good enough directors to make that movie yet.

Craig: Yes, you are.

Daniel Kwan: That’s what you think.

Craig: Do it. Do it.

Daniel Kwan: That’s the fun of it.

Daniel Scheinert: It’s aspirational. We’re like, “Oh, I’m excited to become the guy that can do that.”

Daniel Kwan: Who can do that one day.

Craig: The reach is part of the process for you guys.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly. Also, the other thing that we have in our back pocket is, if something doesn’t work, we can just turn it into a joke. It’s such a cheap trick. Within the context of our films, so much stuff doesn’t work at first. We have all these different ways to repurpose it or recycle it, or worst-case scenario, we just cut it out, because like what you said, Craig, we have so many ideas that if something doesn’t work, we’ll be like, “There’s plenty of other things, so get rid of it.” The first cut is this crazy monster of a film that has all these appendages that are wonderful and beautiful but so bloated and so confusing. Our process has always been throw everything at the wall. We don’t know if it’s going to work, but at least some of them will work. Some of them will work really beautifully, and that’s enough for us for now.

Daniel Scheinert: With this movie, more than ever before, like Dan said, we really wanted to like the script and have something locked before we shoot. Some of that was being better writers, and some of it was a mental exercise. You just have to tell yourself, “Turn off the writing and focus on the filmmaking.”

Swiss Army Man, Dan and I had this argument, we’ve been having it ever since, about how much of it was not a good script and how much of it was just bad process on our part. We just shouldn’t have been rewriting it as frantically as we did. It wasn’t good. Shot listing might have been a smarter move with our time. This time, in addition to liking it, the scriptwriting process was so helpful in helping us figure out the priorities. The format of a screenplay forces you to essentialize. You can’t describe every costume, or else it becomes a 200-page script. We were constantly having to make hard decisions to get the page count down. It helped us know what really mattered. It was like, “We have all these gags, like with Raccacoonie, but they’re not essential to the story,” and so we’d cut them out.

Craig: Oh, Raccacoonie. It is essential to the story.

Daniel Scheinert: We’d remember them and be like-

Craig: Raccacoonie.

Daniel Scheinert: Stuff would rise back in.

Craig: God.

Daniel Scheinert: It’s essential to us. We knew these details were why we wanted to make the movie. The screenwriting process really was about killing darlings a lot of times. It was about like, “No, we have to focus on the family. We can’t get too enamored with what Jobu’s costumes are going to be. We’ll figure that out later. For now what matters is where’s our character at.”

Craig: Tupaki. The discipline that you guys applied to what seems like an absolute chaotic wellspring of ideas is why the movie works. You just mentioned Raccacoonie, and that brings up a question that I wanted to ask you guys. My grandparents were immigrants, and they lived with us. I grew up in a house where Raccacoonie type mistakes would happen all the time. I’m just interested in… The movie is so much about existentialism and what it means to survive and love in the face of what I think is true, which is none of this means anything, but at the same time, so much of the movie’s built around the immigrant experience, in a very honest way, a very eyes-open way. I’m curious how you came about smashing these two pretty disparate themes together in such a gorgeous little blend.

Daniel Kwan: A lot of it, I like to say that me and Scheinert are very naïve writers. We do things that we don’t have a plan for sometimes, or we don’t overthink it, because we’re drawn to it. We’re like, “We’re drawn to it. Let’s put it together. Let’s see what happens.” Oftentimes, what happens is some of the things don’t work. As you live with a script, that gets thrown out.

With the immigrant experience and the multiverse, as we were working on it, we realized, oh, these two things are actually a fascinating pairing, because both the immigrant story and the multiverse are talking about multiple worlds. Our parents and our grandparents, they live in-

Craig: Interesting.

Daniel Kwan: … different existence, very different point of views. This is what the multiverse is actually in real life. It’s just having a completely different outlook on life and that collision of those things. All this intergenerational immigrant narrative stuff is about the collision of the past, the future, and everything in between, as far as traditions and whatever goes.

Then also, a lot of the multiverse and the immigrant story is a questioning of life paths and decisions and asking yourself what if. When I talk to my mother about her past, a lot of it is like, “What if this happened? What if that happens?” The only reason why she came to America is because her family got the money together to send her there, as almost like a backup plan. They’re like, “Okay, if the family business in Taiwan doesn’t work out, you’re going to go to America. You’re going to get educated.” She was almost like the test subject. Then when the family company went under in Taiwan, her whole family moved over to Pennsylvania with her.

The whole immigrant experience is about this ever-branching list of possible life paths that you could’ve taken. It’s things like that that I love, where the pairings don’t necessarily make sense or the contradictions of what you’re trying to put together don’t make sense, but the longer you live with them, things get revealed.

I like to think of all of our scripts as these filters that we carry around with us, these fishnets. As we’re walking around through life, it’s going to catch real moments and real ideas. True emotions are going to be caught in that net. You won’t know what you catch unless you live with it. I think that’s one reason why our scripts take so long is because we want to live with them, and we want to see what we watch. People who are able to write a script in seven days I am so jealous of. Also, I feel like I wouldn’t be able to catch the things that I want to catch with it, because seven days isn’t a long enough time to live with something.

Craig: That’s a beautiful answer. Thank you.

John: Daniel, what you’re describing is a phenomenon I always felt when I’ve been working on features, but especially in the times I’ve been working on TV. I was working on a show that was supposed to be a 22-episode season. The workload was so great that I felt like my life became just about grabbing things in the air and saying, “Is this part of the show? Is this part of the show?” I was the net. I would catch anything that could possibly wrangle them into the show. We heard a song, it was like, “Oh, how does it fit into this thing?”

Daniel Kwan: Totally.

John: You make a very good point, that I don’t know that that’s healthy or a great way to make great art, because your whole existence just becomes transferred into being the person who channels reality into the show. I felt like I was living for the show rather than living my actual life, which is so frightening.

Daniel Scheinert: I feel like the worse thing is the opposite, if you’re working on art that has nothing in common with your life, and so it just becomes a reflection of maybe something you read once or you’re just mimicking a movie you made sometime, but if it can intersect with your life, then ideally it can be a really good therapeutic project, to be like, “Oh, I’m going to work through some real things. This is going to come from an honest place,” as long as you’re not a workaholic, you don’t go crazy.

Craig: These guys are healthier than we are. Don’t you feel like they’re the healthiest versions of us? They seem so put together.

Daniel Scheinert: I was just thinking what inspired this movie. You bringing up Raccacoonie made me think about our producer John’s dad. The movie’s dedicated to him, Alexander Wang. He loved movies but could never remember the names of them. Originally, it was just a joke about how Mr. Wang always got movies wrong. Also, Mr. Wang passed away right after Swiss Army Man came out. I think this movie was inspired a bit by his funeral. It was also inspired by Dan’s wedding and also inspired by Dan becoming a father and also inspired by Dan going into therapy and all these huge life events. You can trace back pieces of this movie, and it’s like, “Oh yeah, that a hundred percent affected the journey of the Wang family in the movie,” each of these real-life journeys we’re going on.

Craig: Amazing. I could talk to you guys all day. Let’s kidnap them.

Daniel Scheinert: Let’s do a four-hour podcast.

Craig: Everyone loves a four-hour podcast.

John: Daniel Kwan, I want to make sure to circle back to you, because early on in the conversation you said you wanted to talk about the experience of being Asian and working in the film industry. Is there anything more that you wanted to get into about that, or is the immigrant stuff more what you wanted to talk about?

Daniel Kwan: This is such a funny, unromantic way to look at our relationship, me and Daniel, and why I think we’ve been resilient through the fact… The industry’s constantly changing. The past 10 years, every few years, something has really shifted. Yet somehow we’ve managed to make a path through it all despite the fact that so many of our very talented friends and whatever have been having a harder time, if we’re being honest. The independent film landscape is just not a fun place right now. It never has been, but right now it’s definitely feeling… Especially now that even streaming is being turned over again. The whole thing is precarious.

They talk about in genetics, oftentimes when you take two people with very different backgrounds, it actually creates better genes. You become more resilient, because you’re actually knocking out things that… That’s why pugs look the way… They’re all inbred.

Craig: It’s why my children can drink milk. I can’t.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly. Oh my god, that’s so funny.

Daniel Scheinert: Wow.

Daniel Kwan: It’s a long-winded metaphor for the fact that when we first started, I didn’t think I was going to become a director, because I was an Asian dude. I was very quiet, very reserved. I wanted to go into animation, because I thought, “Okay, I can still create things, but I don’t need to be the leader or whatever. I can make things on my own.” Scheinert was a very confident white man who had been directing things since he was like 12. He came in, saw something in-

Daniel Scheinert: I was the kind of kid who was like, “Yeah, I could see myself going to film school. I could see myself becoming a director. Those dudes look like me.”

Craig: Wow.

Daniel Scheinert: It didn’t require much imagination.

Craig: That’s awesome.

Daniel Kwan: I also think having him interfacing with the record labels and interfacing with the bands or whatever in a way that I was not ready for, I did not have the confidence for early on, all those things made it so that we… I could sneak in on his back. It’s genetic hitchhiking a little bit, where I was able to navigate this world and learn. In some ways, our duoship and his whiteness was my training wheels. I learned so much from that process.

Then suddenly, #OscarsSoWhite happened, and the whole paradigm shifted, and everything changed. I remember distinctly the moment when we started getting scripts, and they weren’t necessarily for Scheinert, they were for me, if that makes sense. People started sending us projects that were very specifically Chinese. We were being invited to events because I was Chinese. Suddenly, the whole thing switched. Suddenly, he was on my back.

We talked very frankly about this, because again, it’s very unromantic. I feel very grateful that he found me when I did, and I was able to be ready for this moment. The fact that our relationship has been going on for 12, 13 years now, and we’ve been able to make the things that we do is in part because there’s two of us. We have very different backgrounds. Honestly, our belief systems were very different. Our upbringings were very different. Our inspirations were very different. We have very different ways of looking at the world. I think that makes us more resilient, both in just the race of it all, the race conversation of it all, but also just in the types of things that we make.

Daniel Scheinert: Hopefully, 10 years from now, as the world shifts, we still have something to offer, but who knows what that’ll be. Hopefully, we find something that we-

Craig: When the world shifts to white supremacy in the next couple years, it’ll be great.

Daniel Scheinert: Oh, sick.

Craig: You’ll be back again. Don’t worry, Scheinert. It’ll be your time in the sun soon.

Daniel Scheinert: They’ll trust what I look like, and then I’ll sneak in and I’ll rip it apart from the inside.

Craig: Not to overextend the analogy, but John and I are also very different people from different backgrounds, different walks of life, different all this stuff. It is the vive la différence. It is something that makes it work. I don’t listen to podcasts, but I have noticed that a lot of them seem like they are hosted by four clones.

Daniel Kwan: Totally. I know exactly what you’re talking about.

Craig: Differenceness is good.

John: I’m the Whoopi Goldberg. He’s the Joy Behar. It’s what makes The View The View.

Daniel Kwan: That’s amazing.

Craig: That’s exactly what I was thinking.

John: It’s time for our One Cool Things.

Craig: Fantastic.

John: I’m going to start with mine.

Craig: Great.

John: First, it’s a plus one on Craig’s previous recommendation of The Past Within, which is a very cool video game. Two people play separately but together in ways that… I was not expecting it to be so smart about how it works together. Recommendation on The Past Within, the Rusty Lake game. I have two movies to recommend. The first is The Territory, which is a documentary by Alex Fritz about-

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god. Sorry. We just met Alex last night at an event, at the Gotham Awards. He was incredible.

John: I bet he’s incredibly sweet.

Daniel Kwan: He is.

John: So smart.

Daniel Kwan: He might be listening right now.

Craig: I hate him.

John: [Crosstalk 00:46:36].

Craig: No, I don’t.

Daniel Kwan: Different walks of life.

John: Alex Pritz. I said Fritz. It’s Pritz. Such a smartly done movie. It’s about indigenous peoples in Brazil fighting to save their territory, their land from encroachment. So smartly done. You can imagine the bad, eat your vegetables version of this movie a thousand different ways. It managed to navigate through all that. It’s so smartly done. You can find that on Disney Plus. Check it out, The Territory. Second is My Year of Dicks, which is written and produced by our own Pamela Ribon.

Craig: Pam Ribon.

John: Directed by Sara Gunnarsdóttir. So smart. It’s up for an Academy Award, Best short. People should watch it. It’s really, really cleverly done. Based on Pamela’s book about her teenage years and trying to lose her virginity. So great. If you like Pen15, you will definitely love this animated short. It uses animation in such a smart way to be able to show you what otherwise you could not see.

Daniel Kwan: Wow.

John: I really recommend My Year of Dicks.

Daniel Kwan: A great title too.

Craig: Best title ever.

Daniel Kwan: Incredible.

John: You guys will love My Year of Dicks. [Crosstalk 00:47:39].

Craig: “You guys will love My Year of Dicks.”

Daniel Scheinert: It’s a great sentence.

Craig: It is. Continuing the theme sort of, at least etymologically, my One Cool Thing is spatchcocking. If you’re not familiar with spatchcocking, to spatchcock a turkey, you remove the backbone, then you flip it over, and then you push down, and you flatten the whole turkey out. Now, removing the backbone of a turkey, as it turns out, is incredibly hard to do unless you have-

John: It’s brutal.

Craig: … special poultry shears, which I did not have. For about 30 minutes, I was just in this war with a dead animal, almost lost, but finally won. The whole point of spatchcocking is if you keep the turkey on one flat level and put it in the oven, it will cook together at the same time. It will all cook at the same temperature. It will cook way faster. A 15-pound turkey took 1 hour and 10 minutes to cook.

Daniel Kwan: Wow.

Craig: It was perfect.

Daniel Scheinert: Wow.

Craig: If you do like cooking and you are responsible for the turkey in your family, strongly recommend. If you have a butcher that you bring the turkey to, they will often just say, “Yes, yes, we will spatchcock it for you using our spatchcockers.”

Daniel Scheinert: It sounds disgusting. When you said spatchcocking-

Craig: Of course.

Daniel Scheinert: … the last thing I thought was that I was going to want to eat whatever you were about to describe.

Craig: Spatchcocking sounds like something you would need to do to jump to a different timeline. I’m hoping that somehow, at some point, you guys do at least include a little bit of spatchcocking. I feel like if somebody asks a typical filmmaker, “Hey, can you include something in your next film?” they’re like, “No,” but you guys…

Daniel Kwan: I like a challenge.

Craig: What’s one more thing?

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Craig: What’s one more thing? Get the spatchcocking in. That’s all I’m asking.

John: Craig, last year we did spatchcock the turkey and, like you, had the same experience. It was so hard to remove that thing.

Craig: So hard.

John: Then it ended up working out much better. This year, we decided the only way to win the game is not to play, and so we did duck confit, duck legs instead of turkey.

Daniel Kwan: Whoa.

John: So much better.

Craig: Honestly, one of my favorite things in the world is a little duck confit. It is so delicious.

Daniel Kwan: Fancy. We did something similar, except for we went really far away from the tradition. We ended up doing a Chinese hotpot. It was amazing.

Craig: That does sound pretty good.

Daniel Kwan: Also, honestly, there’s very little prep too, so you’re not spending the whole day cooking. Usually, we’re on our feet, trying to get the turkey ready with the mashed potatoes, everything. It’s literally a nightmare, but some people love it.

Craig: Everybody’s basically chasing the French in Western cooking. The French just made cooking the most arduous possible thing. You’re just like, “There’s 4,000 steps.”

Daniel Scheinert: I know.

Craig: It’s the same ambition that you guys have for making films, I have that for cooking. I’m like, “Give me the recipe that no one else will want to do.”

Daniel Kwan: That’s great.

Craig: Hotpot’s just fun.

Daniel Kwan: Literally, give me some materials. I’ll dip it in the water myself. It’s the laziest. I love it. My One Cool Thing-

John: One Cool thing, Daniel Kwan.

Daniel Kwan: There’s this podcast that I’ve been obsessed with for the past couple years called Your Undivided Attention. I don’t know if you guys are familiar with-

Craig: You know I’m not.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Daniel Scheinert: Two clones.

Daniel Kwan: Two clones talking to each other.

Daniel Scheinert: Two clones named Aza and Tristan.

Daniel Kwan: It’s Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin. They’re both ex-Silicon Valley people who were very much at the forefront of Twitter and Facebook and all those things. They realized their invention was slowly destroying our ability to communicate with each other, social media. One of them even is the guy who invented the infinite scroll. Now he’s trying to figure out what to… They have a very beautiful, clear-eyed vision of what’s wrong with social media and also what they think are some solutions to it. They bring in all these incredible guests who are thinking about the world in a completely different way, because there’s the social media level of animal conversation. It’s all about that limbic system, what makes you angry, what makes you sad, what will keep you engaged.

I think so much of the discourse about how to save the world exists in this plane of animal fury. I think this podcast tries to rise above it and think about things very much from a system standpoint, an incentive standpoint, instead of just from emotions. To me, it’s been really healing, and I’ve been learning so much. Go listen to Your Undivided Attention. I’ll say a couple of episodes. Audrey Tang is an amazing person you should listen to, Daniel Schmactenberger, Jessie Wheal. I won’t tell you what they’re talking about. These are people that I’m-

Daniel Scheinert: Isn’t it Jamie Wheal?

Daniel Kwan: I’m sorry. Jamie Wheal, yeah. I went a little too fast. A big fan of Jamie.

Daniel Scheinert: That way they can Google it.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly. If you’re someone who thinks about everything that’s wrong with the world and how we can fix it and you feel lost, for me it’s been a really good starting point for me to at least feel empowered in a world that does not want to empower us.

Craig: What about you, Scheinert?

John: Nice.

Daniel Scheinert: A bunch of my friends pitched in to buy my friend a stripper pole, because she’s been taking these pole dancing classes. It’s gotten her in touch with her body, her sexuality. It’s exercise. When we gave it to her, she taught me some of the moves. I had so much fun.

Craig: Really?

Daniel Scheinert: I’m on the hunt for some good heels. She’s going to teach me some more pole dancing.

Craig: Oh my word.

Daniel Scheinert: I just can’t wait to dress up in drag and do some more pole dancing with my friend. Just for anyone out there, just try cross-dressing. Try pole dancing. Just get in touch with another side of yourself. You can just go in the privacy of the garage. Also related is watching pole dancing. There’s a reason that’s the most popular thing at a strip club. There’s a way to do it respectfully, guys. You go and you pay well to watch someone who’s an incredible athlete. I’ve been going to one with some friends in L.A. and having a blast at Jumbo’s.

Craig: Can we ask where you go?

Daniel Scheinert: Yeah, Jumbo’s Clown Room.

Craig: Jumbo’s Clown Room, the best name for a strip club ever.

Daniel Scheinert: You’ve gotta tip well. If you go and you don’t tip, you’re a loser.

Craig: Yeah, don’t do the stupid $1 bills dumb thing.

Daniel Scheinert: Yeah, or just try it in your friend’s garage. Big cosign on the pole dancing.

Craig: You do look like you’re in excellent shape. If I tried pole dancing, I’m just sure that I would end up in the ER. I would end up in the ER with a wig on.

Daniel Kwan: That sounds great.

Daniel Scheinert: Step one is real easy. You just put your hand on the pole, and you just really slowly, confidently walk around the pole. That’s it. You just gotta work on your strut. Anyone can strut.

Craig: This is the problem is my confidence level. You know what? Something to discuss with my therapist. That’s awesome. Those were great One Cool Things. Those were Two Cool Things. Thank you for that. Incredible.

John: We like it.

Craig: Thank you, Daniels.

John: Daniels, thank you so much for being on the show.

Daniel Scheinert: Thank you for having us.

Craig: Oh my god, it was a joy.

Daniel Scheinert: It’s our pleasure. Thank you for helping us write our script. We listened. We took notes. It was helpful.

Daniel Kwan: We ignored half the advice, but it’s so-

Craig: Thank you.

John: That’s the crucial thing.

Craig: That’s almost as important. What to disagree with is very important.

Daniel Scheinert: Totally.

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

Craig: Woo!

John: It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Indeed.

John: Our outro this week is by Matthew Jordan. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. We’re actually running a little short on outros, so we need some more outros there, folks. You can send your longer questions to ask@johnaugust.com. Craig’s no longer on Twitter. I still am there @johnaugust for the time being. How do we reach you guys on the social medias? Are you guys there at all?

Daniel Kwan: Instagram’s good for me. Instagram, it’s @dunkwun, Dun Kwun.

John: Dun Kwun.

Daniel Kwan: Dun Kwun.

Craig: Dun Kwun.

Daniel Scheinert: My Instagram’s private, just for my friends. I’m sorry if you want to keep track of my life. Social media makes me super anxious.

Craig: I feel that.

Daniel Scheinert: Go check out our movie. I’m so proud of it.

John: You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find links to transcripts and our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. 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 music videos and other things that people pay you to shoot. Daniels, thank you so much for a great show.

Craig: Thank you, Daniels.

Daniel Kwan: Thank you.

John: Congratulations on your film.

Daniel Scheinert: Pleasure.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Daniels, so in the bulk of the episode, you were talking about writing for music videos. Can you talk to us about what you were actually writing? As you were proposing to do a music video, what does that look like? What are you turning in as a document? I’ve seen some proposals, but I don’t think our listeners have ever encountered that as a written form. What are you writing up if you’re trying to get a music video?

Daniel Kwan: Normally, it starts off, and a record label or a commissioner or sometimes an artist will reach out direct, and they will send the brief over. They’ll say when they need to shoot it, when it needs to be done by, what the budget is, and a rough idea of what the band wants. Usually, it’s not enough money, not enough time, and the ideas are super vague. That’s where it starts off. Usually, the prompt is like, “Okay, the artists don’t want to play music, but they also don’t want to act, but they also want to be in it, but also they want it to look cool. Make cool stuff happen around them.” It’s the most frustrating thing to get sometimes.

Craig: Sounds easy.

Daniel Kwan: Also, it’s like, “We need a treatment in two days.”

Daniel Scheinert: Or sometimes it’ll be like, “Drake’s really into Hawaiian shirts lately. $100,000.” I’m like, “Okay, let’s run with that. Let’s see what we can come up with.”

Craig: That’s an interesting exercise.

Daniel Scheinert: It is.

Craig: Narrows down the paths.

Daniel Kwan: It was film school for us. You talk about how we have so many ideas in our movies. It’s because we were forced by this industry to pump out fully formed ideas within a day or two. They’d be like, “We need a treatment in two days. Come up with a whole idea. Pitch us… ” Usually, they want a treatment, which has reference images, execution ideas, and a rough idea of what the concept is going to do.

Daniel Scheinert: Can I talk about the Maroon 5 renaissance?

Craig: Yeah.

Daniel Kwan: Great. Do it. Do it.

Daniel Scheinert: Right when we were starting out in music videos, our first thing we pitched for money got green-lit, turned in, and turned out well, which is a miracle. It turns out we thought, “Wow, music videos are easy.” Then we proceed to get rejected for eight or nine months straight. To his credit, Paul Hunter, who runs the company that had signed us, was like, “Hey, Maroon 5 wants me to do a music video. Do you guys want to help me come up with an idea? You could maybe ghost direct some of it and get paid, because I know you guys are getting rejected all the time.”

Craig: Starving, yeah.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Daniel Scheinert: Then we listened to the song. It was bad. We’d try to come up with ideas. We could not stop coming up with joke ideas that were just making fun of Adam Levine.

Craig: Oh my god. Oh my god.

Daniel Scheinert: We would laugh our asses off at these things, being like, “There’s no way we could do that, but it sure is funny.” We were really struggling to come up with something that we actually thought would be good. A lot of those ideas that we did not pitch to them, that started as just us making fun of the band and the song, became ideas that stuck in the back of our brains, that we loved, that we actually ended up making. Over the next 10 years, we’d be like, “Oh my god, we’re doing one of the Maroon 5 videos again,” because there was one where their music’s so good it gets women pregnant, and we ended up making that.

Daniel Kwan: For Chromeo.

Daniel Scheinert: There was one where their music’s so good the floor falls apart and they fall down into a bar mitzvah, and then the floor falls apart, and they fall down into a rave. That turned into Turn Down For what.

Craig: I love that that’s the weird [inaudible 01:00:04] wellspring of all Daniels work is just that three-week period where you guys were just destroying Maroon 5 in your minds.

Daniel Scheinert: You never know if this is productive or not. We were laughing. Our favorite one that I’ll pitch, that way the people who came for this 20 minutes feel really rewarded-

Craig: Oh, good.

Daniel Scheinert: We sort of made this. The idea was that there was a huge crowd. They’re all chanting, “Maroon 5. Maroon 5.” Then a stagehand comes out and says, “Hey guys, I’m so sorry, this show’s canceled. There’s been an accident. I’m so sorry. They’re dead. Their bus went off the road.” The fans are starting to cry. The stagehand’s like, “I’m sorry, what? Oh, wait. Oh, I’m sorry, apparently I’m wrong. Here they are, Maroon 1!” Then smoke starts to pour out. This weird Weta [ph] puppet comes out in smoke, and it’s all five of them smushed into one weird, mangled creature. Then out of a crevice comes Adam Levine’s face. Then Maroon 1 becomes more famous than Maroon 5 ever was. They rocket off to superstardom and stuff.

Craig: They should’ve done that.

Daniel Kwan: The bridge is they are so successful that every other band wants to recreate their magic.

Craig: Oh my god.

Daniel Kwan: Metallica gets in a car crash.

Daniel Scheinert: They start wrecking their tour buses.

Daniel Kwan: Sum 41 gets in a car crash. Everyone’s just trying to… Whatever. They’re all dying.

Craig: Oh my god.

Daniel Kwan: Also, I think it ends with Adam Levine opening up his shirt, and he has six nipples, and he starts breastfeeding [inaudible 01:01:41].

Daniel Scheinert: I think that was a different idea.

Daniel Kwan: That was a different idea.

Daniel Scheinert: I think that was a different one.

Daniel Kwan: We still haven’t made that video yet.

Daniel Scheinert: One of our Foster the People videos started with the band dying and then the record label puppets their corpses.

Craig: See, it’s all there.

Daniel Scheinert: Then that led to Swiss Army Man.

Craig: See, everything comes… If people aren’t paying the $5 a month to Scriptnotes to hear this stuff, they really should start. That alone was worth $80 as far as I’m concerned. That was awesome.

Daniel Scheinert: I feel like we never actually answered your question though about what does a treatment look like.

John: What is the document? Is it a pdf you’re setting up that has all the images embedded in it, or is it a deck? What are you sending over these days?

Daniel Scheinert: A lot of directors do different things. The process we discovered was that we would collect a lot of images. Kwan was very graphic design savvy and could mock up some really lovely pdf treatments that would set the tone. For the first few years, each page would have five or six photos, and then I would end up usually writing a persuasive essay, because Kwan was a little too long-winded. The longer you talk about a music video, the harder it gets to wrap your head around it. I would write my attempt at a concise essay, and he would collect images and put it into a thing. We would always get bored try to reinvent it after a while and try to stay interested. Sometimes we resorted to gift treatments, because we found out collecting gifts was really fun and helpful. We started making much longer documents that were 10 or 12 pages and just putting 1 or 2 photos on there, because that became a nice way to break up the different ideas.

We have one friend who shoots videos of himself and edits in clips and photos because he just finds that that’s fun for him. Also, he’s a really charming British man, and so the record label will be like, “Oh, he’s so cute.” It helps him book the music video.

It’s pretty cool that as a writer, we didn’t have to follow Final Draft screenplay format. We started off with this very experimental writing process of just write whatever document you think will get you hired. Just try to be persuasive, whatever tools you have at your disposal.

Craig: It worked.

Daniel Scheinert: The bummer is you do a lot of these that just get rejected. Then you spend a lot of time writing. We never thought of it as screenwriting, but we’re basically writing spec scripts.

Craig: Yeah, and you’re practicing.

Daniel Scheinert: Constantly.

John: You’re a writer going out for an open writing assignment. It’s the same idea. They want to make this thing. Nineteen people are going in and pitching their take on this.

Daniel Kwan: Yeah, except for we’d be doing three a week. Literally, we’d get three different projects, and we’d have to pump them out.

Craig: That’s amazing. That you could do that at all is just I think really a testament to the fertility of your minds. You guys really are special. It was such a special experience watching your film. It’s been special watching your music videos. I really am just in awe of… There’s the whole quality and quantity thing. Typically, as quantity goes up, quality goes down, and somehow, you guys manage to keep those lines in lockstep. It’s amazing.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god.

Craig: There’s more and more of it, and it’s still good. That is just so special and rare.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, thank you.

Craig: I tip the hat that I am not wearing to you.

Daniel Scheinert: Thank you. Sometimes we feel like we use quantity as a crutch, where we’re like, “If there’s enough ideas in there, they’ll like a few of them.”

Craig: If they’re good… When it’s suddenly like, “Oh my god, there comes [inaudible 01:05:26]. Oh my god, there comes this. Oh my god, there goes that.” It’s everything, everywhere, all at once!

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, you did it.

Daniel Scheinert: He went for it.

Craig: It’s really good.

John: You did it. Oh my god.

Craig: I did it, and it just works. I’m really impressed.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, thank you.

Craig: I hate everybody. I gotta be honest with you. I just really hate everybody.

Daniel Kwan: Oh, wow.

Craig: I love John.

Daniel Scheinert: Me too. Let’s do a podcast about that.

Craig: By the way, if you want to do a podcast about hating people, girl, I’m there. We’re gonna do it, and it’s gonna be awesome. We’re gonna be canceled literally-

Daniel Kwan: Don’t tempt Scheinert.

Craig: We will be canceled in the middle of the first episode. We won’t even make it to the end of the first episode.

Daniel Scheinert: Let’s go back and forth. Who do you hate? Who do I hate?

Daniel Kwan: This is the bonus bonus.

Craig: Bonus bonus bonus.

Daniel Scheinert: Bonus bonus.

Craig: Our first episode is 14 hours long. Amazing.

John: Gentlemen, thank you so much.

Craig: Thank you guys.

Daniel Scheinert: Thank you.

John: Pleasure talking with you guys.

Craig: [Crosstalk 01:06:19].

Daniel Kwan: Really exciting to be here.

Links:

  • Daniels on Twitter, Dan Kwan on IG
  • Turn Down For What by DJ Snake and Lil Jon, Houdini by Foster the People, and The Simple Song by the Shins music videos
  • Interesting Ball short film
  • Everything, Everywhere All at Once
  • The Territory
  • Pamela Ribon’s My Year of Dicks, directed by Sara Gunnarsdóttir
  • Spatchcocking
  • Jumbo’s Clown Room
  • Your Undivided Attention podcast
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Matthew Jordan (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 573: Three Page Challenge Live in Austin, Transcript

February 24, 2023 News

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/three-page-challenge-live-in-austin).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Today’s episode was recorded live last week at the Austin Film Festival. This was the day after our big, raucous live show. This is a more sedated affair, but still a pretty full house. We have a bunch of the writers who wrote their scenes for the Three Page Challenge in the audience. We’re going to talk to them about what they wrote, why they wrote it, and get some real feedback from them. If you’re a Premium Member, stick around after the credits, because we’ll do some Q and A with the audience. Some really good questions were asked and hopefully answered. Enjoy.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August. This is a sort of version of Scriptnotes, which is a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. We’re here live in Austin, Texas. How many people in this room have submitted a Three Page Challenge to Scriptnotes, either now or at some point? That’s a lot of hands here in the audience, a lot of brave screenwriters here.

For folks who are not aware, the Three Page Challenge is a thing we’ve been doing on the Scriptnotes podcast for 10 years, where we invite people to send in the first three pages of their screenplay, their teleplay, and we give them our honest feedback. It’s criticism, but hopefully really genuinely constructive criticism about what we’re seeing on the page, what’s working great, and what could maybe possibly work a little bit better. Craig Mazin, my cohost and I, we talk through this. We do it every couple of weeks. It’s been really fun and educational for everybody, because it’s great to have a podcast about screenwriting, but it’s really hard to talk about screenwriting without talking about the words on the page.

Today is all about the words on the page. We have some other brave writers here who submitted samples so we can talk through these things. If you’re listening to this at home, later on it’ll be attached to the podcast episode. You just click on those links. A good chance to see what these things look like on the page, what we’re talking about literally, like transitions and the language choices that you’re seeing.

When we ask people to send in these script pages, I don’t read them, Craig doesn’t read them. It’s Megana Rao who reads them. Let’s bring up Megana Rao, our producer. Megana Rao, when we call for Three Page Challenges, we’ll put it on Twitter or we’ll announce it on the podcast. How many submissions do we typically get?

**Megana Rao:** We usually get a couple hundred.

**John:** A couple hundred submissions. These are writers who are writing in, saying, “Please talk about my thing on air.” For Austin, how many people did you get? We had a special little tick box like, “I’m going to be here at Austin.” How many did you read through?

**Megana:** Oh god, I didn’t count this time. I’m sorry.

**John:** It was a lot. It was a good number. These are people who could actually join us up on stage, because that’s what’s fun about the Austin Film Festival is we can actually talk through with these people about what they did and what their intentions were and what we saw versus what they were attempting to do, because so often it’s just a vacuum.

**Megana:** Totally. We’re just assuming, and we don’t get that feedback.

**John:** Talk me through your general selection process, because this isn’t a competition. You’re not looking for the best scripts pages. What’s helpful for you in picking a Three Page Challenge?

**Megana:** I think first of all, I want to make sure that no one ever feels embarrassed and that these are pages that I would be comfortable if I had written being on our website and seen by people. I want to make sure there’s no formatting issues or too many typos or anything like that, that there’s a certain level of professionalism.

Then typically, they are pages where I am surprised or excited. I feel like there’s something new, there’s something I’m rooting for in those pages, but maybe it’s not quite landing on every point. I really feel like I want to champion those writers and those pages to be the best that they can be. I usually put those in a selection pile, and then you and I go through the top five or seven and narrow it down from there.

**John:** Absolutely. It’d be great to be like, “Here’s three perfect pages. Everyone do these three perfect pages.” Then we wouldn’t have a lot to talk about. We could just say, “Oh, these are great. I want to read the next 30 pages of the script.” It’s the ones who have some like, “Oh, there’s something really promising here, but there’s also something we can work on, that we can discuss.” As you’re looking through, why we picked these three samples is because we saw things that were really promising but also things that we could discuss.

**Megana:** Totally.

**John:** We don’t have Craig here with us today, but we do have, luckily, someone who has to read scripts for a living. Can we welcome up Marc Velez? Marc, you are a production executive. You are working at Universal?

**Marc Velez:** Yes. I oversee development for a division at Universal Studio Group. There’s many television studios within the studio, and so I work at one of them.

**John:** Great. What is your experience on a daily basis with scripts? Are you reading submissions from writers you’ve never hear of, or are you reading to help put together staffing for shows? What is your experience working with scripts on a daily basis?

**Marc:** I would say it’s a combination of all three. We have overall deals with a lot of different writers and directors and production companies. They will send us material that they want us to option and work with them and then take to platforms, so there’s that. Then agents will call us and say, “Hey, you should know this writer. They have a really great script,” so there’s that. Then there’s, third, I guess, submissions that are just being considered for pilots.

**John:** Great. What was your background before this? You were working with Lee Daniels’s company.

**Marc:** My first job was at Planet Hollywood.

**John:** Wow. That’s a whole origin story.

**Marc:** That’s a whole story.

**John:** You went from all the props in movies to actually working with the people who make those things.

**Marc:** I didn’t know anybody in Hollywood. I thought the way to get to Hollywood was work at Planet Hollywood.

**John:** Of course. It’s got Hollywood in the name, so you’d figure. You were that close.

**Marc:** Prior to working at UCP, I ran Lee Daniels’s company for the last six years as a producer. We did Empire. We did the new Wonder Years. We did a Sammy Davis limited series on Hulu.

**John:** For something like that, you are helping to staff up those shows. You’re helping to find writers who could be making these things possible. You must get a lot of submissions. You’re probably going through a lot. You may not be stopping at three pages, but what gets you excited to finish a script, and what makes you go like, “Oh, you know what? I think I can set that down and never pick it up again.”

**Marc:** That’s a really good question. I would say it’s just a gut thing that I connect with the material at the core of it, the character, the point of view, the emotion in the script.

**John:** Sometimes you’re reading specifically for staffing on a given show, and so does this fit this thing. Also, I bet you can recognize this is a writer with a voice, this is a writer who feels confident on the page.

**Marc:** Yeah. I would say it’s almost like three buckets. There’s, like you said, the staffing where if I’m staffing a specific show knowing that I need to mimic something in let’s say the spy genre or if it’s an agent who has just sent a script in just for a general meeting and I’m just writing it for their voice. Then there’s the third, which I always think is the hardest. I’m reading the script to see if we want to option it to actually make a show, which just has a different kind of structure to it.

**John:** Yeah, because within a third one, you’re really looking like, “Can I see Episode 2? Does it feel like there’s a thing here to keep going?”

**Marc:** Exactly.

**John:** Which is challenging. Let’s apply some of that structure and thinking to these three pages that we’re looking at from these three samples today.

**Megana:** We’re going to start with Michael Heiligenstein, who wrote The Encyclopedists. The summary, “King Lear the 15th smiles to himself as he seals an order and passes it to his attendant. As we watch the order travel from the palace to the police barracks through the streets of Paris, we hear Denny Diderot in VoiceOver describe the corruption of the monarchy and society. We see scenes of Denny writing in his apartment until the police show up to his home with the royal order and drag him out and throw him in a police carriage.”

**John:** The Encyclopedists. Marc, let’s say this landed on your desk, virtually or physically printed, The Encyclopedists, a pilot for a limited series. Just even on the cover page, we have Michael’s name, written by, copyright. Everything looks good to me. Anything trip you up at all?

**Marc:** No, it looks great.

**John:** Cool. Let’s get on to first instincts after reading these three pages. Did you see what this show was going to be? What was your feeling after the three pages?

**Marc:** I would say a couple things, Michael. I would say the first, actually I didn’t know this story, so then I did a real deep dive after, which was really cool.

**John:** Which is great when you get that.

**Marc:** It’s rare to have somebody educate me on something that I didn’t know. That was really cool. I would say overall, I got what the premise was of the show and this man being persecuted obviously for writing encyclopedia within this world. It was a pretty clean, clear premise within the first three pages.

**John:** I would agree. I had a sense that this is going to be this guy’s story, Diderot’s story. I could see there’s going to be a journey here. I was excited to see what happened. He gets thrown in jail by the end of the three pages. Things were moving quickly. We’re essentially intercutting between Denny Diderot writing this thing about the abuse of power and how kings work, while we see his arrest order come through. The intercutting was nice.

I did have some questions though. We’re in a time period, but I don’t really know the time period. I didn’t know the year. I wasn’t anchored into a moment or a year. I didn’t know King Louis the 15th’s age. I like that the writer was telling us to call him Denny, D-E-N-N-Y, so we would actually pronounce it right in our head, because the French name would be Denis Diderot. It didn’t have a great visual on him. I knew that his hair kept falling in front of his eyes, but I couldn’t quite see him. In these three pages introducing this central character, I need to have a clear visual on who he is and be able to cast him in my head.

**Marc:** If you had the timeframe on there, it would’ve just been more helpful to clarify. I know voiceover’s always really tricky. I felt like in those three pages specifically, what did you want to say in the VoiceOver, because the VoiceOver jumped around a little bit from explaining the king is beholden to the realm to then the king, if he is corrupt, makes bad decisions, and then there was something about the guards basically deciding what they want to do. I was looking for a little bit more consistency in tracking that VoiceOver, because I think that VoiceOver was really key in the first three pages.

**John:** It’s an interesting use of VoiceOver, because it’s not a VoiceOver that’s directed just to us as an audience. We’re supposed to believe that this is what he’s writing, because he’s going to get stopped mid-sentence as he’s writing this thing. Essentially, he has that compulsion to write. What he’s writing is what we’re hearing in our heads.

Other things I noticed as we went through on the page, we’re lacking ages on people. I was lacking some sort of physical details on some people that could’ve been helpful. I didn’t necessarily believe at the bottom of Page 1 that Rene Berryer was eating a steak at his desk. That just felt like a modern thing versus a whatever year this is supposed to be thing, a horse-drawn carriage kind of year thing.

Then on Page 2, midway through, “Over his left shoulder, a window; through it you may notice the police pull up outside.” I had trouble visualizing that, because for some reason I saw us on the second floor, and that was a challenge. The “you may notice,” it’s either we notice or we don’t notice. Are we supposed to notice or are we not supposed to notice? I needed a little bit stronger of a choice there.

**Marc:** Yeah. Then for me a little bit on Page 3, I was curious what happened to the blade and if he put that in his pocket for later and what that reveal was to come. I was curious where it went, because for me it dropped out a little bit. Then I just was curious in terms of his point of view. He seemed so nonchalant about getting whisked off by the police. It was just curious getting in his POV a little bit, as well as, if he knew that they were taking him because he was a writer, would he not hide the stuff he was currently writing in that first scene?

**John:** We approach things with an expectation based on… We see this person writing. We see the police coming. We’re setting this up. For his writing just to be out there felt a little bit of a risk.

**Marc:** Yeah. I will say I did not see the reveal coming at the end. That was great. I thought they were going to apprehend somebody else, and you were just cutting between the two when he was narrating the story. That was a really nice reveal that I didn’t see.

**John:** Great. One of the things we love about doing the live Three Page Challenge is we actually get to talk to the folks who wrote the script. Could we have you come up and talk to us about your pages here, Michael?

**Michael Heiligenstein:** I think I’ve gotten so good at taking feedback in the past couple years, I’m finally ready to do it live on stage.

**John:** Nothing at all nerve-wracking about this. Michael, did we misunderstand anything you were trying to do in these three pages?

**Michael:** No, I think that you pointed out a couple things that were unclear and could be clearer on the page. You get the premise. I’m glad that you understood where it was going, what was going on.

**John:** Great. Talk to us about what’s going to be happening on the next 10 pages. What goes next?

**Michael:** I love the next 10 pages. This is a script where the final 30 pages of this pilot I’m less sure about, but the first 15 are why I wrote it. When he gets thrown in that police carriage, Denny is about to find out he is not being arrested for what he wrote. He is being arrested for who he loves, because France is so restrictive at this time, the union of the clergy and the king are such that even though Denny is 33, he needs his father’s permission to get married, who he’s estranged from.

He writes his father to ask permission, and his father calls in a favor from the king to have Denny arrested. He is hauled 80 miles from Paris and imprisoned in this monastery where the monks hate him, because he scammed them at one point in the past. They beat him. They starve him. After a couple weeks, all he wants to do is get back to Annette, who is the woman he’s in love with.

After a couple of weeks, in the middle of a rainstorm, he jumps out the second floor window and hikes back to Paris 80 miles in the rain, shows up at her doorstep sopping wet and 20 pounds lighter than last she saw him. He says, “Annette, I don’t care what my father says. I don’t care what he does. Come what may, I want to be with you. Will you marry me?” She says no. That’s the next 10 pages.

After that, he gets involved in the Encyclopedia Project. His friend Rousseau pulls him out of his slump and is like, “Look, you need to work. You can’t stay in this apartment. You need to rent someplace else, so you need money. This project pays well.” He gets pulled into this Encyclopedia Project that’s already going on. By the end of the episode, he’ll become the co-editor of the encyclopedia.

**John:** Great. Talk to us about tone then, because what you say, having this romance, he feels like a romantic character who’s drawn to great extremes to get back to this woman he loves. Is that the tone? Is it serious romantic?

**Michael:** My overall impression of it is it’s about his life and it’s about both his relationships as well as this political philosophy bent where he’s somebody who wants to write about the world as it is. There’s two fronts, but you see so much of it is about his personal life and the relationships as well, his relationship with the woman who becomes his wife, as well as with eventually his mistress, this other affair. To me, it’s both sides.

**John:** Marc, let’s say this is a project that crosses your desk. There may be these people, things attached, or there’s nothing attached. What is helpful for you to think about this as a property that you could develop at Universal or with Lee Daniels’s company? What are the things that we’d say, oh, these are the comps, this is the framework in which you can see making this series? What else would he need to bring?

**Marc:** I would just ask you thematically your point of view and why you wanted to tell the story from a thematic principle, because I think that would help.

**Michael:** To me, Denny’s situation is not that different from the situation that any writer is in. Some writers are going to chafe at it more than others, but everybody works under some ruling system. For us, that is capitalism. Look, I’m cool with it on some level. I’m here to make stuff that sells and finds that audience. There are constraints. If you’ve got to pull together $30 million, $50 million to put something together, that’s the constraints that we work with, and that colors the storytelling, and not just the storytelling, but what we write about in the world.

I work in marketing currently. I worked at a website in content stuff. The topics that get covered online, working through that industry, I saw how the stuff that gets covered extensively and written about in detail is all stuff that makes money. There are subjects, for instance, like history, American history. I love history. You can’t find really great information about it online. There’s subjects that are just not covered well. To me, that’s because you don’t make money off of that, so it’s not important, I guess.

**John:** What is the pitch for somebody who doesn’t know anything about the Encyclopedia Project? Is that the Wikipedia of its day? How do you talk about that in a way that resonates with somebody who is just… It’s 2022. Tell me why this matters.

**Michael:** It’s a banned book. He’s not just a philosopher. He’s a fugitive philosopher. He’s a renegade philosopher. The book is not able to be published in France, so he has to go back channel through all this stuff. He’s arrested twice in the course of his life. This is the book that eventually is going to be considered foundational to the French Revolution. This is the precursor to the part that we all know about. There’s other fun stuff in there. You get the salon culture, the intellectual culture in France at the time. To me, the core of the pitch is this contrast. He’s a philosopher and he’s a fugitive.

**John:** Now, Marc, I asked about what else he needs for a series. Talk about a pitch book or a pitch deck. If you were taking this to buyers, what would you need?

**Marc:** I would say the first script, it’s a format. It’s between a bible and a format, and so it’s about 10 to 15 pages where you map out episodically where the show goes. Ideally, we would send the script around, buyers would be interested, then basically you would go and you would pitch how you see the show, and then you could leave behind that format for them to decide.

**John:** Since the pandemic, those going around towns have resulted in a lot of Zooms with slideshows, where Megana’s driving the slides. It’s complicated, but it works, and so it does feel possible to do. Michael, thank you so much for sharing this.

**Michael:** Thank you.

**John:** Thank you for coming up here.

**Marc:** It was really good.

**Michael:** Thanks.

**Marc:** It was really good.

**John:** What script should we talk about next?

**Megana:** Next we are going to talk to Liliana Liu. “Nicole, 22, sleeps in the control of a facility where she monitors conversations. She’s woken up, and we see her travel in a driverless pod through the Mojave Desert on her way to her mobile home. At home, Nicole makes instant ramen and exercises in front of a series of monitors. We cut to baby Sophie’s room and see her parents put her to sleep. In the living room, we see Sophie’s mom accept a call from Sophie dated April 22, 2032. They speak, and we cut to Sophie, age seven, in a pod with her dad. Her dad encourages her to talk on the phone to her mom normally. Sophie refuses until she hears her mom’s lullaby. We cut to the control room where Nicole watches the scene.”

**John:** Great. I’m so excited to talk about this because I love near-future. I love this space. The premise feels like a Black Mirror kind of premise, like there’s something, what if you could do this, and what are the consequences of being able to do this, which is really exciting.

There’s also some challenges on the page I think we could really talk through and clean up, because sometimes you don’t recognize what’s confusing in a bad way on a page. By clearing those up, you can actually really lock your reader in, because we always talk about there’s a difference between confusion and mystery. Mystery’s great, because that makes us want to keep going. Confusion’s like, I don’t know, and I lose some confidence. Let’s figure out ways to make us more confident about what’s happening on these three pages. Marc, what was your first read on this?

**Marc:** I would say I love the tone. I think you really created a beautiful minimalist tone that I thought was really cool. I definitely was leaning in. Then honestly, after the three pages were over, I did have some confusion, to John’s point, but I still was leaning in, curious to see what the show was about that I didn’t quite understand, but I think in a good way too.

**John:** I want to focus on something on Page 2 which I thought worked nicely and just the description of what’s inside Nicole’s home. I’ll just read a little bit here. “She closes the door. Boots off. Black backpack and a pair of red over ear headphones go on a hook next to the door. Small yet not cozy. Only the essentials: a table, one chair. Rustic. Retro. Wood and white dotted with red. No photos. Nothing personal. Nicole (22), maroon tunic over black tights, turns to the kitchenette. She is also unadorned, small, not cozy. She grabs a red kettle, fills it, taps it on. Psst – boils in an instant. Grrl – straight to a Nongshim spicy cup noodle.”

I can see it all. I can see what’s happening here. I can see the order of things, which is really nice. It’s giving me that near-future vibe. I get a sense of who she is and where that is. That moment works really well. I think I want to try to bring that clarity to the rest of this, because I got lost a few other places.

**Marc:** Yeah. I loved your description. I thought it was so beautifully crafted, but I was looking for a little bit more of a POV from Nicole at times, because her description was pretty thin, but maybe that was a choice you chose. You had a full page of the surroundings, and I was looking for a little bit more of her as a character within that page.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s go back to Page 1. We open with, “Over black. Silence. Flat green line. Steady. Then a small ripple.” Really what we’re seeing, we’re going to see the voice pattern go past. There were a lot of words to say that there’s a green line on a black screen. I think we can be a little more minimalist here, so, “Flat green line on a black screen. Steady. Then it ripples.”

“A distinctive voice, deep, smoky.” Then we go into the Older Woman and Younger Woman’s dialog here. It was mysterious. That’s mysterious, and then the next moment’s mysterious, and the next moment’s mysterious, and you’re not telling us people’s names. They’re just figures. I need to be a little more anchored in what I’m actually seeing and who these people are, because there’s apparently Nicole that we’re seeing in this control room. Great. Just tell us her name then and don’t keep the mystery until we finally reveal her at her little mobile home pod, to me.

**Marc:** I agree. I was searching, like I said earlier, just for a little bit more Nicole up top and getting in her POV, because I think you beautifully crafted the world really well and the tone. I was looking for a little bit more of the character up top.

**John:** Then on Page 2, we’re moving between Nicole’s home and Sophie’s home. There’s projections in both places. I got really confused. I didn’t know that we’d gone to a different place and that we were establishing a new location and a new time. Give us a transition line. Just make it clear that this really is a jump to a new place that we’ve not been to before. Also, it took me three times to read it to realize that by mobile you meant a phone. I thought it was actually a mobile, like he was running in with-

**Siri:** I’m not sure I understand.

**John:** Sorry, Siri. Sorry, Siri. I thought he was running in with some sort of mobile to hang over the baby’s crib or something. This is really confusing. It’s a phone. Again, it’s one of those American English versus British English things that I read it the wrong way.

The only other point I’ll make is that the premise of what you seem to be setting up, the Black Mirror of it all, is what if you could set up a call between someone who’s 7.14 years ahead or behind. Intriguing. It’s a little strange that we’re in Nicole’s POV for so much of this rather than Sophie’s POV, that we’re starting with this tech worker rather than the actual family at the heart of it.

**Marc:** Also similar, I think the transitions I had to read a couple times to make sure I was tracking timeline, in addition to then when Nicole was back at work watching Sophie, I was a little confused of the point of view that we were in.

**John:** Luckily, we don’t have to stay confused, because we have the writer herself here. Could you come up here? Liliana, thank you so much for being here with us.

**Liliana Liu:** Hi.

**John:** Hi. Talk to us about this script. What’s the status of it? Is the whole thing written or just these three pages?

**Liliana:** Completely out of my depths here, just to say that. My husband is the only one that has ever read any pages, were those pages.

**Marc:** Wow.

**John:** Wow. Brave choices here. Nicely done, Liliana.

**Liliana:** Just a little background, I’m a full-time mom and a part-time software developer. I literally started writing sometime last year. This is a kick in the ass for me to do something, just to embarrass myself and get it out there.

**John:** You did. You’ve done a great job. Black Mirror, is that right? Is that what you’re going for? Is that the feel?

**Liliana:** Yeah. I discovered that all my ideas were all sort of sci-fi-ish but sort of a little realism, grounded in real life, sci-fi. This is my first feature script. In fact, it’s still in the middle of writing this, as I’m trying to propel myself to actually finish writing it. I would say the genesis is very personal, even though the theory behind it is not. I’m a sensitive person. I think a lot of writers are. I grew up in a home where my mom was ultra-sensitive. A lot of times, there’s this thing about going back. You replay things. You talk to people or make decisions or you didn’t say certain things or even make certain decisions. It plays back in your mind. It haunts you. Then you wish you could go back. It could be something very small. You want really hard to say something or do the thing that you didn’t, stuff like that. That’s the genesis of where this whole thing comes from.

**John:** There’s this phrase, esprit d’escalier, that thing you realize you should’ve said as you left the place. This is with a seven-year time period, a bigger gap. It’s a great premise. You’re saying this is a feature. Who is our central character, and who protagonates over the course of your feature?

**Liliana:** Nicole is the central figure. This is a big company. I think the only other thing I found was some movie with Daniel Quaid about, I think, firefighters calling between dinner times. This is more like there’s a company now, like Amazon or something, that provides this service. She is working behind the scenes. There’s some complications around… People think this is an artificial intelligence provide the service, but in the background, because a lot of times this happens, I work in the background software, that that’s not real, there’s no AI yet. She’s one of the people behind it that’s actually making it happen. People don’t know that it’s her job. I guess another complexity layer is that originally I wanted to do something like Lives of Others where she is just almost in the background.

**John:** An observer, yeah.

**Liliana:** Nobody knows she exists. Then she makes an impact to a particular client. I don’t know if this is the right direction. I wanted to make it more personal for her, where she wasn’t just opaque character who just is an observer, like you say. I’ve found basically an angle where she has something very, very key in her own life.

What you see in the first page, that first conversation, now that I think about it, maybe it’s too mysterious. The Older Woman is her mother, and she is the younger woman. She left home when she was 15 and had basically a broken relationship with her mother. Even though she won’t admit it to herself, that’s what’s been haunting her all this time.

It’ll come to pass in the first 10 pages or so that her mother is going to become a client that comes in, but she works behind the scenes. It’s a voice thing. She overhears another worker there that talks to her mother. She’s been listening to these conversations with her mom day in, day out, but she hasn’t talked to her or seen her for seven years. That’s the inciting incident is that her mom is now a client.

**John:** A pitch, and not necessarily a thing you need to do, but the story you’re describing, it may make sense to have an opening vignette that sets up the premise of what this is and what the service does and if we can establish that she works at this company that’s doing this thing, just so we’re clearly anchored in like, oh, this is what normal life is like before things get upended. Right now, it feels like you’re trying to set up so many mysteries, and we get a little bit lost in that.

Marc, let’s say that the cleaned up version of this script crosses your desk. It’s a feature length thing. Is it something you would say, “Okay, this is great. Let’s think about it as a series.” How much does that happen, where you take something that shows up as a feature, you think, “We could do this as a series.”

**Marc:** I’ve actually done it a couple times. I’m doing it recently, where there was a feature script I read that I loved. You met with the writer. You could easily see how you could open up the world. We’re just breaking it up into episodic now. I’m super impressed that this is your first thing you’ve ever written, because it’s a really clear, concise, high-concept, grounded genre piece. There’s something really fresh and cool about it.

**John:** Absolutely. I’m also thinking the cleaned up version of this could be really good staffing, because it reads well for that. This writer can do near-future sci-fi, grounded sci-fi, which is not easy to do. We’re making a fair number of those shows right now. The Nolans would need to have people like you to do that stuff.

**Marc:** It reminded me of Arrival the movie or Severance, a little bit in that tone.

**John:** Cool. Now she’s excited that you did this. Liliana, thank you so much. Thank you very much for coming up here. Thank you so much for coming up here. We have a third and final Three Page Challenge here to talk through. Megana, I think we have a listener question that is relevant here. Why don’t you start with a listener question?

**Megana:** Carrie asked, “Are there legitimately good reasons for the protestant adherence to the unexpressive screenplay format we all use, as in more than, ‘Well, that’s because that’s the way we’ve always done it.’ Several episodes ago, you read a Three Page Challenge with a title page designed like a wake flier, and everyone was so delighted. As a career graphic designer, it seems obvious to me that typography, layout, color, imagery are evocative storytelling tools, but screenwriters are still debating whether bolding a slug line is showing too much ankle. What are some of the good reasons we’re using our great-grandfather’s typewriter constraints in 2022?”

**John:** Provocative question there. We talk a lot about the formatting on the page on normal episodes. I really want to focus on title pages. Marc, if you see a title page that is designed versus just the 12-point Courier, maybe underlined title, what do you think?

**Marc:** It doesn’t really register.

**John:** It doesn’t register for you?

**Marc:** As long as there’s the title, I’m good.

**John:** Great. It doesn’t help you? It doesn’t scare you?

**Marc:** Me, no.

**John:** Our third Three Page Challenge has a very well-designed or a very graphic cover page. I’m holding it up here. For our listeners at home who can’t see this, it’s The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman. The title is very big on the page. It’s single words in probably 72-point font, “Original teleplay by Rudi O’Meara.” The background is a photo that is a gradient from red to blue. It’s stylish. It’s big. It’s not anywhere like a normal title page would be. It’s a very strong, bold choice. Megana, could you give us a synopsis of what we see in these three pages?

**Megana:** Yes. This is The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman by Rudi O’Meara. “We open on a middle-aged man floating facedown in a pool, wearing a kimono and covered in blood. In VoiceOver, Clay, early 20s, aspiring screenwriter, tells us he can’t believe that David, the man facedown in the pool, is dead and that he’s one of the ones trying to figure out who did it. Clay warns us that David wasn’t usually this calm. We hard cut to production offices, where we see David Schwartzman, a famous indie producer, storm in and scream at Clay about work, looking for some guy named Phil, and picking him up food from Canter’s.”

**John:** Great. Marc, this producer did not remind you of anybody you’ve ever heard of, right?

**Marc:** Many a producer I worked for back in the day as an assistant.

**John:** Back in the days. This is a story about Hollywood. It’s focused on that. There’s a little bit of PTSD that comes up as I read these things, both from having experienced these people and also having read things about these people and the Swimming with Sharks and all this stuff. As I sit down at this, I’m like, oh, so it’s a Sunset Boulevard opening with someone floating in a pool and a screenwriter talking, the narration that’s going onto this. As you finished these three pages, what was your first thought? What was your first feeling?

**Marc:** I would say I love the title.

**John:** I think the title is fantastic.

**Marc:** Yeah, that definitely brought me in. I would say after that, if I was looking at it for development, it would be a harder point of view, just because Hollywood stories are just really hard to sell. I would then assess more of as a staffing sample.

**John:** The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman is a really strong title. We’ve talked on the show before. There’s been periods at which spec scripts with very provocative titles would get a lot of attention. Then they would always be released as something completely different than the actual movie. I’m going to remember that. Saying That Awful David Schwartzman is really great. This is apparently Episode 1: Who the F is Phil.

Some other things I’m noticing on the title page here, we’re given an address, we’re given a phone number, we’re given an email address. Once upon a time, we maybe wanted all those things. Email address is great. We don’t need anything more than that. WGA registration number, you don’t need it. We don’t care. It honestly looks to me a little unprofessional. I just don’t trust that people know what they’re doing if they’re putting that number on there.

**Marc:** I agree.

**John:** As everyone who listens to the podcast knows, I’m the one on the podcast who actually is pro-WGA. I think WGA is a fantastic organization. I don’t think WGA registration is meaningful for almost anything. If you decide to do it, great, if it makes you feel good. It’s not any more protective than copyright is in general. Do it if you feel like it, but you definitely don’t need to put that registration number on here. I haven’t registered anything with the WGA for 20 years. Don’t worry about doing it.

**Megana:** Also, it’s because you email drafts. That’s important.

**John:** Emailing a draft around is also a proof that it existed at a certain point of time. That’s all the WGA registration does is just prove that this thing actually did exist at a certain point in time. There’s other ways to prove that.

**Marc:** Also, if you have an agent manager or a lawyer, they’re going to protect you when you submit things to production companies and studios.

**John:** Our point of view is Clay. Clay is giving us the VoiceOver. He’s the one who’s working for That Awful David Schwartzman. He has a VoiceOver power in the story. Not only does he have VoiceOver power, he has ability to stop time and freeze-frame us and be live in scenes while he’s talking to camera. It’s a lot. Did it work for you?

**Marc:** I think at points it worked for me. I think the thing that was hard for me to track was Clay as a character, because in the VoiceOver he was really brash and confident, but then in the description he was fresh-eyed and young. I was trying to find a way to track him as a character when you’re introducing him in the first three pages.

**John:** Yeah. We have basically two characters we’re setting up here. Let’s talk about David Schwartzman. He’s described as “mid-50s, long, thinning gray hair, wire rim glasses.” Love it. “An infamous independent producer with a checkered past” in the description, no. That’s too much for me. I’m always a fan of being able to cheat a little bit on that first character introduction in terms of a thing that an actor can play but is not necessarily visual or something we’re going to see. “An infamous independent producer with a checkered past,” we don’t know that from just that description. If you can quickly get that out there, we’re going to feel it. That just felt like cheating to stick that in his parenthetical there.

**Marc:** Yeah. I don’t know if this is intended to be a comedic murder mystery, but I thought when Clay says, “We’d be the ones trying to figure out who did it,” it felt like it tipped your hat to the mystery a little bit. I wanted a little bit more intrigue and not laying out all your cards in the first page.

**John:** Yep. We have another character cheating thing here when we finally get to Clay’s actual introduction. He’s been voiceover-ing, but only on Page 2 do we actually meet him in person. “The camera wheels around to reveal our narrator – Clay Wilcox,” parentheses, “early 20s,” comma, “a fresh-faced former English major and aspiring screenwriter then unaccustomed to David’s fury.” That whole last sentence there, “then unaccustomed to David’s fury,” facts not in evidence. Show us that, but you can’t just tell us that in a scene description.

**Marc:** Yeah. Similar to the way he talked in VoiceOver, and then when he was freezing, it felt like he had been doing this for a while, so it was hard to track which kind of, I guess, Clay we were tracking and following.

**John:** Yeah. That’s where I had a hard time buying Clay as a character, which is important, because he’s our POV character. He’s the one we’re going to see going through this. All that said, I’m curious and intrigued about the tone, because like you, I thought it was maybe a comedic murder mystery, sort of Only Murders in the Building. There’s something fun about that and piecing that together, we have a dead body, and figuring out who could’ve done this thing, when it seems like everybody probably did want to kill this person, because I want to kill this person, and I don’t even know him. Luckily, we can ask the question of the writer himself. Can we bring up Rudi O’Meara? Rudi, thank you very much for being here.

**Rudi O’Meara:** Thanks for having me. Great feedback though. Thank you so much.

**John:** Great. Thank you for being here. Talk to us about your experience with David Schwartzman. Was he really that bad?

**Rudi:** Yes. Actually, the title, the “That Awful,” so the person… It’s kind of from my life experience in some ways. It’s the reason I left the industry when I was younger. Later in the script, it’s mentioned that he was actually part of The Factory with Andy Warhol. When I was told that I got the job, I was working at a bookstore. The Warhol Diaries had just come out. I went to the index, and his citations were long in his name. I went to the first one. It was like, “Went to so-and-so’s house, ran into that awful David.” His last name was not Schwartzman. Next citation was exactly the same. Twenty citations later was exactly the same. That’s where the title comes from.

**John:** That’s awesome. I didn’t know that it was based on… I think it’s a sad state of Hollywood that there’s a bunch of other people who I assumed it could’ve been based on.

**Marc:** Exactly.

**John:** A bunch of terrible, terrible people, some of whom we’ve discussed on the Scriptnotes podcast, who we could assume that it was inspired by. Was our guess that it’s a comedic murder mystery at all correct? What is the tone for you?

**Rudi:** Ding ding ding.

**John:** Great. Someone killed him, and it’s Clue, and we have to figure out who could’ve done it.

**Rudi:** Correct. Like you said earlier too, it really could be anyone. That’s part of the both episodic nature, but also… Every single person from the financier, basically every aspect of the production, everyone has a motive. They’re trying to figure out how to solve it.

**John:** Talk to us about the engine of the show though, if it’s an Only Murders in the Building, or it could be The Afterparty. Are we switching POVs episode to episode? How does it work, or do you know?

**Rudi:** Clay is the protagonist. There is a time-swapping element. It jumps forward, jumps back. It’s a little bit like Only Murders but then also like The Big Lebowski meets The Maltese Falcon in some ways, where it jumps around, but it’s also a little trippy. In some ways, the narration is maybe faulted for that a little bit, because it does feel like you’re hearing from him at a different stage of his own understanding. At the same time, when he’s speaking in the first person or interacting with characters live, sometimes it’s a little bit disconnected from his later wisdom. It jumps around in time a little bit, and that can be a problem.

**John:** Making it clear to the audience that there is that gap is really challenging, and on the page, feeling the difference between that too, because we’re just seeing Clay with dialog, and so we’re not necessarily always clocking if it’s a VoiceOver dialog versus what’s happening in the scene. It’s a challenging thing to have characters be able to VoiceOver in a scene and talk in a scene, and yet many great movies do it. Clueless does it, and it works flawlessly when it happens. Maybe we’re actually looking at how those things worked on the page and what you can see and feel and steal from how they’re balancing those two things. You mentioned before, Marc, that movies about Hollywood, shows about Hollywood are really tough. They’re tough to get made, and they don’t tend to work especially well. Why is that? Do you have a sense?

**Marc:** There’s always the Entourages of the world that work. I think it’s hard because for the most part, people don’t want to access behind-the-scenes movies, TV shows about Hollywood. I think that’s been always hard. Can I ask you a question about the script though?

**Rudi:** Yeah, sure.

**Marc:** In terms of Clay, and you might not have this figured out, is there a detective that comes in? If Clay is new to this guy’s world, why does he want to figure out who killed him?

**Rudi:** There is a detective later. I’ve only written the pilot, but I’ve mapped out the first season. That’s very presumptuous, first season. In Season 4… No. There is a detective, but also at the same time, they have the motivation in that just before the murder happens, the film that has been in production is failing, and out of desperation, the producer, David, taps Clay for an idea, like, “Give me a spec script of yours.” He’s like, “Oh here it is. I got one.” It starts moving. Things go into production. David gets murdered. They want to keep that moving. Also, at the same time, they’re under threat, because they’re seen by all these other people who are also suspects as possible suspects themselves. Everyone’s on the table in terms of who could’ve killed David.

**John:** Great. Rudi, thank you so much for these three pages.

**Marc:** Thank you.

**Rudi:** Thank you very much.

**John:** I want to thank everybody who sent through the three pages for us to talk about, especially our brave writers who came up here to talk about the things they wrote, because that’s so intimidating to have us talk about problems and then you come up here and do it. Thank you very much for that. Thank Megana Rao, our producer, for reading all of these pages. Thank you to the Austin Film Festival for having us again. Thank you for a great audience. Thank you. Have a great afternoon.

It’s John back with you kind of live again. I want to thank the Austin Film Festival for having us yet again. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Jeff Graham. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. A reminder that if you want to submit your own three pages for a Three Page Challenge, the place to do that is at johnaugust.com/threepage, all spelled out. You can 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 weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts, and they’re great. We saw so many of them at the Austin Film Festival. You can find them at Cotton Bureau, and actually only at Cotton Bureau. There’s now knockoff Scriptnotes T-shirts, which is wild. The real ones are at Cotton Bureau. You should get them there, because they’re the only ones that are soft enough to merit the Scriptnotes brand.

You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all of the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to put on the end of this episode, which has questions from the audience after our Three Page Challenge. Thanks.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** At this point in the podcast, I’d love to talk to you guys and get your questions you have in the audience about either the pages that we talked through today or the general thinking about what on the page works for a person who’s trying to get staffed on a show or get a show set up at a company like yours.

Do we have questions in the audience? Right there in the white. Just say your question. I may repeat it back so we have it on the air. The question is about the layout of each particular page and whether, especially in those early pages, are we trying to make sure there’s a cliffhanger at the bottom of the page and what those all are.

The first couple pages are incredibly crucial to make sure that you’re just drawing people down that page, and they want to keep flipping. The goal is just get them to the next page, get them to the next page. That’s not necessarily a cliffhanger. You don’t want to break the actual story to get you to the next thing. You are really thinking about how am I going to get this person to read. A very common cheat you’ll see in a lot of scripts is that putting a few extra blank lines at the top, so that the first page is just a little bit lighter and so that we’re starting about a quarter of a page down, just to get you flipping and just make it less intimidating to get through.

A thing we talk a lot about when we do Three Page Challenges is just the page feel and how dense it is on the page and how light it is. The samples we’ve gone through today are pretty good examples. The longest blocks of scene description are about three lines, four lines. There’s no 15-line things. If you look back at older scripts, sometimes they had really massive things. Those are intimidating. You might start skimming.

As a writer, you never want your reader to skim. You always want the reader to feel like every word, they got it in there and they took it. The only thing you want your reader to be able to skim is character names. At a certain point you can get into a flow where you don’t have to look at the character names anymore. You have a feeling of it’s ping-ponging back and forth between these characters. It’s great. You basically want to make sure that you’re keeping the reader glued to every word and flipping the next page.

Again, one of the things we always say at the end of each of these samples, would I want to read Page 4? Sometimes, yes. In the case of these scripts, yeah, I would keep reading a little bit longer, which is a great sign.

Right here in the first row. Julie, you’re asking a really good question, because classically, we talk about structure, especially for film structure, like, oh, the inciting incident needs to happen at a certain point, or there’s an act break and these changes. I think the thing we kept trying to stress is that even before then, by the end of three pages, we need to have a sense of what this world feels like, what this movie feels like, what ride am I going on. If you’ve done that in three pages, that’s important. If we’re hooked into who you are as a writer and feel confident, that’s greater. I asked you earlier what makes you stop a script. That’s one of the things you said is just that feeling of, “I want to keep going.”

**Marc:** I don’t think it needs to be somebody gets murdered in the first three pages. It could just be a really beautiful tone that’s intriguing, that you are excited to read more.

**John:** Another question. Right here. Great. The question is, how worried do we need to be in the first three pages of being either too irreverent or saying something, doing something on those first three pages that make someone feel like, “I don’t ever want to meet this writer.” Marc, has that ever happened to you?

**Marc:** No.

**John:** Have you ever been like, “Oh my god, this person seems like a jerk.”

**Marc:** No. Be as authentic as you want to be in your writing, I always say.

**John:** On the live show we did last night, we had two great guests, Chuck and Brenda, coming on. One of the things that they made most clear is that what was key to them getting staffed on shows finally was just writing what they uniquely themselves could write, that no one else could do this. When people read their sample, it’s like, “Oh yeah, I want that guy who did that thing.” It wasn’t a generic thing that someone else could’ve written. It was only a thing that Chuck could’ve written or that Brenda could’ve written. Using something that shows your own voice is crucial.

People also come to me and say, “Oh, I’m working through a couple different ideas. I’m not sure what I should be writing next that might be a good sample.” If there’s something you could write that the central character or premise feels like it matches you, that can be really useful, because then the person who’s reading it can have you in their mind, and so when they sit down and meet with you, they’re like, “Oh yeah, that character and her, yeah, I could see them jiving.” That can be really useful.

**Marc:** I will say there’s scripts that I’ve read in my career that are batshit crazy ideas, but I will always remember them. To John’s point, as I’m staffing a show, I might say, “I really loved that script two years ago,” and then I’ll flip it to the showrunners because it stuck with me as something that just felt noisy and different.

**John:** Noisy can be good. Right here. Marc, are you pro-splat?

**Marc:** I’m always open to a splat. Are you?

**John:** Yeah, I think so. On the podcast, we often call this a Stuart Special. Stuart Friedel, who’s one of our previous producers, as he picked Three Page Challenges, sometimes there would be this big dramatic thing happens, and it says then “two weeks earlier,” and then it goes back. We call that a Stuart Special, because it’s got that flashback thing. Those are often splats, where there’s a whole horrible death or a thing happens and then everything can go back to normal life beforehand. Those can totally work. They can be cliches, but if they’re cliches that are done really, really well or have a spin on them, they work and they can be really, really helpful. Don’t be afraid of them.

Right here. The question is about character introductions, character descriptions that have a lot of psychological insight or they really talk through the psychology of characters and how we feel about that. I want to contrast that with some of my criticisms of this last script, where they weren’t psychological insights, they weren’t things that an actor could play. They were just facts that we couldn’t see. I think that is really the distinction for me.

I haven’t read the Mare of Easttown scripts, but I suspect that if I were an actor reading through that script, I’d say, “Oh, that is really useful for me. That is a thing that I can figure out, how to embody what you’re describing there. That is great, whereas I can’t embody being a despised producer. That’s not a thing I can take into my body.” I’m great with it. You always have to recognize that if you’re throwing a lot of scene description at us, we’re going to be tempted to slow down or stop reading or we might skim it. It’s always that balance. If it works, it can be great. How do you feel when you see those things on the page?

**Marc:** I haven’t read Mare of Easttown. I’ll be actually curious to see how it maps out. I would say I agree. If you could be a little concise with your descriptions, I always think that works better just for the read and the flow.

**John:** Great. Another question. Let’s go all the way to the back. I see you, sir. Great. The question is about companion material, so if there’s a deck that comes with a script or there’s some sort of link, would you click that first or look at the deck first before you read the script?

**Marc:** I think it just depends, honestly. I would actually look at the sizzle first, just so I get the visual tone of what they want to do. Then I would read the script.

**John:** Just so we’re sure we’re defining terms, what is a sizzle to you, and how long is a sizzle reel?

**Marc:** A sizzle reel could be anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes. That’s almost like a proof of concept for the tone and the look and the feel of the series, or if it’s a deck, I’ve gotten decks anywhere between 5 and 20 pages of templates for who the characters are, the world. A lot of times with genre stuff in big world-building stuff, they tend to put a deck together so you understand the scope of the world.

**John:** I’m working on a project for the first time that has a deck that goes with it. It’s exciting. Also, it kind of feels like cheating, because I can show you what this all looks like. This is this giant movie star in this role. That’d be great. Of course you want to make that movie or that show. We didn’t used to do them, but they are helpful. Curious what you think about it. We now can embed links in scripts. We can embed links in things. Do you ever click links in a pdf?

**Marc:** The only thing I’ve seen, which I thought was super cool, was there was a Spotify playlist at the top of the title page, because it was a Southern show, and they wanted Southern music bands. It was actually just really nice at the end just to play that playlist, which I thought was cool.

**John:** That was on the title page or at the end?

**Marc:** It was on the title page, on the QR code.

**John:** Great.

**Marc:** It was pretty cool.

**John:** [inaudible 00:51:15]. A question right over here. The question is, beyond just a link, embedding images, putting other stuff in a script, and do we think that the screenplay format will evolve beyond where it is right now? Craig Mazin who’s not here, would say, “Yes, it’s going to. We’re going to break the whole script format.” Me, as the person who actually makes apps that do it, it’s like, eh. I’m maybe a little more conservative on some of it. How do you feel when you see an image in a script?

**Marc:** I would say at the end of the day, at the core, it’s about the actual script. You can jazz it up and put bells and whistles, but at the core, I think I just look at the script and assess the actual script.

**John:** Yeah, because to be the entire cliché here, the script is the plan for making a TV show. The photo is in the plan for making the TV show. The photo can be really helpful for other things. I think those decks and other stuff can be really helpful for showing what stuff is. The script is the plan for what the scenes are and how we’re going to get through this important storytelling moment. If an image is absolutely crucial for doing that or if you could not possibly understand this without that one image… Rian Johnson did it in Looper. If there’s one image that you have to see for it to make sense, great. If you can’t do it with your words, maybe there’s some reason why your words need to be improved.

**Marc:** I also thought for a deck over Zoom, for my writer friends who have to talk for 30 minutes, it’s a nice break to show visuals.

**John:** Yeah, it really is so great. Because of the pandemic, we first started having to do this. It was better, because suddenly, I can have my cheat sheet of what I’m pitching off of right close to the camera line, but the deck’s filling up some space. It does help, because I’m the person who always used to bring in boards. I would art-mount my boards and bring them in. Slides are just better.

Great. Right here. The question is, we talked about some scripts being really good for thinking about making this into production versus staffing and what the split is here. Can you define what is a useful thing to be thinking about, like, “Oh, this is a good sample for staffing,” versus, “This is something we would actually make.”

**Marc:** I would say the first step is I would talk to the creator/showrunner and say, “Ideally, what are you looking for? What are your needs?” because at the end of it, it’s the writer’s, creator’s decision on who he or she wants to hire. Then off of that conversation… Let’s say it’s a cop show. If they want somebody who has a cop procedural, then I’ll look for specific scripts that mimic that, or if it’s a genre piece, but it’s a real character piece, then look for something specific in line with what the showrunner wants. It really depends on what the show is.

**John:** Of course, back in the day, if you wanted to write on a half-hour sitcom, you would write a spec episode of Seinfeld or some existing show that was on the air. It’s like, “Oh, he can write that show.” You wouldn’t write the show that you were staffed on. It was just to show that you can actually do that thing. Mindy Kaling says she really misses those days, because she misses being able to staff off of like, “I know they understand how shows work and how to write in the voice of a given show.” We don’t do that anymore, because you probably read very few specs of existing shows anymore.

**Marc:** When I first started my career, it was a lot of CSIs, Law and Orders. I hadn’t watched CSI a lot, so it was hard for me to track if they were mimicking the show, because ideally when you’re staffing, you’re mimicking what the show and the creator is creating. Now it’s really refreshing, because it’s all about originals. There’s plenty of playwrights that I’ve staffed off just an amazing play sample that just has a really great character that tonally fits what the creator’s doing in the series too.

**John:** Marc, talk to us about reading things that are not scripts, because reading a play, do you feel like you are getting a good sense of whether they could do it?

**Marc:** Yeah, sometimes if there may be a lower-level writer, so a staff writer or story editor, where they’re not an upper-level writer, but they just have a really great, unique voice, and we just need a really unique perspective in the room, that will help. A couple years ago, I got pitched somebody who had a Twitter handle as a way to staff a show.

**John:** Great. Was it a very serious Twitter handle? It wasn’t funny at all.

**Marc:** No, it was funny. It was for a comedy room. They hadn’t written a script yet, but they had really funny tweets.

**John:** Diablo Cody, quite famously, she was funny on Twitter, and sure enough, she could actually write. Who knew? That is a way to show a very specific voice. Great.

Let’s take one more question here. Right there in the back, I see you. Great. Our question is, we were talking about specs, which is so confusing. In TV, a spec is writing an episode of an existing show that’s on the air, or are people just reading originals? For our writer there, would you recommend she spec an existing show or just do originals?

**Marc:** I’d say originals. I did read recently a Golden Girls spec. That was really fun and new. It was interesting how they told the story. I think it was noisy, the way they planned out the story. For the most part, originals. I would say have two, because you never know if there’s a great genre show that you want to get staffed on or a great drama. To have two samples is always really good.

**John:** Some things I took from this conversation today, I’m going to use the word noisy a lot as a describer, because really, a noisy thing you notice. You just notice people who are noisy, and you notice a script that is noisy. It just sticks with you. Things that are just quiet and subtle and disappear and they’re not objectionable but they’re not memorable, that’s not going to help these people.

**Marc:** I think it mimics… There are so many platforms right now. What buyers are saying, they need things that are noisy to break through the immense amount of content that’s on the air right now.

**John:** Great.

Links:

* [Marc Velez](https://deadline.com/2022/10/marc-velez-ucp-head-of-development-naketha-mattocks-universal-tv-svp-drama-1235136115/) on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5677194/)
* [The Encyclopedists](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FThe-Encyclopedists-MXH-3p.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=95fb3359c1be84f6888812633600f586b8a38fef8118d40d897a43a07798da53) by Michael X. Heiligenstein
* [Call Me 7.14 Years Ago](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FCall_Me_7_14_Years_Ago_Three_Page.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=7cbf886b0e5c2ddb0343817294c00fccd7cfd708a397fbafda7e3c426a5b5e30) by Liliana Liu
* [The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FUntimely_Demise_v04_AFF_3_Page.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=398abcf7c2b4adb0526bc8542da5a43be1da1ed4ab3b13dbe0868ceec2d16cf2) by Rudi O’Meara
* Thank you to the [Austin Film Festival!]() and all our participants in the three page challenge.
* [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](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Jeff Graham ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and 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/573standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 584: Adapting Your Own Novel, Transcript

February 21, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/adapting-your-own-novel).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 584 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, let’s imagine you wrote a bestselling novel. Everyone wants to turn your book into a movie or TV series, but you decide no, you really want to do it yourself. How would you even begin? On the show today, we have someone who faced that exact scenario and absolutely killed it. Taffy Brodesser-Akner is the writer of Fleishman Is in Trouble, both the book and the limited series, and now she’s here with us. Welcome, Taffy.

**Taffy Brodesser-Akner:** Thank you so much. It’s so great to be here.

**John:** I watched your show and I immediately knew that I wanted you on. You’ve done so much press and publicity for this. I’m sure you’re absolutely exhausted, but we’ll talk about some different things than I think you probably talked about on any of your other 19 podcasts, interviews, articles, I hope.

**Taffy:** This week, and it’s Monday.

**John:** This week. It’s only Monday. I want to get into how this became a book and then became a series, but I also want to look at characters and really dig into what characters are trying to conceal and protect, which I think is a really interesting lens to dig into for Fleishman, how you tackled making a series and running a series when you’ve never done it before. Plus, Megana has picked some questions that are going to be really good for you to answer, just because you know special new things.

Let’s get into it. Taffy, talk to us about Fleishman Is in Trouble. I had not read the book. I had just started watching the series on Hulu, loved it, caught up all of it so I could watch the finale in real time as it was happening. My husband and I set aside time to make sure we watched it live and real. What is the genesis for Fleishman? Where did the notion first come to tell the story?

**Taffy:** That is a great question. Thank you. I am a journalist first. I was working at GQ and the New York Times. I have contracts with both of the magazines. One day, around the time when I was 40 or 41, suddenly all of my friends started coming to me and telling me that they were getting divorced. It got to the point where I knew that if I hadn’t heard from somebody in a few months or in a year, they were going to tell me that they were getting divorced. Nobody ever comes to you and tells you they’re divorced in a weepy way. They tell you when they’re ready to tell you. I would sit down with each of them.

I was so interested in this, mostly because I come from a family of colossal divorce. We’re the greatest divorcers in I want to say the East Coast, but I’ve also lived in California, so I’m going to say we’re the greatest. We’re number one.

**John:** Absolutely. Any coast, you’re number one. Would you say you’re a family that’s very likely to end up in divorce? Is that why you’re the greatest?

**Taffy:** Statistically. I have three sisters. Two of them are divorced, one of them for a second time. My parents are divorced. My mother divorced the man she remarried. I have a sister who is ultra-Orthodox, and she is married. We all work hard.

We all work hard, the fact of marriage, because we have all observed the same thing, and this is what I was observing then, which is that all these people, they were as happy as I was on my wedding day. What happens with marriage is that it’s two people, and therefore it’s a kind of sedition to ever talk about your marriage. Therefore, when there are problems, you don’t know if your problems are bigger than other people’s. You read between tea leaves. How many metaphors is that?

**John:** You were reading tea leaves.

**Taffy:** That was several. You’re welcome.

**John:** You read between the lines or you read tea leaves.

**Taffy:** That’s how bad it was. I was reading between the tea leaves and trying to figure out how can I escape this fate and what is new about divorce, how did I get to the age where people were getting divorced, what is new about it.

Also, they would show me their phones, and their phones were wild. They had apps where they were… My gift is efficiency, like an economy of motion. I could walk through my apartment and everything is where it needs to be. It’s my only economic skill. I looked at these phones, how you were allowed to date now without going somewhere, without showing up, without getting dressed, and all I wanted was to hear stories about it. The thing I thought was, I will go to GQ, and I will tell this story, because that’s what I do. I tell the story at GQ.

**John:** That was my question, is because you were hearing these tales, and you’re a journalist, so naturally, this is a great story to report.

**Taffy:** I called my editor one day after seeing the most recent friend’s phone. I was like, “We have to do this story about how people are dating on their phones now.” He said to me, “You don’t always sound like a middle-aged housewife, but right now you do. Our readers wouldn’t even… They’ve never dated other than that. They wouldn’t even understand it.”

I had a first-generation Jdate account. My handle was matzahbride. We had advanced so far to the point where now I have these amazingly beautiful friends who can’t even get eye contact at a restaurant, because it’s not protocol. It’s almost like Edith Wharton’s New York, where you’re not allowed to go over to someone anymore.

I called up my editor, and he was like, “This is not a good idea.” I was about to call my editor at the New York Times Magazine, because that’s how my contract went, that if GQ didn’t want a story, the New York Times could have it. Right before I did, I thought about what a New York Times Magazine story was going to look like with this. It was following some guy for a year, implicating his ex-wife and his poor children, him pulling out right at the end, and it being a sad story, when it’s not sad. It’s really wonderful when people free themselves from something that isn’t working for them.

I sat down at a Le Pain Quotidien in Manhattan and I started writing. I can’t remember if I had 10 or 30 pages. I’m a very fast writer. I can’t remember if I had 10 or 30 pages by that first day, but I had them. They didn’t change once. I wrote this as a novel.

**John:** You have all this experience of your own family, all of your friends. You’re describing this as this new world of dating, divorced people, apps and stuff. That’s in Fleishman Is in Trouble, but that’s not the bulk of Fleishman Is in Trouble. Fleishman Is in Trouble ultimately is a… There’s a mystery to it, what actually happened. There’s the contrasting notions of whose story it even really is. Did you know that as you started to do these first 10 or 30 pages? Were you discovering it as you wrote it?

**Taffy:** I thought I was going to write something that was a meditation on marriage, but what it turned out to be was… In journalism, I write mainly profiles.

**John:** I’d actually like to get into that for the Bonus Segment. I really want to talk about the celebrity profile. Let’s dig into that in the Bonus.

**Taffy:** Gotta be a Premium Member to hear all about the profiles. I’m a Premium Member by the way. I’ll be able to listen.

**John:** Thank you.

**Taffy:** I know that novels are hard to write. The way I kept this in my head as a manageable project that I was doing while I was also still writing for GQ and the New York Times, was to think of it as a profile. Then the same thing happened while I was writing it that happened in every profile I wrote, which was that I started to wonder what the other people in the story would say, which is a crisis of journalism.

It’s 2016. One of the places I work, the New York Times in particular, is being crucified and berated for not having covered the country well enough. Then once they start, people are angry that they’re covering the country well enough. You can’t do a profile on a Nazi.

I thought about profiles in general. My personal crisis in profiles is that there is no way to tell a story about somebody without creating sympathy for them. The minute somebody takes up the mantle of telling somebody’s story, there is no way around sympathy. Sometimes when you make people feel sympathy for people they don’t want to feel sympathy for, they hate you for it.

I don’t do a lot of politics, so my personal crisis around this was, I’m listening to a celebrity, he’s talking about his ex-wife, for example, and everyone knows who his ex-wife is. He’s talking about his new wife and how happy he is. He’s implicating the ex-wife. You start to think, should I call the first wife? I don’t know. Some people say yes, but I say anyway.

**John:** Let’s talk about the characters you chose to embody these different points of view. We have Toby. He is newly-ish divorced as the story started. He’s a dad with two kids that he shares with Rachel, his ex-wife.

At what point in writing the novel did you know that these two central characters were actually going to be narrated, their story of what’s actually happened was going to be narrated by a third person? Was that third person always you? Because she seems like a placeholder for you in that she is also a journalist working at a men’s magazine. When did you know those three characters were going to be the people we would follow through the story?

**Taffy:** I always knew that the Libby character was narrating the book. In the first place, I had done it as a third-person book. Then at the end you would realize that one of the characters had narrated the book or had written this book. Everyone I gave it to, all these smart readers, did not realize that, so I had to go through and change it and make her into a first-person character. I always knew that. I always knew this was going to be written.

There’s a famous thing of journalists and their first novels. Usually, it is so close to the thing that they do. Whereas you would think it might be about celebrity that I would do this, actually it was about profile writing, because the reason I write about celebrities is mostly because that’s what people are interested in. I think I’m a partisan of the profile but not necessarily the celebrities.

**John:** When you’re writing a profile though of a person, you are reporting facts. Basically, you’re seeing stuff. You’re getting the interviews. You’re figuring that stuff out. With the case of Toby Fleishman, he is a hepatologist. He’s a liver doctor.

**Taffy:** He’s a liver doctor.

**John:** He’s a liver doctor. He’s not a real person. Were you interviewing real liver doctors to figure out what they need to do? What was the decision to make him this medical specialty?

**Taffy:** I’m a Jewish woman in New York. I have all sorts of specialists at my fingertips. I called up a few doctors and asked, “What is a disease you could have where if somebody had looked at you more closely, they could’ve seen it, if someone were paying attention, they would’ve seen your disease?”

There were two of them. One of them was an osteo disease where you have blue sclera. Bone doctors are not so interesting. Personally, I’m sure they’re fine. The liver is a very romantic organ. It regenerates once it’s injured. It forgives you. I just fell in love with this disease.

**John:** Metaphorically, it works really well.

**Taffy:** It just worked very well. I have a friend who’s a nephrologist, which is close enough, because there are very few hepatologists. It’s literally close enough. Abdominally, it’s close enough. He guided me through this. I read all about it. I’ve since gotten a lot of letters from liver doctors who… You talk about representation. All seven of them feel very seen.

**John:** You knew who Toby was. When did you decide Rachel’s arc? We’re going to go in very light on spoilers for this episode, because we want people to watch this.

**Taffy:** Do it. Good. Thank you.

**John:** When did you know that Rachel was going to be missing and what had actually happened? It very much feels like in the early portions of the story that this could be like she’s dead in a ditch someplace.

**Taffy:** I had to work so hard to signal to the… I always picture the reader or the viewer as someone who’s about to be disappointed, who could cut and run at any moment. I was so worried about a Gone Girl, like, “Oh, am I reading Gone Girl?” and the marketing of the book and all of that. It was so important that we not convey any sort of thriller aspect of it, which is why…

I’ll tell you, in the book, the reason I did that, the reason she’s missing is because I could write forever. I have a million words in my fingers. If I didn’t have a plot… At a newspaper, I have a limit on the amount of space I’m given. I go for twice that much. Then in this, it could’ve gone on forever. I needed a plot.

The plot is, what if this inconsiderate ex-wife… Because all of the wives from all of the ex-husbands I was hearing from, they were all so inconsiderate. The husbands were angry, and the wives were inconsiderate. If you’re a journalist and you’re looking for the common theme of everything, it was the husbands were angry but also wanted to know why their wives were so angry all the time. Anyway, [inaudible 00:14:29].

**John:** Early on, you knew that was going to be the plot. You knew that ultimately the story was going to be told by Libby, and so you had to go back through and make sure the reader understood that Libby was telling the story. Ultimately, and this may be different for the series than for the book, you realize the whole reason we’re actually hearing this story is because Libby is going through her own crisis.

**Taffy:** It’s exactly the same. You have not seen a book and TV experience that are redundant like they are. You have read the book, John. The reveal is, you’ve read the book.

**John:** You’ve read the book. That’s a very natural segue into really this process of adaptation. You’ve written the book. You’ve found the right publishing house for it. It goes out. It becomes a huge success. People in Hollywood immediately start wanting to say, “Oh, let’s adapt this into a book or into a movie.” What were those sorts of calls like? What were you thinking about early on? I’m sure even when you first turned in the manuscript and you got the initial reaction from editors, publishers, you knew that somebody was going to want to make this into something. What were your instincts, and what were those first calls like?

**Taffy:** I didn’t think anybody would want… I thought it was too internal a story. I have friends who have written novels. I saw the kind of thing that was getting optioned. Rachel is a theater agent. This story is, in the end, so much about middle age. I don’t want the listener here to be cynical, but if you are looking to reach the Hollywood optioning segment-

**John:** Put an agent there, yeah.

**Taffy:** Middle-age, wealthy people, also an agent. That’s what I think happened, because I can never say to myself, “Hey, maybe you wrote a good book.” I’m just incapable of that. Probably I had quadrants. It’s a three-quadrant book.

**John:** You have Craig Mazin Disease, where you don’t believe that anything you did was actually good in and of itself. That was just some sort of dumb luck or-

**Taffy:** I was looking forward to talking to Craig about that.

**John:** Craig is off doing press for his show now [crosstalk 00:16:32].

**Taffy:** He’s off telling people that nothing he did was good.

**John:** Yeah, that’s what it is.

**Taffy:** I understand that. Here’s what happened. In the interim, when I wrote the book… The thing you didn’t ask… You’re asking very dignified questions about plot, but you’re not asking the undignified questions about financial desperation.

I was a very good freelancer. I made my year every year. Then April would come, and I’d realize, “Oh my god, I have to pay for camp.” Camp always blindsided me. Always 17 times more than you think it should be. Sometimes I would teach a class. This year I decided I’m finishing this novel. I knew for sure that I was a journalist that enough people were interested in, because I was having meetings with publishing houses about nonfiction books that I didn’t want to write. I knew that I could sell a book for camp tuition. I was just going to do that. I sell this book.

In the interim, the New York Times hires me full-time. I get hired. I start doing more interviews. I put the book, even though the revisions are due, on the side, because I have this new job, this new, big job. One day, I interview Jimmy Buffett, not Warren Buffett, but Jimmy Buffett.

**John:** I know Jimmy Buffett.

**Taffy:** Of course, but the story I’m going to tell you, you’re going to be like, “Did she mean Warren Buffett?” because I started talking to him about money.

**John:** Jimmy Buffett is also a theater producer. He was one of the producers on Big Fish, and so I know him through that context.

**Taffy:** Was he?

**John:** Yeah.

**Taffy:** That’s amazing.

**John:** It’s a weird, small world.

**Taffy:** I loved the Big Fish musical. When they’re running at the end… Anyway, I talked to him about money, because it seems to me that he has created this laid-back lifestyle that he now has to support with constant work. I say to him, “I’m having this struggle myself, Jimmy Buffett, where I feel that I’m successful, but I’m broke. Why am I broke all the time?” He said, “Margaritaville, when I wrote that song, I saw the reaction to it and I knew it was going to be a child that supported me in my old age.”

**John:** Wow.

**Taffy:** I cartoon-like ran out of the room. There’s dust there. I go to do my revisions, because I realize Fleishman is going to be a child that supports me in my old age, no matter what it does. If it sells three copies, it could become something. If you’re wondering if I remember the question, I do not.

I go and I do and I hand in my revisions. I’m still at the Times. People start calling. So many people start calling. That I had never pictured. People are telling me what it means to them. I call my husband, and I say, “Claud, I had a child that’s going to support us in our old age.” People start talking about what they would like to do with it. I think I’ve had enough magazine stories optioned that I have a real zen about it. Once you sell it, it is no longer yours. You just have to deal with that.

All of these great writers are talking to me. They have such good intentions. All I could think of is, A, I’m jealous, and B, that’s not how you do this. You like this for the wrong reasons. I don’t ever say that out loud, and I hope none of them are listening, though I’m now thinking about the logic of that. Whoever’s listening, it wasn’t you.

**John:** All of them had fantastic ideas that were great.

**Taffy:** They were fine ideas. Their ideas were great. Then I get a call from my agent. I said, “I’m in the middle of a Marianne Williamson story.” Then I’m in the middle of a Tom Hanks story. I go to Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks tries to option Fleishman. I said, “I can’t even listen to you.” It’s crazy. I’m like in a movie about someone who wrote a book.

Then I get a call from Sarah Timberman and Susannah Grant. Of course, those two are absolute legends. I took the call just to have the call and tell them how much I love them. The first thing they said was, “How are you thinking about this as a screenplay or a TV show?” I said, “No one had asked me what I think, but it can’t be a screenplay, because you need a certain amount of time with Toby, so that you could really become partisan to his side. That is time. I can’t think of a narrative trick that would do that, other than pure here’s six episodes. You need to commit to the bit.” They said to me, “You would have to write it.” I cannot tell you how low the threshold was to me believing. I’m like, “Oh my gosh, you’re right. I do have to write it. I do have to write it.”

I said, “If it’s going to be a TV show… “ I write alone. I’m very concerned with people liking me. I know that if I’m in a writers’ room and people have ideas, I’ll be more concerned with not putting down their ideas. I hear stories about how people feel bad all the time in writers’ rooms, and feel good, but I’m so worried about the feeling bad. I said, “I could write it by myself.” They said, “It’s a lot to do.” I said, “I’m a newspaper reporter,” which is not true. I’m a leisurely magazine writer, but I pull out, “I’m a newspaper reporter,” when it’s convenient.

**John:** You wrote 30 pages in a sitting.

**Taffy:** I am a very fast typer. I can write as quickly as I talk, but I can’t read as quickly as I talk. What is that? Another bonus segment for another time.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Taffy:** Everyone else fell away. Everyone was so wonderful. The people who made it to the end, I said to my agent, “Tell everyone that I’m writing it myself,” because there were still all of these bidders. Immediately, half of them were like, “No, thank you. We’re out.” Sarah and Susannah just… I now know the kinds of conversations that must have gone on.

In fact, I will tell you that when it came down to shooting it, Sarah Timberman left her home in California and moved to New York for the year to be on set with me every day, which I had first thought was wonderful fun and now realize must have been a negotiation with the network and the studio who were like, “Are you crazy?”

**John:** She was the [crosstalk 00:23:36].

**Taffy:** She’s like, “Don’t worry, I’ll take care of it.” There are a lot of promises that are made in that stage of optioning, and they kept every single one to me. That’s what happened.

**John:** Susannah Grant, former fill-in cohost of Scriptnotes. She’s went out to Austin Film Festival. Good person, screenwriter. For folks who don’t know her credits, she did the Julia Roberts movie, Erin Brokovich, but she’s also done-

**Taffy:** It’s the Steven Soderbergh movie. Back then, the idea of a woman writing a muscular movie like that was mind-blowing.

**John:** She also had a really great series that at that time would’ve just come out on Netflix, which was terrific.

**Taffy:** Unbelievable. It was both of them. It was Sarah and Susannah. This was what they were going to do next. Unbelievable, you couldn’t stop clicking to the next thing. Even though my husband and I do not love a sexual assault show right before bed, we couldn’t stop.

**John:** Not the ideal time. You had never written a novel before. It turned out great. You had never written a TV show before. How was that process? How did you learn about the actual mechanics of a TV script? You’d read a thousand novels. Had you read the teleplay form before?

**Taffy:** John, I learned it by watching you. I’m not even kidding. I’ll tell you. I went to NYU for dramatic writing, and I learned how to write spec scripts for sitcoms. Then I was so quickly unsuccessful at it that I went into… I saw an ad for a soap opera magazine in the New York Times, and I went and worked there. Everything changed. I would read screenplays a lot. I love reading screenplays. Also, I have a little group of film critics that I hang out with. We table read screenplays sometimes.

**John:** Wow. That’s really nerdy. No one does that.

**Taffy:** It’s the nerdiest. Just throw us in a locker. We just sit there. We started with Michael Clayton during the pandemic. I would read these things. I think that my journalism was successful because I paid attention to storytelling. First of all, you can in a profile, because it doesn’t have the same news imperative that everything else does. The idea of a beginning and a middle and an end and suspense and callbacks, those were things that I knew were successful through journalism, that I had learned through screenwriting. Also, I have listened to every episode of this podcast.

**John:** Oh my gosh.

**Megana Rao:** Wow.

**Taffy:** I even listened to the compendium ones that are collections of the thing I just heard.

**John:** The Megana specials.

**Taffy:** I love those. I love those. I loved seeing Megana’s rise to on-air personality. I love all of it. I read a lot. Then I had Sarah and Susannah. I don’t know what other producers are like, but I know that there’s a variation in editors. They read everything. There was no feeling bad about getting it wrong. The first script had 20 pages of VoiceOver in what I now see as a hilarious way but at first was like, “What do you mean? I thought we said we were doing VoiceOver.”

It was not easy for me. It was not an easy adaptation for me. The book was already written. When it came down to it, I knew what the moments in the book were where you would maybe end an episode, although the question I had before is how do you make this not suspenseful? I was going to have three episodes before Rachel was spotted. Sarah and Susannah launched a real campaign to talk me down to two. They were correct to do that.

**John:** Let’s talk about the breaking down of what was going to happen when. Was that a process that was entirely you? Was that with Sarah and Susannah, the three of you together at the whiteboard, figuring out how things split up?

**Taffy:** First of all, it very much follows the book. Second, we were supposed to get I guess green-lit is the word, which I literally thought someone was going to call up and scream, “You’re green-lit!” or something or a light would show up. It does not happen that way. You just have your lawyer and your agent check in 20 times.

The pandemic happened. I thought, “I’ll go back to the New York Times, because New York Times probably needs/wants me or tolerates me or is obligated to me or can’t fire me because I’m union.” FX, which was very enthusiastic about Fleishman, all of their blood cells will go to the shows that are already in production. It was such a crisis. I also knew that if I went back to the Times and I was on a story, this pandemic was only going to last six or seven weeks.

**John:** Totally.

**Taffy:** I was asked, “What if we assemble a mini room?” I had listened to all of the Scriptnotes episodes. I said, “I don’t know if that’s okay. Is it okay to have all of these writers do this?” The answer was, sometimes writers like to do a thing like this in between projects or maybe just for… Everyone in there was far more experienced than I was. That’s first of all. It’s a few weeks. It’s a pandemic. You don’t know who needs health insurance. Also, what we decided was that whatever happened, they would get credit on the show. We would negotiate for their credit so that they would not be this anonymous group.

**John:** Great.

**Taffy:** I’ve heard this on Scriptnotes. Susannah and Sarah were like, “Whatever happens… “

**John:** Those folks would get some sort of producer credit on the show, even if they [crosstalk 00:29:31].

**Taffy:** We couldn’t give them a producer credit unless they came and rendered-

**John:** Actually produced, yeah.

**Taffy:** We made them into consultants, although one of them, the Cindy Chupack, came and was a co-executive producer. I have minders on the set for the fact that I’d never done this before. We talked and talked. It was such a beautiful experience. It was like my book had all of these best friends. We talked about what we could change and what could be different. Ultimately, I left it with, no, the book is enough.

The book is written in such a way… By the way, you didn’t read the book, though you did because you watched the show. It really does follow. Everything happens in the same order. There is no trick that’s different. In the show, there’s a deepening of one of the tricks, but I don’t want to spoil it. In the Bonus Segment, I’ll spoil it. You can opt in or out at the very end.

**John:** Is it Toby’s daughter that was [inaudible 00:30:29] changed?

**Taffy:** The only thing that’s changed, you’re right, is that while I was doing this, I was in this mini room for 10 weeks, I was planning my son’s bar mitzvah. We would talk about it. I would cry in the mini room, which I guess is de rigueur for someone in a mini room.

**John:** Very common, yeah.

**Taffy:** Then I ended up inviting them all to the Zoom bar mitzvah. I didn’t know that this bar mitzvah would be such a big deal for me. I wrote it in. You’re right. That’s the only thing that’s different in the show.

**John:** Great. I only know that because I listened to you on the Slate Working podcast, which I listen to all the time.

**Taffy:** I love that Working podcast.

**John:** I actually TED Talked about doing some Working podcasts. There was a transition point, because remember [inaudible 00:31:14] he created the Working podcast and would interview waiters and such. I just loved it back when it was still just like… People’s jobs weren’t even creative or fancy jobs, just normal people jobs. I had a few conversations about maybe doing some Working episodes, but that never came to be.

**Taffy:** You mean on that podcast?

**John:** On that podcast. I would just be like David Plotz. I would be the interviewer, because I love interviewing people about what they do.

**Taffy:** You’re great at it. I think we should talk to them.

**John:** We should talk more about that.

**Taffy:** Let’s have a call after this.

**John:** Just because I’m curious about how things work with other people, what was it like for you to be on set? I remember my first time on set was on the movie Go. I remember walking up, being like, “Man, there’s a lot of trucks around. I wonder what’s going on.” It’s like, “Oh, crap, these are here to make my movie,” and just feeling like, “Oh, am I allowed to eat this craft service?” It was crazy. By the next day, I was shooting second unit, because we were already four days behind somehow.

**Taffy:** “By the second day, I was firing the craft services people, and I was like, ‘How dare you?’”

**John:** How did you navigate suddenly you’re in production? I recognize the directors on the show. You had really very smart directors working on the show.

**Taffy:** The greatest. Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris were our first block directors. Alice Wu was our second episode director. Then Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman did four episodes. John and Val did three. They all knew that they were with somebody who was an authority on the material and yet would not know half the words they were using.

It’s funny. Being a completist of your podcast, I used to think it was so gracious when you would say “our movie.” I thought, “That’s so nice. I would be saying ‘my movie.’” No, it really is our thing. I had this authority on the material. I was always there. I was there for every minute of shooting, except I attended one parent-teacher conference.

Everyone was extraordinarily kind to me. The minute I walked onto set, the one thing I understood immediately was that there was not even pretending I knew what I was doing, that it would be an insult. The PAs were more experienced than I was. It would be an insult to everybody if I… I’ve never even been anyone’s boss.

It’s pretty profound to suddenly be in charge of making decisions about material, because I didn’t realize that once you’re in production, so many of the decisions are about people’s welfare, not just their safety. Everyone’s concerned with safety. The first AD is always concerned with safety. I had these great first ADs, Adam Escott and Vanessa Hoffman, who also understood that I didn’t know anything and would explain things to me. No one had to explain anything quietly in a corner, because I was not embarrassed to not be an authority on this. I was apologetic. I didn’t want to slow us down more than I had to.

You’re looked at with so much authority for the first time. I’m used to being the scrappy person in the middle of the night, closing a story at the New York Times, saying, “What if we make the picture smaller, then I get some more words in there?” The answer to the nature of that ridiculous question is, “Yes, we’ll do whatever we can to help you.” Then you realize, that means that that guy who lives in New Jersey won’t get home, and that even though there are those rules, there are not really that many rules.

Right before, there was talk of an IATSE strike. Then when I got on set, I was shocked to see what a set is. I’m a newspaper reporter for this conversation. I couldn’t believe how long the hours were and how efficient it’s made for the sake of cost-effectiveness and time and getting people out and getting actors to their next projects and making sure that you have room in case someone gets COVID or everyone gets COVID. I found it so shocking and scary.

I was very lucky that Sarah Timberman was there with me every day. I was very lucky that she made sure that Cindy Chupack and also our consultant producer Becky Mode were there, because I instantly went to, “Let’s just send everyone home. I’ll cut this all into a dream sequence, and you send everyone home.”

I had to also learn to create efficiency. I want to tell you, on a craft level, what that meant was that… The first few episodes I had written had a lot of scenes. People would say, “These are big scripts.” I’d say, “Thank you,” not really knowing what that meant.

**John:** A ton of scenes, or was the script itself long?

**Taffy:** No, it was not long. It was not long.

**John:** It wasn’t long. It was a lot of short scenes.

**Taffy:** It was a lot of short scenes. Once I saw, wait, so that’s how long it takes for these hardworking people, there are nine of them, to set the lighting up and to change an outfit, and wait, you need a new outfit, the mechanics, the absolute physics of it were so shocking to me in a way that I don’t… I guess I never really thought it would happen, and I didn’t think about the practicalities of it. Starting in Episode 4, which we’re on set by then, the scenes start getting longer, because also, I start to see what actors are capable of.

**John:** I suppose you were trying to control everything from the page originally and just making sure that everything was exactly how you envisioned it, and you realized when you actually had people doing things that you don’t necessarily need to have all of the little short scenes and obviously all of the VoiceOver, because I know that the VoiceOver, you’ve said it before, drops down dramatically once we get to Episode 4.

**Taffy:** By the way, then I see these actors who are so amazing at talking to each other. I start putting in these eight-minute scenes that then they kindly make fun of me for, because that’s a lot. I have to say, I’ve seen the show, and I feel like each one of them works. These actors are really good at being watchable.

**John:** Now, Taffy, as a longtime listener to this show, you know that something that Craig and I both enjoy doing is playing Dungeons and Dragons. We talk about Dungeons and Dragons repeatedly on this.

**Taffy:** Yes, I do. I have questions about it, because I cannot believe that you have room for hobbies. I cannot believe it.

**John:** We have new next-door neighbors who moved in during the pandemic. They had us over for dinner one time. They said, “Can we ask you a question? Why on Thursday nights is that upstairs office light on until midnight every Thursday night?” It’s like, “That’s because that’s when John plays D and D, every Thursday night from 8 p.m. to midnight. That’s D and D, of course,” which we play on Zoom. Even when Craig is gone for recording a podcast, like today, the Thursday game is probably going to happen.

**Taffy:** Wow.

**John:** We do prioritize that.

**Taffy:** Good for him.

**John:** It’s important. I was reading a new D and D book over the weekend called How to Defend Your Lair. It’s the third book in a series called The Monsters Know What They’re Doing by Keith Ammann. What’s fascinating about his book is he’s talking about all characters, whether they are little monsters or bandits or kings, they all are trying to protect something. In the case of D and D, they’re trying to protect their life, they’re trying to protect their loot, they’re trying to protect some lore.

I was thinking about this interview I was going to have with you. It feels like the characters in Fleishman are desperately trying to protect things. In trying to protect things, they end up making some bad choices. I look at Toby. Toby’s trying to protect his kids, obviously. He’s trying to protect his career. He’s juggling how to protect both his career and this. He wants to protect his ex-wife to some degree. Also, he wants to protect his own identity and sense of self-worth, of self-identity. Can we take a look at the characters in Fleishman from what they’re trying to protect? Is that a useful way to think about the choices and the motivations characters make?

**Taffy:** That’s so interesting. Yes, because so much of Fleishman is about protecting your point of view. The thing that Fleishman ultimately is about, and I have 20 answers for that, but in this case the thing that Fleishman is ultimately about is the fact that everybody has a point of view about what happened, and everyone deserves for it to be heard. The consumer of the story is not fully informed unless she knows all of those points of view.

This goes back to magazine interviewing. If you don’t ask too many questions of somebody, if you don’t just bombard them with all the questions, and you just let talk, you see that people form the thing they’re saying to you as a case that they’re making. Everyone is making a case to their righteousness even when they know they’re wrong. They’re not lying. They’re saying, “Here’s why I’m a defensible person.” Everyone in Fleishman just wants to protect the idea that their crisis is legitimate, that their point of view is valid. That’s all.

**John:** With the case of Rachel, who makes the decision to drop off her kids and disappears, she is trying to protect her career, obviously. She’s trying to protect her trauma to some degree. She’s trying to protect that the reason she ended up this way was because of something that somebody else had done and it wasn’t entirely her fault.

**Taffy:** I would go even further and say that what Rachel is trying to say and how Libby builds her story when she speaks on her behalf, is not that the thing that happens to her is her trauma. I’ve never spoken about this before. I feel like her trauma is a lifetime of abandonment, the apex of which was the thing that happened to her.

We are not led to believe that the divorce is as big a crisis for Rachel as it is for Toby. Then we find out that, no, all the more so, not only is she divorced, but she’s abandoned. She’s been abandoned since her mother died. She’s been abandoned since she was in the hospital room trying to give birth. The thing I guess she’s trying to protect is that she wasn’t as bad as she’s being made out to be. I guess we all are.

**John:** She’s trying to protect this little flicker that’s still inside her that she identifies as herself. Her primal scream is about trying to rekindle that or at least protect that little thing.

**Taffy:** In the last episode, Toby says to Libby, “You were supposed to be my friend.” That is like what is the essence of friendship. It’s that I have decided that your version of things is that version. That’s friendship, right?

**John:** Aw. We could obviously go on for another hour here, but we have some questions from listeners that we thought would be really good for you to answer with us, because you’ve listened to [crosstalk 00:42:30].

**Taffy:** I know. I’ll make sure I’m not even redundant.

**John:** Let’s start with Martin from Australia. Megana, can you help us out?

**Megana:** Martin asks, “I was reflecting on iconic character names such as Ellen Ripley, Hans Gruber, and Travis Bickle, and I’m interested in your thoughts about how to choose an apt character name in a screenplay. Is a name something that organically occurs to you? How far can you take creative license in the choice of a name without it feeling like an artifice? Is there anything specific to think about when choosing a name?”

**John:** Taffy, talk to us about the names that you chose for these characters, because in journalism, you’re stuck with the names people have in real life. For this you had free reign. Were these the original names for all these characters?

**Taffy:** These were the original names for all these characters. There was some push back to changing Toby Fleishman’s name because it was too New Yorky. Does anyone know what that’s code for?

**John:** I think we all know what that’s code for.

**Taffy:** I’m very interested in a real name and not a forgettable name. John Ryan is a very strong guy, but he was born to be strong. Toby Fleishman was born to lose.

**John:** Born to be overlooked there. Character names we talked about on the show before. When I was picking the names for Arlo Finch, I couldn’t start writing until I knew the names for each of those characters and made sure that they were each distinctive, that you weren’t going to get any of them confused or conflated between the two of them. I think you were doing the thing where none of the central characters have the same first letter of their name. You’re not going to blur them and forget them because of that. It’s very confusing that Libby is played by Lizzy Caplan. How often on set did you say Libby versus Lizzy and mean the wrong thing?

**Taffy:** Always, and nobody cared, because we were talking about the same person.

**John:** In the edit, did you ever find moments where they referred to her as Lizzy rather than Libby? Did that ever happen?

**Taffy:** Never. Never once. Never once.

**John:** Professionals you hired.

**Taffy:** I had all professionals.

**John:** That’s the trick.

**Megana:** Wait, so was Toby the name that you initially had during that time you were writing at Le Pain Quotidien?

**Taffy:** Yes. It was the first thing I put down was the messiness of names and the way Jews in general are named after people. Rachel is Rachel because you end up with a biblical name. Libby is the most Jewish form of Elizabeth. Toby is just a name that someone was like, “I guess we have to name this person after this person.” Then Fleishman, I liked something that couldn’t have been conceived as a character name, like Lipschitz. I would’ve done Lipschitz in a minute, but I was given good advice that you need people to be able to search it.

**John:** Also, I think Chicago has claimed Lipschitz forever. (singing)

**Taffy:** Lipschitz.

**John:** Lipschitz. It’s important. What is Taffy short for?

**Taffy:** Stephanie.

**John:** Stephanie. How long have you been a Taffy versus a Stephanie?

**Taffy:** I was named after a Taffy whose name was Stephanie but had been called Taffy from the time she was young, because her brother couldn’t pronounce her name. I was named after her, so I was named Stephanie but always called Taffy. However, what Taffy is to Stephanie, other than me, everyone’s who’s a Taffy from Stephanie, that’s their story. I know this because I’m in a Facebook group for people whose name is Taffy. I was added to it. We all just give testimony.

**John:** Love it.

**Megana:** Aldo asks, “While watching Deep Impact, in the scene in which Oren begins to go into the recently bored hole, we hear Andrea say, ‘Suit pressure 3.5.’ I imagine the dialog is not there necessarily to drive the story, but rather just to embellish the technical aspect of the scene. We always hear you say the dialog should drive the story. With that in mind, how do we strike a balance between dialog that drives a story and dialog that only dresses up the scene?”

**John:** That’s actually a really nice question from Aldo, because yeah, screenplays are also full of stuff that is there because it’s real and because the characters would actually say it in the moment. Taffy, in your show, there’s a medical aspect to it, but it’s not ER. It’s not full of a lot of doctor jargon. There’d have to be some moments that just feel… How did you think about that? How did you balance this is what they would actually need to say in the moment, even if it’s not on character?

**Taffy:** I had a medical consultant who helped us. We were so concerned with what this isn’t. It isn’t Gone Girl, but it also isn’t a medical procedural. Once we got on set, Rob and Shari, John and Val, they expressed concern in the first day we were shooting hospital scenes, that this seemed too much like a hospital show and that it would be misleading in the pilot, or a medical mystery. Right then, we inserted the idea that they speak in hospital drama cliches. They say back and forth to each other, “Don’t you die on me,” or, “I’m not here to play God.” That was born on the set out of that crisis.

**John:** Great, so just actually to put a hat on it so that everyone sees they’re aware of these things would be.

**Taffy:** We get it. We’re sorry. We get it, and we’re sorry.

**John:** Let’s see if we can get one more question in here.

**Megana:** Chris asks, “I loved watching The Bear and thought it worked really well as a series of mostly half-hour shows. In the UK we’ve also recently had Mammals by Jez Butterworth, another half-hour show. I’d be really interested in why these writers chose this length, even when free from the constraints of a linear TV schedule. What do they feel it gave them? What are the challenges? Half-hours are the traditional length for comedies, which often feel baggy when they’re longer. It’s also the classic length for soap operas, but most UK and US dramas tend to be an hour or more. Does it also say something about the way that we consume shows these days that people are looking at the half-hour again?”

**John:** Taffy, for Fleishman Is in Trouble, how long are the episodes? Did you have to hit a certain length?

**Taffy:** I was told to stay in the 40s to 50s mark, although Episode 7, I think it’s 70 minutes. We couldn’t find anything to cut from it. I think that the answer to this… By the way, I’m watching with a newly critical eye about, in awards season, how things are classified. Transparent was a comedy, a devastating, devastating comedy.

I think it actually has to do with money. It is less expensive to shoot half the amount of stuff, but you have to have enough episodes to make it worth it. I wonder if 30 minutes is a hedge. I think that people really do begin with wondering what the story needs. If you look at The Bear, I do wonder one of the many reasons it landed so electrically is that it was I this one claustrophobic location. I wonder if that would’ve felt too much one place, but I don’t know. I don’t know.

**John:** From early discussions with Sarah and Susannah, did you always know it was about 40 minutes? Did FX tell you that you don’t have to do classic act-outs, but there will have to be moments where commercials could be inserted?

**Taffy:** No. They told us there would not have to be that. Then when Hulu came in, they were like, “We have some news.” We didn’t have to write toward. We just had to find the places. We had great editors who found the most painless places for that. I will say that I don’t know anyone who has ever heard one of my 80-word sentences… I don’t think anyone looked at me and said, “That’s going to be a pithy half-hour.”

**John:** When you’re talking about the length of things, we tend to think of comedies being a half-hour.

**Taffy:** You know what? We’ve thrown out so many rules.

**John:** We have.

**Taffy:** Now we’re hostage to these awards categories. That’s what it really is. I’ll let you finish, because it’s your podcast.

**John:** Fleishman could be seen as a comedy. There are episodes like, “Oh, that’s funny.” You have people who are talented at being funny, at yet also it does not feel like a comedy. I could see the argument for choosing to enter it as a comedy, the same way Transparent was technically a comedy.

**Taffy:** That’s a good idea. Maybe I’ll call someone after this and ask about that. I think it’s just entered as limited series, which eradicates all of that.

**John:** Nice.

**Taffy:** I don’t know, because I also think that it’s a very specific thing. It has a precedent. It has a Woody Allen, Erica Jong, the New York, divorced sex, Jewish comedy that’s also devastating and hopeless and sad has a precedent. I did not pave this ground myself. I guess the word sometimes is dramedy. I always feel dramedies are lighter. I feel Fleishman is a little devastating. I don’t know. All these rules are being thrown out. Why are there still any remaining?

**John:** Get rid of everything.

**Taffy:** Burn it down.

**John:** The first dramedy I remember was Thirtysomething, which I can see the argument for-

**Taffy:** I love Thirtysomething.

**John:** Love it too. So good. God, when that one character dies completely unexpectedly-

**Taffy:** Are you not spoiling Gary’s death? Isn’t that what you’re doing?

**John:** I’m not spoiling it. I’m trying to remember it.

**Taffy:** You can’t even find it. It’s not even streaming. Tell the world. Remember Gary’s name. His name was Gary Shepherd, John. John, his name was Gary Shepherd.

**John:** His name was Gary Shepherd. He rode off on a bicycle on a snowy day, and [crosstalk 00:52:27] oh, don’t slip.

**Taffy:** By the way, do you remember that episode?

**John:** Oh yeah, I remember it.

**Taffy:** Everything you need to know about dramatic storytelling is that they’re waiting for Nancy’s cancer determination, but Michael, his best friend, says, “You really should not be on a bike anymore.” He’s in a car. Oh my god, I’m so upset.

**John:** It’s so upsetting. I’ll say that had a huge impact on Big Fish ultimately, that death moment. I remember afterwards, one character has to call somebody else to tell him what’s happened. That became the phone call moment in Big Fish.

**Taffy:** Really?

**John:** Yeah.

**Taffy:** We’re not spoiling Big Fish either.

**John:** No. I would hope that a lot of listeners have seen Big Fish, but I’m always surprised people have not seen Big Fish.

**Taffy:** How dare they, first of all?

**John:** How dare they listen to the podcast?

**Taffy:** It’s the greatest. Also, wait, I was raised in a Hasidic household. My mother became Hasidic when I was 12. I used to sneak into the basement. We still hid a TV. I used to sneak into it and watch Thirtysomething so that I would know how to talk when I was an adult, because all I was hearing was Yiddish and Hebrew.

**John:** Amazing. Wow. How much that could’ve shaped you. Fleishman Is in Trouble would not have existed if it had not been for this secret TV hidden in the Hasidic household.

**Taffy:** I know. I know. Thirtysomething really walked so that I could stumble.

**John:** This could go on forever, but we need to get to our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a New York Times story that came out today as we’re recording this on Jodorowsky’s Tron. There was a movie out a couple years ago called Jodorowsky’s Dune, which is basically… Alejandro Jodorowsky was this director who had dreamed of making a version of Dune. He had all this artwork that he had done for it and had hired all this people to do it. He never ended up shooting it. It was gorgeous. There’s a really good movie people can see about it.

Frank Pavich, who directed that movie… This New York Times story is looking at all this artwork that was generated for Tron. I’m going to show this to you right now. This is all artwork for a movie that does not exist. It’s gorgeous. It was all generated by Midjourney, the AI thing.

**Taffy:** Wow.

**John:** People just typing in and saying “Alejandro Jodorowsky’s Tron,” and this is a computer thinking about what his version of Tron would look like. It’s absolutely gorgeous.

**Taffy:** It’s magnificent. Wow.

**John:** As we talk about AI frequently on the podcast, yes, there’s a degree to which it is jeopardizing the lives of production designers and artists and stuff like that, and you could say it’s zapping creativity. Sometimes, you can enter some stuff in and get something that’s actually really inspiring and makes you think about like, oh, wow, that’s such a very different way to do stuff. I remember when we first had Dall-E in the office, we would do things like Wes Anderson’s Spider-Man, and so you’d have [inaudible 00:55:21] Wes Anderson-looking Spider-Man.

**Taffy:** It’s everyone in a bow tie.

**John:** This is just way beyond what I’ve seen this stuff happening. It’s exciting, and people should check it out. I guess for listeners at home, Taffy, can you help us describe what we’re actually seeing here, because it’s not actually-

**Taffy:** It’s in the opinion section. It’s an interactive I guess testimonial of what the art is. The art, it looks like Tron. It’s really interesting, because talk about adaptation. You would think that Tron would look a little bit more out there, but this holds the Tron brand intact. I’m looking at lot of sci-fi references here and the light-up suit. How do you describe this? It took this guy 20,000 words.

**John:** We’re used to the stripey suit aesthetic of Tron, the light suits and the ribbons of things, but here, they almost get bigger and bigger and bigger. The color seems very different. It goes into these oranges that are not Tron-like at all. It’s just spectacular.

**Taffy:** So beautiful. Everyone should go look at it. Everyone go look at it.

**John:** Everyone go look at this. Taffy, do you have something to share with our listeners?

**Taffy:** Sure. My One Cool Thing is this book that is coming out, that will already be out by the time people listen to this. It’s called Vintage Contemporaries by a Slate journalist and podcaster named Dan Kois. He wrote the Angels in America book. He co-wrote it with Isaac Butler, who does the Working podcast. He wrote this great nonfiction book called How To Be a Family a few years ago, where he took his family around to different countries to try to figure out if we are raising our children and doing childhood correctly.

This is his first novel. It is so squarely and unapologetically about a coming of age. He wrote from the point of view of a woman a coming of age as a literary assistant in New York. The timeline goes from 2003 to 1996. It does something so beautiful and so magical that it really had me clutching my heart at the end. I can’t believe how good this is.

**John:** Oh my gosh, I’m excited to read it. Dan Kois also was original host of Mom and Dad Are Fighting [inaudible 00:57:56]. A good Slate family reunion of things there.

**Taffy:** He’s pretty great.

**John:** Vintage Contemporaries?

**Taffy:** Vintage Contemporaries by Dan Kois.

**John:** K-O-I-S.

**Taffy:** Yeah, K-O-I-S, being published by Harper Collins. We support their strike. You should buy this book, because we also support authors. It was a privilege to read it in galleys.

**John:** Speaking of galleys, you have another book. What’s next for you?

**Taffy:** My next book is called Long Island Compromise. It’s about a family on Long Island, a wealthy family that loses its money 30 years after its patriarch is kidnapped. He gives the money away. He gives all of his money away, the money which is supposed to symbolize both safety and danger. It asks these two questions. It asks is money safety or is money danger. It also asks does a certain amount of wealth and success doom your children to an idle life, and is it better to come from something meeker and therefore your children can thrive. The immediate answer is everyone should be rich.

**John:** Everyone should be rich at all times. Socialism for all. This being your second book, what were the pressures to compare it to the first book? Immediately, did everyone say, “Gotta get the rights now.” How did that feel different with the second?

**Taffy:** There have been some preemptive bids. There is nothing that could hang over your head and force your failure like a preemptive bid. In fact, I thought about scrapping the… Do you know the Book Thief? You know the guy?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Taffy:** He claimed to have my book, which was insane. I remember saying, “I want to find him and ask him how does it end.”

**John:** Absolutely.

**Taffy:** “If you have it, is there a version that you have? Is it good? Does it turn out good?”

**John:** “Give me the first sentence of Chapter 13.” That would be great.

**Taffy:** “How did I resolve the mother character? Does she seem like a real person in the end?” There were a lot of pressures. I always bet on failure. I made sure to sell this book on the eve of Fleishman coming out. It has been written for a while, but its revisions have been waiting out. It should be out by now. Then I made a TV show, which was the most consuming thing I’ve ever done. It’s going to come out. I don’t know.

It’s very funny, because the one outstanding question I had about it was should I have Libby, that narrator who’s kind of me, should I have her narrate this. Philip Roth did it. He had Nathan Zuckerman. It was torture. The worst thing about the torture was that I was so decisive about everything else. The one good thing you could say about me is that I’m so decisive.

Then the show finished on December 29th. My family, we went skiing so that I could not be wandering the streets of New York, asking people if they’d seen it. They took me off the streets. On December 30th, I was on a ski lift, and suddenly, I was like, “Of course she shouldn’t narrate it,” and I was free. I was freed from Fleishman. Your projects really have a hold on you.

**John:** Then we drag you right back into it.

**Taffy:** I know. I know. Now I’m reconsidering everything. Thank you for asking about it.

**John:** An absolute pleasure having you here on the show. Thank you for talking with us.

**Taffy:** This was so fun. This was a dream come true.

**John:** People should either or both read the book Fleishman Is in Trouble, watch the show, which is FX and Hulu.

**Taffy:** Then read it again, watch it again.

**John:** Then read it again.

**Taffy:** Then re-subscribe to Hulu. Then write your Congressman.

**John:** All these things will happen.

**Taffy:** Thank you for having me.

**John:** If you could stick around for the Bonus Segment, because I want to talk to you about celebrity journalism.

**Taffy:** Sure, because you’re a journalist too.

**John:** Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Ryan Gerberding. 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 will 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 weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts. They’re 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. We’ve finally figured out what happened to Episodes 500 through 515. We got that sorted out. If you missed those, they’re back. Thank you again, Taffy.

**Taffy:** Thanks for having me. This is great.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Taffy, you have interviewed all sorts of famous people. We mentioned a couple of them along the way. Nicki Minaj.

**Taffy:** Oh my gosh.

**John:** Andy Cohen. How do you get started in this? You mentioned Soap Opera Digest, Soap Opera Weekly? You were doing that.

**Taffy:** Thank you for asking about that. My first job was at a magazine called Soaps In Depth.

**John:** We gotta go deep.

**Taffy:** The reason I can enunciate it like that is because you’d call people up and say, “I’m calling from Soaps In Depth,” and they’d say, “Soaps and Death?” You’d say, “No, Soaps In Depth.”

**John:** The Ps are important.

**Taffy:** I worked there for a year, and I wrote profiles. Then I was poached by a larger soap opera magazine. I do mean larger.

**John:** Physically larger.

**Taffy:** Physically larger, called Soap Opera Weekly. Ultimately I was fired from there on June 5th, 2001. Later, I would pretend it was a post-9/11 layoff for my dignity. I started writing personal essays as soon as my son was born, because I didn’t want to leave the house, and I wanted a writing career on my own terms. One day I was just done writing personal essays. I pitched a profile at the New York Times Magazine, and I got a yes. It was Zosia Mamet.

**John:** She was starring in Girls at this point?

**Taffy:** She was starring in Girls. It was the second season of Girls. It was my first profile. I just loved doing it. I had a great editor named Adam Sternbergh at the New York Times Magazine who, I handed in one that was terrible and he just very deftly said to me, “Oh no, here. There’s a scene, and then there is the bio section.” Then from then on, I just… He taught me how to fish.

**John:** What is the structure of a really good one of these?

**Taffy:** Thematically it is, “Here’s something I saw. Here’s why it matters. Here’s why this person matters.” What he told me was, it’s a scene and then it is an evaluation of what is newsworthy about this person right now, and then it’s their bio section, and then it’s the return to the examination and what you decided about it. I took that and went with it. I had very kind editors. I was sent to Nicki Minaj, who fell asleep while we were talking. I wrote a story about what I would’ve asked her if she had been awake and what I think she would’ve said. I spent a few days on a tour bus with Billy Bob Thornton on his band. I spent five years asking Val Kilmer for an interview. I spent some time with Bradley Cooper in the run-up to-

**John:** A Star is Born?

**Taffy:** Star is Born, and Tom Hanks. Really, I feel like I don’t know who I haven’t interviewed. I would write long interviews.

**John:** You are a character in the interviews to some degree too. You have to expose-

**Taffy:** I’m a character the way Libby’s a character.

**John:** Exactly.

**Taffy:** Libby, by the way, to tell this story, in the novel and in the show is someone who quit her job and stayed home. I didn’t do that. It worked thematically. Journalism is always true. The I character in those profiles is the aspects of me that are like the reader, that would help the reader, because I hate chummy profiles. I hate profiles where they’re clearly friends and going to hang out after this. The profile is, here, reader, is what you would think if you were sitting here with me, which is I think what journalism is supposed to do.

**John:** Also screenwriting though is putting you in the place that you actually believe that you are in that room with this conversation happening around you. It is scene setting in the same way, which is different than other classic journalism could be, where it’s [inaudible 01:07:02] I’m going to tell you a story rather than let you know what I saw, what I heard, what it’s like to be in the presence of this person.

**Taffy:** It’s what it’s like to be in the presence of the person and why the person matters. By the way, the more famous they are, the more it’s not even about the person, but the person that the person has become in light of all this fame.

**John:** In agreeing to be a member of this partnership to do this celebrity profile, they are also aware of the game too. They are choosing what parts to show to you. It’s gotta be complicated.

**Taffy:** It’s hard to ask factual questions, because you have to ask yourself, why would this person even tell me this? In fact, if you’re quiet, what you’ll find is that by the time someone is famous, they have some sort of gripe or understanding of who they are in the world that they would like to correct. If you listen carefully, that is what they are trying to tell you. You have to listen very carefully for it, or else you are just bombarding them with questions about their divorce or about their scandal. There’s always one thing they’re afraid you’re going to talk about.

**John:** Craig will never listen to this Bonus Segment, because he doesn’t listen. If he were to listen and two years down the road somebody wants to do a profile of him, what advice would you give to a Craig who is going to be profiled by somebody, who won’t be your equal, obviously, but-

**Taffy:** Thank you.

**John:** … is going to attempt to do Libby’s job, Taffy’s job. What would your advice-

**Taffy:** That’s a great question, or you. Have you had a profile?

**John:** Years ago, but it was written by a magazine. It was just the WGA [inaudible 01:08:41].

**Taffy:** The thing I would say to him, interesting, advice for Craig on doing that. Craig is such an interesting talker. To deal plainly and openly with the person as a fellow writer is the best move. What’s very interesting to me is that, especially over these last years where we had a president who had this open, warlike contempt for journalists, it was shocking to see that contempt reflected in actors. There are people who have told me they don’t trust anything a journalist said. It was like, “What, journalists? What?” That’s shocking to me.

I think that the conversation you can have, if you’re with someone who does not seem like they’re manipulating you… Because also journalism isn’t a monolith. There are people who are looking for something ugly, but most people aren’t. Most people just want to hear what it’s been like for you. That said, I always prided myself on getting people to open up to me.

Disney, because of their COVID protocols, wouldn’t let us have any rehearsals for the show. I tricked everyone by taking them out to dinner so that they could meet before they had to play best friends. We would have these outdoor dinners. Disney, they were outdoors. They would talk to each other. Within 10 minutes, they were telling each other their deepest secrets. I was quietly devastated. I didn’t do anything. Nobody told me anything. That’s the thing. A journalist should never think that anyone’s telling them anything, really should just wonder why they’re saying what they’re saying.

Craig, who is headed for this, should just deal openly and kindly. Damon Lindelof was very, very nice to me and answered every single question I had. It was during a complicated timeframe. It was the first time he was doing interviews following Lost. It was for The Leftovers.

**John:** I knew Damon well. Particularly during that time, it was tough grappling with what he even wanted or what his relationship was like with the fandom.

**Taffy:** The thing that I take away from my experience on set of Fleishman is that it seems to me an exquisite kind of ironic punishment that in success you should want to spend all day being someone else, and your reward for that is that you have to sit down with an asshole like me and tell me things that you don’t know how I’m going to use. It’s very impossible to keep in your head. I found this in my interviews, because you just want to answer the question, because you want to be polite. It’s very impossible to keep in your head the breadths of people who could hear something.

**John:** I want to just close up by just turning this back on you. We gave advice for Craig. Now there are profiles on you. That’s gotta be strange too. Do you sit them down and tell them, “Here’s how you interview me.”

**Taffy:** I did that once. It’s a findable story for Cosmo that’s called Taffy Brodesser-Akner Really, Really, Really Wanted to Write This Profile. I have been chastened and I don’t do that anymore.

**John:** That’s great. Taffy, an absolute pleasure talking with you.

**Taffy:** This was so fun.

**John:** Thank you so much.

**Taffy:** Thank you.

**John:** Please come back whenever.

**Taffy:** Sure, I’ll see you next week.

**John:** Next week.

**Taffy:** Bye-bye.

Links:

* [Fleishman Is in Trouble](https://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/fleishman-is-in-trouble) on Hulu, and the [book](https://www.amazon.com/Fleishman-Trouble-Novel-Taffy-Brodesser-Akner/dp/0525510877)
* [Taffy’s GQ Celebrity Profiles](https://www.gq.com/contributor/taffy-brodesser-akner)
* [This Film Does Not Exist](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/13/opinion/jodorowsky-dune-ai-tron.html) By Frank Pavich for NYT, Tron reimagined by AI in the style of [Jodorowsky’s Dune](https://www.jodorowskysdune.com/), images by Midjourney
* [This Voice Doesn’t Exist – Generative Voice AI](https://blog.elevenlabs.io/enter-the-new-year-with-a-bang/)
* [VALL-E Neural Codec Language Models are Zero-Shot Text to Speech Synthesizers](https://valle-demo.github.io/)
* [Vintage Contemporaries](https://www.harpercollins.com/blogs/authors/dan-kois-202210285022860) by Dan Kois
* [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/)
* [Taffy Brodesser-Akner](https://twitter.com/taffyakner) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Ryan Gerberding ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and 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/584standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 552: Parentheses Would Help, Transcript

February 14, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/parentheses-would-help).

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

**Craig Mazin:** My name’s Craig Mazin. How can I help?

**John:** This is Episode 552 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we talk narrative geography, professional development, and when it’s okay to take that pitch out somewhere else. Then it’s another round of the Three Page Challenge, where we take a look at entries from our listeners and give our honest opinions on what’s working and what’s not. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we’ll teach you the one secret to social media everyone is too afraid to show you.

**Craig:** Oh god, it’s not the top 10 secrets?

**John:** No, there’s just one secret, it turns out. It’s a secret you already know, Craig. The secret was in you the whole time.

**Craig:** I can’t wait.

**John:** It’s going to be good.

**Craig:** Fun.

**John:** I should say there’s not a general language warning for the whole episode, but I will probably swear when we get to that part. If you’re a Premium Member and your kids are in the car, John’s going to probably be saying some bad words.

**Craig:** Now you’ve unleashed me.

**John:** Craig, we’re going to start with some Follow-Up. This is so much in our pocket. It’s one of those questions that comes in that you and I are so well qualified to answer. Megana, start us off.

**Megana:** @ryanbeardmusic from Twitter asked about the credits for the upcoming Elvis movie. He said, “Hi all, can you explain Baz’s multiple writing credits for Elvis, please? I presume it’s a WGA thing, but I can’t wrap my head around it.”

**John:** This tweet shows the credit block for Elvis. This is what it reads. It reads, “Story by Baz Luhrmann and Jeremy Doner. Screenplay by Baz Luhrmann & Sam Bromell and Baz Lurhmann & Craig Pearce and Baz Lurhmann & Jeremy Doner.” Baz Luhrmann’s name appears four times in just the writing credits for this movie. That’s a lot, but it happens. Craig, talk to me about why this happens.

**Craig:** We do answer this pretty frequently, but this is a particularly good one. I really like this one. The way to understand all this stuff is to understand that every writing team that works on a movie is considered an individual writer for the purposes of credit. Let’s say there’s a writing team of Baz Luhrmann and Sam Bromell. We know they’re a writing team because of an A-N-D between them, there’s an ampersand. The ampersand tells you they’re a team. They count as one writer for the purposes of credit arbitration.

Now, when we do credit arbitration, and in this case there was an automatic arbitration, because Baz Luhrmann is also the director of the film, we don’t know who the writers are. We’re given scripts, and the scripts say Writer A, Writer B, Writer C, Writer D. I’ve done a couple that hit Writer H, which was exciting. What happens is we say, okay, we’ve gone through all the scripts, and here’s what I think it is. I think that the writing credit should be story by Writer A and Writer B.

**John:** With an A-N-D between those two.

**Craig:** That’s right. Writer A and Writer B, they’re two different writers. Then I think it should be screenplay by Writer C and Writer D and Writer B. Now, here’s where it gets fun. What if Screenwriter C is Baz Luhrmann & Sam Bromell? As it turns out in this case, that’s what happened. Baz Luhrmann wrote on this own for the purposes of story. Then he clearly did a draft in tandem as a team with a writer named Sam Bromell. He also did another draft as a team with a writer named Craig Pearce. This is an interesting one. Basically, the arbiters gave out as much credit as they could on this. They gave credit to the team of Baz Luhrmann and Sam Bromell. They gave credit to the team of Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce. They gave credit to Jeremy Doner. Then when it came to story, they gave it to Baz Lurhmann and they also gave it to Jeremy Doner. Wow.

**John:** It’s a lot. Here’s a thing that will help people understand this is, if you added some parentheses it would make a little bit more sense. If you put some parentheses around Baz Luhrmann and Sam Bromell, if you put parentheses around Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce, parentheses around Baz Luhrmann and Jeremy Doner, you’d understand those are three separate writing teams, and they were probably Writers B, C, and D, but they could’ve been writers B, F, and J. We don’t know how many writers were involved in this project.

**Craig:** Sure don’t.

**John:** That’s how it happened. By the distributive property, you want to be able to put Baz Luhrmann out and then put everyone else in parentheses, but you’re just not allowed to do these credits. As a person who’s been an arbiter on these things, I can tell you that Craig’s exactly right. We have no idea whether these people are writing teams or individual writers when we’re reading through these scripts. We’re giving credits to Writer A, Writer B, and then C, D, and E. We have no idea. That’s why you get credit blocks like this which look kind of strange. Same thing happened with Chloe Zhao on Eternals. It’s just a thing that happens.

**Craig:** It’s just a thing that happens. There is only one weird circumstance where we can collapse the credit down a bit. That is if there’s a writing team and then another writer, and the writer is one of the writing team, and there’s nobody else getting credit. If I worked on a script with John, it would be Craig & John. Then John goes off to do something else and I write another draft just by myself, and the arbiters say, oh, A and B both share credit. Written by Craig Mazin & John August and Craig Mazin looks bizarro. In that case they can smush it down to just written by Craig Mazin and John August. The apportionment of residuals would still be accurate to the technical credits.

**John:** All this was done by the books and is all good. I think a person could reasonably argue that there should be some way that these writers could agree to have the credits not have his name there so many different times, that there’d be some way the actual monies could be apportioned properly, but the credit block could look less screwy. Craig, under our existing rules, could these four writers decide that?

**Craig:** No. They can’t. There is an almost never used rule that says that writers can determine their own credits if they want to get together and do that, but not in the case of an automatic arbitration. Furthermore, the apportionment of screenplay credit among three writers can only be granted by arbitration.

**John:** Yes, in this case the screenplay is apportioned between three writers, in this case three writing teams, so only arbitration can do that. Megana, did that answer your questions?

**Megana:** I guess my question is can you talk about the development process of this, the process of Baz Luhrmann working with these three different writers? Are they hiring these people on to work as a part of a writing team to work with Baz Luhrmann?

**Craig:** Yes.

**Megana:** My question was whether the writing team is also under contention, like who did what to the draft?

**John:** We know people who’ve worked on… None of these writers. We don’t know these writers personally, but we know other folks who were involved at some point in this process. I think the call was, hey, do you want to go to Australia and work with Baz on this script. A writer would go and work with Baz for a couple weeks on this thing. It was a collaborative team writing thing where you were doing stuff together. There’s no real transparency into that process from the arbitration point of view. How much were they really a team? I don’t know. These writers were hired on to work on drafts with Baz Luhrmann.

**Megana:** Got it. That does clarify things.

**Craig:** That’s correct. There is really no… Other than a writer protesting to the guild and saying, “Listen, I was strong-armed into being part of the team. I didn’t want to be part of the team,” or somebody stuck their name on as if we were a team, but they really weren’t, unless that kind of protest happens, no, it’s just presumed that the writers who share the credit on the title page there for that draft are a bona fide team. It does seem like Baz Luhrmann probably wrote some kind of treatment at some point, some sort of story material by himself. Whether that came before or after Jeremy Doner, I do not know. Then it seems like he did indeed have at a minimum two writers that he did extensive work with as part of two different teams.

**John:** That’s my guess as well.

**Megana:** Got it. Thank you guys.

**John:** Megana, what else do we have?

**Megana:** Chris asks us, “What do you call the page before a script begins, where the writer puts either a quote or an explanatory message? I’m trying to figure out why writers do this, because my gut reaction is that it feels like cheating, but perhaps I’m missing a valuable tool I could use to better elucidate or thematically prep the reader for some of my writing. I don’t mean a character list like in The Nines script. I’m referring to something that is much more directly explanatory for the reader.”

**John:** Craig, what do you call that page between the title page and the first page of a script?

**Craig:** I don’t. It’s just the stupid page with the stupid quote on it.

**John:** It feels like a dedication page. I’ve also called it an intermediary page. If there were a standardized name for it, I think it would be helpful, because it’s weird we don’t have a good standardized name for it.

**Craig:** You could call it quote page. It’s not something that you need to worry about, Chris, honestly. I don’t think it’s cheating. If somebody wants to do it, God bless them. Is it a valuable tool? No. There has never been a single screenplay that went toward the path of success as opposed toward the path of failure, simply because of the strength of its quote. It’s not a thing. It doesn’t matter. You’ll be fine. You use it, you’re fine. If you don’t, you’re fine. It is not a valuable tool. It sounds like it’s not the kind of thing that you feel a great desire to do. The vast majority of screenplays do not do this.

**John:** The majority of the screenplays I’ve written do not have one of these pages. He mentions The Nines, which has a character explanatory page, which was really crucial for that, because otherwise you might not realize that the same actor’s playing these characters in different parts of the movie. Big Fish has one. It says, “This is a Southern story full of lies and fabrications, but truer for their inclusion,” just a single sentence on that page. It was helpful for Big Fish, because it just set up the right tone for what is the story you’re about to read. For that, I thought it was great. It ties in very nicely to the next question from Corey here. Megana, if you want to ask.

**Megana:** Corey asks, “In Episode 550 you discussed a screenwriter placing a trigger warning page between the cover and Page 1, whether it was warranted. I’ve written a screenplay that has several characters with disabilities. I don’t outwardly identify as a person with a physical disability, and I’m concerned that it could deter producers into thinking my writing is ableist. My question is, should I be putting a disability inclusion/information page at the top of my screenplay? Since my script is a comedy, it involves both abled to disabled bullying and disabled to disabled bullying. Can an information page alleviate potential producer concerns or scare them off more quickly?”

**Craig:** That was a really good question. Wow, it’s funny, we’ve been doing this so long, John, that now we actually can get new questions, because the world changed. That’s how long we’ve been doing this.

**John:** It did change.

**Craig:** The world changed.

**John:** Craig, before your answer, what would your answer have been 10 years ago?

**Craig:** My answer 10 years ago would’ve been nobody cares. That is not the answer that I would give today. This is a good question to ask. It’s relevant, because I think that a lot of producers, particularly in mainstream Hollywood, have become very concerned about this issue. Depending on what the story is, they may feel a burning desire to know if the writer is part of the class they are portraying. There’s lots of ways they can find out. The easiest way is your agent. Your agent says, “By the way, I represent this disabled writer, and he or she has written this script.” If you don’t have representation, nobody’s doing that for you, then I think it actually is helpful to put some kind of thing in there to let them know that you are coming at this from the inside as opposed to from the outside.

**John:** I agree with you in principle. I’m trying to imagine what would actually be said on that page that would both set the reader up for a good experience reading the script and not feel weirdly pre-defensive. I think it’s a really challenging thing to phrase there for that one page, that one sentence you’re going to put there, that’s going to set the person up right.

**Craig:** It’s not an easy… You could simply say something… Let’s say Corey’s last name is Jones. “Corey Jones is a disabled writer from Virginia.” You could do something as simple as that that is the most barebones biographical thing. Then I think the readers would say, “I understand why you were saying this.” I don’t think anybody would go, “Who cares about your bio, Corey?” They would get it, I think.

**John:** I think another alternative would be to find some quote, a thing a real person said out there, who is a disabled writer, a disability activist, who said the most important thing is that we push hard and then take it back. There might be some quote from a disabled person who says you also have to be able to have fun. You can’t put people up on a pedestal. There might be something like that that can actually help frame the comedy that you’re about to get into, because otherwise the person might be uncomfortable with some of the bullying that’s happening there.

**Craig:** Every comedy, you risk that, regardless. You could. You just don’t want to start your comedy by saying, “Lighten up. It’s a comedy.”

**John:** Don’t do that. Not a thing to do. I can imagine other kind of comedies that are talking about marginalized communities where a similar kind of advanced statement could be really helpful in framing who you are and why it’s appropriate for you to be telling this story or the kind of story that you’re hoping to tell.

**Craig:** Megana, what would you do in a situation like this? Should there be something? What do you think? Also, how would you phrase it?

**Megana:** I think it’s becoming a lot more common just in my experience. I feel like I’m seeing whatever we want to call that interstitial page a lot more. I think that people are more open to reading that. I think the quote is nice. I think what John was saying about finding a quote that frames it, without being too explicit, sounds nice and warming you up to the story.

**John:** I’m curious what our listeners think about this issue, but also what to call that page, because Megana just said interstitial page, which is the term I was reaching for rather than intermediary page. What do we want to call this page? I feel like if we just picked a title to this page, within five years we could actually name this page, and it would no longer be a question out there in the world. Write in to Megana or just tweet at us and let us know what we should call this page between the title page and the first page of the script. Those are follow-up-y questions, but Megana, we have some new things in the inbox. What do you got for us?

**Megana:** Great. Fred asks, “What do established screenwriters do for professional development? I’m in a field where there are continuing education requirements to keep up on the latest developments and hone my skills, but I’m curious what you do.”

**John:** Craig, are you caught up on all your classes or your coursework? Is your documentation up to date?

**Craig:** Yes, I have been proceeding up the ladder of professional development, and I should have access to the executive bathroom shortly.

**John:** That’s good, because you got to keep your credentials going there, because you never know when you’re going to be called up on it.

**Craig:** I’m so un-credentialed.

**John:** We tease, and yet there are some things I think we are doing consciously or subconsciously that are the equivalent of professional development. There’s certain things like WGA Showrunner Training Program, well-known, well-respected. Hey, you are going to be running a show. Here’s a boot camp in how you run a show. That is important. It’s been going on for a decade. It’s been really helpful in people figuring out how to do that job, the management function at that job. Things do change and evolve over the course of our careers. What Craig was just saying about 10 years ago, he would’ve had different advice for this writer, than now when we recognize that the world around us has changed to some degree, and we have to adapt what we’re doing. Yet there’s not a systematized way of doing that, because we’re not continually employed by the same employer. Just know we have to do HR training and sexual harassment training if we are staff on a show sometimes. For feature writers, that’s not really a thing.

**Craig:** I did have to do that when we started our production here. I don’t really consider that professional development, per se. It’s a creative job. We really don’t have professional development beyond watching TV, seeing movies, reading books, talking to people that are different than we are, the things that creative people and writers have always had to do. Professional development, I think in a lot of fields, is essential. Then in other fields it seems like it’s just a bunch of busy work designed to make people jump through hoops so they can get paid more, when they should have just been paid more already. It’s a way for some people to say, “Oh, I took these seven classes, so I should get paid more than that person, who is way better at this job than I am, but I took the seven classes.” We don’t have these problems. We don’t have the benefits or the drawbacks of professional development. We just try and stay plugged into culture and hold on to some relevance, I think is probably a good way of putting it.

**John:** I would say, just to be perfectly honest, most of my professional development has come through Scriptnotes, because you and I having a structured weekly conversation about the profession that we’re in, between each other, but also with all the guests that we bring in, I learn a lot, especially when we bring in folks who are doing something different than what I’ve ever done. We bring on showrunners or folks who are working in late-night or other fields I’m not directly involved in. That’s professional development, because I’m learning how they’re doing their jobs, the questions they are asking themselves, the struggles that they are facing. If I were to run a TV show, I’d be much better prepped, just because I’ve been doing all of the work and listening to these very smart people talk about their jobs.

**Craig:** There’s your answer. All you have to do, Fred, is start a podcast and do it for 10 years. Then you too will be professionally developed.

**John:** Love it. Megana, what else do you have for us?

**Megana:** Rachel asks, “I’m working on a spec script that’s based in a city I know well. I know where each of my characters live and work, and when I have them meet, I’m automatically thinking in terms of where they would genuinely meet if they were real, like which character would selfishly pick a place that’s close to their home but inconvenient for everyone else. At the same time, I’m aware that this isn’t generally how real-world locations are treated in actual movies. Any Before Sunset fan who’s visited Paris knows the disappointment of trying to trace Celine and Jesse’s walking route, only to discover that it dissipates after 10 paces because they teleported to some entirely different part of Paris mid-scene. Is my current approach misconceived? Am I sweating a set of considerations that don’t matter at all?”

**Craig:** A good question.

**John:** That’s a good question. I’m not saying you are totally misconceived, but I think you’re also, in your question, you’re answering your question. In the real world, people don’t think about that as much. In the actual making of films, we are going to cheat things to get from place to place. All that said, it does drive me crazy when people can do impossible things in LA in a movie. In movies that I’ve set in LA, things like Go, I am mindful of what part of town I’m sticking in and being sure it all tracks and makes sense within that part of town, both logistically but also just culturally and visually that it feels like you’re in the same part of the city that whole time. It’s not wrong for you to be thinking about where these people live, but you can get too anchored into some of your choices in the script that aren’t going to be relevant to the reader or to the viewer.

**Craig:** There was this note that used to get handed out a lot in the ’90s. Let’s say you were writing a movie that was set in Miami. The studio executives say, “I feel like you need to make Miami more of a character in the movie.” You would always think, oh, yes, yes, but what does that mean? Do you mean show places in Miami or have things that are… That’s what setting a movie in Miami is supposed to be. What do you mean? I think maybe all they meant is to provide some bits of authenticity and specificity. I think it’s probably a good thing that you’re thinking this way because it’s helping you think about your characters. If you think in terms of where they would genuinely meet if they were real, that gets you closer to where that scene is going to take place.

Now, if you’re doing a movie that is very much about a city, then sure, you’re going to want to make sure that Fenway Park is where it actually is in Boston, because people will just point at you and say that you’re terrible. It’s okay to lay everything out as truly as you can, and then when production happens, you figure it out. If they say, “We can’t shoot there. We’ll have to shoot here,” you can either rewrite it or you can cheat it. If it’s helping you write and it’s helping you achieve a certain amount of verisimilitude, specificity, and authenticity, then yeah, as long as it’s not holding you up, march on.

**John:** The other thing I would ask you to do is keep in mind what your reader needs to know versus what you want to know, because you as the writer/creator have this vision in your head for how people got from this point to this point and the shoe leather that would take them from this moment to this moment. That may not be important to your reader at all. Always just try to go back through your script and think, okay, do they actually need to know this detail? Do they need to know this connecting bit, or are they just looking like, “We’re in this location and we’re in this location. We don’t need to know how we got there or how realistic it is.” Is it not informing the characters and their dialog and the choices within those scenes, it probably doesn’t belong in your script.

**Craig:** I want to answer another question, desperately.

**Megana:** Do you want to answer this one from Jack from Sydney, Australia?

**Craig:** I haven’t read it, but yes. I don’t know what you’re going to say. I haven’t opened the thing. I’m committing to answering this question no matter what it is.

**Megana:** Jack says, “I recently completed a feature, and after receiving some extremely warm notes from a coverage service, I decided to share details and the log line of the project online. It’s very high concept, and judging by the responses and feedback, it’s clear the idea alone has a great deal of appeal. Off the back of this, I’ve been contacted directly by development executives asking to read it, which all sounds very positive but also has me a little nervous. I know ideas on their own are a dime a dozen, so I’m very keen to get the entire script into people’s hands to digest and enjoy. As this is my first time with any sort of industry attention, I’m just not sure how to navigate this and whether to share it freely with whomever asks. I’m unrepped and still very early in my writing journey, so any advice on what to expect and how to manage this would be appreciated. Before sending, should I watermark my script somehow? Will I be expected to sign release forms? Are these for my protection or theirs? Is this all just the ramblings of a paranoid newbie?”

**Craig:** I’ve committed to answering this question, Jack.

**John:** Craig, do it.

**Craig:** I’m going to answer this question. Don’t worry. You are from Australia, Jack. I do not know how copyright functions in Australia, but I can assure you it offers you more protection than copyright does in the United States, because copyright protection in the United States is the worst, unless you’re a business. You have Droit Moral. You have moral rights of authors and so on and so forth. The point is, when you write something, you have established authorship. There is likely a copyright office in Australia. You should contact them, register your screenplay with them so that there is a legal paper trail. Then you should go ahead and give it to people. You can absolutely watermark it. I think most of the major screenwriting programs do it. John has a separate program called Bronson Watermarker that does it.

**John:** Oh my gosh, this is Craig Mazin hyping one of my products. Please make a note of this in the transcript. This is the first time this has happened.

**Craig:** I don’t know if I hyped it, but I’ve acknowledged it.

**John:** Acknowledgement is hype from Craig Mazin.

**Craig:** If your sales spike, I want money. Yes, you may be expected to sign release forms, but they have requested this, so it is now, instead of an unsolicited screenplay, it is a solicited screenplay. If it’s an unsolicited screenplay, it’s fairly common for them to ask you to sign something, because they really didn’t want to read it at all, and they don’t want to get sued over something they didn’t want to read. If they’re soliciting it, then in general you should be able to send it to them, watermark it with their name. They won’t be offended. It is for everyone’s protection. Live and love, man. Go for it. That’s what you wrote this stuff for is to show it to these people, right? Show it to them.

**John:** The moment has come which you’ve been hoping for which is that people like your stuff and want to read it. This is very exciting. Yes, so you can watermark it. It doesn’t have to be a big, obnoxious watermark either. Just a little reminder like, hey, this is for you and only for you. You have a trail because they’ve asked for it, and then you were emailing the thing. Down the road, if you do need to sue somebody, you could prove that they had access to it, that they read the thing. It’s fine. Don’t catastrophize this yet. The best possibility is that you’re going to make some connections. You’re going to hopefully find somebody who makes this movie or at least wants to meet you as a writer. These are only good things. I’d say take the excitement, work with the excitement, and keep pressing on. Also, in stressing out over this script, don’t stop writing your next one, because that’s even more exciting than this current one.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Megana, give us one last question before we get to these Three Page Challenges.

**Megana:** JJ from Pasadena says, “A couple of months ago, I had a general meeting with an exec from a company that controls a lot of magazine IP. After the meeting, the exec sent me a couple of articles they thought I might be interested in. One of the articles clicked with me, and I came up with a pitch for a show. I didn’t use any characters from the article or any other material except for the idea for a setting. Even then, my setting became completely fictional. I pitched my idea, and they passed. My question is, am I free to take this pitch to other places, without the article attached, of course? The characters I created, their relationships and backstories are wholly original works and have nothing to do with the article. My managers are saying it’s tricky, but my take is what’s the difference between what I did here and me reading the article on my own and using it for inspiration to create something original, which happens every day?”

**Craig:** Managers. I swear to God.

**John:** I’ll take the first crack at this, because I may have a different approach than Craig. We just talked through Jack’s situation where people have solicited his script, and so he doesn’t have to worry about this. In this case, the reciprocal is true, because this magazine can show like, oh we came out to you for this thing, and we didn’t want it. We didn’t want it, but you took this article that we’ve used, and it became a basis for your project. Is that likely? Not likely at all. The way to make it even less likely or ever become a thing is to really change whatever other details were from that article and just make it your own thing. If this thing was set at a bowling alley, could it be set at a roller rink instead? Is there a different place you could set it, it just gets rid of all traces of that article? Yes, what you did, JJ, was create a whole new story that was vaguely inspired by that thing. You can get rid of that thing that was underlying it and use what you’ve got there as its own pitch. Craig, what’s your take?

**Craig:** The tricky part is only the diplomacy between yourself and these other people, but they passed.

**John:** They passed.

**Craig:** Which to me, that’s the end of diplomatic negotiations. The fact is, I’m presuming this article is nonfiction. It may not be. If it’s fiction, that’s a different story. To me, I don’t think of articles as fiction. If you had said essay, that might be different. Fiction is copyrighted, and it is a unique expression and fixed form. You can’t infringe upon somebody’s copyright on that any more than they could infringe on something you wrote.

If it’s a nonfiction article about facts, and the facts have been published in a magazine or newspaper, those facts are free to everybody in the world. You cannot own facts, particularly after you have reported them. You have gone even further than you would need to go, because you’re not using any of the characters from the article, or if it’s nonfiction I would call those people people. Then you said your setting became completely fictional. I think you’re perfectly fine if it’s nonfiction. If it’s fiction, no. That’s dangerous. You would have to make it very, very different so that when the executive from the IP magazine company hears about what you’re doing and reads it, that he or she can say, “Oh my god, I’m suing you.”

**John:** Let’s talk for a moment about fiction versus nonfiction, because we’re not lawyers obviously, but let’s talk about it just in a general sense of why they feel different and why they work differently in terms of what we consider literary material. If something is a work of fiction that has characters in it, something that has story developments, you can see, okay, this is the movie within this space. These are characters that were created to tell this one story. It’s hard to get rid of all those things and create a whole separate story. It’s unlikely you’re going to do this. As opposed to most nonfiction works, which are like, okay, this is about underwater mining, and there’s just a general sense of how this all works and the people involved in this, but there’s nothing there that you couldn’t go out and just do your own research and come up with the same details and facts. You’re going to be able to do that with nonfiction. You’re not going to be able to do that in fiction. That’s part of the reason why they feel different and why you don’t see the same kind of problems happening with the nonfiction articles.

**Craig:** The nonfiction work is research. You’ve read it. It counts as research. It’s facts. Certainly you can write about real people. You can’t defame people. The reason that we are so obsessed, we meaning Hollywood, with buying the rights to nonfiction articles, is because it helps the company stake a claim to an area, so everybody else knows they’re making a movie about let’s just say-

**John:** FIFA Soccer scandal.

**Craig:** The FIFA Soccer scandal. So-and-so has bought the rights to this big article in Rolling Stone about the FIFA Soccer scandal. They’re going for it. Also, now, when they buy that article, they have access to the journalists’ notes and all the stuff that was behind the article, including the contact information for all the people they talked to so that you can keep going further. You can also use things that they didn’t publish in the article. Beyond that, facts are facts. It’s just research.

**John:** Facts are facts.

**Craig:** That’s why anyone can write a movie about the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. You can take any fact you want from any nonfiction book or article, any of them.

**John:** Let’s discuss a practical matter though. Let’s do your Reagan assassination attempt thing. Let’s say there was a really good article and JJ was brought in to maybe pitch on this really good article about this Ronald Reagan assassination. It’s a very specific moment and beat. They say, no, actually, we’re not interested in that. If JJ then went out and started pitching this Ronald Reagan assassination movie to other places, those producers would be pissed. The ones who passed would be pissed. Would they legally have a claim to stop it? No, not really, they wouldn’t, because he could do his own research. That doesn’t mean it’d be a good idea for JJ to do, because it’s very clearly they brought him in, they passed, and he’s going off and doing that. Doesn’t mean he shouldn’t do it. It just means he should be aware of that. I can understand some hesitation there. It doesn’t sound like JJ’s situation is anywhere near that specific.

**Craig:** No. It’s a bad idea unless somebody buys it, in which case it was a great idea.

**John:** Then it’s a great idea.

**Craig:** This is an area where having great representation helps a lot, because representation can launder these kinds of interactions. No, you wouldn’t want to be known for going around town shopping an idea like this. If you had a general meeting and you mentioned your awesome take on the attempt on Reagan’s life, and they got excited, when the other people call to complain, your agent’s going to say, “They wanted to make one too. They mentioned it to him. What do you want? You don’t own the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life.” Then they just have to eat it. This is the danger of developing stuff that’s nonfiction. While I was developing Chernobyl, there was a competing Chernobyl project at Discovery, I think, which now amusingly is HBO, so that’s weird. You’re aware that it’s there. Let’s all see what happens. Nothing you can do.

**John:** Let’s get on to our Three Page Challenges. These are, as far as we know, not based on any fiction or nonfiction works. Instead, these are pages that our listeners have sent in. If you go to johnaugust.com/threepage, you can see the entry form, which you can send us a pdf of your three pages, generally the first three pages of a script. It can be a teleplay. It can be a screenplay. Every once in a while, Craig and I will read through these and give you our honest opinions. I say we read through these, but of course it’s really Megana Rao, and in this case Drew Marquardt, our intern, who is reading through all the entries in this last batch. If you want to read along with us, you can go to the show notes for this episode and click there. It will have the links to the pdfs of what was sent in to us, so you see. You could pause this episode and read through the pdf first, or just go back through it after you’ve listened to us describe them. We have three of them here. Megana, could you help us out with a summary of this first script?

**Megana:** The first one is Tag, You’re It by Suw Charman-Anderson. In the dead of night, World War One trench fighter William leads a small group of soldiers to silently plant barbed wire in No Man’s Land. Caught by a German patrol, William is riddled by machine gun fire and bleeds out. We cut to present day, where Nia Jenkins, 50s, goes to take a sip of water but notices a drowned spider in her cup and flings it across the room. At the same time, a man in filthy clothes mutters to himself as he walks through the town center. He lunges at a group of students who fight back, and in the scuffle, pull off his hoodie to reveal he’s William, and he hasn’t aged a day.

**John:** Craig, one thing I want to say about these pages before we get into anything else is a lot happens in them. There’s actually a fair amount of story beats that happen in just the course of these three pages, which I just want to commend, because so often we’ll get through three pages and it’s like, okay, that set up some scenery, but not a bunch happened here. A bunch happened here, so good job on that. Before we get to these three pages though, the title page here reads Tag, Season 1, Episode 1, You’re It, but doesn’t have Suw’s name or contact information on it, nothing else. A cover page doesn’t do any good unless you actually have the cover page stuff on it. Just make sure you’re always putting that stuff on for a Three Page Challenge or for any script you’re sending out there into the world.

**Craig:** Particularly if your script is entitled Tag, because there is a thing in television that is the tag, and so they may think, wait, is this just the end of Episode 1. You might want to put that in all caps or something, just because… It’s a little interesting. Often, you will see pilot episodes. Season 1, Episode 1 is a bit… It’s very optimistic.

**John:** Say pilot.

**Craig:** I think pilot seems a little bit more true to what it is, unless Suw knows something that we don’t.

**John:** Craig, when we got into… We’re opening up in these trenches of World War One. What did you think of this first page? Let’s go through the World War One sequence.

**Craig:** There was a lot of really good stuff here. World War One trenches are pretty evocative things. I think that Suw did a pretty good job of placing us in that world. I needed a little bit of effort, which I didn’t want to expend, I generally don’t want to expend any effort early on, to get through a little bit of lack of information. It begins with, “Exterior, World War One trenches, night,” although it is WWI. I think if it’s World War One, you can go ahead and write it out at that point.

**John:** I agree.

**Craig:** You can come back to the abbreviation later, but give us the first bit. Then it says “super: the Western front, 1916.” Other than my late father and men his age and history professors, a lot of people are not going to know what the Western front was. They’re not going to know where it was. I think we need to hear where we are, whether we’re in Germany or France. We need to know a town, an area, just so we can place ourselves.

I loved that William Fernsby, I liked he had “ferrety eyes and a shaven head.” He’s “up to his ankles in filthy water.” He’s got lice. He’s waiting for the soldier in front of him to move forward. It’s a nice way to move us into establishing that there are six men. It says “in the wiring party.” We don’t know what that is. Probably not a good idea to use that lingo when you just need to show me what you show me next, which is they’re gathering “supplies of six-foot pickets and rolls of barbed wire.” We proceeded through the No Man’s Land. Again, probably a good idea to give people a little bit of a concept of what No Man’s Land is, which was essentially this dead space in between opposing trenches.

This puzzled me. I’m curious, John, what you made of it. In the second scene, “William treads carefully, quietly, his nerves humming. The German trenches are only 150 meters away. There’s a noise.” Noise is in all caps. “The entire party freezes, nervously searching for its source. Communication is by hand signal and low whispers. Slowly, as they realize there’s no one there, they begin to move again.” Now, I know what happens next, but what-

**John:** Yeah, but at the time, what-

**Craig:** What is this noise? What is it? Do you know? I don’t know.

**John:** I don’t know what that noise is. You have to be more specific here, because a noise could be anything. What do they think they hear? Do they hear movements? Do they hear someone approaching? What do they think are hearing?

**Craig:** Describe the ruckus. We need to know what they think it might be. Now, it seems to me that what Suw’s going for here is in the next scene, “William has moved away from the others.” That’s pretty vague. Why? What’s he doing? Why is he away from the others? “Out of nowhere appears a German soldier,” which is ironic, because that is how a German would say that. It’s backwards. A German soldier appears out of nowhere is better syntax, I think. “Part of a patrol.” You wouldn’t know that, because we don’t see them, because he’s alone.

**John:** Scratch that.

**Craig:** Don’t need it. Also, how out of nowhere? Do you mean apparated? Do you mean from the shadows?

**John:** From the darkness?

**Craig:** Yeah, because there’s clearly something supernatural going on. We need a little bit more clarity there. Also, it says, “The German soldier is on him immediately, but neither fire their weapons. Instead, they grapple hand-to-hand, silent except for huffs and puffs,” until the German soldier puts his wrist against William’s and then, “William screams in pain.” Why were they quiet earlier? Maybe that gets answered later. I don’t know. I like what happened next. Everybody died.

**John:** Everybody died. I was assuming they were quiet just because everyone has to be so super, super quiet. I think that could’ve been a little better set up. I think my only real frustration with this trench sequence is that throughout this whole thing I have got no sense of who William is individually. I wanted just one line. Just give one piece of business to William that is his alone, because otherwise it’s just the camera is favoring this one guy. I don’t know that’s going to be enough, because it is important that it is him, that we’re really going to see his face.

**Craig:** I agree. I did like that on the top of Page 2, the German soldier, which is spelled solider, a word that any spell check would capture, so please, for the love of God… “The German soldier leaps almost gleefully into the line of fire, his body jerking grotesquely.”

**John:** Love it.

**Craig:** Whoa, okay, that’s interesting. Then we find out that William is dead by, “William lies amongst the mess of bodies, eyes barely open, blood flowing freely from bullet wounds in his chest. Dawn breaks on the dead.” That’s great.

**John:** Dawn doesn’t break on the dead though, Craig. The sun suddenly comes up?

**Craig:** I still don’t know the difference between dawn and sunrise, to be honest with you. Every cinematographer laughs at me. Meaning there’s light on the horizon and there’s a lot of dead people. It was evocative.

**John:** It was evocative.

**Craig:** Then we ran into some trouble.

**John:** Last thing I’ll say is we want to get William off by himself. I think the wringing of the wire could be a good reason for him to be off by himself. Either he’s pulling ahead or he has to stay back with the reel as the others are pulling it forward. Just show us how he gets to be put by himself.

**Craig:** Agreed. No question, we need to explain that, because otherwise what’s happened is your screenplay has moved him somewhere he shouldn’t be so that something can happen. Audiences just don’t like that.

**John:** They don’t like that. That’s not all of our scenes. Next, we’re moving into Nia’s house, the bedroom. The room is “stylishly decorated, tidy but sparse … curtains drawn, dawn light seeping in around the edges.” I don’t know what tidy but sparse means.

**Craig:** Tidy and sparse. Sparse does not contradict tidy. It says “super: present day.” I’m not sure we would need that if you could just give us some details in the room that would tell us we’re no longer in 1916.

**John:** Now, we see this spider crawling around. I don’t need the spider crawling around at all. I basically just need… I love that she’s hot in bed and she’s the sort of person who sleeps hot and she grabs for the water and there’s a spider in it. That’s great. I think we spent too much time on this spider business.

**Craig:** Unless it becomes really important later, which is possible.

**John:** It could be.

**Craig:** We have some reverse syntax again. “Alone in the double bed lies a sleeping woman.” I’m starting to wonder if maybe Suw is a German speaker.

**John:** Could be.

**Craig:** “The menopause has reached Nia at last.” The menopause?

**John:** The menopause.

**Craig:** The menopause.

**John:** You got it.

**Craig:** I think it’s just menopause.

**John:** Menopause has reached-

**Craig:** She’s menopausal. Here’s my biggest issue. She wakes up. There’s a spider. She freaks out about the spider. She calls up for somebody named Tomos. There’s no one there. She’s upset. She then picks up the spider with some barbecue tongs and flushes it down the toilet. It says finally she can breathe again, except it says, “She can breath again. She sags.” Then that’s it. Then we’re off to a different scene. I’m like, why did I watch any of that?

**John:** I don’t know why we watched it.

**Craig:** I learned nothing. It didn’t drive me forward. Why? Here’s the deal. Suw, you get this big, exciting first sequence. Then you go somewhere else. I need something at the end of that sequence, doesn’t have to be crazy, to make me go, “Oh, what’s going on here?” I don’t get anything. I just get a lady flushing a spider.

**John:** I like the details. I like her with the tongs and all that stuff. I see it. It’s all great. I didn’t get any new information that’s making me extra intrigued. It just feels like a different movie, like okay, that movie happened, now we’re in this movie, and now we’re going to this third sequence, which is the college students. This fortunately does tie back into our opening. We see that William is part of this world. He seems to be the stereotype of the insane person rambling around that everyone’s trying to not look at, but mostly this worked for me. Then he’s on top of a student there. I would say my frustration at the end of this was, “With surprising speed and agility, the man lunges at the nearest student. There’s a scuffle as the others pull him off. His hoodie falls backwards, and we see his face.” The other student, who is that student? Is it a man? Is it a woman? Give us some detail here. Even if this character’s not going to survive this moment, we’ve got to know something.

**Craig:** Also, again, describe the ruckus. “There’s a scuffle as the other pull him off.” What does that mean, scuffle? Are people throwing punches? Do they grab him? Unless you were different, John, I had zero doubt that this was going to be William.

**John:** No. Of course it was going to be William.

**Craig:** His face is covered by a hoodie. I wonder who it is? You might, Suw, get away with not doing this ornate reveal and just a simpler reveal. We see a man from behind, stumbling “through the pedestrian precinct.” That’s an interesting choice of words. A car almost hits him. He turns, and now we see his face. It’s William, and he’s muttering to himself or whatever. This feels pretty involved. Generally speaking, “One notices the man but studiously ignores him,” I don’t know. The students, they’re nothing. They’re like props. Then we end with a reference to a character. We learn their name. We learn how the name is pronounced. We learn what their skin color is, what their eye color is, what their hair color is. We really probably don’t need all of that there. We’re going to learn it later. I would rather learn it when other people would learn it, because the audience isn’t going to learn it here. They’re not going to know his name here. I would probably dose that out a little bit later perhaps, because he’s supposed to be mysterious.

**John:** Agreed. Let’s give a little more detail on William at the start. Let’s consider whether we need to have this scene with the spider and Nia where it is, because I think it’s meant to be just a filler scene so that we don’t have these two things back-to-back. It’s not doing a job here. Let’s get to our William quicker. Even though I started this conversation by saying I was happy with how much happened in these three pages, and I still am, I think we could spend our time better in these three pages still.

**Craig:** If you do have what I think is a pretty interesting narrative conceit, which is Highlander but World War One, there’s other, more imaginative ways to show somebody being launched through time and still being alive and being as disturbed as the man who put this curse on him. I think this feels familiar. The executive feels familiar. I would really take a look at Page 3, and I would just ask myself… Let’s presume people get it, that there is actually… It’s not the most earth-shattering concept. Maybe put a little less pressure on the concept and think a little bit more about a more contemporary or challenging execution of it.

**John:** A thing we started doing recently with Three Page Challenges is that we asked them to submit a log line as well. Craig and I don’t know the log line until this very moment. I’m going to open up the triangle here. Here’s the log line for this thing which Suw sent through. “A curse transforms a single mum into an immortal heroine who must protect Earth from aliens, but is her 1,000-year-old champion really on her side or should she be protecting her enemies from him?” I did not see aliens coming.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** An involuntary immortal quality there, I get that.

**Craig:** You knew that Nia Jenkins was important because we saw the scene, so yes, but aliens, that’s the part I was like… That caught me by surprise.

**John:** I’m excited to see what Suw does with the rest of this script. I thought there was some promising stuff here.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Now let’s move on to our next thing. Megana, can you give us a summary of Halloween Party?

**Megana:** Great. Halloween Party by Lucas Abreu and Zachary Arthur and Kyle Copier. In a local newscast, a reporter delivers breaking news that three people have died and hundreds more were injured at a Halloween Party at Arizona State. They showed the mugshots of the two students identified as suspects, Carmichael and Allie. We then go back to two days earlier as Carmichael and Allie walk to class. Allie bemoans that they’ve yet to attend a single college party, but Carmichael defends this decision, saying he needs a spotless record in order to sit on the Supreme Court one day. Allie pushes back, insisting one party won’t destroy his life, but Carmichael asks her to wait until after his longtime crush, Maddie, leaves.

**John:** That’s where we’re at after three pages. Craig, first impressions of Halloween Party?

**Craig:** Lucas and Zachary and Kyle, this is going to sting just a touch. There’s a lot going wrong here. There’s a lot going wrong in a way that is very typical for screenplays. In that regard, this is, I think, useful and fixable. I want to go through them, because there are just a lot of screenwriting sins that pile up really fast and really consistently.

**John:** Agreed. There’s also some good things we can point out as well, but the sins are very obvious.

**Craig:** The sins are pretty obvious. Let’s start with sin number one. The reporter is not reporting the way any reporter reports. This is what the reporter tells us: Breaking news. Three people died and hundreds of people were injured “in a Halloween party gone wrong” near a college campus. Two people were taken into custody. They are the key suspects. What? How did the people die? It said investigation “into last night’s horrific events are ongoing.” What events? No one ever gets on the news and said, “Three people died.” How? Were they shot, chopped up, melted?

**John:** Poisoned?

**Craig:** We need something. Right off the bat, there’s just a clumsiness here. Reporter dialog is just something you need to get right.

**John:** Let’s talk about reporter dialog. This whole setup essentially is a Stuart Special, where it’s just like we’re seeing the aftereffects of this and the news footage of this thing, and then it jumps forward to three days earlier, which is fine. There’s nothing wrong with a Stuart Special. This could be a good setup because it is surprising that these two people did this horrible thing, apparently. They want to see them in the time before. That can absolutely work, but we’re relying on this newscast to do a little too much. I also wonder about starting over black. There’s a limited amount of time which an audience is willing to just stare at a black screen and have someone talking. I think this was pushing beyond that. Think about what are you actually showing on screen. Are there multiple reports happening simultaneously in an I Am Legend kind of way? That could be a way to get into it. This is not going to work here. All that said, I love the character descriptions of both Carmichael and Allie. “Carmichael, 21, short Black chubby kid with a smile wide enough that it probably hurts his face, has a cul-de-sac haircut and lipstick all over his face.” I don’t know what a cul-de-sac haircut is, but I love that his smile “probably hurts his face.” I love it. Craig, Megana, what is a cul-de-sac haircut?

**Craig:** In the shape of a horseshoe?

**Megana:** I took it to mean just suburban and nerdy.

**Craig:** We’ll have to look that one up. While we’re doing research on this, I didn’t mind this description, but I did not like the description of Allie. The description of Allie was, “Allie, 22, tall skinny woman who’s far cooler than she has idea about.” To me, that’s just cool but doesn’t know it.

**John:** I like “glossy eyed and faded, she’s still on top of the world and doesn’t give a fuck about her black eye.” Great.

**Craig:** Hard to get across in a still photo. Also, who’s watching this? It’s on TV. We won’t know she’s a tall skinny woman because you’re showing us mugshots. How do we know she’s tall and skinny? Is there a specific height on the mugshot? They don’t really do that. That’s from the bad movies from the ’50s. There’s so many issues here. I thought, okay, let’s see where we end up two days earlier. We’re at campus. By the way, there’s nothing wrong with the Stuart Special. We’ve seen this particular kind of Stuart Special a lot.

**John:** I do not believe that two days before Halloween, people are already wearing their Halloween costumes around campus. I just don’t believe it.

**Craig:** They’re not.

**John:** I did not believe the campus at that moment. They’re not. Here’s my frustration is, there’s no such place as “exterior, Arizona State University campus.”

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** That’s not a place.

**Craig:** Not a place.

**John:** It’s not actually a location. You can be like, the main quad moving between the dorms and this place, but describe, give us a place, because I don’t know what the ASU campus looks like. I need to know something, and especially because you’re going to do a walk and talk, attempt to do a walk and talk for a very long time between two characters in a space. I have no idea where we are. By picking a more specific place, you could break it up. Give us some things to do and see and change up the scene. Right now, we are just trapped in this conversation that just keeps going. Aaron Sorkin could not make a good walk and talk that could carry us through these two pages of some void that we’re in.

**Craig:** Well-observed that we are in a place that doesn’t exist. Many, many years ago, all the way back when I had my blog, I wrote an article called You Can’t Just Walk into a Building. I think that’s what it was called. It’s common for screenwriters to say walks into a building and looks around. It’s like, what building? Building isn’t a thing. Someone has to go find the building. What is inside of the building? Is it just a building? Campus is not a place. Absolutely true that nowhere on the planet Earth are people in costumes two days before Halloween. There is no reason for Carmichael to be dressed in a Harry Potter outfit. Why?

**John:** I think it’s trying to ironically comment on JK Rowling’s trans controversy. I have no idea why he’s in a Harry Potter outfit. No idea.

**Craig:** It’s a brave attempt, but no. Then what proceeds is two pages of what I called ticker tape writing, just dialog, no interruption, no action lines, no one else shows up. I simply have these two people having a conversation that doesn’t appear to have a moment before. The conversation begins like this, “This weekend we’re doing it. I think we should try drugs.” Okay, but what were they saying before that?

**John:** They were together. They were already walking.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** This could be a first line if she runs up behind him and grabs him, startles him, and pins him down and says this is what we’re going to do. That is the beginning of a scene, that that moment started. It can’t start with them already walking and she says this.

**Craig:** If you just added the word no, then I would understand that she was responding to something, and so that we were inside of a…

**John:** That’s true.

**Craig:** You can’t just start as if these people were walking silently and then suddenly, scene. Then what happens is two people that know each other very well start telling each other things that they should already know. They just start announcing things that they should know. “We’re seniors at the number one party school in the nation and have literally never been to a single party.” Yeah, they know that. “I want to be on the Supreme Court.” Yes, I know. Then, “You act weird around Halloween,” which is bizarre, but also something that you would know. Then, “Imagine how many more copies of my book I’d sell.” Okay, so you’re a writer. You need to tell him that, even though he already knows. Then he has to tell her that there is a woman that he is in love with, that she already knows about. None of this would happen.

**John:** It would not happen.

**Craig:** None of it.

**John:** We often talk about how late could you come into a scene and still get the purpose of the scene. It’s a fun exercise with this, because you would come in so much later to this and actually get the information out that you want to get out, and give yourself space to do more interesting things in here. We won’t keep beating on this, but it’s like a jokoid. It has the quality of dialog, and dialog that people say in movies, but it’s just there’s too much, and it’s not actually moving us anywhere, not going to any place. There’s one sentence I actually have to talk about, because I think it would be actually an impossible sentence to diagram. I’m going to read Carmichael’s sentence from the top of Page 3. This is what Carmichael says. I’ll try to give a fair performance of it. Here it is. “I’m simply saying I have to go in there with a resume solid enough for Lindsey Graham to be comfortable nominating somebody with a skin color that’s darker than his mother’s.” Wow.

**Craig:** What I wrote next to that was awkward and written. By written, I mean instead of somebody talking, which is what dialog in a screenplay is for, it appears that somebody has taken some time to write some prose out. He does it again. Then his next dialog brick is, “This just kind of feels like one of those moments I bring up in my bestselling autobiography 50 years from now where I talk about how your decision to try drugs in this moment led you to a life hunting for Sasquatch and multiple felony-level prostitution charges.” No.

**John:** How many words was that?

**Craig:** So many words. The sentences are coming out in absurdly complete packages. I have a challenge for Lucas and Zachary and Kyle. The challenge is I want you to rewrite this scene. I want you to not worry about being funny. I don’t want you to write a single joke. I want you to write it in the most realistic way possible, as if these were actual human beings walking across an actual campus, going somewhere, coming from somewhere, and having a discussion that two people that have known each other for years would actually have, in the way that they would have it. Just go as low concept as you can. Go mumblecore on this. You can always then pull it up. I think you guys need to get down to the really realistic ground on the ground before you can start getting into the comedic stuff, because it’s just not connected to reality right now.

**John:** I very much want to see that. I was going to propose the same thing. I want to see a cleaned-up version of this. I think it’s also challenging to have a team of three writing scenes. It can happen, but you don’t see it very much. It’s not common.

**Craig:** That’s true. Maybe that’s part of it is that it becomes committee-ized or something. All I can say, guys, is I think that I’m sure that you have a movie that all three of you love, that is in this genre. See if you can get that screenplay and just really dig into how it’s constructed. I think you will move forward by leaps and bounds. I really do believe so.

**John:** Agreed.

**Craig:** I am rooting for you guys.

**John:** Here’s the log line that they sent through. “When two best friends decide to impress their friend group from out of state, they mistakenly throw the greatest Halloween party of all time.”

**Craig:** That’s what I think probably you thought it would be about, certainly what I thought it would be about. There are lots of great movies about young adult parties going bad but good. Time-tested genre often works. I think you guys, just give yourself this little exercise, and then I think write back into it. It’s okay. Like I said, you didn’t invent any new mistakes, so don’t worry about that. I made these mistakes. John, you made these. Maybe you didn’t, but I did.

**John:** A hundred percent, I did. Also, I do wonder if some aspect of what happened to dialog at a certain point, and what we took to be as good dialog, like of the Joss Whedon, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it’s very convoluted, and yet it all fits together, people heard that and internalized that and think that’s what dialog should sound like. It’s just not working in some of these situations.

**Craig:** Also, there’s a certain kind of person that can do it. If your characters are highly educated, articulate press secretaries for the president or future Mark Zuckerbergs who are on the spectrum and at Harvard, yeah, then they can talk like that, because some of those people talk like that. This is not to insult anybody at Arizona State University, but this is not the typical cadence of anybody. Neither Carmichael nor Allie are talking like actually people there. All of their lines are too formed. When Allie said, “Never fucked a woman,” she knows he hasn’t. What is that even about? Then you fuck him then. It was just so weirdly mean, and then he just kept going through it. That’s an example, guys, where I think you’re going for a laugh but you’re actually hurting the characters. That’s the other thing is never, never sacrifice character on the pyre of the laugh, because you probably won’t get the laugh, because people will be upset at the character, and you’ll hurt the character.

**John:** For sure.

**Megana:** Wait, also, do you want to know what a cul-de-sac haircut is?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I want to know. Please.

**Megana:** I think that what they are saying here is it’s a fade. There’s a little bit of hair on top, and then you have the cul-de-sac effect because it’s really trimmed down on the sides.

**Craig:** Got it.

**Megana:** The thing that comes up when you first search for this on Google is just male balding patterns. That makes more sense to me as a cul-de-sac.

**John:** A horseshoe, yeah. I doubt he has shaved his head to resemble male pattern baldness, although I’d want to know that character. I’d really want to know that character who would choose to do that.

**Craig:** I would respect that.

**John:** A hundred percent.

**Craig:** I would respect that.

**John:** Megana, can you talk us through our final Three Page Challenge?

**Megana:** Ronnie, an American at college in Scotland, comes home from a one-night stand to a voice mail from her dad, Ed. As she listens to the voice mail on speakerphone, she notices her pet goldfish floating in its tank. As she tries to resuscitate the fish, Ed informs her that her mother has died. Back home in Santa Barbara, Ronnie and her siblings stand on the beach as Ed pushes their mother’s urn out to sea, which the tide quickly brings back to shore. Her sister Elle swims the urn out and submerges it. When she returns to shore, their sister Sophia accuses Elle of stealing her earrings.

**John:** That’s where we’re at at the end of three pages.

**Craig:** What’d you think, John?

**John:** I liked quite a lot about these. I really liked quite a lot about these pages. There’s some interesting stuff here. Again, we’re on a college campus, and yet it feels a more specific college campus. I wasn’t trapped in nowhere for this as much. I have specific things about getting to voice mail. This is essentially the convention of someone listening to their voice mail when they get home or the answering machine that we used to have in the ’90s. I want to propose that maybe her phone is dead and she’s plugging it in when she gets into a room and that’s why she’s now getting this message from her father about her mother being dead. Yet I dug the tone. We were in a dramedy space. I was curious to see what was going to happen on Page 4, which is always my question for these kinds of samples is do I want to keep reading. What did you think?

**Craig:** I loved it. Do you think it’s Emme or is it Emme?

**John:** I think it’s Emme. That’s my guess.

**Craig:** If it’s E-M-M-E?

**John:** We’ll say Emme for this podcast. We’ll apologize if that’s not quite right.

**Craig:** Miss Harris. The start, here’s a description that does work for me, “Ronnie Thomas, 20, American, the kind of girl you ask to watch your laptop at a café, ties her sex-wrecked hair back and throws on sneakers.” Now I must admit, I’m not sure what the kind of girl you ask to watch your laptop at a café is, but sex-wrecked hair gets a check mark for me. I can see her. This was a very efficient way to show me something that I’ve seen a million times. Here’s the thing. It’s okay to do things that people have done a million times. Just don’t dwell on it like you’re the first person to do it. What I liked here about Miss Harris is that she writes this very efficiently, like you get it, you know the deal. As you point out, she’s running across the university campus. I would like to know where, but at least at the end, it’s super short and she’s heading for another dormitory building. At least I get a sense roughly of where she is. I like the stone spiral staircase.

I thought this was such an interesting way to convey information. We’ve talked about exposition a lot and how you get across ideas and how exposition is sometimes a wonderful opportunity to be creative. This is creative. He’s just yammering on her voiceover. She’s very upset about a goldfish. She starts doing little… I saw her doing little finger compressions, which I thought was really hysterical. Then her dad says, “Oh, and your mum is dead.” Then she starts screaming. Then her roommate says, “Well, that seems a bit dramatic, doesn’t it?” It was very good. It was a good way to… I’m so leaning forward and excited. I kept feeling that way when we got to the beach in Santa Barbara. How did you feel about that scene?

**John:** I think the beach mostly worked. We are there. The idea is that we’re going to put these ashes. We’ve seen the ashes at the beach thing a hundred times. Again, you weren’t scared of the stock scene. You’re doing the thing. You’re putting the urn in, and it just won’t sink. That comedy, it just keeps washing back up, feels great that the sister swims out with it and finally submerges it and dunks it. It feels right. Do I know quite what’s happening on the page after that? Nope, but in these three pages we’ve met our hero, we’ve taken her from Edinburgh where she’s going to school to Santa Barbara. It feels like that’s where we’re mostly going to stay. We don’t know. We’re curious. We want to know more about her. We basically like her so far. These are promising things.

**Craig:** They’re smart. This is a very funny bit. I thought this was really funny. I liked the idea that Ed is like, “This is ridiculous. This urn full of her ashes, it’s biodegradable, it’s supposed to just sink and release the ashes into the water.” Everyone starts laughing. Then Elle takes it and brings it out into the water and she dumps it in, and then there’s this bit about earrings. It had that kind of intelligence that you see in Fleabag, for instance, to me. You know in Fleabag, in the second season, when they’re at the funeral, and everyone’s just like, “Oh my god, you look really great.” It’s this incredibly awkward thing that happened. Her hair just was perfect that day. It’s so weird and specific. I could see her sister. I could see her other sister. I like that Elle was wearing a slightly too extravagant gown. It’s all just really well done. I loved how much white space there was on the page. I salute you, Emme or Emme or Emme Harris. Well done.

**John:** Here’s a suggestion for Page 1. As Ronnie’s speeding across campus, her friend in upper case “carrying books, stops as she passes.” Friend asks, “Are you coming to Lit?” Ronnie says, “Yes, just going to my room to grab my stuff. I’ll see you in a sec.” “They part ways. Ronnie heads for another dormitory building.” Who’s that friend? That friend male, female? That friend could be somebody specific. Just give us a gender. Give us something about that. Also, it’s a wasted opportunity. It’s like a nothing conversation. There’s a moment to either acknowledge that this was a walk of shame coming back from this thing. I wanted something funny there and for them to just tell us that, okay, we’re in a comedy and get us primed for the next scene, which could land even better if we had some joke before that.

**Craig:** I agree with that.

**John:** Cool.

**Craig:** That’s an excellent point.

**John:** As we wrap up here, let’s talk about the log line. “After the death of her estranged mother, a college student returns home to her sisters and dad in California for a memorial service that reveals more than one complicated relationship.” It’s a half-hour pilot, apparently.

**Craig:** Great. Great. I want to read it. Send it. I’ll read it. I’m excited. This is good. It was funny. I enjoyed it.

**John:** I want to thank all the people who sent in Three Page Challenges, especially these three that we talked about today. If you want to send in a Three Page Challenge, go to johnaugust.com/threepage and fill out the form there and attach your pdf. We do this probably every two or three months. If you’re a Premium Member, we’ll send out an email in the week before we’re going to do one so we can get that last call of entries for this. I want to thank Megana and Drew for going through all of these entries…

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**John:** …and remind people that this is a voluntary thing, so we really applaud you for sending in scripts that we can all talk about. All right, Craig, it has come time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing comes from, on Saturday night, we did a thing we had not done for a long time since the pandemic, which was having a game night. We were over at a friend’s house. We all played games together and gathered around a table. It was tremendously fun. I played a new game I never played before, which was the Blockbuster Party Game. I’ll link in the show notes to it.

This game comes in a case that looks like a Blockbuster tape, which is just such a wonderful bit of nostalgia. The game itself, you have movie titles on your cards. You’re trying to get your team to guess them. It has a Charades-y kind of quality, but it actually has some really smart game mechanics in terms of things you can do to compete against the other teams. There’s timers. It’s all smart, and just the right version of this kind of game. If you’re a person who loves movies, which you probably are, if you listen to this podcast, and want a party game for six people or more, I recommend you check out the Blockbuster home game. It was like eight bucks on Amazon, so not a big commitment, but a really surprisingly fun game.

**Craig:** This was a game from the ’90s, right?

**John:** No, this is a brand new game.

**Craig:** No, it’s not.

**John:** This is a brand new game that just-

**Craig:** You’re kidding.

**John:** It’s a brand new game that just happens to have the packaging and the feel of Blockbuster. They must’ve just found out whoever has the logo for Blockbuster. They got the rights to have the logo for Blockbuster. It’s a brand new game.

**Craig:** Oh my god, so this isn’t when Blockbuster’s at the height of their power. They had a little associated game. Maybe they’re like, “Who’s going to sue us? There’s no Blockbuster.”

**John:** I think Blockbuster’s one of those brands, it’s like Ataris. You don’t need the real company. You want the nostalgia for the thing.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** I quite enjoyed it. When you’re back in town, Craig, I’m going to have you and Melissa over for game night with a bunch of folks, and we’ll play this, and I think you’ll enjoy it as well. It’s a smart choice they made in deciding this.

**Craig:** Deal.

**John:** I also insist that at some point you host Mafia again, because Craig may be a good screenwriter, he’s one of the best Mafia hosts you could possibly ever imagine.

**Craig:** I’m thinking about just doing that professionally from now on.

**John:** I think it’s a good choice. Craig, it’s less stressful. People would pay you good money. You could have billionaires pay you to be a host for Mafia parties.

**Craig:** I worry that for billionaires, when people die, they actually die, because they can murder, because laws don’t matter. My One Cool Thing this week is something that wandered my way via Twitter but I guess from TikTok. This is not a new thing, although it’s new to TikTok. It’s called the hanger reflex. Have you been following along with this one, John?

**John:** I have. We tested the hanger reflex around in our house after watching an episode of TV. We tried it. Craig, does it work for you? Does it work if you do it to yourself, or only if someone else does it to you?

**Craig:** I only tried it putting it on my… Let me tell you what it is. If you haven’t heard of the hanger reflex, you take a wire coat hanger and you spread it slightly and put it on your head and then let it go so it squeezes on your head. For many, many people, including myself, your head will naturally turn to either the right or the left. What I found was if I rotated it, it would turn one way or the other. It always turned towards the way the coat hanger was hooked.

**John:** The hook.

**Craig:** This is not one of these mass suggestion things. This in fact is an established reflex discussed in journals, medical journals, research journals. No one really knows why, although they think it has to do with shearing force, which is basically when one force is pushing one way and the other one is pushing the other way, but not directly at each other. It creates a natural desire to twist along with the shearing force. It’s really weird. I was not expecting it to work. It absolutely worked on me. Have you tried it, Megana? Have you hangered yourself?

**Megana:** I have not yet, because you have to have a wire hanger, right?

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Yeah. Apparently, it will work with a thicker plastic hanger, as long as there’s actually space, as long as it will squeeze properly, but wire is the preferred one.

**Craig:** I think I’ll find a wire hanger and I’ll put it on your head. We’ll get this done. Don’t you worry. Don’t you worry. Anyway, check it out. If you just Google the hanger reflex, very easy to try at home. Fun for the whole family. You start to feel very, very stupid as you’re doing it. Some people are like, “Wait, this is a setup, right? You all just agreed to say that this does something, and then I’m going to be the idiot that puts this on my head, and you’re going to laugh at me.” No, it’s a thing. It’s actually real.

**Megana:** Have you tried to resist it when you’re doing it?

**Craig:** Yeah. You can.

**John:** It’s not overwhelming. It’s not like some ghost is turning your head.

**Craig:** No, it’s really more that if you don’t try and resist, you don’t try and help it, your head will just naturally want to turn. It’s really weird. You’ll see when I put it on your head.

**Megana:** Cool, I can’t wait.

**John:** That is our show this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, with help this week from Drew Marquardt.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** Our outro’s by Nico Mansy. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. We have T-shirts, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. 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 our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. 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 secrets of social media. Craig and Megana, thanks so much for a fun show.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** The secret to social media was actually revealed this past week by Sara Schaefer, a writer and comedian who has actually been a guest on this podcast before. Let’s take a listen to Sara Schaefer’s secret to social media.

**Sara Schaefer:** I used to always share my opinion online. No matter the topic, I was ready to dive into the discourse, even when it had nothing to do with me. The result, me posting a lot of dumb shit. Before I knew it, I was posting dumb shit online every single day, until all that changed. Now I don’t post dumb shit at all. What’s my secret? Silence. Surprised? I was too. Turns out you don’t have to post anything at all. It’s not required. Sometimes you can just be quiet. My girl friends ask me, “But Cheryl, wouldn’t that be censoring yourself? Is this the end of a free society as we know it?” No, it’s actually something else. It’s called maturity. I wondered what would happen when I stopped blasting out every half-formed thought from my head like a diarrhea cannon, but now, thanks to silence, I’m posting half the amount I used to, and guess what, I still exist. Silence, I never knew. Did you?

**John:** Craig, do you think Sara has hit upon the formula for social media success?

**Craig:** She has, although I have to give credit to fellow screenwriter Katie Dippold for saying this exact thing a number of years ago. Somebody had tweeted something, and she showed it to me and then just wrote, “You don’t have to say anything.” It’s just an interesting thing. Sometimes you get fooled by social media into thinking that it must be used. It doesn’t have to be used at all.

You know what? The other day I was thinking about this very issue. We’ve been living with alcohol for thousands of years. They find residue of beer in prehistoric bowls. What if we hadn’t? What if no one had ever had alcohol until 10 years ago? Then the first alcohol was very rudimentary. It was pretty watered down. Now after 10 years, there’s beer, there’s wine, there’s vodka, there’s gin. Someone just invented tequila. People are going crazy. No one knows what to do. They’re puking. They’re arguing if it’s a disease, is it not a disease, is this a good thing, is it a bad thing. We’re so ill equipped to handle something as powerful as alcohol, because it’s only been around for 10 years. That’s social media. We don’t know what we’re doing. It’s alcohol. Sara Schaefer, what you’re really saying is you don’t have to drink it. You don’t have to drink it. You can watch other people drinking, and it’s fun.

**John:** One thing I think Sara hits on which is really important is that, “I didn’t say anything, and yet I still continued to exist,” because one of the things about social media, if you’re not posting it’s like you’re not really there. No one’s retweeting you. No one’s acknowledging you. If you don’t put out your opinion, do you even exist? You do continue to exist. You actually are a person who has opinions, even if you’re not sharing those opinions. More importantly, you don’t have to have an opinion on everything. You can just stay out of whole conversations. That’s a crucial skill which I wish people could pick up earlier.

**Craig:** I love staying out of conversations. It’s like crack cocaine for me now. I read something. In my mind I’m like, “I’ve got something to say.” Then I don’t say it, and I feel great. It’s such a joy.

**John:** What put us on the bonus topic today was the Amber Heard, Johnny Depp trial, which I’ve never commented on. Obviously, I know Johnny Depp from work projects before. I don’t know Amber Heard at all. It angers me so much that this is a public trial that’s being shown to the world and also discussed by the world, when it’s none of our fucking business whatsoever. I just get so incredibly frustrated by that it’s just a moment of entertainment and enjoyment for the world to participate in and comment upon, when who the fuck cares? We shouldn’t be allowed to watch this thing.

**Craig:** I haven’t been following along with the trial of the century. You’re right. It’s none of my business. I can’t possibly learn anything or grow as a human being by following the Johnny Depp, Amber Heard trial. There was this other thing that happened to me over the last couple of months. That was, and I think I shared this with you, getting a number of interview requests by real places like TV news outlets here and abroad to comment on the war in Ukraine, because I had written a television series about a nuclear disaster in Ukraine. They’re always very flattering when they come for you. I politely declined. The reason I politely declined is because I am not qualified to discuss the war in Ukraine. That’s not what I do. It seems like nobody out there cares. They’re just trying to throw more people at microphones. Everybody can shout their unearned opinion at each other. That’s why I like that we do this, because we actually have earned our opinions about screenwriting, so it’s nice. You see what I mean? Why would anyone ask a screenwriter to talk about a war in Ukraine? That’s crazy.

**John:** On the podcast we are sharing our expertise and our opinions on a topic that we know very well because it’s actually the thing that we do every day. Had they gone to an expert in Ukrainian military history or the tactical issues involved with Russian military or nuclear safety, fantastic. Those are great places to go to. The guy who wrote Chernobyl is not a valid news source for this thing.

**Craig:** No. I think everybody has been trained to believe that everyone is an expert on everything, and God knows they’ll tell you about it. The problem is, what do we do? I don’t know how to get out of this.

**John:** A choice is silence, as Sara Schaefer lays out. We don’t have to weigh in on things. We don’t have to weigh in on things that we are experts on or not experts on, that we do know of some information. We can stay out of it. There have been times where I’ve jumped in on something because it’s a funny moment. Great, but I’m trying to stay out of things that are just like, this is an enraging thing that’s happening in the world. If I’m not showing my rage, it sounds like I’m sitting on my hands. No, it’s just that I’m better off donating to abortion rights charities than screaming about it on Twitter, or I’ll go to a protest where actually my physical presence is important for me to be there, than just putting it out on the timeline, where everyone else is also venting. Megana, you are not as big of a social media user as I am. What is your decision process about what to amplify, what to keep back from? What’s your metric for doing that?

**Megana:** Sorry, this is something that I could talk about forever. I think I prefer to hold most of my opinions to myself and reserve the right to feel differently about things.

**John:** Wait, I want to stop you there. Reserve the right to feel differently, reserve the right to change your mind?

**Megana:** Yes, I reserve the right to change my mind, which social media and the internet does not respect or it’s not a thing that is really possible on the internet.

**Craig:** You monster.

**John:** You monstrous hypocrite. How could you possibly change your mind?

**Craig:** How dare you?

**Megana:** I agree. I also grew up with social media. Me and my friends all got MySpaces and Xangas when we were 12 years old. No 12-year-old has anything interesting to say. I think that around 2014 I was grossed out by the way it felt like everyone around me was behaving in a way that they could then curate to social media instead of just living. After that, I just stopped posting stuff. I’m still on social media. I’m still on Facebook because there are certain groups that I get information from and message boards. I wish that I didn’t have to be on Facebook, but I am, because of that. I’m on Twitter because of writing and work stuff. Then I’m on Instagram. I’m actually not really on Instagram that much. I wish that I didn’t have to be on any of these things, because I think that there is some value in them, but for me in my life it’s mostly a negative.

**John:** You’re distinguishing between you’re a consumer of these things but you’re not a producer of content for these things. That’s an absolutely valid choice. Basically, it is helpful for you sometimes to get this stuff coming in. There obviously can be toxic effects of that too. I guess back to Sara Schaefer’s point, you don’t feel the need to comment on everything that’s happening, passing by. You’re very judicious about what you put out there in the world. You got to go up and see Craig in Calgary, and Bo, and hang out with them. I got to see pictures of beautiful stuff up in Calgary, which is great. I was so happy to see you posting that kind of stuff. You could share that with people who would be interested in seeing those things, but you didn’t have to weigh in on bigger issues.

**Megana:** I think another thing with social media is that especially with the new Facebook algorithm and the metaverse overhaul or whatever, it favors extreme opinions. Most people don’t have extreme opinions. Most people think pretty similarly about things. When I’m on social media, I’m like, “Oh my god, this world is so polarized.” When you go outside and talk to people, you realize that’s not actually the case at all.

**John:** I will stand up for the fact that Oreo Thin cookies are the best version of Oreos, and the dark chocolate Oreo Thins are the best version of Oreo Thins. That’s the hot take that I will stand by.

**Craig:** Guess what? You’re a garbage person.

**John:** Tell me why I’m wrong. Tell me what is the actual correct answer for what is the best store-bought cookie.

**Craig:** You may absolutely be right, but I feel that my job is to express outrage. Where is the outrage? I love when people on Twitter are like, “Where is the outrage?” I’m like, are you kidding me? What else is there here? “Where is the salt?” says man drowning in ocean. It just doesn’t make any sense.

**Megana:** One thing that was nice is John and I went to the Bans Off Our Body March in LA, what was it, two weeks ago?

**John:** Yeah.

**Megana:** The Supreme Court leak and the stuff about Roe v Wade is something that is incredibly frustrating and painful. I see so many hot takes on social media. First of all, found out about the march through social media. Being able to be in a physical space with people was so affirming. That’s all I wanted to say.

**John:** You just don’t know how many people there are on Twitter. You can see all these things scroll by in your timeline, but when you’re actually physically in a space with a bunch of people, you’re like, oh, these are all as upset and angry and scared as I am, and they’re all coming together to stand up for something, is meaningful. Shouting there was meaningful because we were all shouting together. Shouting at each other on Twitter is not doing any good.

**Megana:** There’s no room for anyone to “well, actually” you at that march.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Exactly, because you were experiencing real community. These places call themselves virtual communities, but that’s an oxymoron. You need to see people. You need to be with people. It’s why sporting events are still popular. Everyone has the best seat in the house to see any baseball game they want, any football game they want, and still, tens of thousands of people go every day in each individual city to see a team play because it’s community. It’s physical community. Fuck you, Meta. It’s not going to work. It’s just not.

**John:** Craig, what I hear you saying is that while you love Scriptnotes as this podcast, we need to go back to doing our live shows and we need to get all 40,000 of our listeners together in a stadium to listen together to a Scriptnotes recording.

**Craig:** That would be good if they would all agree to show up on the same day. It’s true, the pandemic, we worked around the lack of physical communion, but it’s just not the same. We were designed to live in space, in reality and space, and not in this disconnected fucking void. It is of course a system that is built on shouting, will encourage shouting. Sometimes people say, “Twitter just makes everybody mean.” I don’t think it’s Twitter that’s making people mean. I think it’s people being assholes make people mean. It’s the “well, actually” people. They have no control over themselves. They don’t know how to use this. They don’t know how to drink the alcohol, and so they’re ruining the party for everybody. All my metaphors collided, smashed together. I don’t care. It’s awful. Talk about a really hot, hot, hot take. Is there anything more Twitter than complaining about Twitter?

**John:** Nope. The circle is now complete.

**Craig:** The circle is complete.

**John:** Thank you guys.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [Ryan’s Elvis Question on Twitter](https://twitter.com/ryanbeardmusic/status/1527078914304053249?s=20&t=mxVqjmJlJB_h7npBbI0w8Q)
* Follow along with our Three Page Challenge Selections: [Tag – You’re It](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F05%2FTag-3-pages.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=8f19a8a60a86d95ebd750d8d808c7e0f41086178fa494e7a66c4dbe1303ca6d8) by Suw Charman-Anderson, [Halloween Party](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F05%2FHalloween-Party-first-three.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=1e53d05e5ac4750e18d1cce9b4ec22f64a7ed94e761e27be5ad312169555a61e) by Lucas Abreu & Zachary Arthur & Kyle Copier, [Belly Up](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F05%2FBELLY-UP-three-page-challenge.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=196cabefbb46451a9202a4b18c5fa5693fe28c48046c0a556434856eceb54b11) by Emme Harris
* [Blockbuster, the Party Game](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WMWNYNN?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_FAJ764ZAMGTXGQZ1V9AB)
* [The Hanger Reflex](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7788272/#:~:text=The%20hanger%20reflex%20is%20a,the%20cause%20of%20this%20phenomenon)
* [Sara Schaefer Silence Video](https://twitter.com/saraschaefer1/status/1527385667583365133?s=20&t=Xs601W2CeWgx8WrXLbPCXQ)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Nico Mansy ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and 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/552standard.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (74)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.