• 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 Ep 418: The One with David Koepp, Transcript

September 26, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/the-one-with-david-koepp).

**Craig Mazin:** Hi friends. Today’s podcast contains some salty language, so if you are in the car with the young ones put their earmuffs on or wait to listen to it later.

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 418 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the program we are joined by legendary screenwriter David Koepp whose credits include Jurassic Park, Death Becomes Her, Carlito’s Way, Mission: Impossible, Spider-Man, and Panic Room. His seventh movie as director, You Should Have Left, comes out next year. But his first novel, the bio-thriller Cold Storage, has just come out to rave reviews.

Welcome to the program David Koepp.

**David Koepp:** Thank you. Nice to be here, guys.

**Craig:** I have not heard of any of those movies. I’ve got to be honest. Can you say them again? Because I don’t recognize any of them.

**David:** I should mention I also wrote Guns of Navarone.

**Craig:** No. [laughs] Also drawing a blank.

**David:** That was 1958. No, but you know.

**Craig:** When you were a mere 30.

**David:** I was negative five.

**Craig:** I don’t know about you John, but of the many David Koepp films that you just mentioned that I love, it was Death Becomes Her that made me an early Koepp fan. What a surprising movie. I just had no idea what I was in for. And then it was just this wonderfully wicked dark thing. No one would ever make it today.

**David:** No.

**Craig:** In a million years. But it was so literate and smart.

**David:** Universal was kind of regretful while they were making it.

**Craig:** Oh wow.

**David:** I remember, OK, are anecdotes allowed–

**John:** Absolutely. This is an anecdotes show.

**Craig:** Mother’s milk on this show.

**David:** I wrote it with Martin Donovan who I did my first movie, Apartment Zero, with. And we wrote this script which we assumed would be another weird dark indie sort of comedy-ish.

**Craig:** Ish.

**David:** You know. But I sold this to Universal and Casey Silver who was very supportive at the time, he sent it around. And he called me one day and he said, “Bob Zemeckis wants to direct Death Becomes Her.” And he said it with such resignation.

**Craig:** Like we have to make this movie now? [laughs] Yeah, by the way, nothing has changed at Universal. That’s kind of their, “Ah, darn it, we have to make a movie.”

**David:** You know, he was just off like all three Back to the Futures and they wanted something big and great and hugely profitable.

**Craig:** You said I’ll show you.

**David:** And he said, no, I’m going to do this weird one. And I’m still going to throw her down the stairs.

**John:** Totally challenging.

**Craig:** But what a cast. I mean, you still got this great cast.

**David:** It came together beautifully and it was big and weird and stuck around. There’s a drag show of it that pops up in different cities from time to time and I tried to go in London and I couldn’t make it. Anyway, I would love to see it sometime.

**Craig:** We should go together.

**John:** We should.

**David:** Absolutely.

**John:** Well today while we have you on the show I would love to talk about adaptations, embargoes, books, the modern blockbuster, which I think you had an outsized role in helping to shape. But we also have some listener questions which are just for you because I tweeted out that you were going to be on the show. And so people wrote in with specific questions for you to answer on this podcast.

**David:** Great. Can I set that I always like – when I listen to a podcast I like to have a visual of what’s going on. So just in terms of what we’re wearing.

**John:** Absolutely.

**David:** I’m in a lightweight, dark blue, worsted, you know, suitable to the environment, but mindful of the calendar.

**Craig:** Sure.

**David:** John is in a t-shirt. Looks like it says, “It’s wine o’clock somewhere.” Craig is shirtless, which is cool.

**Craig:** And also worsted.

**John:** Craig is wearing an ascot. I think it’s important that people get the full visual.

**David:** Obviously that was a bit of material I worked on. Now everything else will be spontaneous.

**Craig:** No, this is nice. And we’re on the beach. Let’s go.

**John:** So I would love to start with the thing that I mentioned your name most in relation to is when people talk about adaptations and they talk about how difficult it is to take all the information that is in a book and put it in a visual form so that that author who could just directly tell you a bunch of a stuff as a screenwriter you have to find a way to show a bunch of stuff. And I always single out a moment in the first Jurassic Park where the audience and the people who just arrived on the island have to understand what it is that’s being done on the island and sort of how DNA processing works.

So I imagine in Michael Crichton’s book, which I read a zillion years ago, it’s probably 20 pages worth of material, going back all through this. In the film that you wrote it is an animated sequence which they are watching in a little exploratory–

**Craig:** In a theme park style goofy tone.

**John:** And so we’re watching the actors watch this little thing. Can I play a clip of what – this scene?

**David:** Please.

**Craig:** Think he’ll get money for this.

[Clip plays]

**David:** Kind of sounded like they’re taking a dump there in that last part. That’s a long time that it can directly download exposition into the audience’s head.

**Craig:** Today they would say to you, “OK that’s great. Now do it in one-third as much time, or maybe a quarter of as much time.” I feel like they wouldn’t let you go on that long today.

**David:** No. It would be problematic. It was a real gift that it was a theme park. And so we were wrestling all this exposition stuff to the ground and how do you have five or six scientists standing around talking to each other for so long and make it interesting. And we had two great advantages. One was Jeff Goldblum who is so charming and has such offbeat line readings that, you know, he can read stereo instructions and they sound witty and unusual. And the other was that it was a theme park. So I would love to say Mr. DNA was entirely my idea but it wasn’t. Steven said, “They’re in a theme park. Can’t there be a little movie?”

And one of us said, well, what’s there supposed to be like an animated guy, like Mr. DNA?

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** Exactly that.

**David:** Mr. DNA.

**Craig:** Yes!

**David:** So it was kind of lifted from, I don’t know if you saw this in your seventh grade health class in middle school, but Hemo the Magnificent was about your blood. And it was a live action movie but it had an animated character in it, Hemo, and he would tell you all about blood. And I remember he had an accent for some reason.

**Craig:** They always would.

**David:** Because you have to throw in a little fun. It’s animation.

**Craig:** I’m in your body.

**David:** So they were there and they were getting the tour, well then you can have the little movie on the tour. And the idea of going into full frame animation in the middle of this great big summer movie kind of tickled us and was really fun. So we had these built in advantages in a great performer in a flexible premise that let us get away with a lot of that.

**John:** Well what was so clever about it is that usually the problem you run into is that there’s information that you need the audience to understand but some of the characters in that scene would already know the information. So the Sam Neil character would already have that information, so it does not make any sense to tell it to him. But the fact that it’s already a pre-filmed piece of animation.

**David:** And the scientists are beyond it. They want to go – they keep saying, OK, OK, they’re trying to get out of the little ride thing so they can go to where it’s more interesting. Because we know this and this is for nine year olds. But we’re like, yeah, but we want to sell tickets to nine year olds.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, I would argue that the real gift you had may have been more that there were kids there. Because somebody needs to explain this to kids. And when it comes to science the audience is probably not that far off from kids in the sense of well a lot of people don’t know what DNA is or how it functions. And they certainly don’t understand how you brought dinosaurs back to life. But if you have two kids, whether it’s a theme park movie or just somebody sitting down and going, OK, let me just draw in the sand with a stick.

Characters that don’t know things are the most beneficial for writers who need the audience to know things. Otherwise you end up with the terrible, “As you know…”

**David:** Exactly. How long have we been brothers? It’s why journalists and detectives are so great. Because they fundamentally have to find something out. So, asking questions doesn’t seem like it’s morally safer. You know, it seems like they’re working toward a discernible goal.

**John:** What happens at the end of this clip is that we do see Sam Neil and Goldblum and everyone are trying to push to get beyond just the information that was in this little thing. And that’s the other crucial thing about an information dump is like if there’s no conflict, if there’s no drive, if the characters don’t want anything in it it’s going to feel flat. So, we get to see the characters respond to that information by trying to push past. You’re still keeping the scene alive even as this information is coming at us.

**David:** Yes. Also the animation format let us jump to the really apropos visuals. We didn’t see it, we just heard the audio, but when they’re explaining how the mosquito is trapped in amber there’s one really great visual of a mosquito on a branch and amber oozing over it and the mosquito getting trapped. And you really understand in that image, because images always express it so much better than words.

**John:** So talk us through the process of adapting Jurassic Park into the screenplay. At what point did it come to you and at what point did you have to figure out these are the beats of the movie. This is how the movie wants to tell itself. What was the process for you in getting the book and then being able to report back like this is how I can make the movie version of this?

**David:** So I was at Universal and they still used to do overall deals then. So they had been through a couple writers on Jurassic Park and it wasn’t – it was really hard to work out so it wasn’t quite coming together. And they were a little bit running out of time which is always the best time to enter a project if you can.

**Craig:** Right.

**David:** If you can work it that way.

**Craig:** There’s only so much disagreement they can do.

**David:** Yeah. And so Casey Silver actually suggested me to Steven and said, “Try this guy, he’s on the payroll so he’s super cheap and seems like he’s relatively fast. Why don’t you see what you can get?” So I read it and I thought, wow, this is really difficult. But I had an approach, so I went and met Steven and told him this is what I think. And he said, “Great. Do that.” And so with really very little guidance up front. I mean, a few general – and to this day he’ll give you some general stuff, but he really wants to see what you do. And you go try. I know what I think. Avoid this, avoid that. I’d love to see this. And in that case he had a couple sequences where he said – the T-rex attack on the road basically was already storyboarded and he said, “I don’t know who the people are, but this is what happens in the sequence. See if you can figure it out.”

And so there was, again, built in advantages. But it was winnowing the characters and who needed to be combined. How does the tone of the book, which is pretty dark and not necessarily going to sustain in – it’s not that it was, well, we want a wider audience than that. It was Steven’s viewpoint is more uplifting than that. So if you give him something that’s, you know, this is the guy who found the uplifting tale about the Holocaust. It’s just his world view. So to try to find a lighter tone, preserve a few characters who used to die, and find a different approach for Hammond and stuff like that.

So I just kind of came in and told them what I thought. And then I went and did an outline. And it just kind of went well.

**Craig:** This is something that you probably thought had a good chance of going well. It’s Steven Spielberg. It’s a bestselling novel.

**David:** Well you didn’t. That was the thing. Because it was ’92 when we made the movie. So it was the dawn of CG.

**Craig:** Right.

**David:** So really the last reference of dinosaurs was still Ray Harryhausen, which is referred to in the movie with the “when dinosaurs ruled the earth” banner that floats down. So everything – stop motion was the last time we’d seen dinosaurs on film I think.

**Craig:** Or Guys in Suits.

**David:** The remake of King Kong didn’t do them. Yeah. So the notion that they were going to be realistic was just a leap of faith. And they could have been laughable. And I remember the test – there was going to be a lot more robotic dinosaurs initially. Stan Winston, you know, there’s a ton of robotic stuff in it. Stan Winston did great work but basically if you see them from the head up it’s robotry and if you see their legs it’s CG.

But I remember the day it all changed was this test came back from ILM that was a velociraptor running in place. And it was just the skeleton. There was no musculature, no skin or anything. And we were in the Amblin screening room and watched this test and it was so cool. And the movement was so smooth and not herky-jerky at all that everybody thought, “Oh, this might work. This actually might work.”

**Craig:** That’s so interesting. So your frame of reference was stop motion which is characterized by its herky-jerkiness because there’s only so many, I mean, you are moving it physically so you can’t make a thousand movements a second. You can make 24 movements a second, which turns out to be pretty herky-jerky, or even fewer.

So it was simply the smoothness of the motion. Before you see textures. Before you see anything. That’s what got you?

**David:** Yeah. It was.

**Craig:** Fascinating.

**David:** And also the only other big CG movie there had been, I may be wrong, but it seems was Terminator 2. But that used really fluid and inhuman stuff.

**Craig:** Right. It was shiny liquid metal.

**David:** Right. Which is totally cool, but it wasn’t like trying to create an animal. And dinosaurs were supposed to be real animals, not monsters. There was always a thing, you’d get fined on the set if you’d call them a monster. They’re animals. They’re not monsters.

Yeah, so it was very much a gamble.

**Craig:** And then on the other side of it coming out, now you’ve got this enormous blockbuster under your belt, a true blockbuster. When it’s time for you to write your next one do you now – I’m just always curious about how success impacts us as writers. Do things change? Do you now feel like, OK, I’m aiming for something now? Or do you just ignore all of it and do your job?

**David:** It’s really hard to – I feel like I stayed a very decent human being.

**Craig:** Oh, you are. I don’t mean according to me. I’m not a great judge of character.

**David:** And I think I’ve done good writing on and off. But it’s very hard. I was 29 when it came out, or just turning 30. And it became the biggest movie of all time. There’s no way that doesn’t just fuck you up. If only in that – can you ever be satisfied again? You know? And I really feel like it took me till my early 50s – I’m 56 now – to where I felt like I’m going to stop feeling like, gosh, you know, sure would be great to have another one of those someday. And I’m going to feel like, well, there will never be another one of those but I’m grateful that I had it. What an extraordinary experience. How lucky am I?

**Craig:** Right.

**David:** I feel like it took a very long time. And I did have, you know, I wrote a lot of bigger movies, but a lot of that – a lot of it is because I love those movies. And I had a great time writing them. Usually. Sometimes had a horrific time writing them. But those are the movies that I wanted to go see. And that was always my litmus test was would I want to pay, you know, whatever a ticket costs at the time to sit down and see this movie. Would it make me happy to sneak in a burrito at lunch time and watch this movie?

And I feel like I obeyed that all the time. And with varying degrees of success. Sometimes even if you say that you’re kind of doing it because it feels like well that would be a hit and wouldn’t it be fun to have a hit. But I don’t know, your sincerity gets sniffed out pretty quickly I think by the gods.

**John:** Well going from a giant blockbuster adaptation to this next movie you’re going to – the movie you directed, I Think You Should Leave, is based on an incredibly slender German novel.

**David:** It’s actually You Should Have Left.

**John:** You Should Have Left.

**David:** It’s much more conclusive. It’s not an expression of opinion.

**Craig:** That sounds even shorter. That’s so German. You should have left.

**David:** Really.

**John:** I’m confusing it with there’s a Netflix show I Think You Should Leave. And You Should Have Left.

**David:** This is after. And I’ve seen that show. It should leave.

**John:** Yes. So it’s a tiny paranoid, it’s almost more like a Panic Room situation where it’s a metaphysical kind of haunted house, you know, Borgesian sort of stuck in a place. What draws you to that kind of adaptation after doing these giant, you know, Da Vinci Code kind of adaptations?

**David:** Well, I’ve always tried – I like all different kinds of movies, so I’ve really tried to mix it up. And I also, you know how it is. If you’re lucky enough to have a success in any area that’s what Hollywood would like you very much to replicate.

**Craig:** Is that so? [laughs]

**David:** There’s a lot of unanswered questions from Chernobyl. I really think you could go back to them. I do. There’s at least 10 more episodes in that. What happened between the episodes? There’s 10 more shows in there, easy.

**Craig:** Oh, between. Everybody just sleeps. Of course. They just sleep. They don’t move. They just sleep.

**David:** But I, you know, try to throw them off the scent a little bit. Try to keep it fresh for yourself and do things that are interesting and different. I’ve always felt like in my original stuff, and I’ve tried to split my time about 50/50. And I have. It’s just the originals get made less often.

In my original stuff I’m drawn to slightly darker, certainly paranoid kind of things. And it also helped as a writer when it’s not an adaptation by having a very well defined bottle. You know, in Panic Room it was I never wanted to leave the house. And I almost succeeded. There’s a few minutes at the beginning and a scene at the end where they’re outside the house. The Paper is a movie I wrote about journalism with my brother and it was 24 hours. It was exactly what was then the news cycle, from 7am to 7am. And within that structure, once I have the box I feel like now I can decide what goes in it. And I feel actually freed by the constraint. Because when you can just pick from anything—

**Craig:** It’s overwhelming.

**David:** Exactly. It’s too difficult. Even Lawrence of Arabia had containment. It was a period of this guy’s life.

So, I feel like I forgot the question.

**John:** Well going back to You Should Have Left, it has a tremendous amount of constraint because essentially you get to a house and you’re at that house. It’s almost a Blumhouse kind of model where it’s a very–

**David:** It is a Blumhouse.

**John:** Oh, it’s literally the Blumhouse model.

**David:** As a matter of fact, yeah.

**Craig:** It is the Blumhouse model. Because it’s Blumhouse.

**David:** It’s a model for Blumhouse.

**Craig:** Well that’s new for them.

**David:** But even before they were involved I thought these are going to be the guys for this. That one I really wanted to do, heavily mixed feelings about directing, because it can be great fun and incredibly satisfying when you get something the way you want it. And whether it’s successful or not, it’s the way you want it. But it takes over your life and ruins it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**David:** Just physically, emotionally, socially, domestically awful.

**John:** It’s been 10 years between my last directing thing largely because of that thing. I just couldn’t, you know, I had a young kid. I just couldn’t go off and do it.

**Craig:** I’m not. I don’t see any reason to direct. There’s all these wonderful directors out there.

**David:** It’s dog’s work. It really is.

**Craig:** That’s what John Lee Hancock calls it. Dog’s work.

**David:** I think I got it from him via Scott Frank.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s probably right. It’s dog’s work. But you keep doing the dog’s work.

**David:** Yeah, isn’t that weird? I know.

**Craig:** You’re into it.

**David:** You should talk to my wife about that.

**Craig:** I will.

**David:** No, she’s articulate on the subject. But also resigned. She’s like, “No, I don’t think you should do it. I think it makes you unhappy. We’re fine. We’ll cope. We’ll miss you. But you’re miserable. But good luck, sweetie. I hope it goes well.”

But yeah, You Should Have Left, there were a couple things. Kevin Bacon is a great actor and I saw a potential for something really special for him to do. And he’s done a spectacular job with it. I wanted to do – I like a bottle. And I wanted to do this little family in this weird place and strange things happen to them. He’s not a writer. In the book he was a writer, but I don’t think the world needs anymore movies about writers.

**John:** He’s literally a screenwriter in the book.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s terrible.

**David:** That was the first thing we changed.

**Craig:** That’s awful.

**David:** Nobody wants to see a movie about us.

**Craig:** Nobody.

**David:** Unless you guys are writing one, in which case.

**Craig:** If we are we should stop.

**David:** I implore you to stop. And the last movie I directed before that was this kind of catastrophe in every way, shape, and form.

**Craig:** Which I liked.

**David:** And I couldn’t leave it like that. There are many likeable things in it and I thank you for that.

**Craig:** No problem. It’s really funny.

**David:** There are bits that are funny. But it’s inarguable that critically, commercially, and personally—

**Craig:** Oh yeah. Absolute disaster.

**David:** It was horrible. [laughs]

**John:** This was Mortdecai.

**David:** But I didn’t want to leave it at that. I felt like well I don’t want to ever direct again, but I certainly don’t want to leave it at that.

**Craig:** I can’t go out that way.

**David:** Yeah, right.

**Craig:** So you’re literally making a movie just to say—

**David:** No, because I liked the subject matter a lot and I love Kevin and I felt like he could do something special.

**Craig:** Good. And?

**David:** And I could cleanse the palate in what’s worse the hard way. Just one more man. Just one more. Just one more.

**Craig:** I have, well you know what I like about you?

**David:** Hmm?

**Craig:** So much. And, you know, full disclosure we’ve been friends for a while, so this is genuine. But aside from being a terrific writer who has this remarkable track record and really does deserve what John said at the beginning. You are one of our legends. You take huge swings. It’s not like you’ve sat on your laurels. You’re not one of those guys who said, “OK, well you know what? I’m going to make these two huge movies and now I’ll just show up every six years to sprinkle my magic fairy dust on something that was already going to be beloved anyway.” You take big swings. You’re always risking things to get out there. And whether it works or it doesn’t work commercially or critically or any of that stuff, I think that’s wonderful.

I think there are so many people who are so petrified of violating whatever it is, their own brand. I mean, when people say the word brand I lose my shit. Because it’s essentially the antithesis of what we’re supposed to be doing as writers or artists which is being genuine. And that should mean taking swings. So I just think that’s wonderful that you do it and that you’re still doing it.

**David:** I’m trying. You know, I admire Steven Soderbergh’s career a lot. And he’s a great guy. You know, he really takes a cut at stuff. Sometimes, you know, he hits that one. And other times you’re like, whoa.

**Craig:** That’s what a big swing is.

**David:** Exactly.

**Craig:** I mean, when you swing hard and you fall down everyone laughs.

**David:** I was a bit surprised as long as we brought up the M word, this movie I directed recently, I was a bit surprised not that it got bad reviews, because certainly by the time it comes to reviews you’ve shown it to enough audiences and enough people and you’re getting a sense that the reaction is less than enthusiastic.

**Craig:** You’ve caught trouble in the air.

**David:** But the anger does surprise you. Because I felt we didn’t hurt anyone. And it was by no means a safe choice. We were trying to make like a 1966 comedy like Terry Thomas would have made.

**Craig:** I’m so with you.

**David:** That’s gutsy.

**Craig:** I thought people just – at least, look, people, I can’t blame people for liking or not liking things. But I thought at least critically this pile on and this kind of orgy of delightful hatred completely missed the point of what you’re just saying, which is, you know, they will say, “Oh, well here comes another super hero movie, blah, blah, blah.” Well, OK, here’s someone taking a shot. If you think it doesn’t work, explain it. But you’re right. When was the last time a movie studio released a Terry Thomas style comedy which is sort of in and of its time, but out of its own time. And there’s slapstick. And the most bizarre stuff. And an entire plot line about a mustache. It’s just wonderful. I thought, I don’t know, listen, a lot of people think that my taste in movies is terrible because of so many of them that I’ve written.

I don’t care.

**David:** It’s also a thing about comedy, though. If a horror movie doesn’t work out they’ll say, well, that wasn’t that scary. If a drama doesn’t work out they’ll say, well—

**John:** They didn’t care.

**David:** Yeah, I didn’t like the guy.

**Craig:** “Didn’t love it,” is what they say.

**David:** Yeah, I didn’t love it.

**Craig:** I didn’t love it.

**John:** I won’t say that anymore.

**David:** Comedy comes out they say, “That was horrible. That was a terrible set.”

**Craig:** How dare they?

**David:** Exactly. Those assholes. You’ve really angered people.

**Craig:** Yeah, no, comedy is the hardest. It’s the most punishing. And even in great success people are like, oh, yeah, that was funny. You know what I mean? They don’t give you the Oscar. It’s, yeah. Yeah. Well, see. I’m grouching.

**John:** Talking about swings and doing different stuff, this is your first book.

**David:** This is really fun. I can write about stuff that will never see the screen. I can write what someone is thinking or feeling, which as you know there’s no way to access it other than their faces or their dialogue. And I just started having a lot of fun. So within about three pages I thought, OK, it’s a – then I began the lying the process. I said – because I didn’t want to face how much work it would be to write a book. And so I said, well, it’s probably a short story. And so by page 25 I was like it’s not a short story. It’s a novella. Yeah.

So I got to page 100 and my friend John Kamps said, “You must admit it’s a book.” Because I could digress. I could go into three – when I was in high school I worked at a McDonald’s for a couple of years. So there’s a character in the book, he’s not even one of the main characters, and he’s the manager of this storage place. And he’s a jerk. And I got to go three pages into where he used to work before he came to the storage place and talk about life working at McDonald’s, which I thought was fascinating. And it was to me anyway.

And, no, the book is not 600 pages. I mean, 30 years of screenwriting impulses came to bear. Exactly. But especially because the book was going to have a lot of science I had this incredible freedom to explore and expound and I like to learn stuff that I didn’t know before. And I like science that is somewhat accessible and compellingly told. When you come across somebody like Brian Greene or somebody like that who is just a really good science explainer. They’re fascinating. They’re like the teachers whose classes you loved the most. You know, there’s a reason like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson and the really good explainers are popular.

**Craig:** Yes.

**David:** So I wanted to be able to – also I think science can be very funny because the natural world is really brutal. It’s just mean and nasty.

**John:** It doesn’t care about you.

**Craig:** No, no, good lord no.

**David:** No.

**John:** So, as you’re writing this as a novel, you’ve accepted that you’re writing this as a novel, some part of your brain must also be thinking like, Ok, well this could also be a movie. I mean, it’s a movie style premise. And so how are you balancing the David Koepp novelist versus David Koepp screenwriter who is going to have to adapt this? Did you try to balance that all in your head?

**David:** It’s hard. You and I talked about it a little bit from your books and your experiences with it. And you really have to actively squelch that part. Because the screenwriter part of you, the first thing I do when I’m adapting a book is I do scene cards for the whole book and I lay the structure out and look at it on a table and figure out how that happened. And then I start just – obviously we’re not going to have the scene where they go visit her daughter. That’s useless. And chuck out a bunch of stuff.

But the scene where they go visit her daughter may be the whole reason somebody wrote that book. It just doesn’t fit in a movie. So, I really tried to tell the screenwriter part of myself to shut up because they wouldn’t let me do the three pages on McDonald’s. And it’s not in the screenplay, which it’s a first draft of.

**Craig:** Oh, so you are doing the screenplay of this?

**David:** I did, yes.

**Craig:** Oh, you already did?

**David:** Or I am. It depends who you ask. I feel I’m nearly done.

**Craig:** Oh, and they do not?

**David:** We’ll see. Opinions vary.

**John:** So it’s a fascinating that a person with 30 credits and a giant career still gets that sense from a studio of like, oh no, this isn’t really the draft.

**Craig:** Not just 30 credits.

**John:** 30 giant.

**Craig:** Let’s just list some of them again. By the way, that’s the studio that is being held aloft by Mission: Impossible which was started by David Koepp. And they’re sort of like, “Uh, we don’t know if you’re done yet.” I kind of love that.

**David:** Everybody’s got thoughts, you know.

**Craig:** Everybody’s got thoughts.

**David:** That’s the thing, though. In a book–

**Craig:** No one has thoughts.

**David:** They don’t have their thoughts.

**John:** No, absolutely.

**David:** And your editor, Zach Wagman who is the editor of this, I was just stunned – it was the first time in 30 years someone had spoken to me about the writing as if they viewed it as essentially mine instead of essentially theirs.

**Craig:** It’s a lovely thing. That is a lovely thing.

**John:** So let’s talk about that. So we physically have a copy here sitting on the table, and what is so different about writing a book versus writing a screenplay is that this book is finished. Like you cannot go back and change stuff in it. It is actually done and the Cold Storage that you intended to write is that book. And it is just done and finished. In a way is it liberating now that you’re going to the screenplay knowing that you can make different choices and it doesn’t go back and change the original document?

Because so often when I’m approached to do an adaptation I’ll talk with the author and I’ll sit down with them and say like, “Listen, you wrote a fantastic book. I will not change anything in your book. But I will change some things in the movie because it’s a movie and just works under different things.” In some ways—

**David:** Some of them will appreciate that, and some of them—

**John:** And I’ve had both situations. And some really rough situations.

**David:** Have you ever forged a working relationship with the author of a book?

**John:** Yes. Daniel Wallace who wrote Big Fish. I sat down with him and he had never read a screenplay before until I showed him the screenplay for Big Fish. We talked about sort of all the stuff that’s sort of off stage in the book that he wrote. And he loved it. He became a screenwriter. And he’s still an active part of every version of Big Fish. And he’s in the movie Big Fish. So he’s deeply involved in it.

But something like Jurassic Park, were you talking with Crichton about stuff?

**David:** No. Almost always everything goes through the director and it’s better that way. The only time I ever really needed the author of the book and he was great was Edwin Torres who wrote the books that Carlito’s Way was based on. And I needed him because I could adapt the books but it was Spanish Harlem in the mid ‘70s. Not my background. It was his life story. Everybody in that book is somebody he knew. And I just – I needed to be able to talk to him. And he was great and loquacious. It helped that he wasn’t only a novelist. He was a New York State Supreme Court judge. So he viewed novel writing as novel. And he viewed a movie from one of his books as just like the greatest party of all time. So he was excited about it.

**Craig:** He had a day job so—

**David:** Yeah. He’d go to court. I ran into him in New York the other day. And he was colorful when I – this was 25 years ago and he was probably in his mid-50s. So now he’s probably closer to 80 and he’s just let his colorful flag fly.

**Craig:** I love it.

**David:** I said, “Judge Torres is that you?” He said, “You bet it is.”

**Craig:** What a cool guy.

**John:** Now, David, you brought up Carlito’s Way and I think that was the first screenplay of yours I ever read. So I was working as an intern at Universal when you guys were making Carlito’s Way. So I got to read the script for Carlito’s Way.

**David:** On paper probably.

**John:** On paper. With brads in it. The whole thing.

**Craig:** And the words Carlito’s Way written in Sharpie on the outside.

**John:** Yes. That whole process that young people will never understand. How you had to slam the script on the edge, and hold it down. You brought in the Sharpie so you could stack them or put them on the shelf.

**Craig:** Stack them in the shelf.

**John:** I remember reading that and as opposed to the James Cameron scripts I was reading at the same time, you wrote a really dense page. There was a lot happening. Those were dense pages. Over your long career have you seen the form of screenwriting change at all or at least the form of screenplays change at all? I feel like we are much lighter and airier now than when I started. I’m wondering if you’ve noticed any differences over the years.

**David:** Yeah. I try not to be as dense as that. Sometimes, I don’t often have a reason to go back and look at my old stuff, but like if I’m moving boxes around or something I’ll say, oh yeah, look at that. And I open it and then I think, wow, I used way fewer double dashes and spaces and I wrote whole sentences. This is pretty good. I had a decent attention span back then.

I don’t know if maybe it’s fatuous that all of our attention spans have changed and we want to assimilate information faster. But also that particular story was – it was ruminative. Because it was a guy’s memory in the last minute or two before he dies. I’ve ruined the ending.

**Craig:** He dies.

**David:** Yeah. So, it kind of seemed to suit it. And I had a wealth of literary material to draw on. But, yeah, I think things are a little more spare than they used to be. I think there’s no excuse though for not having good sentences. You know, even if they’re terse and Hemingway-esque sentences. Ideally they would be that. But you can’t write a semi-literate screenplay. You can’t use sentence fragments. You can’t – I feel – you can’t say, “He comes in the room. Sits. Looks around. Something’s not right.” Something’s not right is not bad because it has a noun and a verb.

**Craig:** Something’s not right has a, yeah, there is a certain kind of – you can trip over into a sort of laziness. But also a kind of lack of intention. I mean, John and I talk about this all the time. If you’re going to write things in sort of a short staccato then maybe it’s because the character is a short and staccato kind of person, or the situation is one that it requires fast thinking.

**David:** Or ideally you could vary your rhythms.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** That would be nice.

**David:** There are fuller paragraphs when the movie slows down a little bit.

**Craig:** Sounds like you’re thinking about things is what you’re doing and you’re being a writer. And I don’t know. If I were teaching a class on screenwriting at Stark for instance I would want to teach a class just on the stuff that isn’t dialogue. Because I actually think so much can happen there. So much more than people understand. And for fucking fear of “don’t direct on the page” everyone it seems like there is a generation of screenwriters that have abdicated responsibility.

**David:** Yeah. I hate that. The thing that drives me the craziest is when someone comes out and says, “There’s a spirited chase,” or a big set piece to go here. I’m like who is going to design it? This is your shot.

**Craig:** It’s also your job.

**David:** And you know what? Even if they throw the whole thing out and do their own, it’s still your job.

**Craig:** It’s still your job.

**David:** If it’s a four-minute chase you better cover about four pages to give us simulation of the rhythm of the thing.

**Craig:** Correct. And something surely is happening in this chase that’s relevant to character or–

**John:** And if there’s not then there really is a fundamental problem.

**Craig:** Then it’s just a fucking chase.

**David:** These fucking people.

**Craig:** I mean, you know what, let’s be as old as cranky as we can possibly be. Let’s go maximum crank.

**David:** But you also – you can direct on the page. You just can’t use the word “camera.”

**Craig:** You don’t have to. [laughs]

**David:** Or anything like that. I hate to keep referring to the early ‘90s, but I don’t know, it was a nice period. One of the early lessons I learned about writing for a director was Zemeckis in Death Becomes Her said, there’s a moment Meryl Streep’s character is teetering at the top of the stars. And then he pushes her down with like a finger. And when we wrote the script I put, “For a moment she just hangs there like Wile E. Coyote off the edge of the cliff.” And he said that told me more about the style of the movie than anything. Because it was sort of heightened Chuck Jones reality.

**Craig:** Exactly. Exactly. Tone.

**David:** It’s only a few words. It doesn’t take forever. And it doesn’t refer to any specific shot. It refers to a feeling.

**Craig:** Direction. Ugh.

**John:** The sense of what’s supposed to be there. We’ve got some questions that are specific to you, so can we ask you some questions?

**David:** Please.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** Why are you such a legend? [laughs]

**John:** I would love to know how David’s approach to action sequences has changed across films like Mission: Impossible, Spider-Man, and Indy.

**David:** I don’t think it really has changed that much. I think you have to fully imagine the sequence. I mean, all those are different situations. So, it depends on the director. Like Mission: Impossible I worked out those set pieces De Palma specifically beforehand. The last Indiana Jones movie it depends. Sometimes Steven would tell me something or we’d work it out together. Other times he’d say, “Well take a crack at it.” And I’d take a crack at it first.
I think that – as we were just saying – it’s always a writer’s responsibility to do it first.
I would beware of dense paragraphs in an action sequence because you’re supposed to have a sense that the movie is moving faster. Because it has to be a reading experience first let the eye move quickly across the page. But I think I’ve preserved the same approach to action sequences, or suspense, which is that you have to take them really seriously and allow yourself – there’s a big set piece in the middle of the movie, say, OK, well that’s three day’s work. Take it seriously and don’t just dash it off. And certainly don’t abdicate. You know, make it as exciting as you would want it to be in the movie.

**John:** I always describe action sequences as being the musical numbers in an action. So it’s like you may have stopped the characters talking but you’ve moved into a higher register. And you’re communicating this thing, but it’s still just as important as all the dialogue that happened before it. So it has to feel like there’s a reason why we’re doing this big production number here. And we’re going to come out of it with a new place, with characters having gotten someplace new. And otherwise it’s just a bunch of–

**Craig:** It’s just stuff.

**John:** It’s just stuff.

**Craig:** Which is probably why some writers abdicate because if you think about your analogy, when people sing in a movie musical perhaps the writer is concerned that they don’t know what’s supposed to happen other than the singing. And similarly if there’s a chase, like what’s supposed to happen other than [makes car noises].

But environment becomes an enormous thing. How you’re interacting with the environment. What choices can you be making on screen that are not specifically about turning the wheel to the left or the right? What’s changing so that you’re not just driving or just singing?

It’s hard work. Those are the hardest things to write. I mean, well, they’re really arduous to write I find. You know, because there’s so many more decisions that are happening per page in those sequences then a conversation which maybe there are a lot of decisions but they come a bit – I’m a bit more – I find those more accessible.

**David:** I actually find in – because my outline will be 3×5 cards on the coffee table. And there may only be one card for the sequence. But then when I get to the sequence I get out a legal pad and I just put down all my ideas for the sequence with dashes. And that’ll be three or four pages. Then I go back through and number them because the order may be very different from – you know, you have moments in your mind that you think belong there.

And you know generally at the beginning they’re breaking into the bank and at the end they’re driving away in the car. But in between that are all your action-y moments.

The other thing to consider is consider carefully can you cut that sequence and the story still tells? Because you have a big problem if so.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Totally.

**David:** And it’s the same with a song I would imagine. If you can cut it completely – I was watching them film a little West Side Story the other day and they were doing America, which is so beautiful and cool and fantastic. But what I hadn’t noticed but saw this time is it plays like an argument or fight scene. They have very different–

**Craig:** It’s a debate.

**David:** Yeah, it’s a debate.

**Craig:** This place sucks. No, this place is great.

**David:** The story can’t be told without it. And those characters can’t be fully understand without it.

**Craig:** It’s illuminating who they are, what their point of view is, where they come from. All that is necessary.

**John:** One of the reasons why action sequences can be so exhausting to write, and so challenging to write for screenwriters, is that there’s a tremendous amount of crosscutting. You’re generally going between multiple points of view. And so making that look efficient on the page is really tough. So, things that could be like 60 cuts in the actual cut film, you can’t be jumping back and forth so much. So you need to get the sense that you are seeing all these different points of view without–

**Craig:** That’s a great point.

**David:** And you also have to have those great little bridging phrases like, “Back with Craig. Things haven’t gotten any better.”

**Craig:** “Runs into a…” I find that every time I write INT or EXT I feel like I need a break. Honestly. I feel like I need a break. So, in sequences where you are shifting back and forth, I feel like I need a lot of breaks. There’s something about writing a good old scene where two people are chatting in a café–

**John:** I love it.

**Craig:** Where you get to write INT and then just live in there in that place and have them do their thing. But my god, every time you EXT, INT, blah, EXT. I’m exhausted.

**John:** Tim asks, “My question for Mr. Koepp is when working with directors who are not necessarily writers like David Fincher, Steven Spielberg, or Sam Rami, what is the process of writing and revising based on the notes they provide?”

So, I guess you’ve probably worked with more directors than nearly any screenwriter out there. What are the different ways you see in interacting with a director? So even if you’re not talking about a specific director, what is the range of sort of how you work with them? Because I’ve had every different interaction with a director.

**David:** A director who does write is usually harder to work with than a director who doesn’t. A director who doesn’t usually has a healthy amount of respect for it and is grateful that you’re doing that. A director who writes themselves – and they try hard. Even when they’re good people, like Curtis Hanson was great. And who else did I work with that writes? I can’t remember. But they do it. And they kind of wish you’d shove over and just let them do it. And sometimes that is the reality and they do shove you over and do it themselves. So they’re a little tougher.

But my relationship with the directors have been 90% really good. The ones that are bad, or, you know, unpleasant tend to end fairly quickly, either by me or by them. But I do after about the third draft of a script I do say a little goodbye to my script.

**Craig:** Sure.

**David:** Because that’s the way it is. And sometimes in the very – the way New York crews do, or actually New York deli guys also – I call the director “boss” in part to remind myself, because they are. And they want a collaborator and they deserve a collaborator, but they are the boss. And you better not try – you’re better served – your material is better served if you don’t try to talk them into something, because if they do it they’ll do it poorly because they don’t see it.

**Craig:** Right.

**David:** And if they don’t see it it’s just much better for them not to do it. And you’re also – you can talk them out of some stuff, but if it keeps coming back, and back, and back you better do your best with it, because it’s going to be in the movie. Either you wrote it, or somebody else did, or they just made it up on the day.

**Craig:** Have you thought about television, David Koepp?

**David:** I’m told it’s different.

**Craig:** Wow.

**David:** Yeah, but you got to keep doing it.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No, you actually don’t.

**John:** You can just do five and walk away.

**Craig:** You can do five hours and that’s it. It’s amazing. You can do two hours from what I understand. It’s quite remarkable.

**David:** Yeah, I hear it’s better.

**Craig:** It’s something else man. Yeah. Everyone calls you boss. [laughs] It’s pretty nice. I know. You see? He just got a faraway look in his eyes.

**David:** But I do like working with directors and when it goes well there’s nothing like it, because you come up with something neither of you could have done on your own. And when the conflicts are too great it usually does end quickly.

And getting fired, you know, it’s kind of the greatest thing that can happen to you. It’s awful. And you get very upset. But you get to be righteous.

**John:** Absolutely.

**David:** You get to be totally self-righteous. You’re suddenly free. They usually pay you anyway. And sometimes they come back. And you say, “Well, let’s just see about that.”

**Craig:** [Crosstalk]. You two guys are not Jewish, because there’s no like – when you’re Jewish and you get fired you’re not righteous. You’re like, “Yeah…” [laughs]

**David:** I had it coming.

**Craig:** Pretty much.

**David:** I get it. I got fired from something once. And I heard it from my agent, because they had hired someone else. I was waiting for notes and they’d hired someone else.

**Craig:** God, that’s a terrible way to find out.

**David:** It’s awful. So I called the studio executive who I was close with. And I said, “You know, what are you guys doing? You hired so and so.” And he sighs heavily and says, “Dave, this is a really tough phone call for me to make.” And I said–

**Craig:** You didn’t make it!

**David:** Exactly. I called you! I heard it in the gutter.

**Craig:** This is a really tough phone call for me to get.

**David:** That’s beside the point. All right. But see, self-righteous. I get to be self-righteous.

**Craig:** Self-righteous. Where I would have apologize and said, “I know. I’m sorry.”

**David:** I’m sorry I made you hire that guy.

**Craig:** I’m so sorry. I’ve made you uncomfortable by dying in front of you. [laughs]

**John:** Not just self-righteous, there is a quality to like I know the movie that I wrote and the movie that I saw in my head and you’re never going to make that movie. And so I know that the movie that I was going to make is going to be better than the movie that you made. There’s that comparison, too.

**Craig:** God, I wish I were you guys. How do I get this? Is there a food I eat? Is there a drink?

**David:** But there’s other times, though, where you really are the horse staggering through the desert. Just waiting to be shot. Thank god, what took you guys so long?

**Craig:** Yes. I will say that’s – my new jam is I’m desperate to be fired and it doesn’t happen anymore. It’s sort of really bad. It’s been a while. And I’m not saying that to humblebrag. I’m saying it like it kind of sucks because there are times when I’ve been on things and I just think well some – I feel like the guy – it’s the only thing I truly love from Waterworld. I don’t know if you remember this. On the boat, so there’s that big oil tanker that Dennis Hopper, he’s the villain, he’s in charge of. And there’s this old wretched man in the darkness inside who is like, I don’t know, shoveling oil or something. And in the climax someone throws a cigarette down there which is going to ignite everything and blow him up. And he looks up and goes, “Oh thank god.” And it’s exactly – like he waited for somebody to do this. Please let me go and it won’t happen. That’s actually worse than being fired.

**David:** It’s the great moment in Kingpin when Woody Harrelson comes out of his trailer park and there’s this guy sitting in a folding chair, smoking a cigarette with an oxygen tank, and he says like, “Hey Bob, how’s it going?” And Bob says – or he says, “Hey Bob, how’s life?” And Bob says, “Taking forever.”

**Craig:** That’s basically it. I mean, why won’t you kill me? Please kill me. And they never do.

**John:** This past week a couple people tweeted at me a story, an article by Alex Billington. He is a reviewer. He’s writing how at the Venice Film Festival, we also just got through the Toronto Film Festival, audiences are seeing movies and the critics are sometimes being held to embargoes so they cannot write about the movie, they cannot review the movie at the time. So we are not film festival goers. We are not reviewers. But I want to talk a little bit about embargoes because it’s a thing I think people outside of the industry may not be aware of is that sometimes reviewers are seeing movies way in advance and they are sort of prohibited from writing about the movie until the embargo drops and they can suddenly write about the movie.

We’ve all had movies that have probably been under embargo and then the embargo is lifted. How are we feeling about embargoes, or that sense of like when it’s OK to talk about a movie and when it’s not OK to talk about a movie that has not come out yet?

**David:** I think once it’s done if you show it in a public forum you can get reviewed. I think, remember when [unintelligible] showed up and it was horribly destructive. You know, you’re trying to work out your filthy business in private.

**John:** And they’d review test screenings.

**David:** And it’s really destructive because sometimes you’re having a test screening to confirm that the ending doesn’t work.

**Craig:** Yes. Correct.

**David:** Before you go make a new one.

**Craig:** Sometimes you’re having a test screening because the studio insists on this terrible version of your ending.

**David:** And you’re like well I’ll show you this doesn’t work. I’ll put it in front of an audience.

**Craig:** It’s the same thing with these people who review scripts. I mean, I agree with David. Once you show it to an audience – I mean, the point of an embargo is we’re going to make a deal with you. We’ll give you exclusive access. In return you agree to not talk about until the day we want you to. And now it’s your choice as a reviewer or an outlet to agree or not agree to those terms. But once they’ve shown it to people it does seem bizarre.

Although I will say Walter Chaw who is a very smart guy and a film critic had this really great idea that he tweeted about which will never happen but I loved it. He said, “The real embargo should be that no critics are allowed to post their reviews of movies until one week after it has come out in theaters.” Because at that point they’re no longer trying to review or influence or crap on or anything. They’re actually – they can do the job of film criticism which is to analyze and think about and thoughtfully talk about. And I thought oh my god what a wonderful utopic notion that is that will never, ever, ever happen.

**David:** We’re endosymbiont.

**John:** I don’t know what that means.

**Craig:** Oh nice.

**David:** One creature that lives inside or with another to their mutual benefit.

**Craig:** Like Quato.

**John:** That also feels like that could be part of Cold Storage.

**David:** Well it actually is. My novel Cold Storage, available now.

**John:** I love it that you’re bringing it back to plugging your book.

**David:** Well I learned all this science.

**Craig:** Yeah, use it.

**David:** I’m not going to just throw it away.

**Craig:** Pepper it into every discussion.

**David:** But, you know, we need critics. We need people to know about our movie. Ideally they’ll say nice things about it. And they need our stuff so they’ve got something to write about. But I think reviewing anything you’ve got by, you know, unscrupulous means or unauthorized means, of course that’s off the table. Anything that’s not done. I think if you show a work in progress at Cannes you can announce this is a work in progress and it should not be reviewed. And that’s fine. That’s a decent set of rules.

But if you have a finished film and you take it to Venice or Toronto and you’re showing it to people with the purpose of exposing it, but you’re showing it to the world, it’s too late.

**Craig:** It’s out. It’s done.

**David:** Yeah. You can’t control that anymore.

**Craig:** I agree. It’s not like in Broadway they’ll have runs, but then there’s the official opening.

**David:** And everybody understands.

**Craig:** And everybody understands. And Ben Brantley doesn’t show up until official opening night, or I guess the night before, or a week before so he has time to write his review that either destroys you or lifts you up.

**John:** Been there.

**Craig:** But the whole point is that the show is and can be changing throughout that time period. So it makes sense that you’re showing it to the public. But you’re saying, “But we’re still moving pieces around.” A movie is a movie. It’s done. I mean, by the time you’re showing it at – you’re not going to recut something after Venice, right?

**David:** Well…

**John:** Sometimes it happens, but yeah.

**Craig:** Oh really? OK. Well. I don’t know anything about film festivals. That’s obvious.

**John:** So here’s a modest proposal. So let’s say you see a film early and it is embargoed or for whatever reason you cannot talk about it. But of course you’ve seen this thing and you want to say like, “I saw this and this is my opinion on it,” if you wait until everyone can say that, you’re just like one extra opinion on that. But you want to say like, “No, no, I saw this first. This was my opinion when I saw it.” What you could do is write that up, encrypt it, and publicly post it and then on the day the embargo lifts like post the password to see what you wrote back then.

It’s a way of deep-freezing your reviews so that–

**Craig:** You could. That’s presuming that I care—

**David:** That you value that.

**Craig:** That those people had that opinion first.

**John:** Yeah. But people always want to be first.

**Craig:** They want to be first. Yes. They want to be first. I don’t care who is first.

**John:** I don’t know. See if other people think that is a good idea. It’s probably not a good idea, but it’s something that occurs to me.

**Craig:** I mean, you can do these things where you can – well, I guess you can password protect it and then on the day you can just say here’s the password to my review.

**John:** Exactly. That’s what I’m saying.

**Craig:** You could do that. Which I guess that makes sense.

**John:** Because you can definitively say like, no, this really was my opinion. I’m not changing my opinion based on–

**Craig:** Because suddenly other people like it, or, right. OK, then I’m on board. I’m on board with your idea.

**John:** So we’ll build an app for that.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** It has come time for our One Cool Things. Craig Mazin, do you want to start us off with a One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** Yeah. So you know I’m old school. I like email. The kids don’t like email.

**John:** No, I don’t like email.

**Craig:** You know, my children don’t use it at all. When I look at their email it’s just spam. It’s all spam. Because they go to stupid sites and they do sign up for things and then it’s just spam. It’s useless. But I’m still an emailer. And I’m always looking for the best email client. The mail.app that comes with Mac, I don’t really love it at all. I’ve been using Airmail for a long time. But I’ve switched over again, this time to Spark. Which has been around for a while. It wasn’t quite like ready for prime time for a while. But now it’s pretty great. They’ve got it down to a really nice science. It looks good.

It organizes your inbox in an interesting way. So, there’s new stuff and then if you read it it goes to Seen Stuff. So your inbox has new and seen, it doesn’t just like leave it in its spot, which is kind of cool. It also has little icons to indicate if it’s like a regular email from somebody you know, or a notification email, or a spammy kind of thing.

So, Spark, I don’t know how much it costs. How much does it cost, John August?

**John:** I’m looking it up right now. So free for 5GB for a team. Then it goes up to $6 a month, $7 a month.

**Craig:** So if you’re just a single person I think it’s free. Yeah, so there you go. For the exciting cost of free you too can have Spark. And obviously it’s cross platform. It works on Mac OS and iOS. That’s what I call cross platform. I don’t care about other ones.

**John:** So, Craig, is this one of those services that is downloading your email to their servers and then sending it back to you?

**Craig:** Great question, John. I don’t know. I don’t think so?

**John:** Because that’s one of the concerns with some of these things is that they are potentially privacy nightmares because they’re able to do a bunch of stuff, that processing, because they’re actually intercepting the mail before it gets to your service.

**Craig:** Well why don’t you look on their thing and tell me, because if it’s doing that then maybe I should stop using it.

**David:** I can take back what I just said.

**John:** And a private team, comments, shared drafts. It feels like it’s one of those things, but–

**Craig:** Really.

**John:** We’ll look into it. Next week we’ll get back to you.

**Craig:** Yeah, look into it. Yeah, I don’t want to do something wrong. I mean, I do. [laughs] I’ve got to be honest. I do. But I don’t want this—

**David:** The horse is out of the barn. Everybody has got everything.

**Craig:** Everyone has got everything.

**David:** Cover your camera. That’s about it.

**Craig:** By the way, do you do that? You don’t do that. I always feel that’s dumb to put the little Post-it over your camera?

**David:** I don’t know. Sometimes I feel paranoid and I do.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, I feel like the Macintosh has pretty good lockouts, like hardware lockouts. But they can – people can override stuff.

**Craig:** If they can override it they can probably shoot a laser right through that Post-it.

**John:** That’s what they’re going to do.

**Craig:** Yeah, or just assassinate.

**David:** Do you remember Chat Roulette?

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** I do remember Chat Roulette. Chat Roulette is still in existence I think.

**David:** It was for about 48 hours Chat Roulette seemed like, oh this is terrific. This is the dawn of the Internet stuff. And then, you know, my sons who were like 12 and 10 at the time, within 48 hours it was all dicks all the time. There was no…

**Craig:** Dicks really have taken over the Internet. All new technology, it used to be porn. Now it’s just dicks. Terrible.

**David:** My Cool Thing, you guys I would imagine know about it already. Many people may know about it already. But it bears repeating because it changes my writing life. Which is the Freedom App. I love to use it.

**Craig:** Yes. I believe it’s been one of our One Cool Things at some point.

**David:** Oh, darn it.

**John:** No, no.

**Craig:** No, no, it’s great that you. Tell them, because it’s been a while.

**David:** Let me explain.

**Craig:** We’ve been doing this for a long time, so years have gone by. People have been born while we’ve been doing this.

**David:** All right. Let me explain. As we all know the Internet has ruined everything. Well, the political process and human interaction.

**Craig:** Other than that.

**David:** Exactly.

**Craig:** But it’s much easier to buy a book.

**David:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Way easier.

**David:** So, you know, like anyone I’m tempted by it. There’s tons to see and tons to do. Like, you know, so you can be writing and things are going OK for about four minutes. And then you realize, holy shit, I’ve got to click on the Guardian to check on Brexit, which is my – I’m crushed by the way because Brexit has been this fantastic TV show that has built to a climax.

Last night as we record this, Parliament was prorogued.

**Craig:** Yes.

**David:** And John Bercow resigned. John Bercow is like the greatest supporting character of any show ever. And now I’m bereft. Like what do I follow?

**Craig:** But they’ve also said that they’re not going to be a no-deal because they won’t support that.

**David:** Yeah. Well they passed a law that will get the royal ascent today I think. That they cannot leave without a deal.

**Craig:** So he’s prorogued for nothing.

**David:** Oh yeah, no, he’s screwed.

**Craig:** He’s done.

**David:** But what’s fascinating if you look at it as a TV show is this season was so great and they brought in a new character because the old Prime Minister character was a little boring so they got rid of her. They brought in this new crazy guy and he’s more interesting. It’s a terrible, terrible situation, but as a soap opera it’s been riveting. So, you know, reading Brexit news destroys my writing, as it does whatever your interest is of the moment.

And you know how it is. You’ll be writing along and you forgot to turn off alerts and a text pops up and suddenly you’re out of it and you’re in something else. Or an email comes in. Oh, I got to deal with that right now. Of course you don’t.

And Freedom is an app you can download and you enter in a certain amount of time for how long it will shut down your Internet and a degree of severity. You can shut down everything on all your devices. You can shut down just the computer you’re working on. Put your phone across the room. But whatever you choose.

I pick 60 minutes at a time. And within – that shuts down everything – and if there’s like a research question I have to just jot it down for when my 60 minutes is up. But really within about a minute and a half of turning on Freedom I start working. There’s no – it’s unbelievable. And your concentration is unimpeded. And I just think it has saved a lot of bad situations for me.

**Craig:** When I’m on a plane that doesn’t have Wi-Fi—

**David:** That’s outrageous first of all. That’s bullshit.

**Craig:** Which is outrageous. It’s a bunch of bullshit. How dare they? But my choice is write or clean up a bunch of files on the computer. In other words, or watch TV on that stupid little screen which I refuse to do.

So, yeah, you start working when you don’t have the Internet. It’s amazing. It’s actually disturbing.

**John:** Yeah. How [unintelligible] it is.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**David:** So I thought Freedom deserves another plug. Because every writer should have it. There’s no reason to not have it.

**John:** Yeah. I’m a big fan of working in sprints. And so I’ll start a 60-minute sprint. And I don’t use Freedom anymore, because I don’t need to shut down my Internet.

**Craig:** He doesn’t need it, dude.

**David:** You have mental discipline?

**Craig:** He’s beyond that.

**John:** No, because I start a 60-minute sprint and there’s a little timer that goes. And so as long as that timer is going I’m not switching to another window.

**David:** Great.

**John:** Especially if I go full-screen that also distracts me from–

**Craig:** So when I keep texting, like John, John I’m dying, I’m bleeding. John, this guy keeps stabbing me. Help.

**David:** He’s sprinting.

**John:** Sprinting.

**Craig:** Sorry, sprinting.

**John:** Can’t help. My One Cool Thing is a book I’m reading called The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Make Dumb Mistakes, by David Robson. I am liking it. It’s about how IQ tests don’t have the correlation to wise decision making you’d expect. So there’s some correlation but not really a very strong correlation. And sometimes the smartest people you know on IQ tests do really dumb things, or believe conspiracy theories. And he makes a pretty compelling case that being so smart on an IQ sense just lets you reinforce your mistaken beliefs again and again and again.

And it strikes me in a very D&D sense the difference between intelligence and wisdom. And those are two ideas that are related, but they’re not really the same thing. And some people who are not especially smart can be very wise. And so The Intelligence Trap, a book I’m enjoying.

**David:** If we’re doing books as well, can I throw in a Second Cool Thing?

**John:** Go for it.

**Craig:** Cold Storage? Out right now. By David Koepp.

**David:** Sure. But this came out about a year ago. It’s called Essentialism. And the title tells you pretty much what it’s about. But it’s a self-helpy thing. It’s actually more of a management book. It’s written for businesses. But it applied to your personal life.

As I’ve gotten older I’ve taken joy in what I get rid of, as opposed to what I accumulate. And asking yourself what is essential, not just among my possessions but in my interactions with other people. What’s really essential lets you focus on that and making them really be of quality, as opposed to a lot of incredibly superficial ones a few meaningful ones. And, you know, that book meant a lot to me.

**John:** Absolutely. It fits in with that sort of Marie Kondo, winnowing down to the things that are actually crucial, the things that you actually enjoy. We’ve talked about that in terms of screenwriting as well. It’s like getting rid of some of the frills and really focusing on what is fundamental to the story that you’re trying to tell.

**David:** Or in a scene. When you find that moment where you cut away like a page and a half at the beginning and a half a page at the end and you’re down to three lines but they’re great.

**Craig:** There we go. The one that Melissa is really into is Swedish Death Cleaning. Have you heard of that one?

**John:** No, tell us.

**Craig:** I guess the Swedes as they are so comfortable with death, their whole thing is you make sure that you’ve really gotten rid of a lot of stuff before you die. Because otherwise your family is going to have to get rid of it, which is a huge hassle.

**John:** My mom to her credit has totally done that.

**Craig:** Yeah. So just clean up as if you’re going to die next week.

**David:** You know that Billy Wilder story about – some movie that must never have been made. But he asked some poor writer to write a scene of marital discord. And so the guy wrote this couple, this middle-aged couple, they’re not getting along. And it starts out they come out of their apartment, they get in an elevator. They argue down the hall. Argue all the way down the elevator. Argue out on the street. It’s four pages long.

He says, “I don’t want to shoot this. We’ve got to do the hallway. I’ve got to do the elevator. I’ve got to do the street.” He says, how about this. They don’t say anything. They come out, they’re not talking. They get in the elevator. They get in the elevator and the guy is wearing a hat, of course. The elevator stops a few floors down and an attractive young woman gets on. The guy takes off his hat and his wife looks at him.

That’s great.

**Craig:** That works.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** That works. Yeah.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli who also did our outro this week. 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. David Koepp, I believe you are not on Twitter. Is that correct?

**David:** I am not. I’m on Instagram. Dgkoepp.

**John:** Fantastic. Find him on Instagram.

**Craig:** You can see all of his pics.

**John:** You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. We get them up the week after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net. And you need to sign up there to use the Scriptnotes app for iOS or for Android. You can also download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

You can find David Koepp’s book anywhere books are sold I believe.

**David:** You can.

**John:** And overseas as well? It’s in all markets?

**David:** Yes. It’s all over the place overseas. I’m going to London next week to shit on the government and sell it a little bit.

**Craig:** Look out Boris Johnson. Here he comes.

**John:** Fantastic. David Koepp, thank you so much for joining us.

**Craig:** Thanks David.

**David:** Thanks for having me guys.

**John:** Cool.

Links:

* [David Koepp](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0462895/)
* [Alex Billington](https://twitter.com/i/moments/1170819858826584065) on [embargoes](https://www.firstshowing.net/2019/an-open-letter-about-the-harmfulness-of-embargoes-at-film-festivals/).
* [Cold Storage](https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Storage-Novel-David-Koepp/dp/0062916432) by David Koepp
* [Spark Email App](https://sparkmailapp.com/)
* [Freedom App](https://freedom.to/)
* [The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Make Dumb Mistakes](https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Trap-Smart-People-Mistakes/dp/0393651428)
* [Essentialism](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0753555166/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_ckaGDbP6DX727)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [David Koepp](https://www.instagram.com/dgkoepp/) on Instagram
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_418_david_koepp.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 414: Mushroom Powder Transcript

August 27, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/mushroom-powder).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Yes, my name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 414 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast it’s How Would This Be a Movie with four terrific stories in the news that maybe, just maybe, could become feature films. Plus we’ll be answering some listener questions about narrators, personal crises, and song titles.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** And Craig I thought we would do the questions up front because I always feel like we push the questions to the end and we may rush a bit. So we’re going to lead with the questions with the questions this week.

**Craig:** Yeah. We can really milk the answers. I love it.

**John:** That’s what we’ll do. But, I have news and a favor to ask of all our listenership. So, I’ll post a link here in the show notes, but I am trying to direct a feature film. I think I said this on the podcast before. Part of the reason why I’m not running for the WGA board again is I’m hoping to direct a feature film in these next two years. That film is called The Shadows. The central character in it is Abby. She is 15 years old. She’s smart, resourceful, anxious, and blind. That means I need to find a blind actress who is 15 years old-ish to play this role.

That’s not going to be easy. There’s not just a list of teenage blind actors who are ready to make feature films. So, if you follow through the link you’ll see I have a casting notice up that describes what I’m looking for. It has audition scenes. My hope is that we’re going to find someone who has probably never had the opportunity to act in a feature film before or television who will self-tape and present herself as the possible actress for this role.

But if I cannot find this actress I cannot make a movie. So, if you know an Abby or you think you might know an Abby the place to check out the information is johnaugust.com/casting. That’s where you go to see all the information and the audition scenes and stuff about self-taping of yourself to possibly be cast in this movie.

**Craig:** Good URL. Appropriate. So traditionally the way this would work is casting directors would be sent out into the world and they would cast a wide net and show up in malls and things, trying to just pluck out some diamond from the rough. But now we have these things. We have podcasts and Twitter and social media. So this is a great way to get the word out that you’re looking for somebody like this and I have to presume that there are tons of kids across the United States who are acting, or acting in school productions, or community theater who are blind who will hear this and say, yeah, what about me, John August.

**John:** Yeah, what about you?

**Craig:** What about me?

**John:** So classically the casting director would send out this notice and you might do searches in malls and such, but that’s not going to work for this very specific part. So ultimately there will be a casting director to help do all the other things, but if I cannot find this person it is sort of pointless to do anything more about trying to make this movie. So, this is not the first step. The first step was writing the script. But the second step is trying to find this actress, so that’s what I’m trying to do right now.

Ryan Knighton who was on the show once or twice, a fantastic writer, actually the reason why I met him was because I was writing this script. So that’s how long I’ve been working on this. This predates the Arlo Finch books. But now is the time where I can actually make this movie. So, if you can help me find this actress I’d be much obliged.

**Craig:** Now, here’s a question for you. Let’s say you don’t. Do you scrap the movie?

**John:** We scrap the movie.

**Craig:** You scrap the movie.

**John:** I don’t think you can make the movie kind of any other way. I’ll say that as I started writing this movie it was a real concern. Like is this an idea worth pursuing knowing how hard it will be to find the right person for this part. And I decided to go for it because it’s something I’d never seen before on screen and that’s really interesting to me. I want to make the movie I want to see most, and this is kind of the movie I want to see.

So, that’s why I wrote it and that’s why I’m hoping to be able to direct it.

**Craig:** Well, I think you will find someone. I can’t imagine that you won’t. That doesn’t seem possible. Sight is not required for acting talent. It’s just not. You know, I think of all the things that we do in our business and acting is so interestingly internal. In many ways I would imagine that there’s probably a lot of acting exercises where if you are sighted you close your eyes anyway and try and relate to somebody without the extra cues. So, I would be shocked if you don’t find not just one person but a lot of people. I think you will.

**John:** I hope so, too. And I do think it will be a process of working with this person to figure out a language for how we’re going to do the things we need to do and how to sort of best make this movie happen. If this were a supporting character we might not have the time and resources to make this all possible, but this is the central character and so it’s all going to be about figuring out the best way to make this movie. So, it’s going to be a very collaborative process.

**Craig:** No question. I mean, I’m just thinking ahead to the day you’re there and you’re shooting. I mean, other than figuring out how to assist the actor with hitting a mark. By the way, people probably don’t even know – a lot of people don’t know why this whole thing of the actor has to hit their mark even exists. It’s because film cameras and even the video cameras that we use now like the Alexa and so on and so forth, they don’t have automatic focus the way your iPhone does or an old school video camera because those auto focuses are actually very slow. I mean, you’ve probably noticed that when you’re shooting things that sometimes they’re blurry and then they get – well you’re not allowed to have any blurry ever when you’re making a movie.

So there is a focus puller whose job is to constantly adjust focus depending on how far away from the lens the actor who is being filmed is. So they measure where they are and if there’s a scene where they’re moving then during rehearsal we’ll watch them and then there is an assistant camera person, the camera assistant, who watches them and where they stop that person comes over and puts a little piece of tape down or a little bean bag. And the actor now has to reliably stop there each time because that’s a distance that the focus puller is relying on.

So I could see where if somebody was not sighted you would need to have a little extra assistance there to make sure that they didn’t fall short or go too far depending on their motion. But beyond that I think it’s probably the same as everything else, right?

**John:** Yes. So focus is one small issue. I’m sure they’ll be other things that come up. But I’m mostly just excited to meet this actor and see what she can bring to the part.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** Now, Craig, you actually had an unexpected bonus episode of the Chernobyl podcast that just came out today as we’re recording this. Tell us about this episode. And I especially liked your little prologue to it.

**Craig:** Oh, thank you. Surprise episode. So this is my Lemonade. It’s a surprise. Well, we were talking and so the podcast was surprisingly popular. We didn’t necessarily imagine that Chernobyl itself was going to be quite as viewed as it was. And I really didn’t think that the podcast would be quite as listened to as it was. But it was. And that’s very gratifying. And Jared and I were talking and he suggested kind of a little bit of a bonus, OK now that the show has come and aired and has been viewed and occupied a space could we/should we discuss it.

And so we got Peter Sagal back and Jared joined us. And I think maybe a day after or two days after we recorded it all of a sudden there was this news story and, huh, a nuclear explosion in Russia that they weren’t telling us about. Well that’s familiar. So I did a quickie solo prologue and, yes, that is available this morning. So if you subscribed to the Chernobyl podcast you got a little ding on your phone this morning. But if you don’t it’s available on all podcast platforms in the known universe, including YouTube and Stitcher and all the other ones that John knows I don’t know.

**John:** And we’ll also put a link to it in the show notes so people can follow through there. Because sometimes people are meticulous and they delete subscriptions just so they don’t have old things sitting around.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So you can follow through there. One final bit of news. There’s been an issue with the app, the Scriptnotes app for the premium listeners. Folks both on the Android side and on the iOS side have written in with some problems. So, if you are having problems with the app the general advice I can give you is make sure you’re using the most recent version of it. If you’re still having a problem write into the ask@johnaugust.com account and Megana can help steer you towards some resources or at least get reported to the actual folks who manufacture those apps to make sure that we get those bugs fixed. Sorry for anybody who is having problems.

**Craig:** Was the bug that somehow some of the money was going to me?

**John:** No. It was not a money flow issue. It was simply an authorization token.

**Craig:** So that bug remains is what you’re saying? The bug of money not going to me.

**John:** That bug – that is a feature not a bug.

**Craig:** [laughs] I am a feature not a bug.

**John:** You are a feature not a bug. Some follow up. Why writes in, “As a longtime fan of the show I believe you guys have made me a better writer. But that sadly cannot be empirically proven. My body weight however is easy to accurately measure. A few months ago I listened back to Episode 50, How to not be Fat. And John’s diet, slow carb, sounded really simple and easy. Having never attempted a diet before I went in with no expectations but the change was instantaneous. Now some four months later I’ve already lost over 30 pounds. So this is a thank you for helping me to not be fat at the very least.”

Craig, can you even remember back to Episode 50?

**Craig:** No, I thought we started at Episode 51. I don’t know if we even did this. What are these first episodes? They might be other guys.

**John:** I think this was like a random advice episode. I think this was maybe not a traditional craft and character arcs. But we did talk about it. I remember discussing it and back at that time I was doing this slow carb diet which is like the Atkins diet. It’s like all these things where essentially you eat fats and proteins and not a lot of carbohydrates. And it works. And at that point I was eating a lot of black beans and eggs. And you will lose weight if you do that.

I’m not doing that right now, but I’m sort of mindful of those things and I try not to eat a lot of carbs that I don’t need to eat. So, if you want to go back and do that, great. But we’re not really a good diet and health advice podcast.

**Craig:** No. Not at all. There are four billion of those. Listen to one of those waste of times. Because we would like to waste your time in different ways.

**John:** Yeah. But Why I’m happy for you that you‘ve lost this weight. I would encourage you to find other ways other than just a diet to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Because just eating alone is not enough.

**Craig:** Yes. Meth is not recommended. You will lose a lot of weight. A lot of weight with meth.

**John:** A tremendous amount. Because teeth – teeth are heavy, too.

**Craig:** Just the teeth alone.

**John:** Those last ounces, just pop them out one by one.

**Craig:** Yeah, man.

**John:** Tic-Tacs.

**Craig:** Meth. I mean, who doesn’t know not to do meth still?

**John:** My hunch is that some people who do meth – this is me talking with absolutely no expertise.

**Craig:** I like this. Go for it.

**John:** My hunch is that people who find themselves doing meth often don’t know they’re doing meth when they start doing meth or they’re coming from some other drug and when that drug is no longer available that’s how they’re ending up at meth. That’s just a guess. I’ve done no research or Googling before saying that.

**Craig:** Your theory is that no one is really sitting down and going, right, so I don’t have drug problems and I’m aware that this is meth. Let’s go. You’re saying that’s probably not happening.

**John:** I think that’s probably not the default pathway into meth abuse.

**Craig:** Well, meth. How about some questions. Should I start with Alison from Atlanta?

**John:** Go for it.

**Craig:** Alison from Atlanta asks, “I’m in the planning phases of my screenplay and I’ve come to fork in the road about whether or not to use a narrator. I’ve heard the argument that it’s lazy writing as you’re telling instead of showing, which I understand, but some of my favorite movies or TV shows use narration really successfully. I feel like it could be especially useful when there is significant dissonance with how a character feels inside versus how they are behaving. Do you have any advice for when the narration is useful or when it detracts from the story?”

John, what’s your advice for Alison?

**John:** The only project I’ve had that I think has a narrator – I take that back. Two projects I’ve used narrators for. The first is Big Fish. The second is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. In both cases they were really, really helpful. But let’s take a look at why. In Big Fish that narrator is sort of the voice of Edward Bloom, the storyteller who is bridging between the real world and the fantasy world. It starts kind of in the real world and drifts into the fantasy world. Helpful for that. Could you do the movie without the narrator? Yes. But it is useful.

Second movie is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which is very much a fairy tale, a storybook telling of this boy’s quest and Willy Wonka. In those cases, useful.

Those are situations where I think the narrator is helpful. Unfortunately we encounter so many movies and scripts where voiceover or narration has been applied in post. It was not part of the initial conception of the storytelling. And, wow, you can tell.

**Craig:** Yeah. Narration sometimes is a Band-Aid. But I want to say, Alison, when you say some of my favorite movies or TV shows use narration really successfully, that’s the answer to your question. Anybody who makes the argument that narration is inherently lazy writing, as you “telling instead of showing” is wrong. And you should tell them to their faces that they’re wrong. And that probably everything else that they say after that should be considered invalid. Because it’s the most ridiculous thing to say. Narration is a perfectly good tool if it’s used properly.

Like you, John, I have not written a lot of things that have narration in them, but I remember the first thing I wrote with narration was a movie based on a Philip Dick short story. This is many, many years ago. And it’s one of my favorite things that I’ve written, so of course it didn’t get made. But the hero was an immigrant who did not speak English. He was an Italian immigrant. He didn’t speak English. And the story itself had a kind of romantic fairy tale quality to it so a narrator felt appropriate. He was able to kind of fill in some things when the character was alone and wouldn’t necessarily be speaking in his own language. And if he did why would we subtitle. There’s a lot of weirdness in there. But it was mostly the fairy tale-ness of it that seemed to call for a narrator.

Similarly when you talk about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it is kind of a modern fairy tale. It is clearly taking place in a world that is a pushed version of our own. So the storybook aspect of it feels worth honoring and acknowledging. So, go for it Alison. If it feels right then do it. And if you’re doing it because it’s just convenient, or solving some problems, maybe not.

**John:** I would encourage people to think about the movie Clueless without Cher’s narration. It would be unwatchable. You would not like Cher in that movie if you did not have the ability to see inside of her head. And that’s really what it is. It’s honestly kind of like giving that protagonist a song in a musical. It’s allowing you to expose what they’re not saying to everybody else in the scene. So that may be another situation where you need to use it.

**Craig:** Correct. And if you think about Fleabag which is spectacular, all of Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s little discourse to camera to us, that’s narration. That’s what that is. The fact that she’s filmed doing it but talking to us doesn’t change the fact that it’s narration. And we don’t mind it, we love it. Because it fits. It makes sense.

Goodfellas needs narration. Narration – probably the same exercise worth doing. Watch Goodfellas and every time the narration starts hit mute. It just won’t work. Or it won’t work as well.

**John:** All right. Nicole asks, “I live in one of the cities that was recently devastated by a mass shooting. As I’m sure you can imagine you the depth and breadth of emotion in the aftermath is sometimes overwhelming. I have an appointment with my therapist and we’ll work through it with her, but in the meantime I’ve got a draft due to a producer I’ve never worked with before. Normally I’m super responsible about hitting deadlines, but it’s really hard to get my head into writing comedy right now so I’m struggling to get pages out and I am falling behind. How do you overcome your personal life crises when you have to get your work done? Should I let the producer know that the draft might be delayed or wait and see if I can get back on track soon? The draft is due in about two weeks.”

Craig, what advice would you have for Nicole?

**Craig:** Well, first of all fantastic question. And I’ve been there. Happily I haven’t been there a lot. But when it happens it happens. And I think Nicole your sense that this is not mentally doable for you needs to be listened to and respected. Yeah, you could soldier through it but would it be good? And is it good for you?

When this has happened to me, when there have been incidents in my own life – I just went through one myself again with my family – where either someone is ill or there is a crisis or trauma that befalls you or around you or you just on your own without any cause slip into a clinical depression or an unmanageable state of anxiety it is absolutely fair to call people up and say I need two weeks, because I need two weeks. This is where I am. This the page I’m on. This is why I need the two weeks, without getting into super-duper detail. I will be back after those two weeks and then I will finish.

There are not many things that will work as well as a break. And what you don’t want to do is turn your work, your writing, the thing that you love and that you rely on into a burden or more fuel for dysfunction and misery. John, what do you think?

**John:** Your advice is absolutely correct. And what I would caution Nicole to do is not to wait until the actual due date to lob in that email or that phone call, because then it just looks like, oh, you just ran out of time and now you’re telling us.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, this is the time to reach out to that producer, even if it is a person you’ve not worked with before, and explain the situation. In this case you have – I don’t want to say the advantage – but because it’s a public event that everyone can see it’s pretty clear that there’s a basis behind this. That you’re not just making an excuse.

It can be tougher when it’s just your own thing. When it’s something in your own family that you don’t want to discuss. When it’s clinical depression coming up. When you’re having problems that can’t be sort of externally verified I know it’s scarier to reach out and make that call, but you got to reach out and make that call. And you need to do it before the time is up.

If you have an agent, manager, lawyer, someone else who is also on your side, a different producer if it’s about the studio, it’s worth clueing them in to just so that they have a sense of what you’re going through so that they can back you up a bit.

**Craig:** And you are working in a business that’s full of people that have all sorts of emotional issues and mental health issues. And after all you’re also working in a business that pedals emotion. That is our product. So the fact that you are a feeling person, that you have a sensitivity – that isn’t a bug, that’s a feature right?

You don’t have that thing that actors have where they can use their crisis to pump out tears on film or if they’re having a terrible, tragic day it theoretically could be turned to their advantage. Writing requires a lot of mental energy. It requires focus and attention. It’s spinning 12 plates at once. There’s a lot of logic going on. And then also all of that emotion. I think in general you will be met well by people. They will not say to you, “No, I want you to finish it anyway. You can’t take two weeks off.” Because at that point they’re kind of shooting themselves in the foot. What are they going to do, complain to you then when they get the script and don’t like it? You told them. You warned them.

Also, there’s really nothing they can do about it. You can just get sick for two weeks. If you feel, by the way, this is for anyone, that you’re working for people who truly will not get it, then lie. If somebody is so miserable as to not understand the validity of an emotional crisis then just tell them or having your agent or representative or manager tell them that you have a physical illness that is going to last two weeks. Because they can’t argue with that.

It’s a shame that sometimes you have to do that. But if somebody is going to be a total jerk about it then they forfeit their right for you to be completely honest and forthcoming.

**John:** I think that’s all true. The last thing I want to say is that just making that phone call or that email and telling them that this thing could come in late in my own experience has relieved so much anxiety on my side about the fact that I’m worried that I’m going to be late that it made the writing a lot easier. So some of what you’re actually feeling is the panic over a what if I can’t actually deliver this on time. And so by tipping them off that you may not be able to deliver this on time you’ve lowered the stress on yourself and you may actually be able to do the work that you need to do and be happy about the draft you’re turning in.

**Craig:** No question. Sometimes you say I need two weeks and they say sure. And then two days later you’re like I’m good. What you really needed was two days. And that’s the thing. You’re right. The worst feeling for writers is feeling that they have to write and yet they can’t do their best work. That’s a terrible feeling.

So, whatever you need to do to not have that feeling, do it.

**John:** Do it.

**Craig:** OK. So we’ve got one more question. This is from Seth who asks, “My question is about using a song as the basis for a movie. For example, if I decide to write a quirky rom-com about a grungy mechanic from the Lower East Side who meets a beautiful society girl from Central Park West and I call it Uptown Girl, do I owe Billy Joel a credit or money? I know that if the song is licensed that will cost. But what about the concept?” Well that’s an interesting question. Hmm, John, any thoughts on that one? We’ll be pretend lawyers for the moment.

**John:** We’ll be pretend lawyers. I think you’re in real jeopardy if you call that movie Uptown Girl. Uptown Girl is a title that everybody knows. It’s very clear that it’s inspired by that song. No, Seth, no. Don’t do it.

So, if a song inspires you, so if you wanted to do a movie about a mechanic and a society girl, you could do that probably pretty safely because it’s going to be generic enough that like there’s nothing in the song that you’re actually taking from that. But you call that movie Uptown Girl and you just put a giant crosshair on your back.

Honestly, if your movie has nothing to do with the song but you call it Uptown Girl you’re probably going to be getting some heated emails from some people who are not too happy about that. I don’t think that’s a safe choice. Craig, what do you think?

**Craig:** Yeah, I agree with you. I’m not sure where the legal line is per se, but you actually don’t want to find out. They’re going to make a problem for you. The point is that usually speaking the stories of songs in and of themselves aren’t really copyright – I mean, they’re copyrightable. Of course, lyrics are copyrighted. But the story inherent to those can be duplicated without fear of infringement.

For instance, I’m thinking of a good old story song like the Pina Colada song. Escape (The Pina Colada Song). So most people know the story of that ridiculous song. A guy gets tired of his marriage to his wife, so he is looking for singles ads, or I guess he writes a singles ad. Yeah, that’s what he does. He puts an ad looking for somebody who likes the following things, including Pina Coladas in the rain, and then somebody responds back and says, “I love all those things. Let’s meet.” And so he goes to a bar to meet up with this new woman that he’s going to cheat on his wife with and lo and behold it’s his wife. And then they laugh weirdly, which would not actually happen. In real life it would be a rocket ship to divorce.

But regardless, because it’s just bizarre, but the story of somebody looking to cheat on his wife and swiping right and ending up with his wife, anybody could do that. That idea is not intellectual property. If you call it The Pina Colada movie and he’s talking about Pina Coladas in the rain then oh yeah you’ve got a problem.

So I agree with you. I don’t see the point. I don’t really think the title Uptown Girl is so important to that concept anyway. If it’s the only attractive thing about that idea, well then you kind of are leaning on the Billy Joel-ness of it all and I would think he’d have a reasonable argument to make.

**John:** So titles we talked about before are – the whole process of getting titles cleared is complicated and there’s a whole division that sort of approves which movies can have which title. But it is complicated by songs. And I’ve been through several situations on movies and other projects where a title we would have wanted is a famous song. It becomes arguable like are we using it in reference to that song or not. It becomes complicated. Don’t call your movie Uptown Girl unless you’re making a Billy Joel related movie I would say.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Agreed. All right. Let’s talk about movies we do want to make. This is a segment we do every once in a while called How Would This Be a Movie where people send us stories that are in the news and we talk about them the only way we know how to talk about them is how do we turn these into narrative feature films or perhaps TV series. This time we have four of them because there were four really good ones and I just couldn’t winnow it down.

Different people sent in different things. I’m not going to credit who sent stuff through because in some cases it was multiple people. But they’re all compelling in different ways.

So let’s start with a podcast I listened to this past week. It is by Willa Paskin for Slate’s Decoder Ring podcast. She is a terrific writer and these are really well-produced episodes. I really loved listening to the whole podcast series. The one this week was about the soft serve wars. So the Mr. Frosty trucks both in Midtown, Manhattan but also in China and sort of the war of turf, of different companies competing, and break off groups, and the history of soft serve ice cream. I thought there was a lot of compelling stuff here. Craig, how did you feel about this as story material?

**Craig:** Well, it’s an interesting world. And it occurred to me you probably didn’t have this, right? I mean, where you were growing up in Colorado?

**John:** No, we didn’t have soft serve trucks.

**Craig:** Yeah. We had them everywhere. So on Staten Island, and this extends throughout New York in every part of New York, you would have these trucks. And there were two trucks that would come by. One was the Good Humor man. So he had the Good Humor brand of ice cream.

**John:** And Good Humor was hard ice cream?

**Craig:** It was. It was incredibly hard. It was the hardest of ice creams. It was so hard. And then there was the Mister Softee truck who would come by, and that was the soft serve. And frankly I did prefer the Mister Softee. It just didn’t come by as often. And they would play their songs. They had their little jingles. And we would get very excited and run after the truck.

So, right off the bat I think one of the issues with this is that it’s not necessarily a universal experience. The notion of this kind of turf war over this particular kind of product. It does feel a little niche to me. Obviously when people are trying to do it China studios get very excited when something may appeal to a Chinese audience, because they’re greedy. But I’m a little concerned about that.

The story though that this brought to mind, when you were a kid, John, did you ever read a book called The Push Cart War?

**John:** Called The Push Cart War. Yes!

**Craig:** Do you remember that one?

**John:** We said it at the same time. I do absolutely. And they had little pea shooters and they were shooting out the truck tires I believe.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I do remember The Push Cart War. We’ll put a link to that in the show notes. It reminded me a lot of that.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, The Push Cart War is basically a classic story of the little guy versus the big guy. And the little vendors versus the big trucks. And in this case I could certainly see a kind of comedy – I think it would have to be a comedy – of competing ice cream vendors who are at each other’s throats scrapping over the last nickel and dime. And then they have to face a common enemy which is, I don’t know, suddenly a Starbucks or some massive corporation is taking over by sending their new things in which is better and bigger supposedly. So it becomes mom and pop, little guy versus the big guy, and maybe there’s a little bit of an allegory of the way that capitalism gets people on the lower rungs to beat each other up and leave a space for the big guy to just waltz in.

But I’m not sure – I’m a little worried about the whole ice cream aspect of it because I just don’t know if people in like you say Boulder or Denver are going to say, oh yeah, ice cream trucks. I think they might go, “Ice cream trucks?” That’s a problem.

**John:** Well let’s talk about that universality. Because even in the intro here I said Mr. Frosty rather than Mister Softee because I didn’t know that as a thing.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** That’s how little I knew about that. But I don’t know that this lack of universality really is necessarily a problem because I think, you know, I could imagine the start of this story very quickly setting up important it is for this community and really establishing the worlds. Because so many movies we see, like I don’t know anything about sort of how baseball mathematics works, but the movie is going to teach me how to care about that.

You know, there’s so many movies involve characters who are experts in things I don’t know anything about and that’s part of the experience of watching the movie. So I’m not so worried about the lack of universality in the sense of like places that don’t have ice cream trucks as long as I can establish why it’s important for these people who are selling ice cream and these people who are buying ice cream.

There were three kind of main threads and I think you’d have to pick one of them to make a movie. There’s the guys who are trying to start a Mister Softee business in China. And so that’s – you can picture that one. You’re trying to build something within a bureaucracy which is really complicated and you’re trying to explain to people what it is that you’re doing.

It was fascinating in the podcast talking about how McDonalds and I think KFC were the only places that were serving soft serve at that point and they had separate walk up drive-thru windows for just soft serve ice cream because it was so new and unusual there at the time they were launching. So China is one possibility and the rise and fall of that company.

Then the tension between the Mister Softee trucks and the competing brands within Midtown Manhattan. It’s probably a comedy. It’s probably like Adam Sandler is the godfather. Sort of a turf war kind of thing and it seems silly but these people are taking it really seriously. That section of the movie, I don’t know about you, but I got sort of PTSD trying to think about the logistics of shooting in Midtown Manhattan and how you’re getting all these trucks in Midtown Manhattan. The filming of it freaked me out.

**Craig:** By shooting in Toronto, of course. [laughs]

**John:** That’s naturally how you would do it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But they’ll get the New York City tax credit. And finally the single character who is probably the most compelling and interesting is a woman they interview. She’s the ice cream woman who took over her dad’s route. He was a Good Humor man who then had a soft serve truck. And so she’s the – actually she doesn’t have a soft serve truck. She’s still selling traditional ice cream in Brooklyn.

She had a fantastic voice. She just felt like a really compelling character. For a single protagonist this woman trying to defend her father’s route feels like a through line. But I don’t know if any of these are compelling enough movies that I’m rushing out on a Friday night to see them.

**Craig:** No. I think it would require – I think you probably got closest with the idea of Sandler. Of a comedic star taking something that’s small like the Water Boy and making it into something epic. I mean, Tim Herlihy is a genius at doing stuff like that and I could easily see Tim writing a really funny movie that’s centered around Mister Softee versus Good Humor, which is just already I’m kind of giggling at it. It sounds like a funny idea.

So that’s probably the closest I would think to actually getting it made. I mean, this other last little component of this is that there is – for those of us who grew up in New York – there’s a lot of nostalgia to it. There’s a strange kind of connection to the past with those trucks when I see them walking around, even as an adult, and I would see the Mister Softee. The logo is like a cone that’s got soft serve but he’s got a face like in the cone. And just his face warms my heart. It just does. His dumb, stupid cone face makes me happy.

**John:** Yeah. I also got thinking about sort of what’s the color scheme, what’s the world, like what’s happening in the day. It got me thinking back to Do the Right Thing which is an incredibly hot day and sort of what it feels like to have an ice cream truck on that hot day and sort of like passing through these neighborhoods. What would it feel like and what does it feel like to be the guy on the truck? And it’s a cash business and so you’re always vulnerable that way. The staking out of corners. Even if it’s not done as heavy drama, it felt like there were dramatic moments in there. There were reversals. That felt interesting and I think doing it – probably knocking it back a few years and setting it period is helpful for that way, just because you get the benefit of nostalgia and a simpler time when we didn’t have Uber and Postmates and all the other things that got you your ice cream. You might be waiting for that truck to come.

**Craig:** All right. So we’ve decided. This is going to be set in the ‘70s or ‘80s. Tim Herlihy is writing it. Sandler is in it. It feels like it’s going to Netflix. Sandler has got that huge deal at Netflix. I’m in. I’m watching that movie. What do we get for – do we get money for this? Do you we get money when they? Yeah, you know what? They’ll have to send us money. Yeah. Money.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve made a lot off this.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** All right. So our next story is about Zimbabwe’s female rangers. It’s a story in the National Geographic by Lindsay M. Smith, photos by Brent Stirton. So this talks about an all-female wildlife ranger team, the Akashinga. And so they are the defenders of the animals within this region. It’s a non-profit international anti-poaching foundation. The Phundundu Wildlife Area is 115-square-mile former trophy hunting tract in the Zambezi Valley ecosystem.

We’ll summarize some stuff in here, but it’s worth clicking through for the photos because I thought the photos were actually one of the most fascinating parts of this. Craig, what did you take from the female ranger’s article?

**Craig:** Well, I thought that this was a chance to do something more than what it was. I actually – the value here to me is that it can be allegorical. And I do like these stories where it seems like, OK, this is pretty straight up. It’s about women who are fighting off poachers to protect animals. That’s a very nice thing. Who cannot like that? That’s very sweet. But in and of itself there’s the problem. It feels a little just saccharine. Right? Like, ah, cool, women are doing that. And they’re beating poachers. And everyone hates poachers. And they’re saving animals. Hooray.

But I think there’s probably an interesting story to be told underneath where these characters who are doing this are in their own way reclaiming something about their lives that was taken from them. This is not easy. Living in Zimbabwe isn’t always easy. That country has been under the thumb of Robert Mugabe, a dictator and a thug, for decades. And that part of Africa is a tough area to live. And being a woman in any part of Africa seems like it’s an additional challenge.

And so there is a chance to tell the story where it’s not just well-minded women go, you know what, we’re defending these elephants, but rather it’s women who have lost a certain kind of power or have been traumatized or who have been marginalized finding a way to reclaim some power and defend something of great value. And ideally – ideally – have a really positive portrayal of Africa, because we don’t get it a lot. We get a lot of Blood Diamonds. We get a lot of Ghosts in the Darkness or whatever that movie was with the lions. We don’t get a lot of this. And I think that’s really – that’s what you’d hope for.

And they do hint at this in the article. They point out that a number of these women have suffered trauma. They either were orphaned by parents who died of AIDS. Or they were victims of sexual assault or domestic abuse or abandonment. And so I think that’s where I would kind of come at it. And I do think actually this could be pretty cool. I could see this being a movie.

**John:** I could see this being a movie, too. And I agree with you that focusing on the women is clearly the way to tell this story. You want to see why they are doing this and why they are better suited for this task than men would be. And so the article does talk some about that in the sense of when they’re trained to do this they just do a better job, because they’re better able to work with the community. They have these automatic weapons but they don’t turn to those automatic weapons as sort of the first way to get a problem solved. And they work well together as a community, so that is crucial. I think that’s really the center of the storytelling.

In this short story we meet Sgt. Vimbai Kumire. So she’s one of the main women we follow in this story. But Enterprise World also meet Damien Mander. So he’s described as a “tattoo-covered Australian and former special forces soldier who has trained game rangers in Zimbabwe for more than a decade.” And he’s one of those characters who seems kind of interesting and compelling at the start, and yet I kind of don’t want him in the movie. My concern is that no matter what you try to do with this character he’s going to feel like the white savior guy. And that’s the thing I want to see least in this movie is the outsider who tells people how to do something.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So in focusing on this I’d want to find a way to tell the story honesty but that focuses on the women themselves and feels like it’s them solving this issue and not some outsider telling them how to solve this issue.

**Craig:** An alternative way to approach that is to accept the truth of it and then use that to address the white savior-ness of it. Meaning in reality this guy I assume was very useful and he helped trained them. But he’s not the one out there doing it. He’s not the one putting himself on the line. He’s not the one who is going to stay. This isn’t his country. And pointing that out I think is reasonable.

There is a limitation to the value of those people. But there is also real value to them. And that’s interesting. I think even a relationship – and I wouldn’t have it be a romantic relationship in any way, shape, or form – but a relationship between one of the leaders or a leading character of the women and him which is a relationship of mistrust and concern specifically for that reason. Because remember Zimbabwe was not always Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was Rhodesia not so long ago. And the idea of addressing certain aspects of colonialism and asking how do we move forward and how do we live or work together with this behind us is an interesting one.

So there’s an alternative point of view to embrace it and face it head on. But I agree the one thing you can’t do is this old school thing of white guy shows up, teaches black people how to be better Africans, and then leaves. That’s – we don’t do that no more.

**John:** That’s not going to work.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So I think what we’re both saying is neither of us want this guy to be protagonist or antagonist in the story. He can be a character in the story. He can serve a function, but he should not serve one of those primary functions because that is something we’ve seen a lot and it becomes – I just get the bad kind of goosebumps when I see that.

**Craig:** Bad bumps. Nobody wants bad bumps.

**John:** Nobody wants bad bumps.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Where does this movie go? Where do we see this kind of movie happening?

**Craig:** Well, this is a movie that if done at a certain level and a certain way could earn a theatrical release because it theoretically could be quite prestigious. I could see it being an award-y kind of movie depending on how it’s done. It could also just be a very down the middle obvious treatment of this material. With all of these movies it’s always more likely that they’re going to be done on a streaming platform because that’s the world we live in. There’s no superheroes in it. Nothing blows up.

But, there is still a space for independent film and even for major studios releasing independently made films that address issues like this, have really interesting casts. I think you can cast this really well. Now more than ever there are some awesome actors of African descent, both American and Caribbean and British. And, of course, African. So there’s a lot of really cool opportunities. I think it could actually be a theatrical movie, but it would need independent love I would think.

**John:** I think you’re right. I could see a Participant or sort of an outside financier being a key player in this to make it happen at a budget level where you can sort of get the production values you really want to see there.

I would say of all the movies we’ve done on a How Would This Be a Movie before it reminded me somewhat of the California firefighter story we read.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** About the female inmates who were California firefighters. In which you a have a setting and a world but you need to pick very specific characters within that story to follow. And we don’t have them quite yet. We have sort of a sense of placeholders for people who could be there, but we don’t have actual characters with journeys. And so any writer who is approaching this is going say like, OK, here is the backdrop, here’s the world. I need to create an entire story. I need to import a story into this or do the firsthand research to figure out what are the stories I can tell that actually have beginnings, middles, and ends and characters who go through transformations. Because we’re not seeing that in this story so far.

**Craig:** Yeah. And this may just be a matter of personal preference but I think I would rather see this movie than the firefighter movie, just because I find the subject matter more interesting and I get to see somewhere I don’t know and learn things I don’t know and be with people that I don’t know. And it’s not that I know those women, but I know California, I know brush fires, I know firefighters. A lot of this we have experience with it. It’s not foreign to us. And I’m attracted by things that are foreign because you learn more. I just do. I mean, it’s one of the reasons I wanted to do Chernobyl. It was not American. It seemed like an opportunity.

**John:** Here’s what’s also great about this story is that as you’re watching this you are aware that the danger to these women could come from any direction. So it could come from other humans in the world. It could come from animals. It could come from gunshots. It could come from poachers. There’s a lot of things that could happen and stand in the way or endanger any of the characters we care about in the story.

In the firefighter movie we’re afraid of the fire mostly.

**Craig:** Fire. Yeah.

**John:** And so we can see that coming. Where we can’t always see bullets coming. Or we can’t see that dangerous panther or tiger or anything else that’s potentially out there. So that’s an interesting difference with this movie. Our last How Would This Be a Movie comes from an advice column in The Cut as well. It’s the Ask Polly advice column written by Heather Havrilesky. This one is about a woman with severe mushroom allergies who becomes convinced that her in-laws are maybe trying to kill her. So it’s not just that they are insensitive to her food sensitivity. They seem to be finding ways to introduce mushrooms into things that have no business having mushrooms in them.

I loved the letter writer’s description, but I especially loved Heather’s response to how nuts this situation was. And she actually says that this feels like the pitch for a dark comedy on premium cable. And, yeah, it kind of does. It’s that idea of like are my in-laws trying to kill me. Maybe they are.

**Craig:** Yeah. Heather went ham, which I love. And she was right to do so. And the letter writer was so weirdly sweet about it and kind of underplayed the insanity of what’s going on here.

Now, look, we live in a world where people will say, “Look, I have this allergy to this thing,” and maybe there’s a little pushback kind of in the air, like a little silent pushback which is, ugh, everyone is allergic to something now. You can see people kind of groaning and rolling their eyes sometimes. Or if someone says, oh yeah, if you’re in a restaurant, “I want the surf and turf but instead of the lobster can I have this because lobster makes me slightly itchy.” You know, I understand there’s a certain kind of, I don’t know, self-indulgent griping you could do about people with allergies.

But the truth is that when somebody has a legitimately troublesome allergy it is life-threatening. It is terrible. As a parent it’s got to be absolutely nightmarish to be policing your own child and just every day wondering is this the day that somebody slips freaking mushrooms in. And the crazy part, the craziest thing, is when after it’s been made clear to her in-laws that she has been hospitalized over this and convulsed in an ambulance because of mushrooms they added mushroom powder to mashed potatoes at a holiday dinner.

What is mushroom powder? I’ve never even heard of mushroom powder. That’s literally poisoning. You are poisoning – you’re trying to poison her. And everybody knows it. And they say things like, you know, “Well, everyone except your wife likes mushrooms and we’re not changing what we eat for one person.” Oh my god. It’s not that she doesn’t like them. It’s that they’ll kill her. So, I think the deal is they want to kill this lady. They’re literally trying to kill her.

**John:** The fact that it seems like they want to kill her is what makes this so compelling. And I think it’s easy to feel sympathy for this woman and I find the husband character really fascinating. Like how much of a doormat is he that he’s not willing to stand up to his family for trying to kill his wife? That isn’t good. But it’s easy to imagine who that family is and how messed up that family must be and how tight that family must be to want to do this.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I mean, this woman is an outsider marrying into a thing. It feels kind of great.

Now, this allergy by itself is not a movie. So, I think it’s suggesting a jumping off point for a movie, but there would have to be a lot of other things and this mushroom allergy is just like one sign, like a really clear sign of not just the undermining but the dangerous dislike that they seem to have for her. And that, you know, I think what’s relatable is we all kind of imagine that our in-laws don’t really like us, but to have it taken to the extremes is I think what makes it a movie.

**Craig:** Mushroom powder. So, one thing that I always try and remind myself when I read these things is we’re getting one person’s version. Now, it may be that this woman who is writing this letter and who is describing how her in-laws are trying to kill her with mushrooms, she could be awful. She could be an awful person. I’m not saying she is. But there’s a world in which she’s just a racist, nasty, abusive human being. And everyone reasonably loathes her.

Even then you can’t put mushroom powder in the mashed potatoes. You can’t. You can’t. You can’t mushroom somebody. You’re not allowed to mushroom people. There’s other ways to deal with them. You can’t mushroom them to death. That’s just wrong.

Is this a movie? No. It’s not at all a movie to me. I don’t think of it as a movie. I don’t think of it as a series. I think it could be an episode of something that’s kind of interesting. It could be a B-plot that you find out that somebody you hate is allergic to something and somehow mushrooms get – I don’t know.

**John:** I don’t think it’s a movie by itself. But I think the notion of are my in-laws trying to kill me – I think that is enough of a comedy idea that you could build something around it. I think there’s a tremendous amount more story you need to do there, but I think the mushroom aspect of it as am I crazy could work.

And a movie like Game Night comes to mind, where it’s just like it is funny but there is a real darkness underneath it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you could do a movie where a woman marries a man and it’s one of those interesting paranoid things. And Game Night has a similar aspect to it even though it’s a comedy. There’s a certain paranoia to it. Where she discovers that her husband actually has been married three times before that she didn’t know about and all three of those women died. And so now she’s thinking – and we’re all thinking – oh, he’s a serial wife killer. But he’s not. He insists that he’s innocent and she keeps finding clues. And eventually the big twist is it’s not him. It’s his mom. She keeps killing his wives. That could be cool.

I mean, I’ve just given away the ending.

**John:** To me the pitch is more like right from the start you’re worried about the mother-in-law, but of course she’s talked down, well everyone sort of feels that way about their future mother-in-law. And there’s ups and downs, but when it becomes clear like, wait, something really nuts is happening then there has to be a further step there. There has to be something more than just like, you know, oh, she’s trying to kill me. There has to really go to sort of why they’re trying to kill her, or what it is about that.

So, figuring out what that is – figuring out what’s really behind the family – that’s probably the key to what makes this a movie versus an advice column.

**Craig:** I want you to know there is mushroom seasoning. And there’s some mushroom powder. It’s really rare. I mean it’s just not – it’s not really a thing. You’ve got to go way out of your way – way out of your way – to find like dried porcini mushroom powder or something. They’re trying to kill her.

**John:** They are trying to kill her.

**Craig:** Sorry, based on what I read. I am not accusing anyone of anything. But based on what I read it would seem–

**John:** We don’t know the real family’s name, so they can’t libel us.

**Craig:** Correct. It would SEEM that they are trying to kill her with mushrooms.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, of these four things we’ve talked through which do you think will become a movie and which are you most excited to see if it’s not the same answer?

**Craig:** The Zimbabwe female rangers.

**John:** I would agree with you. I would say that’s probably the most compelling story area. I can imagine some version of the comedy soft serve wars thing happening. That feels like the nostalgic space for that. But I’m probably most excited to see the Zimbabwe anti-poaching rangers.

**Craig:** If Tim Herlihy does agree to come onboard and do the soft serve thing, then that one. But only if.

**John:** Herlihy or bust.

**Craig:** Herlihy or bust. That’s my motto.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is Game to Grow. So it’s this Seattle-based company and they use specially designed D&D experiences, modules and rulebooks, to help kids with anxiety and/or spectrum disorders relate to each other better and work through skills that they can use in real life. It seems great. So I have not met these people, the Adams, but I’ll put links in the show notes to an article about them, what they do. Also a Kickstarter for a thing called Critical Core which are sort of the slimmed down rulebooks that they use to talk through what they’re doing. But you look through this Craig and you’ll obviously recognize so many D&D things you love, but you’ll also recognize some things that are developmentally useful.

So there’s this one to nine scale of developmental capacities which is so true and accurate to sort of how kids process things which is basically how to think critically, how to cooperate going through stuff, how to plan ahead. All the things that you and I do all the time when we play D&D, which I think I probably got a lot out of playing D&D as a teenager, which is so useful and transfers so well to real life decision-making.

So it just seems like a great program, so I’ll tip people towards this and it’s something I’d love to see replicated in other places.

**Craig:** This is brilliant. And I love that the age range is so wide. So they’re looking at kids from ages eight to 20. So, this would certainly be relevant for one of my kids. And, yeah, I’m going to look a little deeper into this. For sure. This looks great.

My One Cool Thing this week is the National Puzzler’s League, otherwise known as MPL. The National Puzzler’s League is, like one hand there’s a magazine, The Enigma, that comes out with lots of puzzles in it. And they also have a national convention. This is not for your casual puzzler. I’m just going to tell you.

So I have friend Dave Shucan who is a brilliant puzzler and puzzle constructor and solver and he goes to the convention and he’s kind enough to say, hey, take a look at this puzzle that I did there. And they are awesome. They are really layered. When I say really layered I mean I tried explaining one to Melissa last night and she stopped me after about 12 words and said, “Please no more. I don’t want to hear anymore.” [laughs]

It’s layers and layers and layers. They’re beautifully done. They’re beautifully constructed. So I’m going to be joining the National Puzzler’s League and the membership for a year is a big whopping $23. I think I can do that. Online-only membership is just $15. So, yeah, I’m totally into that.

So National Puzzler’s League. If you want you can check it out at puzzlers.org and we’ll have a link in the show notes.

**John:** Fantastic. That’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Med Dyer. 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 like the ones we answered today.

Short questions on Twitter are great. So I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the casting notice. So, again, if you think you might know an Abby, a blind actress who is around 15 years old, I’m looking for her. So you can go to johnaugust.com/casting to find out more information about that.

You can find transcripts there as well on the site.

You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, thank you for helping me figure out whether these things would be movies.

**Craig:** My pleasure, John. Let’s do it again.

**John:** Cool. Bye.

Links:

* [The Shadows Casting Call](https://johnaugust.com/casting) John is looking for a 15 year old blind actress for the lead role — please help by sharing this link with anyone who might be a good fit!
* [Bonus Episode, Chernobyl Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bonus-episode-with-jared-harris/id1459712981?i=1000446954276)
* [Scriptnotes Ep 50, How to Not Be Fat](https://johnaugust.com/2012/how-to-not-be-fat)
* [Decoder Ring: Ice-Cream Truck Wars](https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring/2019/08/decoder-ring-explores-the-world-of-ice-cream-trucks) by Willa Paskin
* [Akashinga Women Rangers Fight Poaching in Zimbabwe Phundundu Wildlife Area](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/06/akashinga-women-rangers-fight-poaching-in-zimbabwe-phundundu-wildlife-area/) by Lindsay M. Smith
* [My In-Laws Are Careless About My Deadly Food Allergy](https://www.thecut.com/amp/2019/08/ask-polly-my-in-laws-are-careless-about-my-food-allergy.html) by Heather Havrilesky
* [Game to Grow](https://www.cnet.com/news/game-to-grow-the-dungeons-dragons-game-rescuing-kids-from-their-social-anxieties/?__twitter_impression=true), support on [Kickstarter here](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gametogrow/critical-core/description)!
* [National Puzzler’s League](http://www.puzzlers.org/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Med Dyer ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_414_mushroom_powder.mp3)

Scriptnotes, Ep 413: Ready to Write

August 27, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/ready-to-write).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 413 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’re going to try to answer the question how do you know when you’re ready to write that script. Then we’re going to answer listener questions about rewrites and polishes and whether writing a bad script could put you on a do not hire list.

**Craig:** Do not hire.

**John:** Do not hire!

**Craig:** Do not!

**John:** But Craig, most crucially in follow up, a question a lot of people have been asking – Craig, what’s up? Are you OK?

**Craig:** I’m OK. So the last podcast was the one that you did with – and I was supposed to be there but I couldn’t, essentially connected to this same thing – you did the mental health podcast which we’ll get to in a bit. But prior to that I had to drop out of the race, the Vice Presidential race, the sexiest of all political races, vice president, because of a medical issue in my family.

So, a little context. First of all, no one is dying. I think that’s important for people to know. But I do have a kid who has multiple chronic health issues and there was – I think maybe, ugh, I want to say literally the day after I said, OK, I’ll go ahead and run for vice president we got a call that he had to go into emergency surgery for the second time in a year. And it’s a complicated surgery. It’s not the kind where they poke three holes in you. It’s more like the kind where they make a big line and go Wee. So, good news is he’s recuperating quite nicely, but he does have medical issues that we have to be attentive to. And it seemed to me not only that I was not going to be able to have the time or attention to give to the race, but even worse my ability to serve effectively for two years should I win was fairly compromised because, you know, if this happens again, or if one of his other conditions sort of acts up and that requires attention, then I just won’t be present or able to do the gig.

So, for that reason I had to drop out. But, you know, good news – to be clear – no one is dying. But, you know, it hasn’t been a great month.

**John:** Yeah. Life is challenging at times. And you and I both had some challenges as things happen. So, we’re glad to hear that he’s doing better and that you’re doing OK.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes I am. And I really appreciate. There was a wonderful outpouring of support and people were very lovely, which was nice to see. And we should. We should try and be lovely to each there is a medical crisis going on in a family, but nonetheless it was nice to see and encouraging that, you know, we all know ultimately what matters in life. There’s layers of importance and rankings of importance. And this is one of those things that’s more important.

So, we’re in a pretty decent place, but I think it was the right call to make.

**John:** I agree. Now, you also had a very bright moment of news over these last two weeks. You won a TCA, a Television Critics Association award for Chernobyl.

**Craig:** I won. I keep wanting to give it a name, like the Taco or something like that. The Taca? And I wasn’t able to go to the event and here’s why: because I had to then go to – I’ve been doing a lot of back and forth traveling – my son is at school in Utah, so we were going back and forth over the last few weeks from here to Salt Lake City. And then we had to go from here to Upstate New York to get my daughter from camp. She goes to a performing arts camp. And part of that final weekend when you collect your kid is that’s the big show. And if there’s one thing that movies have taught us, John, is that not seeing your kid in a production makes you a bad parent.

**John:** Oh absolutely. I mean, if there’s a third act lesson there, actually it’s often a first act indication that this is a terrible parent. But then by showing up at the third act moment you’ve redeemed yourself as a parent. So in the magical father wish comedy that is our life you showed up.

**Craig:** Right. I mean, the problem was I knew that there wasn’t going to be a show soon after that one, so I could have just first-acted that one and then arrived for the next one. Like, look, daddy gets it. But, no, I chose to do the right thing and go to see my child perform and it was great. So Jared Harris was able to accept on our behalf.

**John:** Oh nice.

**Craig:** And so it was great. I mean, I’ve never won an award before, I mean, in Hollywood. I’ve won things like in grade school.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Won some Mathlete challenges and such. But, no, it’s lovely. It’s a nice crystal slab and I’m very appreciative. So thank you Television Critics Association. That was super nice. And, you know, either I’m getting killed by critics or they’re giving me lovely crystal slabs. I’m confused. But it was great and very honored to receive something like that. And, you know, hooray.

**John:** Hooray. One of the things you did miss out on was this mental health and addiction panel. So that was last week’s episode we aired it. It really was just a terrific night and I’m so happy that people who have been writing in – it seems like it was meaningful for them as well. So, we talked about what it’s like to write characters with mental health problems or addiction issues, but also what writers should look for in their own lives when it comes to those two topics.

People wrote in with some really great personal stories, which we won’t share here, but it was clear that it touched a nerve for a lot of people. So if you haven’t listened to the episode yet I would recommend you go back and listen to that. Also listen to Episode 99. We will keep talking about these things in the future seasons of Scriptnotes because it’s not a problem that gets solved once.

**Craig:** It’s not. And it’s also not something that shouldn’t be talked about. We just naturally avoid it as people and we shouldn’t. We should be leaning into it. We should not feel any sense of shame. I feel no shame about my emotional issues and my mental difficulties and the medicine I take. And we do need to talk about it because our business, and particularly for writers I think the process of doing what we do as writers and then as writers for screen in particular is emotionally difficult and at times it can be extremely stressful.

And it is no surprise that a lot of writers end up with substance abuse problems. A lot of writers end up deeply depressed. A lot of writers end up with a kind of chronic anxiety that they find difficult to manage. And these are the things we want to avoid desperately, right. You can’t avoid them necessarily, but at least you can manage them and we can help each other by talking about them.

**John:** Yeah. The screenwriter classically is stressed out and isolated which is not a great combination for mental health.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** And so we need to look at ourselves and as an industry how do we do better for everyone who is facing those situations.

**Craig:** Precisely. And so, yes, we should keep talking about this and – and – John, I have an idea.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** You know so we do nice things for charities. Maybe there’s something we could do for a charity that is involved in this area.

**John:** That would be great. So, a charity that is focused on mental health. If there is a charity that is focused on writer mental health, even better. But we will find ways to do some sort of event that could be benefiting this. I will also say Hollywood Health and Society who organized this event, they’re great. They do a bunch of stuff. And so I hope this is the first of many of these kind of panels we do on different topics.

**Craig:** Yes. And I do hope that I’ll be able to be at the next one. I mean, weirdly enough part of why I wasn’t there was because of these chronic issues, one of which is a mental health issue. So it’s something that’s part of my family and it’s something that we deal with. And we are those people that aren’t embarrassed to talk about it.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** I guess that makes us special.

**John:** Aw. Another very special institution in Hollywood is Deadline. Deadline is the website that we all feel a little bit of shame every time we open because we know it’s bad for us and yet still sometimes we open it up.

**Craig:** I mean, sometimes it’s fine. You know, it’s not all bad. Although I still have like Nikki Finke like PTSD. Because it used to be like just her going bananas. And now, well, now they do things like what they just did to you.

**John:** So, we have complained on previous episodes where they’ll take stuff out of our transcripts and call it an exclusive. Like, oh wow, it’s an exclusive of a podcast that we just recorded and put out for free in the world. I put up a blog post this past week about the myth that the WGA is not negotiating. It was a 1,088 word post that really talked through pretty clearly my thoughts. Deadline thought it did a good job as well and so they took the entire post and wrapped it around in some double quotes at times with like, “August said.” Basically excerpting the whole thing but kind of making it seem like an article.

**Craig:** I mean, you can’t really excerpt it if you take all of it.

**John:** No. So I bitched on Twitter about that and I wrote to the writer, David Robb, saying I don’t think that was appropriate at all. I didn’t say copyright infringement, even though it’s clearly labeled as copyright. Because there’s such a thing as fair use and I want to make sure that fair use is protected and it’s such a crucial institution for dissemination of ideas and culture, especially in a journalistic context.

But to take an entire blog post written by another person and just put it on your site is not really journalism. And as a journalism major back in college if I had done this for a news story–

**Craig:** Oh good lord.

**John:** My professor would not have given me credit for that. It would have been a lecture.

**Craig:** They’re screwing with you now. I really feel like they’re kind of doing it on purpose. I actually had a conversation about this with Nellie Andreeva who works at Deadline. I was talking with her at one of these HBO media events. And she admitted that exclusive was not appropriate. And she said they actually had removed that when they saw it.

But I think that you’re making a really good point about the nature of reproduction. So fair use does say, listen, if there’s newsworthy value to it you can take some of it – some of it. Not all of it. Right? So if you’re taking all of it then I think you would need to do, for instance, so the New York Times or the Washington Post if they’re going to republish say a court document, which is not copyrighted by the way, they still put it kind of in its own little box. And they say, look, here’s the document. We’re not just going to quote the whole damn thing as if we dug it up ourselves and made editorial choices about what to include and what to not include.

I just think it is a violation of some basic principles of journalism and they shouldn’t do it. Also, how about this? Just put the link on there, quote a few things like a normal person would, and put the link on and say if you want to read the whole thing to.

**John:** Like Variety did. That’s what Variety did.

**Craig:** Yes. Like a normal – correct, because that’s normal.

**John:** They made a little summary and they linked out to the article. And so that’s kind of the minimum you could ask them to do. But here’s my probably bigger frustration is that the headline for it is something like John August Sees Long Slog Ahead for Agency Deal Negotiations. And “long slog” was in quotes. And I’m like I really don’t think I said that. So I took a look at my original post, I took a look at the actual post that they had put, and they added the word long and put it inside quotes as if I’d said long slog.

So when I complained specifically about that they took long outside of the quotes, so it was clearly just editorializing that it was going to be long.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s not right either.

**John:** That’s so wrong.

**Craig:** If you don’t call something a long slog they can’t quote you as saying long slog, nor can they describe it as a long “slog.”

**John:** Because you and I have both been through short slogs. That is a real thing where like, god, you’re grinding and you’re grinding and you’re grinding. It doesn’t mean it takes weeks. It means it’s just a really arduous process.

**Craig:** It’s tough. You can go through a slog of a negotiation for a project that they want to hire you for at a studio and it can be two miserable weeks of slogging. Where it’s back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. A long slog that’s months. That has a specific meaning. That’s not – I think they have failed twice in this regard.

**John:** So, and my frustration with this is that I got people who read – I tweeted out my link to my actual article on my blog and I got feedback from that. And then I got a whole different set of feedback for people who had seen the Deadline piece, not realizing there was a blog post, not realizing I had not said “long slog.” And I could tell they’d read the Deadline piece because it’s like you say it’s going to be a “long slog.” And I’m like, no I didn’t. I didn’t say that. Deadline did. And that’s the frustration, the degree to which it warps the conversation we’re trying to have.

**Craig:** Well, speaking of conversation, let’s have a conversation about what you wrote and your point of view, because I had a little bit of a different point of view on it, as I thought expressed by one of the great GIFs of all time. I thought I picked a great GIF.

**John:** I don’t know the source of that GIF. What is the source of that GIF?

**Craig:** I have no idea either. Nor can I even remember what words I typed into the search to get it. But it was so perfect because it was like – it wasn’t like bad it was just more like, hmm, I don’t know. It actually perfectly encapsulated my response. So, I wanted to kind of walk through it.

**John:** And I should say that my response GIF was Joey giving Chandler a hug from Friends.

**Craig:** So adorable. Nothing can keep us apart. I think it’s really important people understand this. Nothing.

**John:** Nothing.

**Craig:** Although that one person on Deadline does want you to fire me. Oh no, they were on Twitter. Sorry. They wanted you to fire me.

**John:** I don’t think you can really be fired Craig. I just don’t think it’s going to happen.

**Craig:** You can’t fire me. I quit!

**John:** I’m going to stop paying you, Craig!

**Craig:** Oh man. [laughs] So let’s talk through. So do you want to sort of encapsulate your position, or you want me to ask some questions basically?

**John:** Absolutely. Let me give the very short version. We’ll put a link to the actual blog post, not the Deadline post here. I started by saying that I think it’s incredibly important that we have robust discussion of ideas and issues but as a union it’s important to have a common set of facts. And I didn’t feel like we were having a common set of facts on this idea of no negotiation. And that this idea that we weren’t negotiating had become something of a straw man, where it was just presumed at the start and then you could argue against this idea. You know, the WGA says we shouldn’t negotiate. Well, we should negotiate. And so I cited three candidates who are saying we are refusing to negotiate and then I walked through what was actually said at the time that we said we were no longer going to be negotiating directly with the ATA but negotiating with individual agencies, and what had changed in the meantime. What actually happened in the meantime.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So that’s a very short summary of what I wrote.

**Craig:** Yeah. And your suggestion is essentially that the argument of the WGA refusing to negotiate is a bit of a straw man. And it is and it isn’t. So there is imprecise language there, no question. I guess we want to – my point of view is let’s talk about what is sort of the significant core of this complaint, even if the language is imprecise that the WGA refuses to negotiate.

The complaint is that the WGA refuses to negotiate in any effective way with the big four agencies that essentially, A, control the ATA, and B, represent the great majority of our membership. I don’t think there’s much of an argument there, is there?

**John:** I think there is an argument there. Here’s what I think is fair to say. That the WGA has said that instead of negotiating with the ATA that we wanted to negotiate with the agencies individually. Specifically in Goodman’s point he says, “The top nine agencies,” so the big four and the next five agencies. We want to focus on them. And so have individual discussions with those agencies.

So it is fair to say that we are choosing not to negotiate with the ATA, refusing – not negotiate with the ATA. And to the degree that you’re not negotiating with the big four because they are only agreeing to negotiate through the ATA. That’s not as well established. But it seems like their preference is to negotiate through the ATA.

**Craig:** Well, that’s where I’m not sure I agree on that. Part of the issue is you can say, listen, we don’t want to negotiate with the ATA anymore. We just want to negotiate with the individual agencies and that includes CAA and WME and UTA and ICM. But the problem is that when David Goodman makes that statement he is well aware – I think we’re all well aware – that because of the nature of the proceedings prior to that moment which is kind of nothing happening, they make a proposal, we do not respond in any way to that proposal. Then they come back. They unilaterally raise their proposal. And we say after some time we’re not negotiating with you anymore. That that was in effect a secession of negotiations. And that it was incredibly improbable that without some sort of significant change in something that the individual agencies would not then take David Goodman up on this invitation.

**John:** Can you wind back that last sentence? So you’re saying that it was improbable that any agency would agree to individually negotiate?

**Craig:** I’m talking about the big four.

**John:** OK.

**Craig:** And the reason I keep talking about the big four is while we have signed some other agencies, I think it’s important to say that – unless I’m wrong about this – I don’t think we’ve signed any agencies that actually were engaging in packaging fees and affiliate production in any significant manner. Meaning we haven’t done anything to change anything yet. In fact, after about a half a year what we’ve done is essentially bring back a few agencies to the state that they were in prior to the action we took. I don’t really think we’ve changed much there.

**John:** I don’t think that is accurate or fair in terms of the agencies that we’ve signed and also just the packaging deals that have not happened as a result of this action.

**Craig:** So they were packaging?

**John:** Some of these smaller agencies were packaging. Verve was packaging. As I believe Kaplan-Stahler had a package on a significant property as well. So these are agencies who I think given their druthers would love to continue packaging.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** They’ve decided to not package in order to sign this deal.

**Craig:** I will acknowledge that. But I think in turn you would probably agree that none of those agencies were packaging in any significant way, or at least in terms of the percentage of shows that are packaged. They were responsible for maybe a cumulative total of 1%.

**John:** A much smaller percent than the big four. Absolutely. No argument there.

**Craig:** And so when we began this fight – look, when Chris Keyser came on our show and the three of us were in violent agreement that we needed to do something about packaging fees and affiliate production, the three of us were talking about four agencies effectively, because those four agencies account for the greatest majority, I mean, a vast majority of all of the packaging fees and packages that are implemented and all of the affiliate production that is implemented.

So, yes, we can absolutely say we have signed Kaplan-Stahler. Or Verve. But I don’t think we can say that we have effectively engaged in negotiations with the four agencies that are responsible for the problem that we are all really angry about. I think sometimes people think like maybe I’m on the agencies’ side because I criticize the way we’re handling things, but I’m actually – it’s because I hate the stuff that the agencies are doing that I criticize the guild because I want the guild to do better.

And now we have a difference of opinion of how to accomplish that, but I think I would push back on you in the sense of, listen, yes, there was some sloppy language there, but there is a decent point to be made that because of the way we have handled things we have yet to negotiate effectively, nor have we shown a great willingness through behavior to negotiate effectively with those individual four agencies.

**John:** I would say that folks who attend the WGA public meetings will get a sense of sort of where the strategy is currently and where it’s headed to. And that the big four – negotiating with the big four agencies remains a priority.

**Craig:** Well that’s good to hear. I mean, because I’ve been pretty consistent about this all along. That is where our victory is. Some people I think – I’ve seen some things where some members of our union seem to feel that we’d be better off without them and I will just continue to maintain that down that path lies peril for us. It’s not that we’re being deprived of their wondrousness. It’s that we may be subject to some anti-wondrousness. I mean, just this week I got a call about something and I was like, ugh, and it involved an agency – not CAA – which was my agency. One of the other big four agencies. That lit me on fire. I mean, I was so angry. I was just like pouring gasoline into bottles and shoving rags and I was ready man.

And then I’m like, OK, let’s just figure out how to deal with this and stop this. But it is infuriating. Some of the behavior that they engage in is infuriating. And I want to win. And the way I at least think about winning is that we figure out how to get them back from what they’re doing into a place where they’re actually advocating for us as clients.

So, I think you brought up good points. I thought that some of the people pushing back on you brought up good points. I think that as long as we keep our eye on this – what you’re saying is a priority – I don’t know how we get to this priority because there’s a lot of now anger between these parties and a lot of mistrust. But whatever can happen, hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

**John:** All right. So let’s take a meta moment here to look back at the discussion we just had. And so you and I did not convince each other of anything, but we expressed our ideas and our opinions on sort of where things have been, where they’re going, and what the best course of action is. The degree to which we can model that behavior for other folks I think would be terrific. One of the functions I sort of see myself as a person who is not running for reelection is to remind people both in big rooms and online that we are remarkably lucky. That we are remarkably lucky that we are some of the most talented writers out there. We’re some of the most highly-paid writers out there. We’re the only writers in the world who get to have a union that gets to represent them this way.

So, we are starting from a position of just tremendous luck and luxury. And the fact that we have so many people who care so passionately about what the future is for all of us writers is great. And so let’s all approach this from a perspective of we may disagree on ideas and tactics and strategies, but the degree to which we can compassionately disagree and not question people’s motives but question people’s ideas, that’s how we come out of this in strength.

**Craig:** 100%. We should be able to stress test each other’s ideas on these things. And we should be able to do it publicly. I don’t think that asking why we are doing this or that in some way is going to damage our solidarity. Our solidarity at least to me is not a function of our allegiance to any given leadership. Because if it were our solidarity would have to kind of whipsaw back and forth depending on who just got elected.

Our solidarity is based on our willingness as members, even when we disagree, to follow our working rules and send in our dues. And what that means is when there’s an action like this one and we have a working rule that says you can’t go back to your agent until this is solved, you don’t go back to your agent. That’s where solidarity is. It’s not in agreeing with every single thing either Phyllis Nagy or David Goodman says. That would be – down that path essentially is just sort of a, I don’t know, a kind of a poverty of imagination and thought.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I do think you’ve put your finger on it that as we go through these things to the extent that we can avoid deciding that some people are just bad because they think a certain thing about a strategy we should – it’s a shame. Because I do feel like every single person that is running in this race, every single one of them, legitimately wants to do something that they believe is best for writers. Nobody is getting a payoff or a kickback or anything. I mean, there’s been some crazy allegations made. So, yeah, let’s just reduce the temperature a bit. And I think maybe give ourselves credit for being strong enough to withstand an election which we’re supposed to have anyway.

**John:** Yep. And honestly I would rather have some disharmony than apathy. And so many years we’ve had apathy where we’ve had to basically twist people’s arms just to get enough people to actually run for the board or to run for office. So, it’s a good problem to have that we have many people who want to do this unpaid job for two years.

**Craig:** I completely agree. And one of the downsides to the – you know, we never really had uncontested elections and then suddenly we did just because we couldn’t find people to run. And one of the downsides is you start to create a generation of members who are not used to contested elections. And we can be frightened by them, even. And we don’t want that for the very reason you’re saying. We want a good competition of ideas and as long as our members are following our working rules and going by the kind of action that we’re taking then we do have meaningful solidarity. We don’t need solidarity of opinion. We need solidarity of behavior. And that’s important. And I don’t think that we should ever put something like an election in the context of hurting our leverage or anything like that.

If an election hurts our leverage than our leverage is terrible. That’s how I guess I would put it. So, you know, hopefully yeah, people can kind of just be nice to each other because they’re writers. And we deserve that from each other.

**John:** Absolutely. All right, let’s do a final bit of follow up. Back in Episode 399 we sat down with a bunch of studio executives to talk about how they give notes and how they could give better notes. Steph Cowan wrote in, Craig would you read what Steph wrote for us?

**Craig:** Sure. Steph writes, “I was right in the middle of a what-am-I-doing-with-my-life-I’m-not-cut-out-for-this moment when I heard your episode Talking Austin in Austin with Lindsay Doran. At the time I’d been working in the theater industry developing new musicals for about eight years. I’d been told that I’m too nice and cared too much to be a commercial producer and that I’m better suited for the lit department of a non-profit instead.

“Then Lindsay Doran said something like as a producer I consider myself the guardian of the storytelling. And I teared up. This was exactly how I felt. It’s still how I feel. And to hear a successful, admirable producer say it was deeply reassuring. I felt that reassurance again when Craig said I think you’re told not to be vulnerable, addressing studio executives in Episode 399. He’s right. We are, in the Broadway world anyway.

“Knowing that showing our love for the story and the team is strength gives me hope that maybe I am cut out for this. It’s also very exciting for me to hear how to give more effective notes. I can’t wait to share this episode with my colleagues.”

John, this is great. Especially because Steph comes from Broadway and we love Broadway.

**John:** We love Broadway. I’m headed to Broadway soon to see four shows in a very short period of time. But my experience making a Broadway show is that there is that function of a producer in terms of being a cheerleader, in terms of being a person who is putting a giant hug around an idea which is still forming. It is really crucial. And so you look for those ones who can do what Lindsay Doran says and sort of be a champion and a challenger and a person pushing you to make the very best thing. So, it sounds like that’s what Steph was taking out of these two episodes.

**Craig:** You know what? I’m starting to think this podcast is a good idea.

**John:** Maybe so. Maybe you should keep doing just a few more.

**Craig:** Why not?

**John:** Unless it turns out that we are wrong about the words of English.

**Craig:** Let’s find out.

**John:** “Hi Craig. I’m one of those Johnny Came Lately show listeners who have washed up because of Chernobyl. Sorry. I’m sure a bunch of people have already pointed this out but I just listened to a second podcast where you poured scorn on “heigth” specifically, characterizing it as a construction of illiterate youth. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is old school. It was good enough for Milton and it’s good enough for us, right?”

And then there’s a link, line 324 if you’re following the link in the show notes. “Cheers and thanks for a really well put together podcast.”

**Craig:** Well thank you anonymous writer. I’m glad you washed ashore as a result of Chernobyl. So, of course, I felt a little bit red-cheeked here. I mean, am I wrong? Is heigth a word? Maybe it is. If it’s good enough for Milton – that sounded like a pretty smart phrase.

So I went ahead and looked at the reference here which is, of course, to Paradise Lost, book two, line 324. And in line 324 it says, “In heigth or depth, still first and last will reign.” OK, that’s embarrassing. But I’d like to point out that five lines later it says, “War hath determined us and foiled with loss.” War is spelled with two Rs and foiled has no E. We don’t do that anymore. This is archaic. It is not applicable.

I mean, if we’re going to say that heigth is acceptable because it’s in Milton I guess we can start spelling war W-A-R-R. No. I reject this. I reject this.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah. And you know what? For arbitrary reasons. Language can change. Language can grow, evolve. Absolutely. But if Craig says no, Craig can say no. And he’s just not going to use that word. He’s not going to use the heigth. He’s not going to accept it.

**Craig:** And I’m also going to continue to say that people are wrong. Unless, here’s the exception: if somebody randomly says heigth and I’m like did you just say heigth, and they said, “Well yeah, I know, but Milton,” I’ll say stop, you can do it. Just you.

**John:** So the Milton clause is what gets you out of it.

**Craig:** Milton clause.

**John:** The Milton clause. All right. Let’s do our marquee topic. This was inspired by a conversation with Katie Silberman two episodes back. Also I just saw Andrea Berloff’s movie The Kitchen and I had a Twitter conversation with Alison Luhrs who is a designer at Wizards of the Coast and she’s going to be coming on the show in a future episode. But they were all talking about the process of writing. Katie Silberman did all these pages in advance before she started actually writing. She would dialogue pages endlessly to do stuff.

Andrea Berloff was talking about the research she did for The Kitchen. Alison Luhrs was talking about these giant encyclopedias they built for these fantasy worlds that they’re doing for Match of the Gathering and for Dungeons and Dragons.

And so I want to talk just a bit about how do you know when you’ve done enough of that prep stuff and that you’re really ready to write. And Craig and I have different perspectives on this. We do different kind of advanced work. But I want to talk about how each of us feels like, OK, I’m ready to actually start writing scenes.

**Craig:** Yeah. So this may be one of those things where we talk through it and ultimately what it boils down to is we each have our own finger print about this. And what it comes down to is when are you comfortable. When do you feel like you actually can do the good stuff? Which is finding yourself in that moment and writing out a scene and feeling really good about it.

And for me, and this has been this way for so long, I mean, it’s almost getting more this way: I really love to prepare. I love to know exactly what every scene is going to be and what happens in it, even though of course I can deviate. I’m one of those people that goes all the way basically to I need to know what the script is before I start writing the script. And I guess maybe in that regard I’m probably closer to Katie Silberman than I am to you I’m thinking.

**John:** Yeah. And I’m very much not that. But I think the kinds of things that I want to know are probably similar to things you want to know, it’s just that you’re actually doing a written down version of it and I’m just carrying a bunch of stuff in my head and not writing it down.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And why it’s relevant really for this season and this moment is I think you’re just about to start writing something new, or you have already started writing something new?

**Craig:** I’m about to start writing something new. Correct.

**John:** As am I. So this is top of mind for me. Also this is development season. So this is when new TV shows are getting pitched and people are starting to write them. So a lot of people are at this moment right now in town.

**Craig:** There’s still a season to these things?

**John:** There’s still a season certainly for broadcast. We’ve been through staffing and now the folks who are generally not in a room on a show are developing for stuff and they’re going out and pitching things to networks and studios. So that still exists.

**Craig:** All right. Well, good.

**John:** So let’s talk about the idea. And so for me before I start actually writing any scenes I want to know what is this movie or show, what does it look like/feel like if you sort of squint your mind a little bit. What is the shape of it? What category is it? What does it feel like? What does the music feel like? This is the time where I might start putting together a playlist of the music that feels like the show or the movie to me. I think about the trailer. I think about the one sheet. I just feel like pulling back far out, even not looking at specific story, what kind of movie is that. And I need to know that really early on and certainly before I start writing.

**Craig:** Yeah. Obviously I’ve just sort of given my thing away, but speaking specifically of that, that’s the big one. You can – I think anyone can start whenever they want, but after that. Because I think a lot of people think that what they need to start writing is an idea. And an idea, if it’s just the plot, if it’s just the log line, that’s actually not enough.

**John:** Oh not at all.

**Craig:** Not enough. If what you have is, ooh, what if a guy woke up and every day was the same day. That’s not enough. You need to know about why that idea matters.

**John:** Yeah. A thing we talk about on the show a lot is that many ways screenwriting is making a movie in your head and then writing the description of like that movie that you see in your head. And so if you don’t have the basis for sort of like what does this look like in my head, what does this sound like, what does it feel like, then you’re not anywhere close to really starting to write. So I suspect for Chernobyl you had done the research and you had a sense of like visually what does this feel like. What is going to feel like to be watching this show? And you have to have that early on.

And to me that comes before the characters. The characters are the next really crucial step here, but I need to know sort of what kind of thing am I trying to do and who are the characters who are populating this world. Not just my hero. I need to know what are the relationships between the central characters. Where would we find them at the start? Where would they get to by the end? What is the trajectory that they’re going through?

So even though unlike Craig I’m not going to do a full outline that’s sort of going scene by scene, I definitely need to know who are these people and what is the journey that they’re going to be going on through this block of time.

**Craig:** Yeah. You can see your guide posts along the way. So you understand no matter what’s happening, even if you’re not necessarily writing from a description of what the scene should be, you understand where you’ve come from and you understand where you’re going. And if you don’t know where you’re coming from and you don’t know where you’re going, that’s when screenplays start getting very purpley and self-indulgent and talky and flabby. I mean, I’ve seen this so many times where I just think they didn’t know.

**John:** They didn’t know.

**Craig:** They were just writing their way through a forest hoping that they would stumble across something. And eventually they do, but that’s their problem. I’m not here to go on your fact-finding mission. I’m here to go on a carefully curated tour of your deep dark forest. So, I mean, you can obviously find your way through those things, but you can’t show it to anybody until you’ve–

**John:** Yeah. And the thing is you can have your general idea, you can have your characters, but unless you sort of knew what is specifically the story of this movie, which comes down to a thing we’ve talked a lot about recently which is what is that central dramatic question, what is that central argument, what is the thing the movie or the episode of television is really about. And if you don’t know that going in – sometimes you can succeed honestly. There’s been stuff I’ve started writing where I didn’t really quite know what is that thematic thing that’s pulling it all together, but I had – even if I couldn’t say it aloud I had a sense of what it felt like. I had a sense of what I was going for. What space this occupied. And it’s the scripts that you read where I just don’t think you actually know where you’re going are the ones where they didn’t have a sense of that right when they started writing.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, listening to you, what you’re not talking about is plot.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** I mean, I think this is where people go wrong. They think they’re ready to write when they know what the plot is. The plot – first of all, I don’t even know how you know what the plot is unless you know the things that you’re talking about. Because at that point then you’re probably just creating something episodic and plotty with no purpose or meaning or anything greater than that.

You do need to do all this kind of internal psychological examination of why this story should exist. I mean, when you write a screenplay you are writing a proposal for some entity to invest tens of millions of dollars into its creation. Why? Why? Why would anyone do that to your thing? Well that’s the question you’re asking yourself now and that’s the question you need to answer before you start.

**John:** Yeah. At a certain point you are going to start thinking about plot. You’re going to be thinking about what are the moments. What are the set pieces? What are the moments in the story where things take a big turn? If this were a broadcast episode or pilot you’d be thinking what are the act breaks? Where are the moments where things really take a big turn, where are the cliffhangers in the story?

Before I would start writing I would have to have a sense of what are those big really visual things that are going to show what has happened in the story. So that’s where I need a sense of what is the world like. What is the world like at the start of the movie? What are the different sort of sets or places I’m going to be seeing over the course of this story?

I say this on the podcast a lot, but Susan Stroman, director of Big Fish, said she never wanted to see the same set twice. I don’t hold myself to that, but I definitely like her sense that we should not be coming back to the same place without there having been a change. Without something fundamental having been changed about the character or that place or the situation if we’re coming back to this thing. So what is the geographic journey of this story and what is the color journey through the story. What is changing about how this looks on screen as I’m going through this story?

I’ll have that sense pretty early on, generally before I’ve started writing any scenes.

**Craig:** This goes a little bit to that notion of the dialectic. You’re creating something and then it must change. There must be a constant change happening in storytelling. If you end up in that flat space or that circular space people will start to feel bored and for good reason. You’re treading water. You’re almost wasting time. I don’t know how else to put it. You’re literally wasting people’s time.

Good stories are narratives in which people’s relationships with each other, themselves, and the world around them are constantly changing. Every single scene exists in order to create a change. So you’re absolutely right. Coming back around to some place you’ve been before is only interesting if you’re different or that place is different. And the contrast is the whole purpose, right? So, these things need to be determined. If you end up just sort of noodling your way I think you probably will find yourself in that same diner having a similar conversation again.

**John:** Yep. Let’s talk about the dangers of starting too early. And starting the process of actually writing scenes too early before you have that stuff figured out. To me it’s that in the times where I’ve done it myself I outline my supply lines, like I get too far ahead of myself and I just haven’t built the infrastructure behind me to get myself forward, to get myself to this next thing. And so, man, I wrote a great first ten pages. Man, that’s a good first 30 pages. Wow, I have no idea how to get through the next 90. I didn’t have enough story figured out or I didn’t have enough figured out about how I was going to get from this point to a point I know I’m going to head towards later on. So outrunning myself is a real problem if I haven’t really thought through where stuff is.

I’ve often found myself where I have the right hero in the wrong story. I have the right story with the wrong hero. If I haven’t done that real thinking I might have smooshed these two things together but they’re not well suited for each other. And I would have been able to figure that out if I really thought through all those other things before I started writing scenes.

**Craig:** Yeah. I also think one of the dangers of starting too early is inefficiency of storytelling. As you go through you will be incapable of writing tightly, meaning everything has been really carefully considered so that the audience has experienced a pure storytelling unfold in front of them, a kind of a pure storytelling unfold in front of them, rather than a meandering or a wandering about or any kind of circular motion. But rather everything has been carefully machined so that there is – we understand that scenes have transitions and that this scene is a reflection of a scene earlier. And that this moment recontextualizes that moment.

There is essentially craft going on. And part of craft is efficiency of craft. It’s no wasted space. No wasted cloth. No wasted movement. But rather an elegance as if this thing had landed whole and already told in your lap. And it’s hard to do that when you’re kind of making it up as you go.

**John:** Yep. Let’s also talk about the dangers of starting too late. And I don’t know if you’ve encountered this much in your career, but there have been projects where I kind of did all the prep work and I maybe overdid the prep work a little bit and by the time I started writing I kind of gotten past it. Where the thing that attracted me to it was no longer attractive to me and I was looking at this as a chore rather than a thing I was excited to write.

And so I think part of the reason why sometimes I don’t do the laborious preparation is that I’m afraid of falling out of love with something, or being distracted by something else that’s newer and shinier. I want to start writing when I’m still really attracted and excited by this property. There’s a passion to it. And sometimes if I’ve burned off that passion in outlines and other things, especially if I had to show them with other people, then the actual starting to write is no longer thrilling for me.

**Craig:** Interesting. Yeah, I can totally see that being a problem. Certainly I think one of the hallmarks of starting too late is you’re dealing from fear. Something is holding you – you’re afraid to write. I think a lot of times people abuse the pre-writing process, whether it’s outlining or research not to set themselves up for writing success but rather to avoid writing failure. They’re only valuable to set yourself up for success. They are only useful tools. They can’t forestall any trouble. So at some point you’re going to have to dive in.

For me, I do feel a little bit of a sense of exhaustion and completion once I’m done with a 50-page scriptment. But then take a week or two and then when you start writing what you find is – at least I find – that the act of now full creation of a scene is invigorating again. That rather than thinking about an entire movie and a whole series of movements and character changes and resolutions and reversals, all I have to think about is this one little short film. And that is – that kind of makes me fall in love with it all over again. And I get to do that without worrying that I don’t know what to do next, because I do know what to do next.

**John:** Yeah. That is definitely an advantage to that is – what’s ironic is that I’m a person who tends to write out of sequence. You’re more likely to write in sequence. You could write out of sequence probably more easily–

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Because any of those moments – you could take a moment from page 30 of your script and just write it because you know it’s going to fit back in. I will write something because it’s what appeals to me to write that day. So even within I think all of our suggestions about figuring out adequate preparation and that everyone is different, it really does come down to people ultimately recognize what they need to have done before they start writing. And you should try some different things to figure out what works for you so you actually get scripts written and finished that you are happy with.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, maybe a general rule of thumb is if you find yourself frightened while you’re writing, and scared of the dark, then maybe you should be putting more time in ahead of time. If you find yourself feeling a bit dry and a bit like a horse on a lead, then maybe you need to do less to start with so that you have a little bit more of a sense of play while you’re going. You just have to dial into yourself.

But listen to what your mind is telling you as you go. Because none of this is orthodoxy. It’s all really about what makes your unique brain put out its best work.

**John:** Agreed. All right, let’s take two questions. First we have Leslie from Australia. She writes, “I’m questioning my sanity because I’m currently in a disagreement with a producer over what constitutes a polish versus a draft and I’m hoping you can help shed some light on this. I was hired and paid to write a feature for this producer. He and his backer loved what I did. I gave them a couple free polishes afterwards to address some feedback we got from a mucky-muck in the industry and they were delighted with that, too.

“A second producer has come onboard and given his notes on what he thinks needs changing. The first producer and his backer now agree with him and they’ve asked me how much I’d charge for a polish, or as they put it, ‘A strong polish.’ I told them the changes they’re asking for amounted to a draft, not a polish, or even a ‘strong polish,’ whatever that is, but they disagreed. So, when I gave them a reasonable quote for a draft they rejected it. I would love to get your take on what a polish is versus a draft. I may be way off base – I don’t think I am – but I’m willing to be schooled.

“Also, I’ve never heard of the term ‘strong polish’ before. Is that even a thing?”

Craig?

**Craig:** That is not a thing.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No. No, no, no, Leslie. That’s not a thing. That is a term invented by con artists to get you to do more for less. I mean, that’s all that’s going on here. They want more for less.

Here’s a rough rule, because there is not a ton of super specificity about this. And when you say a draft, for those of us here we would probably call that a rewrite. In my mind a polish is something that happens in about three weeks, or less. And if it’s more than that, it’s a rewrite. That’s kind of roughly how it goes. So, that’s sort of what I would say. And then the question is how much can you do in three weeks? Whatever you’re comfortable with doing.

So generally speaking a polish would not be re-rigging the plot. It would be fixing some characters. It would be maybe one or two characters need some work on their dialogue. There’s two scenes that need kind of reinventing or reimagining. That feels like a polish.

If they’ve got systematic issues that they need you to address or want you to address, that’s a rewrite. And if they don’t want to pay for it they can gaslight you all they want. They can tell you it’s a polish all they want. They can invent new phrases like strong polish. But that’s gas-lighting. They’re just trying to get more for less.

**John:** So, Leslie, even if you were working here, even if you were working in this town with schedules of minimums and things like this, you would still be dealing with this question of calling this a rewrite, calling this a polish. Them trying to get you to do more for a little bit less.

WGA has specific terms for what polish means and for what a rewrite means. Polish involves character work and dialogue. Things that change story in a major way tend to be rewrites. But functionally Craig is correct when he says it’s really more about time. That’s what we think about when we think about a polish. A polish is a matter of just a week or two, three weeks. If it’s multiple weeks and a lot of work that tends to be a rewrite.

And so Leslie I think you were right to be suspicious and I’m sorry that this didn’t work out on this draft. But whether they called that a polish or a rewrite, they didn’t want to pay you money for it and that’s where I think it comes down to it.

**Craig:** Well they wanted to pay her something, just not what she deserves. And I’ll point out you’ve already done a couple of free polishes.

**John:** Yes!

**Craig:** So this is what happens. We are not rewarded for “good behavior.” We’re punished for it. They don’t look at you as somebody who has done them a solid favor and therefore they now owe you something. What they do is look at you as somebody that they exploited successfully and so they will continue to exploit you. That’s what bullies do.

Now, when it comes to capitalism that’s essentially what capitalism is. It’s economic bullying. And they’re going to do what you’re going to do. And so you’re going to have to stand up for yourself and say no. And based on the way you’re describing this I’m just wondering where the copyright for this rests. You’re in Australia. I don’t think they have work-for-hire there. You may have more leverage than you think. I think it’s time for you to get somebody else involved to help represent you with them.

You’ve probably seen a lot of cop shows where the job of the police is to convince their suspect to not bring a lawyer in because if they bring a lawyer in it’s going to be much harder to get them to spill their guts and confess. Well, this is sort of like that. These guys don’t want you to bring a lawyer in. So, bring a lawyer in.

**John:** Agreed. Do you want to take Justin’s question?

**Craig:** Justin from Hawthorne asks, “Hello Screen Wizards.” I like Justin. “I’m writing today to see if the tales of the Do Not List from Hell exist in present times. I’ve heard rumors of this list but I can’t imagine it to be true. I’m worried I might be on it and I’m praying that the years of hard work attempts to crack open a career as a screenwriter won’t be thwarted by earnest and possibly haphazard times when maybe I was too eager or submitted my material too early? If it’s real, can somebody who is on this list ever get off of it?”

**John:** So I provided some off-mic context for Craig because this Do Not List is apparently an idea that producers or studios or other folks in town have a list of like never hire this person, or like there’s a do not list. This person is a hack and don’t hire them.

I think individual people will have their lists of writers they don’t want to hire, but it’s generally because they worked with the writers and the writers were bad for them. You writing something that wasn’t good, it doesn’t help you, but it doesn’t hurt you for a long time. It doesn’t stick around. People’s memories are kind of short when it comes to stuff they didn’t like. If they read a script that they really like of yours, they’ll hire you on to do more things.

So, I would say don’t be worried about your early work. Always be mindful if you’re sending stuff out make sure it’s good and it’s professional and that it’s showing your best light. But if you didn’t, stop worrying about it. Instead worry about writing good new stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah. When people read something that someone has submitted, an original or something like that, and they don’t like it, they throw it out. They don’t run to a special list called Oh My God This Person Wrote a Terrible Script. Because they know as well as anybody that somebody can write a terrible script and then four weeks write something wonderful. That does happen, right? Sometimes we’re working in the wrong genre. Sometimes for whatever reason it just doesn’t work.

John is correct. There are lists. First of all, there are lists. It’s important for people to know that. I’ve seen them. They exist. There are lists. And those lists are people that either a studio or a producer believes are well worth hiring and working with and they can make levels of them. I mean, the whole phrase A-list came from original list had A, B, C. And there are lists of, nope, we’re not hiring that person here. They usually don’t write that down because they don’t want to deal with any legal issues, but they are always on that list because there’s been a bad employment experience.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** Not because they wrote a bad script. If the studio hasn’t paid for it, they’re not going to blame you for it, dude. Most scripts are bad. How about that? You’re going to be fine.

**John:** Yep. He’s going to be fine.

**Craig:** He’s going to be fine.

**John:** Let’s do our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things this week. The first is a delicious cookie. It is the Oreo Thin.

**Craig:** I love those.

**John:** If you’ve not tried the Oreo Thins, they’re good and they’re so much better. And they’re crispier. So you owe it to yourself to try an Oreo Thin. Even if you don’t really love Oreos you’ll probably love Oreo Thins. They are terrific.

The second is a thin book. It is Monsters and Creatures: A Young Adventurer’s Guide. It’s by the D&D people. And what I like about it is it’s designed for young middle grade readers and they’re smaller books. They’re hardcover, but they just have all the cool illustrations of dragons and owlbears and all this stuff. Basically art work that Wizards probably had sitting around and they found a good way to repackage it and write some new text. It’s written by Jim Zub.

**Craig:** Hold on.

**John:** What a great name, right?

**Craig:** I think Jim Zub is in the monster manual. I think I’ve faced off a crimson Jim Zub.

**John:** They’re nicely done and to me it feels like if I were a six-year-old kid who was obsessed with dinosaurs I would also be obsessed with these books because it’s dragons and cool stuff. There’s other books – Warriors and Weapons, Dungeons and Tombs. So if you have somebody who you want to give this kind of gift to who is not really ready for actual D&D it feels like a good starter thing.

**Craig:** You round the corner and see in the room a giant Zub. What do you do? [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. So is a Zub one of the things where you stab with your sword and then your sword rusts away?

**Craig:** Probably. That seems Zub-like.

**John:** Zub-like.

**Craig:** It’s definitely Zub-like. Well, listen, you had two One Cool Things. I’m going to give our listeners a break and just say they deserve two One Cool Things. And also I didn’t have one.

**John:** That sounds good. So, Craig, I’ll give you half credit on the Oreo Thins because you also agree they’re good, right?

**Craig:** I have eaten them, so yeah.

**John:** All right. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Michael Karman. 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 like the ones we answered today. But for short questions, on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up about four days after the episode airs.

People do recaps on Reddit so you can check the recap for this episode and a couple episodes back if you’d like. You can find the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, it’s good to be back with you doing a normal Skype show.

**Craig:** Very good to be back with you and we’ve got some really interesting shows coming up, so–

**John:** We do. I’m excited. And off-mic we’re going to talk about some big special guests.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** Have a good week.

**Craig:** You too.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Myth of No Negotiation](https://johnaugust.com/2019/the-myth-of-no-negotiation)
* Deadline’s “Exclusive” on [John’s Blogpost](https://deadline.com/2019/08/john-august-wga-long-slog-agency-deal-negotiations-1202662054/)
* [John Milton, Paradise Lost](https://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_2/text.shtml)
* [Monsters Creatures: A Young Adventurer’s Guide](https://amzn.to/31xMkk7) by Jim Zub
* [Oreo Thins](https://www.oreo.com/Thins)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Michael Karman ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_413_ready_to_write.mp3)

Scriptnotes, Ep 410: Wikipedia Movies, Transcript

August 15, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/17914).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 410 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast it’s a variation on How Would This Be a Movie. Instead of looking at three stories in the news we’re taking three articles off Wikipedia and looking at what you get by using just those facts versus using a more detailed article.

Then we’ll be taking listener questions about real life subjects, showing your work, and applying the Mazin Method to television.

**Craig:** The Mazin Method. Yeah. The original Mazin Method was just helping couples conceive children. Which works great by the way. But this is a new one. So I just don’t want people to confuse them.

**John:** Absolutely. Because they have similar things, because there’s that thesis and antithesis in both situations.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** You’re trying to arrive at a middle place. But they are different.

**Craig:** Yeah. And one of them you do have to take your temperature each morning.

**John:** Yeah. The answer will surprise you.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** But first some follow up.

**Craig:** I like this. I like the show already. I’m pleased with it.

**John:** We are hosting a panel on addiction and mental health that’s organized by Hollywood, Health & Society. It’s already sold out, but the good news is there will be a Facebook live stream for it. So this happens Wednesday July 31st, 2019. The live stream starts at 7:15pm Los Angeles time. There’s a link in the show notes for how you get there, but if you don’t follow the link just look up Hollywood, Health & Society on Facebook and you will join us there. I’m very excited about this.

**Craig:** Yeah. And this is a SAG-AFTRA production, correct?

**John:** This is actually Hollywood, Health & Society which is a WGA partnership with Norman Leer’s foundation and USC. So we’re doing this at SAG but these events would usually be at the WGA.

**Craig:** I see. I’m just really glad that we’re doing this. Obviously it’s a huge topic. You and I have both talked about this a lot on our show, but I also have talked about this in other venues as it relates to creative professionals, writers in particular, and then also our families, and our children. We are going to keep chipping away at the taboo and the shame that surrounds this stuff until people finally just relax and begin talking about it freely.

**John:** Yep. So our producer, Megana Rao, has been on the phone doing sort of pre-interviews with the people who are our guests so we have specialists in both mental health and addiction. We have a showrunner tackling these topics and a journalist. So we will be able to discuss not only the things that they wish they could see portrayed more and better in our film and television, but what things we could stop doing which would be helpful for everyone out there. So.

**Craig:** Love that. I think that’s great.

**John:** So we’ll get into that.

**Craig:** Terrific.

**John:** Further follow up, last week my One Cool Thing was versing, that sort of newish word called versing, which led to a discussion of words like heigth, but Bob wrote in with his experience with this. Do you want to share that?

**Craig:** Sure. Bob writes, “I teach screen and TV writing at Chapman and so I’m in daily contact with scores of fairly literate people.” That’s the best review of your own student body I’ve ever heard. Fairly literate people, 18 to 22 years old. “And I’ve noticed that they are slowly rewriting our language and they have no idea it’s happening. In addition to ‘on accident,’ which you’ve observed, I’ve found two others. Like on accident, they both have to do with changing prepositions. So, arrive at the building has become arrive to the building and bored with it has become bored of it.

“I think bored of it comes from tired of it and on accident comes just as you said from on purpose. And while Craig’s story about heigth is probably right on the money, these other cases might well have started by people who learn English as a second language. Although I’ve been fascinated by words my whole life, I’ve only recently learned that unwieldy isn’t unwieldly. The latter seems to me to make sense since it’s an adverb so it should end with LY. But it just doesn’t.”

Well, unwieldy isn’t an adverb. It’s an adjective.

**John:** Yeah. I’m trying to find ways you can force it into an adverbial role.

**Craig:** I’m struggling.

**John:** I’m trying to make it modify an adjective in a way that an adverb would.

**Craig:** Like I lifted this unwieldly?

**John:** Yeah, I mean, you could–

**Craig:** I mean, that’s wrong. Obviously it’s not a word.

**John:** It’s wrong, but yeah.

**Craig:** But, yeah, unwieldy in and of itself is an adjective.

**John:** Is a true adjective. But I agree with his basic points that younger people are going to start using words in different ways and you could try to fight that or you just accept that they’re going to be using language in different ways. And that’s actually one of the reasons why so often when you translate things from another language you have to have a native speaker doing that work because they’re going to recognize the small little subtle things that people say in real spoken language versus “proper” English.

And some of these things that you’re bringing up here would make so much sense in character dialogue but you wouldn’t necessarily do them in scene description. It’s that subtle distinction between how people speak versus how they might write.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly. And, look, there is a huge part of me that is orthodox about this stuff. And I think that the instinct to want to preserve the let’s just call it the correct way of speaking or writing is that it’s not necessarily to punish the kids, but rather to honor your love of the language you were given. So I come from it from a sort of positive place of wanting to preserve.

That said, of course the language that I was given, that I received, and that I call correct in and of itself was inflected and modified by people that spoke and chopped things up and messed them up. So, you strike a balance.

**John:** You do. And I’ll just close up by saying to ignore that language changes by pattern matching is the heigth of stupidity.

**Craig:** Please don’t. It’s so awful.

**John:** It’s just the worst.

**Craig:** Heigth.

**John:** I don’t like heigth, but we all understand how heigth comes to be because width, length, and heigth. Of course you want things to match.

**Craig:** It’s pattern matching. It’s just that pattern – let’s just not do it.

**John:** Yeah. I get it. I get it.

**Craig:** Let’s fight back.

**John:** We will fight back. And we will still try to preserve beg the question, because beg the question has a useful meaning and so when we see it used improperly I will still always note that it’s being used improperly.

**Craig:** That’s not even a question of usage. That’s just being right or wrong.

**John:** It is being right or wrong. Let’s take a look at How Would This Be a Movie. So, to give some setup here because we do this segment fairly often. And usually what happens is people will write into us with a link to an article, or people will tweet at us with How Would This Be a Movie and some great article there in the news. And sometimes I’ll agree, sometimes I won’t agree, but if there’s something that I do that find fascinating or I find on my own that feels like it’s right for the segment I will bookmark it. And I bookmark it in a place called Pinboard. And maybe I’m mentioned this before on the show but Pinboard is a really useful bookmark storage service. So it just shows up on all your devices.

I pay for it. It’s cheap. It’s really barebones but it works really, really well. And I go through Pinboard and I tag those things How Would This Be a Movie. So HWTBAM. And as a little tag so then I can look through and see, OK, here are some articles that I flagged for this. And I noticed that in some cases I was flagging Wikipedia articles which didn’t seem like quite enough to be basing a movie around. But really in real life sometimes that is my entry point for a movie, or at least for some aspect of the movie.

And so I thought we’d talk about Wikipedia as the starting place for ideas. Because you’ve encountered this, too, haven’t you Craig?

**Craig:** Sure. And this is strangely an extension of the discussion we were just having about language. Because I think for orthodox researchers Wikipedia is still something that sets their teeth on edge. But the fact is that for the great majority of people who are suddenly interested in learning about something the very first stop they are going to make is Wikipedia. That’s it. That’s the first stop. It’s not the last stop, but it’s the first one.

And such was the case for me and Chernobyl. I read an article in the New York Times about the construction of this new cover over Chernobyl. I got sort of vaguely curious. So I went to Wikipedia and I started reading the Wikipedia article. That is, again, it is a decent place to start. With all the caveats, it is a user-edited encyclopedia. They actually do a pretty good job of keeping everybody accurate and honest. Sometimes the most valuable parts of Wikipedia are really the citations, where you can go down to the bottom and see where they’ve drawn information from.

But mostly if it does capture you it sends you on a journey where you start to really learn about something rather than reading a kind of Cliff Notes summary. So we should acknowledge that that’s where a lot of people are going to start if they’re considering writing something based on history or real events or real people.

**John:** Yeah. And so the three things I’m going to single out here, in each case I was able to find an article that went into greater detail than what was in the Wikipedia summary. But the Wikipedia summary was a useful place to be thinking about what are the possible stories you could tell here. And then the articles helped frame a more interesting story within that. So, let’s start with 8chan. And so I kind of knew what 4chan was. I didn’t really know what 8chan was. I saw a reference to it so I looked it up.

So 8chan is an online site, a website, a community in a very loose sense. 8chan can be thought of as a discussion place for topics. 8chan is particularly freewheeling and has very few sort of controls over it. And so the Wikipedia goes through its history, about the guy who created it, but mostly about its controversy. So it was heavily involved in Gamergate, swatting, child pornography, the Trump campaign QAnon, the Christ Church mosque shootings where they were singled out and called out for that. Another synagogue shooting. So it’s–

**Craig:** What a resume.

**John:** It’s notorious. I mean, I think it’s not thought of as a good part of the Internet. But it’s not the dark web. It’s not something that is strictly behind sort of proxy servers and hidden away from the rest of the world. It’s something that anybody could go to. And so Craig what did you know about 8chan going into this?

**Craig:** I know quite a bit. I mean, I don’t go – I’m not a member, like a community member, an active person that participates on 4chan or 8chan or anything like that. But, you know, I’m a nerd and I’m a history nerd, a computer history nerd. I love the Internet and the history of the Internet and how it evolves.

The other day I was telling somebody, they had totally forgotten, do you remember Excite? Do you remember that search engine Excite?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** For a while Excite was the thing.

**John:** Yeah. Excite. Alta Vista.

**Craig:** Where people would be like, yeah, I use Alta Vista or I use Yahoo, and I’m like, no man, you’ve got to use Excite. It’s way better. And then Google came along and that was the end of Excite. But, no, 4chan has been around for a long time. 4chan in and of itself is an adaption of a Japanese style of – it’s essentially an image board. That’s all it is. It’s very low tech. And remarkably these chans, and there are a lot of them, there’s like probably 50 different chans, all something-chan-dot-something. They’re all basically the same very basic software that has not changed since whenever they first appeared on the Internet. And people post an image and then there’s commenting.

The thing about them is, they almost everybody is anonymous on it. And at least in the case of 4chan it became this fascinating double edged sword. So when we talk about 4chan and then 8chan, there’s a fascinating story where this guy named Fredrick Brennan founds it and he in and of himself is a fascinating character. A lot of it was about kind of for the lulz as the kids would say. I think it began with a certain kind of goofy anarchy, like a comedic anarchy. The sort of like teenagers, younger people are going to just have some fun. And sometimes their fun is at the expense of other people, but it’s mostly in the form of pranks and things. They would do raids where they would show up in some very nice forum for people that, I don’t know, enjoy macramé and they would ruin it. And then leave.

So it was kind of like that. And then it began to become much darker. But along the way the chans are where a lot of meme culture comes from, which is our culture now. Even pre-dating Reddit. So, it is an interesting place where there’s actually fascinating things that come out of those chans and funny things, brilliantly funny things.

And then unfortunately some terribly ugly things. And Fredrick Brennan, well, tell us about Fredrick Brennan because he really is a fascinating person.

**John:** Absolutely. So the Wikipedia article has a brief mention of him and they call him Hotwheels, and sort of a little bit about sort of why he set it up. But there’s an article called Destroyer of Worlds by Nicky Woolf, I’ll put a link in the show notes to that, which really goes into the history of 8chan from his point of view, from Fredrick Brennan’s point of view. And so this is a kid who is born with a profound disability, what’s often called brittle bone syndrome. So he’s confined to a wheelchair. Has very little access to the outside world except through computers. And so he starts going on 4chan. Is active in the videogame sites there. And sees sort of what’s there and what’s possible and ultimately decides to build his own version of it. And so his own version of it becomes 8chan and it was largely at the height of Gamergate, as Gamergate folks were getting kicked off of 4chan he’s like, “Hey, come here guys. You can do all that stuff on my place,” and it blew up and became a big thing because of Gamergate.

He ultimately then sold 8chan to somebody else and has largely disavowed it. But he’s a fascinating character because just his origin story is fascinating. And him grappling with what he’s done is fascinating.

**Craig:** Yeah. It seemed as if – or at least from the article that I read here – that he was lonely.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And his initial encounter with 4chan actually was that he had created a group for people that appreciated a certain videogame and then 4chan came and did what they did, which was raid it “for the lulz.” It worked. And instead of him being angry and miserable about it he thought, ooh, that looks like fun. I would have rather been on the other side of that. And so he joined up with 4chan and then I guess as moot, the founder of 4chan, started to push back a little bit against the total freewheeling anarchy which as you said was leading to a lot of illegal pornographic content and discussions of things that were starting to edge towards violent acts in real life, and doxing of people. A lot of bad stuff. He said, “OK, well, if you’re going to push back against that I’m just going to start my own thing where it’s really up to the users.” Even more freedom than 4chan offered.

And it sounds like he got what he wanted. He just didn’t expect that it would maybe go the way it went.

**John:** Yeah. So the stories that this is suggesting is about the questions about freedom of speech and the boundaries between freedom of speech and radicalism and hate speech and sort of what is law versus anarchy. Those tensions are natural there. So you think of movies like The People vs. Larry Flynt where it’s one guy standing up against a government, but in this case there really isn’t a government that you’re really up against. These chans are so formless because the Internet is sort of formless and you don’t really know who is behind things. It’s all anonymous. All those things are fascinating.

But you need to be able to aim the camera at something. And so that something could be Fredrick Brennan. It could be other users. But you’re going to have to find a central focus for a story that’s going to be about 8chan or any of these aspects of some of the controversies that have happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. And you run a terrible risk of misunderstanding certain things because there are some aspects of these places that are just as bad as they appear. I mean, talking about a community where somebody comes on and says, “I’m about to shoot some people in a mosque,” and other people say, “Well, aim for the high score,” that’s just horrible.

And there’s no way to look at that except terrible. You know, and then in another corner of that same chan on a different board there are people who are discussing their sexuality with other people safely because they can’t at home. Even look at a guy like Brennan who is severely disabled and didn’t have friends and was reaching out and making connections with people that accepted him. What’s fascinating – anyway, the point being you can be reductive about it and that in and of itself then what happens is people go, oh, well they just did a hit piece on it.

It’s tricky. It’s a tricky thing because I don’t know if I could define at all what 4chan or 8chan even is. I don’t think I could – because it’s too many things.

**John:** Yeah. Where I think Brennan’s story is potentially useful as a framing around it is that it sort of mirrors the central question that you’re going to have about something like 8chan which is to what degree can you think about teenage boys doing teenage boy things versus the actual consequences in the real world. And so to what degree is it important to create a place where people can blow off steam versus a place where they can plan or at least celebrate mass shootings.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That aspect is really tough. And so Brennan himself who has this condition which has confined him to a wheelchair and made his life very, very difficult starts all this because he’s really – part of the reason he starts it, he’s really interested in eugenics which seems like a weird thing for a person with a debilitating disease to be focused on, but that inherent paradox is very much at the root of – we need absolute freedom of speech, nothing can contain us. They are all part of the parcel.

**Craig:** Correct. And I will say that when you are reading a Wikipedia article about something and you’re wondering is this something that I can write a movie about or a series, what you’re hoping to find without trying to find it but just honestly letting it happen is something that grabs you. Some strange thing you snag on. And in this story it is without question the fact that this man who does have a severe disability has written really offensive and disturbing essays in favor of a kind of eugenics that would have eliminated him. And he’s saying that purposefully. He’s said he wished for some kind of Nazi movement to come and get rid of people like him.

And when you dig into that, I mean, you snag on that for sure. And when you dig into that you find, you know, well know he’s sort of letting that go. And it brought to mind this quote that Adam McKay posted on Twitter today that I saw that I just thought was amazing. It’s a James Baldwin quote. So James Baldwin, one of the smartest writers that ever walked the face of the earth. And the quote is this: “I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense once hate is gone they will be forced to deal with pain.”

And I just thought well right there is Fredrick Brennan. If he turns the anger off then he’s got to deal with accepting something that is incredibly painful for him. And I get that. I understand that. And I have a feeling that that syndrome is powering a lot of what is going on in these places because a lot of the people who come there are young. I suspect a lot of them have some kind of mental health issue, or a learning disability, or a social disorder where they are alone, they’re bullied, they’re outcast. They feel unloved or uncared for and they’re hurt.

And so as it turns out these places are probably the worst kind of areas to get therapy. But I can also see why people are attracted to them in the first place.

**John:** Yeah. It also ties into like the YouTube algorithms that will keep sending people down a darker and darker spiral. So they’ll start watching one thing and it will push them to more and more extreme things because the algorithm just is looking for ways to keep them engaged with YouTube longer.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s the–

**John:** The way that cycles perpetuate.

**Craig:** It’s that syndrome where they say if you’re kind of addicted to pornography you keep going further and further, like crazier and crazier porn. Because you just get used to the regular porn I guess. And it’s the same here. And I think that that’s a very trap like thing for people – particular people who are a neuro-atypical, when you’re on the spectrum. All that stuff is going to hit your buttons. And I guess you can get addicted. And at that point you go deeper down the rabbit hole.

**John:** Let’s go back to that James Baldwin quote because it is so fantastic. And there would be a temptation to use that as the dedication page, so your title page and then you put that quote and the script begins. You could do that. You can make a compelling case for that. But I think if you can find a way through your script to embody that quote you’re much better served.

So saying the quote is a nice thing on page zero. Actually manifesting that quote in your script, like no one says that quote but that idea comes across is much better use of that idea.

**Craig:** Correct. And going back to the Mazin Method, not the one for conception but the one for writing, so you can see a central dramatic argument that you can craft out of this which is it’s better to deal with your pain than to mask it with hate. Or you can turn it around and say you will never stop hating until you face your pain. Whatever it is. But it does feel like there is – that’s a very interesting way of creating a kind of synthesis/antithesis point of view about a complicated thing.

**John:** Sarah Silverman this last year engaged with somebody who was being a dick to her on Twitter and said like, “Oh, it sounds like you’re really hurting.” And that conversation really changed his mind.

**Craig:** I saw that. It’s amazing.

**John:** So we’ll put a link in the show notes to that, too. Sarah is a person I very much want to have on the show at some point because she’s so smart.

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

**John:** And she sings Slaughter Race from one of my favorite movies of the last year, so.

**Craig:** So many reasons to have her on.

**John:** All right. Next Wikipedia article that I dove into. In this case I was cheating a bit. I read an article first and then I went back and looked at the Wikipedia to see what else there was about this. But so often in our fiction we talk about mirror universes, parallel universes, multiverses, the thing that shows up again and again especially in our popular culture, in our comic book culture even more so. But in the real world there’s an article here by Corey S. Powell. “Scientists are searching for a mirror universe. It could be sitting right in front of you.”

It tells the story of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Eastern Tennessee and a physicist named Leah Broussard who is trying to open a portal to a parallel universe. That makes it sound like, you know, uh-uh, the catastrophic thing she’s going to try to do. In fact, her experiment is really straightforward and smart and simple. She’s shooting a big beam of neutrons at a brick wall and if some of them get through that brick wall it is because they’ve popped out of the universe and popped back in.

**Craig:** Yeah. What could go wrong? That doesn’t sound like Stranger Things at all.

**John:** No. In fact the actual opening scene of the third season of Stranger Things. Yeah.

**Craig:** Right. Bingo. There it is. Except she’s not Russian. That’s terrifying. I mean, I know I shouldn’t be terrified. I know that in television that’s what happens. You shoot a beam at a wall and creatures come out and infest your body and take over and kill rats. In science what happens is the beam is shot at a wall and some incredibly imperceptible thing is finally picked up and someone says in theory based on this math. But there are no creatures.

**John:** Three weeks later they’ll actually have studied all the data and they’ll say, “Yes, this had a 90% chance that this actually happened.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Yeah. Looking at this, looking at the general Wikipedia articles about multiverses, about mirror universes, about this sense that given what we understand of the Big Bang and cosmology there’s a compelling case to be made that the circumstances that created our universe could have created other universes at the same time, or that there may be more to our universe that we’re not actually able to see at this moment. That it’s sort of like right next door.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And scientifically that all makes sense. But on a personal level, on a spiritual level, I think we have an innate belief that there must be something just right beyond this that explains more. We always have been searching for some mysterious force that’s just beyond our reach, be it ether that is holding everything up and together. We’re looking for explanations behind the things that we can observe that don’t quite make sense. The biggest scientifically right now we have dark matter and dark energy to help explain why the universe has a mass that doesn’t match up with our expectation.

So this is right now searching for an explanation for that phenomenon.

**Craig:** But I think when we’re adapting these things, again, for film and television there’s a certain narcissism involved because we always seem to want to find another universe to help reflect back who we are. That other universe is going to teach us something. It’s either going to be a warning about what we’re going to become. Or it’s going to teach us how wonderful we could be. Or it’s going to make us confront our failures. It’s, you know, it’s always about us.

**John:** It’s about us. And it’s about the what-ifs. Like what if we were to change this one variable? So what if the Star Trek Enterprise in a mirror universe was evil? Like what if everything was flipped around? And that’s a convention that we have but I think it’s also fun to imagine ourselves in a slightly different version of our universe.

**Craig:** Well Spock would have a beard, for instance.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** There’d be more vests.

**Craig:** [laughs] Did you read Flatland?

**John:** Of course. You have to read Flatland.

**Craig:** It’s a great book. Flatland was written like early 1900s maybe?

**John:** Sounds right.

**Craig:** Essentially it’s a book about math, but it’s a very sweet book and it helps explain geometry and things like that. But there’s one moment that always stuck with me. So our character is in Flatland which is two-dimensional. So he’s a two-dimensional character. And he’s visited by a sphere. Now, he has no concept of what three dimensions are. But he’s visited by a sphere. And the sphere appears to him as this tiny dot that then gets wider as a line until it’s really wide and then it goes back again to a dot, because it’s a sphere moving up and down through a plane.

And I just thought, wow, that’s a great example of how blind someone can be if they’re missing a certain aspect. And then the sphere tells a story about how he was visited by a creature from the fourth dimension. And as I recall it’s something like the fourth dimensional creature appeared as sort of links, but the links could come apart without breaking. Because it was going through a fourth dimension that we don’t understand.

And I thought that was really cool. That part is cool. I like the idea of the promise that there’s more than we see with our eyes. That there’s something greater to aspire to that maybe one day we’ll taste.

**John:** Yeah. That sense that there’s an extra dimension that you could sort of walk through that extra dimension to get around a thing. And so Arlo Finch has a lot of that in it. So the Long Woods are essentially an extra dimension so you can move things through that dimension–

**Craig:** Spoiler.

**John:** It’s early on in the book.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** But you can move through things by going there. So I can get from point A to point B by stepping through the Long Woods and coming out the other side.

**Craig:** Well, it makes hiking a lot more pleasant.

**John:** It really does. Good views. So, in looking at the Wikipedia starting place for multiverse, for parallel universes, mirror universes, it’s just too broad of a category. You could start there, but you would need to go down many, many links to get to very specific sort of implementations of that idea to get you to either a real life scientific thing that would be interesting to pursue which could be something like this physicist who seems like she’s an interesting character, especially if she’s able to prove this thing that she’s been doing the experiment on. Or some phenomenon that is a good jumping off place for a high concept/high premise science fiction story.

**Craig:** Yeah. When I think about the movie that did the best I think with just making this the deal, it’s probably Contact, which wasn’t necessarily another universe, but they did do some weird like interdimensional kind of crap. And even that movie ultimately what does it come down to? A father and a daughter. And that’s the thing about all these stories is there is no relationship inherent in the notion of a multiverse. So when Chris and Phil and Rodney make the Spider-Verse movie that is really just a delivery system for them to create new relationships. And in that movie this crucial relationship between this Miles Morales, young new Spider-Man, and this other dimensional Peter Parker, old, grumpy Spider-Man. And that’s it. Right? That’s why that exists to create and then service relationships.

So, you’re always going to be looking for that kind of thing. I think the multiverse will always be an instrument.

**John:** Yes. An instrument rather than being the actual plot or story itself. Largely because it has no characters. It has no characters that come with it for free.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So you’re going to have to use it as a background for who are the characters that are having an interesting time in this world that you’ve created.

**Craig:** Spock with a beard.

**John:** Spock with a beard. All right, so the last Wikipedia article is the exact opposite of this where you have a character, you have a person, and then it’s a question of what story do you tell with this person. So, this is the story of Lisa Ben, which is an anagram of Lesbian. She is one of the first lesbian journalists. So her real name is Edythe D. Eyde. She was born in 1921. She was basically a zine writer back before there were zines. So she created the first known lesbian publication in the world, Vice Versa, and she distributed it locally around Los Angeles.

She looks to be kind of a fascinating character in a very fascinating time. I’m not even sure why I ended up bookmarking this. I think someone had said that name so I looked it up and was like, oh, well that is actually an important person in LGBT history that I did not know of, so I bookmarked it.

But, there’s something fascinating about her. And one of the things that was kind of nice about her story is it reminded me of times before I was a fulltime screenwriter where I was an assistant with not quite enough to do. And so she was working at a record company. She had a typewriter, which was a big thing to have, and so she just started writing and typing this magazine. So she put in like 12 carbon copies and that’s how she did her first zines was just like typing them and then distributing them to people she knew.

**Craig:** It is a fascinating story. First of all, I’m grabbed by her name which is nearly palindromic. It’s so close. We’ll talk about the snaggy things, right. There were two things that snagged me. One was that she for her whole life – and it was a long life up until she retired – but for many, many years she worked as a secretary. She worked as a secretary for lots of different places, lots of different people. And this is during the ‘40s, and ‘50s, and ‘60s, which were not the most socially progressive time in America. So I’m already thinking to myself that’s interesting. I wonder what that was like. I wonder who the people were that hired her. I wonder how she maneuvered that. I wonder if it was sort of something that people knew. Did they like the idea of it? Were there men who thought, oh, this is good because there won’t be a husband to steal her away or reduce her hours here?

I’m fascinated by how that functioned. So that’s interesting. And then the other thing that snagged me was that she died utterly alone and her death wasn’t even noticed. And it was only until later that people started to really understand the impact she had. Those things are very dramatizable. And so I think there’s a very cool story here, whether it’s a movie or a short series. But what we’re talking about is one of the more invisible people in 1940s America. And the fact that she was so invisible she was able to kind of be visible. You know, so she’s sitting there, and I love the way she does this, to make her zine – she’s also basically the first, like somebody who started a zine before zines were things. She’s so cool. She would do like quadruple carbon paper and so she would type up her little zine and that was four copies. And then she would do it again. And that was four more copies, which is incredible.

And then she would circulate it at the one or two lesbian bars that were around and people knew about. And then she moved on and started writing articles in sort of a more, I guess, a real lesbian publication – a real publication for lesbians, like a real magazine. And that’s where she adopted – she wanted to be I’m a Spinster. That was the name she wanted. But they were like, no, so she went with Lisa Ben. And so there she was kind of just living her life. She had a relationship with a woman for a while until that woman spent all their money gambling.

Oh, I love that, too. You know, there’s a tendency sometimes when we’re telling stories of marginalized groups to sanctify everyone. But people are not saints.

**John:** No, not a bit.

**Craig:** Like that’s why I love – one of the great cable movies of the last ten years I think was the one that Richie LaGravenese wrote, Behind the Candelabra, about Liberace. Because he’s not a saint. In any way, shape, or form. He’s not. He’s actually a jerk. You know, I mean, he’s not a murderer, but he’s a cad. And in part, right. And I love that because that’s human.

And so here her partner spends all their money because she’s a degenerate gambler. So she ends that relationship. And just continues on living her life in the open and yet somehow not noticed. And I think that’s really interesting. I’ve never seen something like that before.

**John:** I think the setting of 1940s California, 1940s Los Angeles, is terrific. Just because it’s familiar but it’s also different. We’ve never seen it from this character’s point of view. Something about her reminded me a bit of Selina Kyle from Tim Burton’s Batman movie. Where it’s like she just is overlooked and she’s just kind of invisible. And she’s actually probably the most fascinating person in the room. And that is a great line to walk.

She doesn’t arc in this giant way where she’s like, you know, she created this thing and then she becomes a huge success. So it’s not joy where she becomes this huge entrepreneur who is self-made. It’s a small thing. And so the challenge of this movie would be to find how do you – what path do you actually show? What years do you show? What does victory or at least a conclusion look like for this two-hour story or four-hour story, however long you want this if it’s a short series to be? What are you trying to chart? And so even having a fascinating character like this at the start, you still have to do the work of figuring out where do you want to take her.

**Craig:** 100%. You would need to dig much deeper and ideally uncover one thing that’s a real event that you can work towards. That is essentially the climactic moment of your story. Because right now there isn’t one.

But if you had one, you might have something there.

**John:** So an interesting situation to talk about the Wikipedia of this all is that the Wikipedia article on this is actually really good. And really detailed. And kind of more detailed than most of the articles that it links out to. So whoever put together most of this Wikipedia page deserves a lot of props because it’s actually really well done.

**Craig:** Nice work.

**John:** So it’s linking out to books on queer history and stuff. So you will find her in other people’s books but it doesn’t seem like there’s one definitive book out there to option or buy to be like this is the Lisa Ben book.

But, Craig, let’s talk about this for a moment because let’s say you wanted to write the Lisa Ben movie or maybe many people out there will now want to write this, it’s a real question of like what would you buy to cordon off a certain point of view or entry into her story? I’m not sure there is going to be one thing.

**Craig:** I would buy nothing. There’s no reason to buy anything. If she were alive then life rights would be interesting because you could then sit with her and she could give you unique information. But she is not alive, nor has she left behind relatives as far as we know. She had no children. So at that point you’re dealing with just basically reportorial material that is available to everybody. They’re facts.

You could find people that she used to work for. You could talk to people at the magazine. You know, I assume the magazine is no longer functioning. But you could find people that were there. I think you would probably want to do quite a bit of research about what lesbian Hollywood in 1940-something looked like. Because that’s probably fascinating. For instance, there’s a bar that they call out. And you’d want to find out, OK, where was that bar. Who owned it? Is anyone still alive that remembers it? That’s interesting.

You would have to become a little bit of a detective, but no, I don’t think there’s anything to buy.

**John:** So, I had a good conversation with Guinevere Turner about Charlie Says which is her story of the women involved in the Manson murders. And in that case there was a book they ended up buying which was sort of to cordon off some rights. And yet she felt like it wasn’t really the right book to be using. So it’s a situation where she was given a piece of material that she didn’t necessarily really want and had to sort of find her own research to do the way into it.

And that can be a situation where with the Manson murders there’s so much out there that you wouldn’t necessarily need to buy any specific thing, but this producer came in with a book and so no matter what Guinevere is going to do that book is part of the chain-of-title to the project.

**Craig:** Right. And that’s something that happens a lot in these situations. Producers want to do something. They want to feel like they own something. And so they will buy a book. I cannot tell you in the wake of Chernobyl how many people have called me up and said, “We have the exclusive rights to a book that details the history of such and such.” And I think you have the exclusive rights to that book but I can read that book and use everything in it. Because it’s facts. I don’t know what to say to these people. I don’t know why you’re buying these things. I really don’t.

**John:** The only reason to buy a book about history if you are running a company or something like that is to have access to more of what the author has and also to get the book before it gets published. That I get. Because then you get a head start on all those facts that the author has found that aren’t necessarily going to be accessible to other people. But if the book has been around for seven years, the rights don’t matter. As far as I can tell it’s just facts.

So I suspect there are going to be cases where it’s not just the facts but it is a framing, there’s a storytelling aspect to how the book is put together that brings it beyond just the facts. I think of some of those books on famous murders which are very much told from a specific point of view. And in those cases I can see why adapting that book is different than adapting some other set of rights to things.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** But what Craig says is really the crucial takeaway is that facts you can find anywhere else. They’re free to go. So to make the Lisa Ben movie or to make a movie about 8chan you do not need to go after some specific book.

Now, if you were trying to make the 8chan movie and you’re trying to use this specific article or you’re trying use Fredrick Brennan’s story as the centerpiece, he’s a living person.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so you can do it without his permission and his involvement, but it’s going to be challenging. And so there can be reasons why you want to get his cooperation.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, that’s a circumstance where you’d want life rights because you can then sort of say, listen, I want to know how this really happened. Just walk me through it and tell me things that you haven’t said in an article.

**John:** Another reason why you want to get some life rights is as part of the discussion you will have some language that makes it clear that they will not come after you for libel. And so libel is when you are deliberately falsely misrepresenting something about that person. Basically when you’re lying about that person–

**Craig:** It’s going to be defamation is probably what it would amount to. And that’s the thing that they’re all concerned about and they should be. You don’t want to defame people. And so when you do write things that are touchy you need to support them. And, man, I’ll tell you the lawyers on Chernobyl sometimes – I got some winners, man. I got some winners. Like someone said I was using the name of an actual KGB person and I eventually decided I would not, I’ll just sort of create a stand-in for the KBG. That’s fine.

The lawyer said do you have evidence to support your suggestion that this high ranking KGB official would have ordered false imprisonments of people. [laughs] I just thought, because he was in the KBG? Isn’t that enough? Right? We all agree KGB falsely imprisoned a lot? No, anyone?

So, sometimes in the burden of caution you make changes to protect yourself. And I get that. I understand that.

**John:** Yeah. So, some takeaway from our Wikipedia discussion. It seems like Wikipedia, we should just acknowledge, it’s a very useful place just thinking through the broad strokes of an idea as a jumping off place for exploring topics in the real world and people in the real world. It should not be your ultimate destination for the crucial facts you need.

**Craig:** Agreed. It’s a great entry hall. It’s a primer as they say. But it is not – you’re going to want to get down to the bottom of those Wikipedia pages, look at some of those sources, and then do your own work as well.

**John:** We always make predictions about which of these ideas will become movies. Craig, which of these will become a movie?

**Craig:** Well, the multiverse doesn’t count, right? Because it’s in 70% of the movies they make right now. So, I’m going to say that there will – somebody is going to tackle a chan movie, a 4chan, 8chan movie. Someone is going to do it.

**John:** I think so. I think it feels like a made-for-HBO the same way that Brexit was. Someone is going to do it.

**Craig:** Yeah. It seems–

**John:** That would be a smart person.

**Craig:** It wouldn’t be me. I don’t – it’s too big. I don’t know how to wrap my arms around the multitudes that those places contain. You know, it’s very strange. They’re very strange places.

**John:** So the Deadline article is “Chernobyl writer scared of 8chan.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Well, yes, by the way, I am. Everyone should be terrified of them. They can do stuff. No, from a creative point of view I just don’t know how to – I don’t know how to tackle it. Yeah. I’m saying don’t choose me for the job.

**John:** No. All right, let’s get to some listener questions. And this first one is related to what we’ve been talking about. Gregory writes to ask, “Can you explain the legal process on a movie like the 2016 Black List script Blonde Ambition. Madonna has said on her own Twitter page that she does not agree with the movie and that she will disown it if it comes out. Does this mean you can write a script about a famous person/celebrity even without their consent?”

**Craig:** Well you can.

**John:** You can.

**Craig:** You can. She said disown it. She didn’t say sue it.

**John:** Disown it/disavow it.

**Craig:** Disavow it.

**John:** She’s anti.

**Craig:** She’s going to crap on it in the press is what she’s going to do. And that’s fine. That’s their right. They can say that it’s a bunch of crap and I don’t like it. Your challenge when you’re making an unauthorized biopic is to not get into a place where you are defaming the subject of your story. And if they can prove defamation meaning they can show that you said something for which there is no basis then they’ll get you.

My suspicion is that if someone is going to make an unauthorized biography of Madonna that she finds offensive that a thousand lawyers will have picked through it very carefully first.

**John:** Yeah. So I’ve not read Blonde Ambition. People liked the script, so obviously it scored well on the Black List and people are enjoying it. So if that movie gets made the same kinds of people who are going to be going through Craig’s Chernobyl scripts will be going through that script to make sure that they are documenting all the stuff that has to be documented. Music rights are going to be really complicated because obviously Madonna doesn’t own everything she ever sang, but there could be situations where that is problematic.

And, of course, it’s not – in any biopic it’s not just Madonna. It’s all the other people who are in her life. They can have rights, too. And so it’s making sure that the movie is protected against all the forces that could come after it. So it’s a challenge.

**Craig:** The point you raise about the music is a really good one actually because whatever the songwriting credits are you have to go the artist for the right to reproduce the mechanical recording itself. And she’s not going to do that, of course.

So what you would have to do in that instance is only take Madonna songs where she did not have any writing credit and then re-perform and re-record them with a sound-a-like. Which is, you know, not ideal.

**John:** Doable but not ideal. Do you want to take the next question?

**Craig:** Sure. Michael asks, “Craig’s recent solo podcast How to Write a Movie was super insightful. Thank you. And his methodology is obviously applicable to narratives beyond just features, but I’m curious what kind of specific differences you might both employ when applying the Mazin Method to either the conception of a child or an episodic series? In particular how might you apply his method to breaking a pilot, season, or entire series? What would be different?”

John, do you know how to do that?

**John:** So, I’m going to take the easiest case. And so let’s say you are doing a six-episode series. I think you can do largely what Craig is describing in his sort of two-hour Pixar thing. Those same kind of lessons could apply to six hours. Where you really are – it’ll take a character from point A to point B and see them wrestling with all of those challenges, those thematic challenges along the path.

And so you’ll figure out what your stopping places are along the way, but you can look at a six-hour television project as being a long movie. And so some of the same logic can apply.

Where it’s tougher is when you’re trying to do a series where you don’t know where the end is, where you don’t know how many seasons this is going to go. You don’t know where it stops. Because what Craig is describing really does need to end because if you’re just stuck in this middle place the whole time it is not going to be satisfactory.

**Craig:** I agree. And even in a short form series like the one I just did, it’s not as applicable as it is in a movie. Because a movie you really do have to just have this very clear, crisp story from beginning, middle, and end if you’re making that sort of movie. Whereas over the course of five episodes you are in a much more elliptical narrative path. And so, yes, in the beginning, in the end you want to see some sort of closed loop and you want to feel like people grew and changed and you want to feel like there’s something that they’re all pushing against.

And I think that is something that I did to an extent. But it’s not quite as helpful. The truth is I – look, I’ve done one thing in television. I can’t formula-ize it yet.

**John:** But Craig we’ve gotten this far in the podcast, I haven’t congratulated you on your 19 nominations for Chernobyl. Congratulations Craig.

**Craig:** Oh boy. [laughs]

**John:** What got me thinking about it though was another show that got a bunch of nominations which is Russian Doll which I think probably much more so than your own show showed the kind of Mazin Method to it.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Because that is a show that she makes some progress every episode but there’s clearly – Natasha Lyonne’s character is clearly on a very deliberate arc. And it felt like there was real closure at the end of that story. The character who arrives at the end of that series is not the same character who begins the show.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. In fact, I’ll take back what I said. Because I think in part I’m a little skewed by the nature of the thing that I wrote which was based in history. But when you are dealing with something that is purely fictional like Russian Doll and you’re telling that story over five or six episodes, or I think in the case of Russian Doll it was seven, and you have to create something out of whole cloth it is useful.

And I think you can see that she is doing something like that very clearly. There’s a very clear character problem that she has that she has to overcome. So, yes. And congratulations to Natasha Lyonne who, by the way, we’ve not had on the show?

**John:** No, she’s never been on the show.

**Craig:** That’s crazy.

**John:** We’ve shared stages with her, but she’s never been on the show.

**Craig:** I feel like she’s got to be on the show.

**John:** She and that whole team are remarkable.

**Craig:** Can we get them all on the show?

**John:** Let’s get them all on the show at some point.

**Craig:** Let’s get them all on the show, because I’m obsessed.

**John:** Yeah. Nice.

**Craig:** Oh, and thank you for saying that nice thing about me.

**John:** Oh, of course.

**Craig:** I just get – because, you know, I’m definitely not used to this!

**John:** Do you want to take the question from Paul?

**Craig:** OK, why not? Paul from the UK asks, “I’m a first-time screenwriter based in the UK. Through a random discussion with a friend in LA who has a production company with a released film I’ve had a request to send my script across. I keep thinking of your No Work Left Behind episode. And whilst this person is a friend I’m naturally cautious about sending a script 5,437 miles where I then have no control.

“Registering the script with the WGA is impossible if you’re not physically based in the USA. And the script vault in the UK seems to act as equivalent but doesn’t answer the geography problem. I am very aware that this is an opening, but I need to be sure that my derriere is suitably covered in the very possible event the content ripped off. Can you please help?”

John, we can definitely help.

**John:** We can definitely help. So, Paul from the UK, send your script. Send your script to this person. To anyone listening, stop worrying about someone stealing your script and stop worrying about theft. So the very possible event the content is ripped off, it won’t be. That doesn’t happen.

You need to be like whoever wrote Blonde Ambition and actually share your script with people so that people can read it. Because it is doing you no good sitting in England where no one is reading it. What will also not do really any good is registering it with the WGA office or with Script Vault or any of those services. Those are kind of proxies for – they’re not copyright protection in a real meaningful way. I don’t even know what the laws are in the UK, but you basically have copyright when you wrote the thing. If there’s a real copyright office you can send it off to in the UK, fine, do that, whatever. But real people don’t do that very often. What they do is they send scripts to people who want to read them and so those people who read the scripts say, “You’re a good writer. I want to make this thing or hire you to write something else.” That is why you wrote that script and that’s why you need to send it.

**Craig:** Yeah. And let’s also draw a little bit of a line in the sand between your circumstance and what No Work Left Behind covers. Because No Work Left Behind is when producers or executives are soliciting writers to come and write something for them. And then ask those writers perhaps to be prepared to talk about a first act or second act or the whole story. And you may come and you may be reading off of a document you’ve written to help you get that job. Don’t leave that document behind because they haven’t paid you for it. That’s a different situation. That’s a solicitation of work.

Or if, for instance, someone says I would love to hire you to write such and such part three, but can you write the first ten pages so I could see how you would approach it? No. You can’t do that either. So that’s called writing on spec and all of that is unacceptable. You cannot write at an employer’s request something new that is derived from their stuff without getting paid.

In your circumstance, you’ve written a script. You own it. They have no rights to it in any way, shape, or form. Absolutely send it. Send it freely. Send it without concern. And hope that they love it enough to either buy it from you or perhaps hire you to do something else.

**John:** Absolutely right. I understand why people get confused by No Work Left Behind in a sense of like, oh, then it means I can’t ever give people documents. No, no, no, that’s not true. It’s only if they are asking you to write up something for them, work that should be paid work that they’re asking you to do for free. Don’t do that. That’s not a good thing to do. And that hurts everyone when you do that.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** All right. Let’s get to our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is an Instagram account by Sam Marshall called Breezeblockhead. And so I came across this from Austin Kleon. Craig, if I say Breezeblock do you know what that is off the top of your head?

**Craig:** I do not.

**John:** So click on the link and you’ll see like, oh, it’s that thing I didn’t know what the word for that is.

**Craig:** Oh, cinderblocks.

**John:** Yeah, the cinderblocks that are designed with patterns so that when they’re stacked up neatly they form walls but that air passes through. We associate them largely with midcentury modern design. I think about them a lot in Palm Springs. But they’re actually global and you see them in a lot of places. And they’re just really cool. So they’re probably one of those things that you kind of like but never really knew what they were called or why you liked them.

So this Instagram account is a good collection of what you might see there. And it will probably inspire you to just notice them more when you see them out in the world.

**Craig:** Breezeblocks.

**John:** Breezeblocks.

**Craig:** This reminds me, I believe in the second season of Westworld when we see the real world house. I think there’s a Breezeblock wall.

**John:** Uh-huh. Yeah. I mean, anything that is sort of cast concrete sort of gets you into that sort of Frank Gehry kind of space.

**Craig:** Cool. Excellent. My One Cool Thing comes from the puzzle world. You know I’m a puzzler. And there’s a great guy named Eric Berlin. I’ve had the joy and pleasure of puzzling with him on some of the more advanced puzzle hunt things that happen, like the MIT puzzle hunt. Or, no, it’s the Galactic Puzzle Hunt. I can’t remember the name. Honestly, I’m the dumbest person on the team. That’s the important thing for you to know. And Eric is not one of the dumbest people on the team. He’s one of the smartest. And he also creates daily puzzles on Twitter.

And he has a book called Puzzle Snacks which is great which is available. And he has a whole site for Puzzle Snacks which is at puzzlesnacks.com. And what I like about them is that they are a great variety of word puzzles, different kinds of puzzles, mostly centering on words. But they’re not too hard. They’re not too easy. They’re not too hard. And he also has specific ones for kids which I think is great. And he even breaks them out by age, so for instance your daughter/my daughter are both 14. So, they can kind of do the adult ones with as he puts it the occasional nudge. But if you have a kid who is 12 or 10 or eight then you can kind of gauge for that as well.

So, anyway, very cool. And he’s a great guy. Eric Berlin. So check it out. And you can subscribe at like $3 a month and you get bonus puzzles and things. So, yeah, if you’re a nerd like me, and I hope you are, check out Eric Berlin’s Puzzle Snacks.

**John:** Great. I have follow up on two of your previous One Cool Things. And so you had recommended Dig It, a puzzler for iOS. I ploughed through all the levels. I got the additional levels. I am waiting for the next level pack. It has become my go to sort of time-waster game. So thank you for that.

**Craig:** Love that. I’m still not done with it. Good job.

**John:** Also thank you/curse you for that. Also a previous one of your One Cool Thing recommendations was Lab Rat, a terrific escape room that we did yesterday.

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** And it is genuinely great. And so I like that it uses the mechanics of escape rooms and pushes the form in a slightly new direction. And it was just very, very well done. So, good recommendation. And I actually got to meet one of the writer-founders-creators of that thing at a WGA event. He’s a new WGA member which is exciting.

**Craig:** Great. And how many people just out of curiosity did you take into Lab Rat?

**John:** We took in seven people to Lab Rat which was a good number.

**Craig:** Good number.

**John:** Including Scriptnotes producer Megana Rao was there. So we had a good team.

**Craig:** Fantastic. It’s wonderful. I actually went with another group and just watched them.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** Occasionally if they needed a hint I’d give them a little mini hint. But it was just so much fun to watch them do it. It was great. Loved it.

**John:** So I don’t think this is a spoiler in any meaningful way but in terms of the form of escape rooms evolving in talking with the person who was running the room I said what’s the escape percentage. And he’s like, “Oh, we don’t actually think about that anymore.” We want people to experience the whole story. So we will provide hints if we need to provide hints so they can actually find their way out. And so we didn’t end up needing that many hints, but I thought that was an interesting way of approaching it is not approaching it as a pass/fail but sort of how you get through the experience.

**Craig:** Yes. It is – I’m seeing it more and more. Because there are rooms where it really is, look, you need to be smart and power through these things or you’re going to run out of time. And that’s fine. Because there’s not a huge narrative to them per se. But in some of the rooms where they’ve really invested in the narrative elements, they want you to see the ending. So, they’ll definitely kind of nudge you along. And they’re really good about it. Especially not like nudging you too soon.

**John:** Yeah. Great. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Alex Winder. 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 am @johnaugust. That’s also a place where you can send links to How Would This Be a Movie.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. Or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** And congratulations again, sir.

**Craig:** Thank you so much.

Links:

* Addiction & Mental Health Panel organized by [Hollywood, Health & Society](https://hollywoodhealthandsociety.org/about-us/overview) Wed, July 31, 2019. Follow along with the live-stream [here](https://www.facebook.com/events/801699256892361/) at 7:15pm PDT.
* [Pinboard for bookmarks](pinboard.in)
* [Wikipedia 8chan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan)
* [Destroyer of Worlds](https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/06/29/8chan/content.html) by Nicky Woolf
* [Multiverse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse), [Mirror Universe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_Universe) on Wikipedia
* [Scientists are searching for a mirror universe. It could be sitting right in front of you.](https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/scientists-are-searching-mirror-universe-it-could-be-sitting-right-ncna1023206) by Corey S. Powell
* [Lisa Ben](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Ben) on Wikipedia
* [The First Lesbian Magazine](http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/queer-youth-campus-media/media/vice-versa-the-first-lesbian-m) by Erica Davies
* [Breezelblockhead](https://www.instagram.com/breezeblockhead/) on Instagram by Sam Marshall
* Eric Berlin’s [Puzzle Snacks](https://puzzlesnacks.com)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Alex Winder ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_410_wikipedia.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.