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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: shazam

Scriptnotes, Episode 482: Batman and Beowulf, Transcript

January 28, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can now be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/batman-and-beowulf).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Just in case your kids are in earshot and you don’t want them to hear swearing, this is the warning.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** And this is Episode 482 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’ll discuss America’s favorite crime fighter, but more importantly how we talk about him, and the bundle of IP surrounding Batman.

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** Then we’ll look at another unlikely but iconic hero, a Scandinavian king who is clever with words but also great with the sword. Bro, that’s Beowulf. And he was the Dark Knight way back when. Plus we’ll answer some listener questions and in our bonus segment for Premium members I will tell Craig about the Batman teaser trailer I wrote way back in 2001.

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** And we’ll discuss what other heroes we would tackle if given the chance.

**Craig:** Well this is going to be fun.

**John:** A good episode. And a good episode for the New Year. Happy New Year, Craig.

**Craig:** Oh. Happy New Year. I mean–

**John:** Happy New Year. I’m optimistic.

**Craig:** Yeah, look, I understand that the calendar is not actually a thing. That we’ve just arbitrarily said this is the beginning and this is the end, because the sun, you could pick any point in the earth’s rotation around the sun and call it day one. But, oh man, this year. Oof.

**John:** Oof.

**Craig:** Oof.

**John:** Yeah. I’m optimistic about the New Year. I’m more optimistic about the back half of 2021 maybe, but still. I’ll happily turn the calendar to a new page. And get started with new stuff.

**Craig:** And I think in 2021 we’re going to hit 500 episodes.

**John:** We’re going to hit 500 episodes. We’ll hit like 10 years or something. It’s a lot.

**Craig:** Jesus Maria.

**John:** Many milestones. Plus I know you have a very busy year coming up. I have a busy year coming up. So, we know that 2021 is going to be eventful just personally.

**Craig:** It’s going to be fun. We’ll still find a way to play Dungeons & Dragons.

**John:** We somehow will. Priorities will be set straight.

**Craig:** Priorities.

**John:** Some follow up. Follow up on follow up actually. We’ve discussed the Rent a Family story. Maria from Argentina but now living in Tokyo writes, “Werner Herzog actually already made that movie released earlier this year called Family Romance, LLC. It’s not a documentary, but the protagonist is the actual owner of the family rental company and many of the actors are real employees as well, so it creates an even stranger dialogue on the meta level on the con within the con” as I was describing.

So there already is a movie, not just How Would This Be a Movie, there already is a movie by Werner Herzog about the Japanese Rent a Family situation.

**Craig:** No one needs to write it especially since Werner Herzog has already done it. You don’t want to follow in those footsteps.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** It’s Werner Herzog for god’s sakes.

**John:** It would be foolish. And Craig would be forced to break out his Werner Herzog accent which he’s well known for.

**Craig:** [as Herzog] It’s not very hard to do. Why are you making another Family Romance movie when I’ve already made one? Mine is better.

**John:** It feels like Werner Herzog should have been in a Batman movie, but he’s not been which his just crazy.

**Craig:** Weird.

**John:** But let’s talk about Batman, because I have DC Comics on the brain, partly because of the Wonder Woman 1984 movie that came out this past week. But also the announcement that HBO Max/Warners is planning to build a whole stable of movies around their DC characters, sort of how Disney has done with Marvel.

Mike Schur, a friend, he tweeted, “Hoping they finally get into the Batman’s backstory. Like, yes, he’s a vigilante for justice and has this sort of brooding presence, but why? What happened? We fans deserve that explanation.”

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s funny. That’s funny.

**John:** That’s funny. You can’t talk about Batman, it’s always his origin story again and again and again. We’ve seen that damn alley outside a theater so many times. And the pearls dropping from the necklace. It’s just like it’s constantly an origin story. But Batman is actually a fascinating character. He’s a really weird iconic character because he’s just different from all the other characters.

So I want to talk about his history, how he fits into IP, what’s interesting about him as a character to write. And, Craig, have you ever written any scenes with Batman in your career?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No. I have written half of one, which you’ll see referenced in the bonus segment. But I have written in the DC universe before. So I wrote a Shazam movie which was not the Shazam movie that came out. I helped out on another big DC movie a while back. And while I’ve never written Batman himself, he’s sort of always kind of there. So many of the things I like – Harley Quinn earlier this year was a One Cool Thing. He’s always a background character in that. So he has this weird looming presence over a lot of stuff.

So I thought we’d start by talking about sort of history and then get into sort of what makes him weird and unique as a character.

**Craig:** Sure. I think up until, and I could be wrong, but I think up until the mid-‘80s when the Tim Burton Batman movie came out was just, you know, another superhero. It was a high level superhero that everybody knew. I don’t know about you, but in the ‘70s when we all dressed up for Halloween in those weird vinyl aprons with the mask with the little horizontal mouth hole–

**John:** I can still smell what those masks smell like.

**Craig:** You can smell it. Everyone would stick their tongues through the little mouth hole and cut their tongue. And Batman was definitely one of those. And just like Superman or Spider-Man, or Wonder Woman, or any of them, he was in the League of Justice, the cartoon. And he was fine.

And then the Burton Batman came out, I think it’s sort of alongside the Frank Miller re-imagination, and suddenly Batman just became an entirely different thing and it was fascinating to watch.

**John:** Yeah. So we should stress that we are not Batman historians and so you do not need to write in with any of your corrections to things we get wrong about this.

**Craig:** Do not write in.

**John:** [laughs] Yes. Megana is on this call and just for her sanity and safety please do not write in with your corrections. But let’s briefly sort of talk through the timelines here. Because it starts in 1939. Detective Comics, written by Bill Finger, illustrated by Bob Kane. We move forward to the 1960s. We have that campy Batman series with Adam West. In the ‘70s we start to see Batman as this darker version and obsessive compulsive. We get The Dark Knight Returns which is really probably the first graphic novel I actually remember reading.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It sort of anchored this idea of like an older Batman and a really dark Batman. And sort of Batman as a political force and sort of questioning his role in society.

But at the same time you referenced the Tim Burton Batman which was such a different feel and take. It was dark, but his Gotham was constructed so differently. And then it became this series of directors. So we had Tim Burton’s Batman. Joel Schumacher’s vision. Chris Nolan. Zack Snyder. We now have Matt Reeves making a version of Batman. It’s a character that’s been sort of continuously re-envisioned but not reinvented because his backstory has always stayed exactly the same.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes. His backstory is fixed. And also his powers are fixed. There’s really no flexibility in terms of what he is and what he does. He is a boy who is incredibly rich, because his parents are incredibly rich. They live in a city that is modeled after decrepit New York. Not fun New York. But crappy New York. So they live in a beautiful part of New York, but then there’s this bad part of town. There’s a guy who I think officially is named Joe Chill who holds up the mom and the dad. Tries to take the mom’s necklace. And ends up shooting the mom and dad, who had been out to the opera with their young child, Bruce.

Bruce Wayne suffers two terrible things that night. First, his parents are killed in front of him. Second, he had to watch opera as a baby, as a kid. That’s just miserable. That’s always the same. And you know what else is always the same? He doesn’t have super powers. And that never changes. And maybe that’s why he’s kind of fascinating to us.

**John:** Yeah. So there’s a relatability to him in that he’s just really good at doing the stuff he’s good at. So he’s really good at fighting. He’s really smart. He can figure stuff out. And so it has that sort of proficiency porn aspect of it. He’s just so good at doing the thing he does.

And so he seems like a self-made man, although he’s a self-made person who starts with a tremendous amount of wealth.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** A quote that sort of tracks into this. This was DC Comics’ Jenette Kahn writing that “Batman is an ordinary mortal who made himself a superhero. Through discipline and determination and commitment he made himself into the best. I always thought that it meant that I could be anything that I wanted to be.” And so there’s a relatability to him that’s different than Superman or Wonder Woman or Aquaman who are born into their greatness. In this case he is just a normal mortal human being who is just really, really good at things.

**Craig:** Well he’s a bit of an Ayn Randian kind of hero in that he starts incredibly wealthy but because he’s so smart and so resourceful and so clever and careful he manages to preserve that wealth and grow that wealth. And he uses his wealth and persistence and hard work and determination and sweat and tears and his ability to withstand pain.

**John:** Yeah. Seems like a supernatural ability to withstand pain.

**Craig:** Right. And he uses all of that mustering American ideal independence, standalone masculine thing to become the ultimate cowboy. And he doesn’t need your unions. And he doesn’t need government. He definitely doesn’t need government. The one thing that’s also incredibly consistent throughout Batman stories is that government is bad. Because the police department is either corrupt or incompetent or both. The mental health industry is a total disaster as all they do is just churn out one damaged super villain after another. In short, the city can’t get it done. The people can’t get it done. Only this individual can get it done.

**John:** Yeah. And so in many ways it feels like a very American kind of story because we are the country of the frontier and the going out on your own. We have this sort of cowboy mentality. It’s like the cowboy mentality transferred back to an urban core.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And where you need to have some lone ranger of justice there to protect the innocent and beat up the bad guys. But we often talk about hero’s journey/hero’s quest kind of things. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of those, at least in the normal ways. It’s not like he’s born with some great flaw that he overcomes over this quest. He’s always in a state of anguish and pain and a determination to save his parents in ways he never could have saved them before.

He’s not a hero who has a concluding arc.

**Craig:** No. His basic job seems to be to defend and preserve the safety of the people, the good citizens of Gotham. In this regard he’s a very strange hero because presumably there are other cities which also have problems. And he doesn’t seem to give a sweet damn about any of the other ones. He’s a homer. He loves Gotham. That’s his hometown. He loves Gotham. And he is constantly serving as Gotham’s true father. Not their lame stepfather, the government. God forbid the mayor or the police or social services were at all relevant or competent. In Gotham, no. Only he is Gotham’s true father. The father who can come at night and punish the bad by inflicting fear upon them primarily. Fear.

**John:** Exactly. And so his relationship to the law is fascinating. Because he wants to be a force of law, the one who is cleaning up the corruption and the filth of the streets. But he doesn’t actually believe in the law enforcement officers. Or he has a special connection to the law enforcement officers. There’s like the good ones, you know, Chief Gordon as commissioner, but nothing else beyond that does he sort of seem to believe in.

And yet at times he does kill. At times he doesn’t kill. His decision to not use a gun or to use a gun has changed over the years. So the moral code he sets for himself is both specific but changes in a way that a lot of these things about his origin remain fixed.

**Craig:** Yeah. And in that regard he’s an extension of our American fantasy of power. He uses a vast expenditure of money and he harnesses an enormous wealth of technological advancement to shock and awe. All to protect the homeland of Gotham. And if it sounds like I’m down on Batman I’m not because he’s not real. [laughs] Just, you know, I think people lose sight of these things all the time. I should probably mention Batman is not real.

Mostly I’m interested in what our fascination with Batman says about us. I will say that I am a huge fan of the Arkham videogames, which I think are amazing. And as a Batman experience they’re incredibly both enjoyable and also they drive home another fascinating thing about Batman. Batman himself personality wise is boring. Batman does not have a family. Batman is constantly fighting the most amazing collection of villains. Period. The end.

Spider-Man has a lot of cool enemies, but nothing like Batman. No one comes close to the variety of lunatics and larger-than-life villains that Batman is constantly dealing with, all of whom are kitschy as hell and so much fun. And that is also part of the deliciousness of enjoying the Batman story.

**John:** He has a good ecosystem around him. I thought we would wrap up this segment by listening to the audience reaction to the very first teaser trailer for Batman. So this is 1988 at Mann’s Chinese Theater here in Los Angeles. And someone found video from this and so here’s the audio from a newscaster interviewing people and their reaction to the Batman teaser trailer. This is the Michael Keaton Batman directed by Tim Burton. Let’s take a listen.

**Female Voice:** Oh, I can’t wait. I love Michael Keaton. He’s one of my favorite funny people. And I love Jack Nicholson. And I love the trailer. I love the whole thing. I’m ready to go.

**Male Voice:** That’s going to be live man. It’s going to be live. I’m going to come to see it.

**Female Voice:** The trailer was better than the movie we just saw.

**Male Voice:** How do you think Michael Keaton is going to be as Batman?

**Female Voice:** Sexy. [laughs] Very sexy.

**Female Voice:** Oh, he’s just a gorgeous guy. He has great legs and everything. [laughs]

**Female Voice:** Michael Keaton is a great actor, so I’m really excited to see it.

**Male Voice:** What kind of Joker is Jack Nicholson going to be?

**Male Voice:** Nicholson, I can say he’s great all the time. He is a joker, so he’s probably just going to be play himself.

**Male Voice:** I mean, with Jack Nicholson in it, I mean how you can you go wrong? I mean, especially his makeup. That’s great man.

**Female Voice:** Jack Nicholson is casted as the perfect Joker. Michael Keaton is adorable. And my husband will just be counting the minutes to see Kim Basinger.

**Female Voice:** The only thing I could change about it was letting me play the babe.

**Male Voice:** Kim Basinger. Yeah, I can see either you or Kim Basinger.

**Female Voice:** What’s she got that I don’t have?

**Male Voice:** So intense with the eye. Come swooping in on all these scenes. And that car, man.

**Male Voice:** I like the Batmobile. Yeah.

**Male Voice:** Why?

**Male Voice:** I don’t know, it’s pretty cool.

**Male Voice:** Yeah?

**Female Voice:** I love the Batmobile. It looks so cool. I wish I could ride in it.

**Male Voice:** And what was your favorite part of the whole trailer?

**Male Voice:** When Michael Keaton comes in and says, “I’m Batman. I’m Batman.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Oh, we were so young and innocent. Oh, wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in that world again where no one had a goddamned idea of what was coming out. There weren’t 5,000 articles. There wasn’t a campaign just to unveil the tire of the new Batmobile. And people were like, “Oh yeah, Batmobile, it’s cool. That’s why I like it.” It’s so nice. Aw.

**John:** Aw. The time before there were Batman movies.

**Craig:** The time before there was Twitter and the sort of like cottage industry. And no hot takes. Did you notice?

**John:** Not a single hot take.

**Craig:** You do that now and someone is going to be like, “Um, you know, I don’t think that – it doesn’t, you know.” Ugh.

**John:** All right. So Batman is a character we’re all familiar with because we’ve seen him 1,000 different times. But I want to transition to talking about a character who is at least as foundational but sort of less well known. And that’s Beowulf. And to help us out with that let’s bring on Maria Dahvana Headley. She’s a New York Times bestselling author and playwright. She’s also an authority on Beowulf, having written The Mere Wife: A Modern Day Adaptation of Beowulf, and an acclaimed translation of the original this past year which was in fact my One Cool Thing a few weeks back. Welcome Maria.

**Craig:** Hey.

**Maria Dahvana Headley:** Thank you. Thank you for having me on.

**Craig:** So much fun.

**John:** It’s very exciting to talk with you. So I absolutely adored your translation, because I tried to read an earlier version of it that was also acclaimed in its time and I found your version to be just so sparkling and present and fresh. And it felt like someone was just sitting across the bar/table from me telling me this story.

So, I strongly recommend it everybody. That’s why it was a One Cool Thing. But I’m wondering if you could give us a little backstory on what was it that I actually read. Because I think I have this vision that Beowulf is sort of like The Iliad and the Odyssey that it was an oral tradition story passed down for generations, but I don’t really know what it was I read. So what is Beowulf?

**Maria:** Well, you have a pretty accurate possible guess. We don’t know. We don’t really know what it is.

**Craig:** That’s the best answer ever. [laughs]

**Maria:** One manuscript is about 1,000-ish years old, written by two scribes. We don’t know who the scribes were. But they are correcting each other throughout. And it is probably, and in my opinion almost definitely, a transcription of an oral performance. Because it had throughout the poem it’s 3,182 lines of battles and lineage basically. And throughout the poem there will be stopping points where the narrator will be like, “Let me tell you what happened last night,” because he’s clearly, in my opinion, performing for a drunk audience that is shouting and he’s unamplified standing on a table. That’s just how I feel the poem is.

But not everyone has felt that way. Lots of people have felt like this is a normal poem about the sort of glorious traditions and that it should be done in a somewhat fusty language or in a “noble” language. J.R.R. Tolkien really felt this way about it. It’s the thing that inspired everything he did. All of Lord of the Rings was inspired by Beowulf. He was a big Beowulf nerd and he did his own translation which is done – it feels like reading Lord of the Rings. It just doesn’t feel as good.

**Craig:** Because J.R.R. Tolkien, was he a philologist? Is that the word?

**Maria:** Yeah. He was someone who really, really, really cared deeply about Beowulf. And what he cared about most deeply was the attempts to fall into the old traditions, rhyme and meter wise. And so he was driven bonkers by it. He was trying to translate a language, Old English, which does not translate directly to contemporary English. So what you’re reading in my translation and in anyone’s translation is a wild guess.

It’s like – and it’s definitely unlike some languages, this is a language that if you’re translating from Old English it’s so much about the translator, what the translator is choosing out of many different possibilities for most of the words.

**John:** So, anybody who is doing a translation of Beowulf is really doing an adaptation of Beowulf. Because it’s taking what is the sort of foundational story and trying to apply not just modern words to it but kind of modern concepts. And that’s why – it got me thinking about Batman. If you go back to the original issue of Detective Comics that introducing Batman as a character and took that as a foundational text, any new version of it is going to necessarily change some things to have it make sense with sort of modern audiences. And it’s hard to imagine a character who has been more transformed more times than Batman.

In your case, in telling this story of Beowulf, you’re looking at sort of how we approach this character, but also what is even the format of the story it takes place in. Because yours very much feels like an oral tradition. It’s some guy telling you a story like right across the table. But that’s a choice. It’s a way of presenting this sort of foundational text and introducing this character.

**Maria:** Yeah. I decided to do it like a long monologue essentially. Because I thought, OK, well then you can have the POV of the poet as well, which is really part of the original. But lots of people don’t put that in. They feel like it’s needlessly confusing. So they just sort of relate the Beowulf story like it’s history, like here’s the true thing that happened to my boy. Whereas I wanted a sense of POV.

**Craig:** I’m just curious, what do you think – when you do this kind of translation, do you run into a resistance that somehow by making it accessible you are cheapening it? Do people still equate accessible with less than?

**Maria:** Yes. [laughs]

**Craig:** What’s the story with – like why do people do that? And how do you respond to that?

**Maria:** Well, it’s an interesting state of affairs. Like in the case of this translation a lot of the press surrounding it has been that I used a lot of slang. I use bro as the opening word of the Beowulf.

**Craig:** That’s so cool.

**Maria:** Which is a transgressive thing to do, but also a pretty accurate translation idiomatically of what that word means and what [unintelligible] means. But it’s transgressive because people feel like that’s a low word. And they feel like slang is low. Which is ridiculous because the entire English language is slang. It’s slang after slang after slang and all kinds of things have contributed to the language.

So, it’s an interesting thing. I think the tradition of believing that something that’s written in vernacular is low is a tradition that’s based on all kinds of hierarchy and prejudice and lack of accessibility to sort of ivory tower structures that have meant that diverse translators have not been able to get into the tower to do the translating and to give perspective on a lot of these ancient texts.

**Craig:** Right.

**Maria:** So it’s been an interesting experience. Other women have translated Beowulf and there have been maybe 15 other women have translated Beowulf into English. And their translations are really interesting but rarely get a lot of play. And often what has happened is that the old guard comes in and says, “Well, this is a minor translation and it’s not a real translation and it’s for children.”

Most of the women in the early part of the 20th Century who translated it ended up writing children’s translations of Beowulf, even though those are also the things that were taught in Tolkien’s primary school that got him into Beowulf.

**Craig:** Right. So in their own way their translations are more experienced than the other. That’s the kind of strange weird feedback loop is that the more accessible you make it, the more people read it, the more people learn, and that becomes Beowulf.

**Maria:** Yeah. And that becomes the cultural understanding of Beowulf is built completely on accessible translations rather than translations in the sort of Old English meter, for example, that are untranslatable.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Now, Maria, I want to talk to you about your character of Beowulf, and he’s so proficient and slays creatures with such aplomb. In your mind as you’re translating this is he supernatural or is he just a really good fighter with a sword? Because he seems to have at times sort of Hercules kind of powers. Other times he’s just really a good fighter. Where do you come down on the nature of him as a hero?

**Maria:** I think I come down all over the place. I’ve thought about it so much because it’s – one of the things that I think is really interesting when you first read Beowulf you think, wait, OK, this guy can sort of slay 30 at one blow, which means he’s not human. And the only other person who can do that is the major monster, Grendel. Grendel also can slay 30 in a blow. And they’re both mentioned with the same number of men.

So, you read that and you think, well, OK, if one of these is a monster the other one is also probably a monster. And so I kind of come down on the no one is really a monster end of the spectrum. The poem itself has a big talk makes you big kind of situation. So, if you talk – I want to say bigly so much – if you talk–

**Craig:** Do it.

**Maria:** If you talk with enough Trumpian volume about yourself, and indeed this is part of how I translated Beowulf’s speeches. If you talk that way about yourself you can sometimes pull it off. You can make other believe it. And even if it doesn’t really work in reality, the story they tell about you will be a story about somebody who swings it really hard.

So, I think it is as much a story about storytelling as it is a story about anything else. And the Beowulf character is a character that’s built on his own story about what he’s capable of doing.

**Craig:** I remember reading The Song of Roland in college and I was struck by how iterative it was a battle that there was this kind of almost hypnotic rhythm once the fight began of just like he killed this guy and then he killed this guy, then he killed this guy. Was this sort of like the action sequence way back when? Let me describe how – or like Sampson killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. I mean, was this the action sequence of the old days when you didn’t have moving pictures so you just had to describe violence over and over?

**Maria:** It’s an interesting thing. I mean, some of those ancient texts are almost like a ship’s manifest. You get the [unintelligible] and their lineage. And along with so I guess they’re the spoils of war itemized. And that’s often something that’s part of the poem, like remembering the names which is interesting when we think about the many ways in which we fail to remember the names of the dead throughout the 20th Century and 21st Century.

Yeah, the blow, blow, blow, blow, blow stuff is very much part of the Old English tradition as well. And in this story, I mean, it’s three big battles basically. But you also hear about a lot of other battles in which whole armies of men die and everybody is scattered and flattened on the ground and Beowulf swims away from one battle with 30 suits of armor in his arms somehow.

**Craig:** That’s awesome.

**Maria:** You know, things like this are happening.

**Craig:** Cool guy.

**Maria:** And you really get a sense of the cost of the big ego. If you are the king you have to choose your time to fight. And sometimes your time to fight – or if you’re the hero, the right hand of the king, which is what Beowulf is for most of the story, sometimes there’s just a big cost. You just have piles of bodies.

**Craig:** Just like Batman.

**John:** Just like Batman. And also just like Batman we see Beowulf in sort of two forms. We see his young form where he kills Grendel and Grendel’s mother and he’s the hero who shows up at the foreign kingdom and is the giant hero. But we also see him much later in life sort of like in Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns where he is the aging king going back for one last battle.

To me it feels like there were two volumes or two different comic books that sort of got joined together at some point historically because they feel – they’re related but they’re very different stories. And there’s some sense of all the things he didn’t do in his life. It seems like he never had kids, never had a family, sort of never got to have the normal human life. As you’re translating this did it feel like two stories that got joined together or does it feel like it was always intended to be the arc of this one hero’s journey?

**Maria:** Well, again, there’s lots of debate about that in the Beowulf realm. Some people really feel that the last section of Beowulf which is a battle with a dragon. He’s a king for 50 years and we don’t get any information about that. We get Grendel’s mother. Than he gets home. He gets rewards. He tells his story. And then 50 years pass in a line. And he’s an old man. And we get this thing where he goes up against a dragon by himself and he has to fight the dragon. He’s sure he’s the only guy who can fight the dragon. And he goes in and he kills the dragon, but the dragon kills him, too.

And some people feel like that last third of the poem is just a meanness that was grafted onto it by someone. That it was just stuck on and this like mean situation involving darkness. But I think what it is is youthful sins get payback later. I think that the center of the poem, and this is something I’ve always thought about, when Beowulf kills Grendel’s mother she is acting according to the law of the time. She goes in, her son is killed, she goes in for a revenge killing, which is allowed. She kills one guy. And goes home.

She takes that guy home. She does a little bit of graphic display of his beheading and whatever.

**Craig:** That’s reasonable.

**Maria:** She only kills the one dude, an important guy who is equivalent to her son. And in sort of feudal laws that’s allowed. And what Beowulf does is he breaks into her house under the water. He goes in, like a mercenary, because he is a mercenary. And he comes in and attacks her in her own realm. And she’s an old woman. She’s been queen for 50 years just like Hrothgar, the king he’s serving has been king for 50 years. So she’s probably in her 70s. And Beowulf is maybe 20.

So he goes in, kills an old woman who is so ferocious and hardcore that she almost kills him. And that’s just against the law. Like it’s against the moral code of the poem. So my feeling that the dragon in the end, the last third of the poem, is the wages of sin. It’s sort of like, OK, you can do it, you’re strong enough, you’re big enough, you’re bold enough, your balls are big enough. And you do the thing and then 50 years pass and the whole time you’re having a bad feeling about it.

And I think that Batman has some things like that, too. He always has this sort of morosity. And the morosity is about am I – because he’s declared himself the arbiter of morality in Gotham. And then this difficulty of what if he got it wrong at some point. What if it was a fuck up? And I think the Beowulf story is about – the center battle is a fuck up that he shouldn’t have done.

**Craig:** It is interesting that Batman is constantly struggling with that and yet not really struggling with it, because in the end the dictates of the story are feed us justice. So, he will “wrestle” with it, but the people who generally pay are the people around him. So he gets off the hook. There is no dragon that eats Batman in the end. But a couple of Robins have died, I think.

**John:** And Beowulf ends with a handoff to a Robin kind of character as well. There’s a sense of a generational passing down finally at the end there.

**Craig:** Batman doesn’t pass on. So I think Batgirl at some point canonically is paralyzed. So, people are constantly dying around him. Commissioner Gordon gets killed a few times. And [unintelligible], I think he definitely gets killed. And Batman keeps going. And his anger fuels him to further on. And I kind of love the idea that the wages of – maybe not wages of sin, but truly if you’re living by the sword. Yeah, at some point you can’t be the best forever. And if you beat a 70-year-old woman, albeit a Grendel mom, a mom Grendel, when you’re a 70-year-old guy someone is coming for you. I like that.

**Maria:** Yeah. I mean, there’s always the sort of arc of what is coming for you. And throughout the Beowulf poem that’s discussed, as it is – I mean, it’s interesting thinking about Batman because Batman never becomes the king. He’s the Dark Knight the whole time. And being the Dark Knight means you have to serve. You don’t necessarily get to – I mean, he’s serving a larger moral god. But he still has to serve. He doesn’t get to be the king who is making all of the decisions in terms of his own well-being and in terms of the well-being of others around him. He’s often – I feel like he’s often in a tournament. It’s like more out of the Arthurian myths.

**John:** Yeah, for sure.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Maria, it is absolutely a delight getting to talk through Beowulf and Batman with you. Thank you so much for coming on the show.

**Maria:** Thank you for having me on. I could talk about this all year. I love it.

**Craig:** Thank you, Maria.

**John:** Thanks Maria.

**Maria:** Bye.

**John:** All right, bye. So, Craig, that was actually delightful. We did not pre-interview at all with Maria. I just assumed she would be great talking about Batman and Beowulf and I was correct.

**Craig:** You were right. Yeah. Pre-interviews, why would we ever do that? We live on the edge?

**John:** We live by the sword and we die by the sword.

**Craig:** That’s right. We don’t give a sweet damn.

**John:** All right. Now it’s the time on the program where we welcome on our producer, Megana Rao, who asks the questions that our listeners have asked. Megana hi.

**Craig:** Megana.

Megana Rao: Hi, Happy New Year.

**Craig:** Happy New Year.

**John:** Happy New Year to you. What have you got for us this week?

**Megana:** So, Patricia from Canada writes, “I recently started working in the nuclear industry and am easily Google-able. My question is whether producers or network executives like those from a very family-friendly network, which is my genre, might have an issue with my day job if I were to sell my script that has received a bunch of interest this year before I started in the nuclear industry. And if they do are there options for me like using a pen name?”

**Craig:** Huh.

**John:** All right, so Patricia basically is a Homer Simpson somewhere in Canada.

**Craig:** Right. I’m sure she’s a competent nuclear technician.

**John:** I’m sorry. She’s a competent Homer Simpson who has written a script that is now getting attention. She worried that if someone figures out that, oh, she’s actually a nuclear person that they won’t want to work with her. I don’t think so.

**Craig:** No. That’s not – I think people have this sense that Hollywood is incredibly, I don’t know, discriminatory against things that violate their tender snowflake sensibilities. Far from it in fact. I think people would be surprised how compromised people are. It’s a business, right? So billionaires with their billionaire companies are trying to make billionaire stuff.

No, I don’t think your employment in the nuclear industry is at all a problem. If you were, I don’t know, employed as a hacker for the Russian government, yeah, sure. But, no, people working in a nuclear power plant are doing a perfectly fine job. So, no, I don’t think so.

And as far as pen names go, just as a general note for – Patricia I think is from Canada so you have the WGC, I don’t know how they do it there. But in the United States the WGA, which administers credits, we do have a clause that says we can use a pen name but only if we’re paid under a certain amount. I think it’s $250,000. And if we’re over that amount then the studio has to agree to let us use the pen name which is obviously an awkward conversation. It’s an awkward thing to do regardless.

**John:** That said though, if she is just starting her career she can pick whatever name she wants to use as her professional name.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** So a pen name in that situation is like I don’t want my name on this movie that I wrote but I don’t want my name associated with it, that is a different case than sort of like starting with a new name. Because I started my career as John August even though that wasn’t my born name just because it was an easier, better name.

**Craig:** Right. Like Diablo Cody is Brook Maurio and she wanted to go by Diablo Cody. And then at some point like Brook if you’re like, you know, I think people get it I’m just going to use my regular name now and everybody goes, “Cool. That’s good. That works.”

**John:** What next, Megana?

**Megana:** Great. So Jake in Dallas asks, “I agree with the principle that characters will carry your story to a more successful and satisfying conclusion than the plot alone. However, I have a story that has some solid plot and shaky characters. My question is one of time management and expectations. Is it worth it to dig in and try to build up these weaker characters to match the cool framework that is my plot, or am I kidding myself with a task like that? Meaning the fact that I don’t have strong characters in the beginning of my writing process might be an indication that the story itself is a weak and therefore not worth the effort to populate it with compelling people.

“I feel really good about the structure I built but I’m not sure about the occupants I plan on inviting into the building. The décor and furniture will be rad, so it’s just the pesky people I’m sweating.”

**John:** Oh Jake. What you’re experiencing is common. And I think a lot of writers are probably nodding a bit there. Because sometimes you think of a cool idea for a story and like, oh, you could sort of imagine the set pieces and how it all fits together and the plot and the twists, and then you realize like, oh, but who is actually in this story. And then you actually have to sort of unwind some stuff to figure out like who is the most interesting person to be in this story that you have plotted out in your head.

It’s worth the time. It’s worth the time to stop and figure out who are these characters, what is it that they are uniquely bringing to this cool plot that you have figured out. Because otherwise you’re going to have a cool mechanical clock that no one cares about.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s exactly it. The plot is not there for the audience. The plot is there for the character. It’s what the character is going through. So, if the character is weak it doesn’t really matter what the plot is. Then they might as well just be an observer or the plot is not designed to challenge the character and put the character in situations that are unique for him or her. So when you say maybe this is an indication that the story itself was weak, I would say that you probably want to take a moment to stop divorcing plot and character from each other the way you are and put them together. Because I don’t think when you think about how you’re day went today, Jake, that you’re going to think about yourself and then the things that happened separately. There’s the things that happened to you. And that’s what plot is. It’s something that is happening to a character, therefore one in the same.

**John:** Or because of the character ideally.

**Craig:** Exactly. Well, both, right? So something happens to you, you do a thing, now something new happens and then the da-da-da, and that’s how it works. So they’re actually part of the same thing. And you don’t want to get caught in this sort of scriptic Cartesian duality.

**John:** Yeah. I will say there are forms of writing that are less character-driven. Certainly spy novel books that are very sort of – they’re plot machines. And there are crime procedurals that are kind of plot machines. And if that’s the kind of thing you like writing that’s great, that’s awesome. And they can rely on sort of less characters doing things and just sort of the story doing things.

But it sounds like if you feel this tension right now the thing you’re working on probably should have a strong central character that’s driving it. So stop, think about who that character is, and rewrite it so that character can really be at the center of the story that you want to tell.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**Megana:** Mitch writes, “I work a manual labor job and I most often listen to you gentleman in headphones while my hands are preoccupied and I can’t pause and rewind to hear something clear. I’m pretty sure I heard you two quickly mention something about John earning his Arrow of Light in Boy Scouts, but I couldn’t find it when I tried to listen back. Is John August an Eagle Scout? If so, what was his Eagle project?”

**John:** All right, Mitch, I am in fact an Eagle Scout. I went all the way up through scouts and Arrow of Light refers to – although Arrow of Light could have actually been – is that the Webelos Bridge? I can’t remember which part Arrow of Light fits into, but I know I had it because I had all the patches. I had all of it.

Yes, I did scouts. Yes, I was in the Order of the Arrow which is problematic for Native American cultural appropriation. I didn’t get it at that point. I’m sure I would get it now.

My Eagle Scout project, so when you go up through the ranks in scouts one of the final things after you’ve earned all your merit badges is to do a project which involves 100 hours of planting and community service and getting people together to do stuff. I did an interpretive garden at my public library, so it was putting up signs for what the plants that were there so that people who visit the library could actually learn what plants were used in that garden. I also built a new sign in front of that library which was not good and was replaced about a year later.

But that was my Eagle Scout project. I actually have some ongoing shame about how not good that sign was and how I wish it were better.

**Craig:** That’s like your parents getting killed in the alley, you know, behind the opera.

**John:** That sign in front of the George Reynold’s Branch Public Library in Boulder, Colorado is my parents getting killed in the alley. You’re right. It’s foundational.

**Craig:** Yeah. You have these flashbacks about it. I like that they suffered through it for a year. That every day they came in and they all turned to Verna, who I assume was the senior librarian, and said, “Verna, come on.” And she’s like, “Uh, we can’t. He was an Eagle Scout.” “Oh, please Verna.” And then finally the big Christmas party they’re like, “Verna, it’s Christmas.” And she’s like, “You’re right. Let’s burn it.” [laughs]

**John:** I really think it probably was arson. I didn’t see it burn but I have a hunch that it just burned somehow magically and they replaced it with a much better sign.

**Craig:** I mean, if you put a couple of rum eggnogs in Verna she’s going to light something up. That’s how it goes.

**John:** She’s known for it. All right. Megana, thank you for these questions. They were fun.

**Craig:** Thanks Megana.

**Megana:** Thank you both.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a long article by Olivia Nuzzi writing The Fullest Possible Story on Four Seasons Total Landscaping situation.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** So as you recall one of the weird, wacky things that happened in 2020 was there was a press conference held at the Four Seasons about potential election fraud in Philadelphia or in Pennsylvania overall. But of course it wasn’t Four Season the hotel. It was this tiny little place called Four Seasons Total Landscaping. It was weird and how it all happened is crazy. And so she digs into sort of what actually happened and how they ended up at this weird landscaping company and try to pretend it was their plan all along.

So, just as a last read in 2021 or first read in 2021 to remember what happened in that crazy year. It was a nice full accounting of a really surreal moment that feels like a Coen Brothers movie. Just a bunch of people making hasty decisions that turned out poorly.

**Craig:** Unbelievable. Unbelievable. My One Cool Thing, well, so we have a new puppy in our house.

**John:** I’m so excited. I did not know this. Tell us all about this puppy.

**Craig:** Her name is Bonnie and she’s fantastic. And you will meet her tonight, John. I will hold her up to the camera. She will be an NPC somehow in our D&D game.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** And so I’m a big believer in crate training. If you are not a believer do not write in, because I don’t want to hear from you. But crate training I think is the key to why my older dog is such a wonderful dog. Obviously she doesn’t need the crate anymore. But she’s just an incredibly well-behaved, lovely dog. And that was a big part of it. And it also keeps, I think it keeps the new puppy parents sane as well.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** But, you know, dogs – traditionally puppies – do struggle a little bit with the crate initially because they can feel a little bit lonely in there. And so there’s this thing called the Snuggle Puppy. Have you heard of this?

**John:** No, but I can imagine what it would be and I think it’s probably – my guess is that it’s the 2020 version of the alarm clock and hot water bottle wrapped in a blanket?

**Craig:** Bingo. So, well, just with a little extra twist. So it is, of course, a plush little puppy animal and it’s got a little Velcro pouch. And you can stick one of these little, they have like these heat warmer packs, like the hand warmers you get on set when it’s freezing. You put that in its little belly and then it also has its little heart-shaped thing with a battery in it. And you turn that on and it makes a heartbeat little thump-thump. So the puppy can snuggle up against another dog that is warm with a heartbeat which is exactly what they’re used to.

And my goodness. I mean, we put her in there and we didn’t hear anything. You know, for like three hours. Just silence. It was pretty remarkable. And then when we came to take her out, you know, because it was time to come out of the crate and go potty and all that, she was like I don’t want to go. I want to stay in here. I’m tired. I want to stay with my warm friend.

So, huge thumbs up to the Snuggle Puppy people. That was great. Big fan. Not that expensive.

**John:** I’m a fan of crate training as well. Lambert, my current dog, was already well past that, but still like having a crate, a place he can declare as his own, where he can be responsible for defending that and not the rest of the house, game changer.

**Craig:** Yeah. And also really helps house train them as well.

**John:** Oh yeah. For sure. All right. And 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 shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Maria is @mariadahvana. We’ll have links to all those things in the show notes.

You can find those at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. And you can sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of things about writing. You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments, including the one we’re about to record where I will go into the history of my Batman teaser trailer which was a different teaser trailer than the one we listened to earlier on.

Craig, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Craig, I’m going to play a teaser trailer for you and you probably have seen this trailer, but you don’t remember that you saw this trailer. And then we’re going to talk about it.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** So, we’ll put a link in the show notes to YouTube, but we can just listen to the audio for now.

Male Voice: Throughout the ages there has been one hero standing watch over us all. One hero protecting mankind wherever he is needed. He moves in shadows. Cloaked in mystery. And now in the summer of 2002 he will be called upon yet again to save the world. [Scooby-Doo sound]

**Craig:** Classic. So much classic marketing in that spot.

**John:** Thank you. So, let me tell you about the origin of this. And obviously if you’re listening to this just as the podcast version what you might not appreciate is we’re going through this mansion, this sort of spooky mansion, and we come upon the silhouette of Batman standing there. And we see his iconic sort of cowl. And he turns and it’s Scooby Doo. Because it always struck me that Scooby-Doo in outline actually looks a lot like Batman because he’s got the pointy ears that are sticking up there. And so he turns and you see that it’s Scooby-Doo.

So I always had this in my head as like at some point I really want to do a teaser trailer for Scooby-Doo when you reveal it’s Batman. And then I ended up being employed for a week, two weeks, to help out a little bit on the very first Scooby-Doo movie. And I said like, “I’m so excited to be writing these scenes, but more importantly I’ve always had this teaser trailer.” So I sent it through and they ended up making that and that became the teaser trailer for the first Scooby-Doo movie. A parody of Batman.

**Craig:** It holds all of the traditional elements. I mean, they don’t really do stuff like this now. I mean, it’s 20 years old. And I was doing similar things for Disney a little bit earlier, maybe like five or six years before 2001 when I wasn’t yet a screenwriter. Obviously you were a screenwriter at that point. But first of all it has that voice. For the kids, that’s a guy named Don LaFontaine. He is no longer with us. But he was essentially the voice of movie trailers and teasers. He did, I don’t know, 70% of them or something. It was insane.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** You would go to the theater and there would be seven trailers in front of the movie and four of them would have his voice or something. It was nuts. So it was Don LaFontaine. A misdirection in teaser trailers is incredibly common to the point where nobody was misdirected anymore. They were already onto it from the jump by the time you got to, I don’t know, whatever, 2009 or something. They were like, no, you can’t do it anymore.

And, of course, the ubiquitous needle scratch which became this fascinating sonic signifier that didn’t even mean anything to kids at that point, but yet they somehow understood it meant stop everything.

**John:** This trailer, I just wrote it up in normal sort of screenplay format with that dialogue and sent it through, and I was delighted how it turned out. What was also weird about these teaser trailers is they were completely disconnected from actual footage from the movie. Even now like when Chris McQuarrie has been on the show he talks about every day trying to shoot one thing that could make it into the trailer or the teaser trailer for the Mission: Impossible movies. But in this case it was just a whole special shoot which was just for doing this teaser trailer. And you don’t see that as much anymore where there’s no footage from the actual movie in it. It’s just a premise teaser trailer. Like this is a thing that is going to exist.

**Craig:** Yeah. So when I was working in marketing at Disney, this was like back in 1994 and 1995, this would come up quite a bit where you would do a special shoot. And in fact I was dispatched as a 23-year-old or a 24-year-old to the set of a movie called Mr. Wrong. Do you remember that movie, John?

**John:** Oh, I do. With Ellen DeGeneres.

**Craig:** Exactly. With Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Pullman. It was a comedy. It was ill-fated. It did not do particularly well at the box office. Although I remember reading the script. It was one of the early movie scripts that I read and I really liked it. And I was sent to talk to Ellen and Bill about making a special shoot, some sort of scene that we could shoot to help tease the movie.

And, you know, you rapidly learn as a 24-year-old that no one – they’ve got their hands full making a movie. They don’t want you there. So it was an uphill battle. But we would make those things. I remember The Ref, like I think the marketing campaign for The Ref was entirely a special shoot, which did not help The Ref which is one of my favorite movies. Yeah, they used to do this stuff all the time. Now we have our own trailer and teaser conventions that we cannot seem to break. So the modern version of the misdirect, Don LaFontaine, and needle scratch is a fairly well-known pop song that is played at a much slower speed by a different kind of voice so that it’s this really weird dreamy take on some pop song that we know and love.

And then some wahs and some booge and stuff like that. In 20 years from now people will look back and those, OK, yeah, that’s what they did then.

**John:** That’s what they did. Now, this was the closest I ever got to writing Batman and I don’t know that I’ll ever write Batman in anything, which is fine. But the announcement that Warners and HBO Max are going to be doing a whole big expansion of their thing and of course with all the new stuff that Disney has announced with the Marvel universe, it got me thinking what characters might you or I at some point want to tackle. And so I have a short list here. I’m curious what characters would be on your list.

Obviously we’re differently placed because we could theoretically do one of these things. I don’t think we will do any of these things. But here’s the list of things I would love to tackle at some point.

I really like ATOM as a character. After Ant-Man I’m not sure there’s a space for another guy who can become really small, but I always liked ATOM. I still love Wonder Woman. I get why people didn’t love this last one as much, but I dig her as a character. Thinking sort of mythologically, I’ve always really dug Perseus. I especially love Perseus’s backstory where as a baby he got shoved into a trunk and sent off to sea because his father worried that he was going to usurp him. I love that.

I love Hermes/Mercury as a god who again is just a cool trickster character. And then in terms of the non-superhero characters, I think Indiana Jones/Nathan Drake are great guys who like Batman are super good at the things that they’re good at, but also having a fun attitude. They’d be fun characters to write in ways that I think Batman would not be a fun character to write.

Any iconic characters for you, Craig? Any ones that you’d want to tackle?

**Craig:** I don’t think so. I like comic books. I was mostly a Marvel fan when I was a kid. But I think if someone said to me, “Here’s a blank check. Write any comic book superhero movie you want,” I might say to Kevin Feige I want to do a kind of mumblecore Galactus movie. [laughs] Where it’s like he eats planets but mostly he’s lonely and he has no one to talk to expect his heralds. His heralds start to resist him. I think Galactus’s sister was deaf or [unintelligible] or something like that. So he’s having weird chats with her.

Look, the dream adaptation is happening with other people and that’s Neil Gaiman’s Sandman which in a sense I’m glad that other people are doing it because I would be terrified, absolutely terrified, to tackle that material for fear that I would do it any harm. Because I hold it in such high esteem. So, yeah, I’m going to go with sort of bummed out emo Galactus.

**John:** Yeah. I think one of the good things we’ve gotten better at in the ‘10s and the ‘20s is taking characters who would be villains in normal situations and looking at what is their actual motivation and you put them as the protagonist in the story, the central character in the story. And Harley Quinn is a good example of that. Joker, whether you liked it or not, is an example of sort of looking at that character from his point of view and what it feels like to be in his shoes.

And so, sure. A planet-eating villain, go for it.

**Craig:** A mopey planet-eating Galactus, just bummed out. I eat planets because I’m depressed. I’m depressed because I eat planets.

Links:

* Werner Herzog’s [Family Romance LLC](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10208194/)
* [Mike Schur’s Tweet](https://twitter.com/KenTremendous/status/1343712071037272066?s=20)
* [1988 Batman Teaser Reactions](https://twitter.com/i_zzzzzz/status/1339728162306011137?s=21)
* [Why Does Batman Matter](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/black-belt-brain/201203/why-does-batman-matter) by Paul Zehr
* [Beowulf: A New Translation](https://bookshop.org/books/beowulf-a-new-translation/9780374110031) by Maria Dahvana Headley
* [The Fullest Possible Story on Four Seasons Total Landscaping](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/four-seasons-total-landscaping-the-full-est-possible-story.html) by Olivia Nuzzi
* [Snuggle Puppy](https://snugglepuppy.com/)
* [Maria Dahvana Headley](https://www.mariadahvanaheadley.com/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/MARIADAHVANA)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [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 Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/482standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 289: WGA Negotiations 101 — Transcript

March 6, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

**John:** And this Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the podcast, with the WGA negotiations set to begin, we’ll be doing a deep dive looking at how the Writers Guild attempts to make a deal with the studios on behalf of film and TV writers. Then we’ll be answering listener questions about writing for producers versus writing for the audience. And last steps when finishing up a script. But first, and most importantly, Craig, I am so sorry I got you sick.

**Craig:** Yeah, you got me sick. I’m pretty sure that you put your virus into the microphone and it came out into my headphones. I don’t know any other explanation.

**John:** Yeah. It’s sort of magical. Basically because of the power of homeopathy, I put it out there in the world and it got all the way over to you. Like the atoms sort of vibrated all the way over there.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But I’m sorry you’re sick. So, on the last episode we were talking about do you try to push through, do you take care of yourself? What are you actually doing?

**Craig:** Well, what did I say last time? I said that I never learn. [laughs] Well, I still haven’t learned. It doesn’t even matter that I say I never learn. I still don’t learn. Yesterday, I wrote a little bit. Today I’m going to try again. I mean, I’m a little bit – I have some good news, by the way. So, I think I mentioned a couple of podcasts ago that Future Craig might have some good news.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** And I’m not really going to talk about what it is yet, because I don’t know how that works. You know, I don’t want to jump any publicity guns. But in addition to the movies that I’m working on, I do have a miniseries at HBO that we’re going to be doing. We got our–

**John:** Well that’s great.

**Craig:** Yeah. So that’s happening. But, of course, all success with me brings a panic. So I’m a little panicked about getting the work I have to get done done. And doing it as best I can. So, the panic actually is probably what led in no small way to a depression of the immune system followed by a sickness. It’s no good. But I’m going to try today. I feel – it’s early sick days, so what I feel is that empty fatigue and vague queasiness.

**John:** Well, there’s also an anxiety of like is it going to stay this level, or is it going to get worse? And you really don’t know when you’re at this phase. Like, is this what it is? Is it going to pass by? Or is it going to become a full-on sickness? For me it became a full-on sickness. But I’ve had many situations where I’m sort of where you’re at. And it never really fully kicked in.

**Craig:** Well, I have taken 4,000 Oscillococcinum pills.

**John:** That should do it.

**Craig:** Yeah. So I have diabetes now. Because of the sugar. And also I think at this point I’ve probably worked my way all the way up to one-millionth of one molecule of useless duck liver. Feel good about it.

**John:** That’s good. Do it. Yes.

Let’s do some follow up. So, on our last episode we talked about Kellyanne Conway’s amazing skills at being able to get out of questions. There was another great explainer this past week by Carlos Maza for Vox. So it’s a video. I will put a link in the show notes. But it does a very good job sort of walking through sort of specifically how she’s getting out of some of the situations she’s trying to get into.

Of course, last week we talked about Kellyanne Conway and then like the day the episode came out she had a total fumble and could not get her way out of a seemingly pretty simple situation. So, no one is magic. No sports player does sports 100 percent all the time.

**Craig:** Oh, John, that was adorable. [laughs] No sports player does sports. You’re the best. By the way, I agree that this Carlos Maza thing is terrific. And something came out – he was interviewing an old classmate of his who is a national debate champion about the techniques that Kellyanne Conway uses. And he zeroed in on something that was sort of an addition to what we were saying. We were pointing out how she will – like the name of her game is to make her evasion as quick as she can, and then immediately go on the offense to make her point.

And he said the same thing, but what he picked on was something I hadn’t really thought about. In her little evasion section, she routinely will pick a key word from the question and she will then recontextualize that key word so that you feel like you have some weird sense that she’s responding to the question. And then she goes off on her tangent.

So if somebody says to her, “Why would the president say something that just patently isn’t true? We know that it’s not the fact that blah-blah-blah.” And she’ll say, “Well, what I know about facts is, or here’s what I know is true…” OK, that’s just a word that she’s linking to make it seem like she’s answering a question. And then she’s off and running in the other direction.

I wonder if part of the reason she’s starting to get trapped now is because people like this and articles like this are laying bare her tricks for everyone. At some point, once you know how they pull the rabbit out of the hat, or how the sports guy does his sports thing, it’s just not that impressive anymore.

**John:** We can check the transcript. I do think I brought that up last time when we were talking about Kellyanne Conway. But what’s so good about a video is that they can show you sort of the real time transcript of like here’s the word and here’s her repeating the word. Like that subtitle, that [unintelligible] at the bottom of the screen really does help you see sort of what she’s doing. And it’s a trick you can’t do endlessly. You start to recognize how it all fits together.

So, anyway, we recommend this video. A few episodes we talked about Sinbad starring in a movie called Shazam. That movie never existed. And there was a whole discussion about whether this is some sort of weird metaphysical thing that’s happening. Craig really focused on the neuroscience of it. And an actual neuroscientist really backed him up in this article that I thought was very well conceived, basically talking through a lot of what Craig described about it. The things that trigger in the brain for a memory are often sort of the same things that you’re thinking about in conjecture.

So, Craig, talk us through more of the science in this article.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, I remember specifically we were learning about the concept of familiarity. And that there was essentially a cognitive algorithm in our minds that said, oh, this is a familiar thing. So that when we see something we’ve seen before, we know that we’ve seen it before. And that that sometimes could misfire and this leads to thinks like déjà vu. And really that’s kind of what’s going on if you think about it with these kinds of false memories of a movie. You’re having déjà vu in a sense.

There’s all sorts of deeper – far deeper – theories about this. And people should read the article, because it’s actually quite good. And really there’s a lot of conjecture here. But it really comes down to the concept of confabulation and the way that the brain is constantly filling in missing gaps of information.

We know this from most visual illusions, right, optical illusions are playing off of the brain’s constant work to fill in gaps in between bits of data. We do it all the time. And some of this of what’s going on, this confabulation, may be leading to things like this. So, people should read the article if they have a deeper concern about how are brains are really bad. Honestly, they’re just bad.

**John:** Well, they’re designed to do very specific things and those specific things are not remember who starred in a movie about a genie back in the ‘90s. That’s not a thing they were designed to do. So, the writer of this article, Caitlin Aamodt, one of the phrases she uses which I’m sure is a phrase used in neuroscience is neurons that fire together wire together.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so often, you know, rehearsing even a fact that something isn’t true strengthens the idea that it is true because those neurons have to work together. So, it was a really well done article, so we’ll put a link to that in the show notes.

My last bit of follow up is actually from 2011. So, on the blog I used to do this series called First Person where I talked about people’s experiences in Hollywood that were different than mine. And one of those people was Allison Schroeder. And I had not realized that this article even existed until one of our listeners pointed it out. So, Allison Schroeder, back in 2011 she was a new screenwriter. In 2017, she is an Oscar-nominated screenwriter for Hidden Figures. So, in this article she wrote for me she talked about her experience coming up. And what’s great about it is it’s still completely relevant. She’s talking about the work she’s doing every day. So, I’ll put a link in the show notes to this, an article from six years ago by Allison Schroeder who is now an Oscar nominee.

**Craig:** How cool is that?

**John:** It’s really cool. I really liked Hidden Figures, too. So, kudos to her on this success but also the success of her career.

**Craig:** You know who loved Hidden Figures? My daughter.

**John:** Yeah, my daughter loved it, too.

**Craig:** She loved that movie. Loved it.

**John:** So we saw Hidden Figures as a screener here, because it hasn’t come out in Paris, and we went and did the Women’s March, and so after the Women’s March we got together with some of her friends who were also on the march with us, and we sat in the living room and watched Hidden Figures. It was a great American day.

**Craig:** That is a great American day.

**John:** Cool. Let’s get to our main topic today, which is the WGA negotiations. So, this actually comes from a listener, a listener question that came in this week. Listener Mike B wrote in to say, “Do you guys plan on doing something on the current rounds of pre-negotiation outreach meetings that have been taking place for WGA members? A lot of my knowledge of union business comes from discussions that have occurred on your podcast, and I’m sure that’s true for many other listeners. So I ask that you give some consideration to addressing the situation on your show. Your opinions would be appreciated.”

So, Craig, we should do that.

**Craig:** Yeah. We have a very complicated process. It’s not complicated because the Writers Guild makes it complicated. And it’s not complicated because the companies make it complicated. It’s complicated because the process is essentially governed by federal law. I think a lot of writers don’t quite understand just how intrusive all the laws are regarding management and labor. Labor unions, and the Writers Guild, you know, we’re kind of a special union of a sort, but in general the Writers Guild is no different than any other union in the sense that it has to be federally recognized, federally chartered, and then it has to follow federal labor laws.

In exchange for that, it gets stuff, like for instance the ability to say we represent anybody that’s going to write for the following signatory companies. It can collectively bargain. And the companies in return have to follow certain rules as well. Sometimes these rules help us. Sometimes they hurt us. But they definitely shape the way that we go about doing this. It may seem very formal and awkward to members, but it is essentially the only way we’re allowed to do it.

**John:** Great. So, before we do our deep dive, we should talk about sort of our background and experience with this, because I was on the Negotiating Committee for the last round of WGA negotiations, so that was back in 2014, and Craig you were on the board at a certain point. You’ve been around these negotiations a lot. So the things we’re talking about, like we’re not on the Negotiating Committee right now, but we just have sort of seen a lot of these processes before. So we’re going to talk in a very general sense, not about what’s going on right now, but to sort of what’s gone in the past and the frameworks for things.

I think we should start with kind of an explain it like I’m five aspect of this, because if you’re not a WGA member, some of this may be just completely weird and new to you. So, we should talk about some basic terminology, just so if you’re coming in completely cold to this, you sort of know what’s going on.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, first off, the WGA is a labor union. It’s the same as a labor union for people who drive trucks, or for people who work in service industries. There are two different branches to the Writers Guild of America. There’s the WGA East, which is the writers east of the Mississippi. There’s the WGA West, which is west of the Mississippi. They’re sister unions. You can kind of ignore the differences for most things. And honestly for this negotiation you can ignore largely. You know, any negotiation that’s going to happen is going to affect both guilds at the same time.

**Craig:** Yeah. Even though there are two guilds, they by their constitutions have to negotiate this part collectively, because it covers screenwriting and television writing members in the east and the west. And because the west is much, much larger, for this negotiation, for all these negotiations throughout our history, the west essentially takes the lead on the negotiations. On the Negotiating Committee which is the, well, we’ll talk about what they do. There are a few members from the east, I think four, possibly two, not – not that many. And in the end both the Writers Guild Board of Directors and the Writers Guild East Council must vote to support bringing a contract to the membership. There are rules involving that that again favor the west. And then the combined memberships of east and west vote to approve a contact, or also to in different circumstances to reject a contact which I don’t think we’ve ever done, or to authorize a strike.

**John:** Yep. So we’re not the only Hollywood union, quite obviously. So there’s unions that represent directors, that represent actors, that represent gaffers, below the line people. Everybody – well, not everybody – but most of the people whose names you see going past in the credits are represented by some sort of union. Some of what writers do is a little bit different than other unions, of course. Writers write things that could be controlled by copyright. So, in the United States we have this elaborate process where if we’ve written something on spec we sort of then can pretend it wasn’t written on spec so that the copyright can be transferred to the person who is buying the script.

If you’re writing for a TV show, we have work for hire. So, it allows us to become employees of the signatory companies, which is very useful because it lets us do things like collectively bargain.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, the Guild has a bunch of sort of important functions for writers. So, it sets the minimums. By minimums we mean the minimum you can be paid for doing a certain kind of work. And it seems like, well, who wants to get the minimum, but trust me, the rest of the world wishes they could have minimums. When I was in Spain a couple weeks ago, talking to their Writers Guild, they’re not a real union like we are. And so they’re not even allowed to talk about minimum rates for the work that they’re doing. Not only can they not negotiate. They can’t even discuss on their website what a writer should charge.

So, you know, as a writer, you would have an agent and a lawyer who would negotiate hopefully money above those minimums, but those minimums are the floor, and that’s the base of which your salary grows.

**Craig:** Yeah. Minimums traditionally have been more important in the television area than in the feature writing area. For a long time most feature writers, and probably still true that many feature writers, are what we call over-scale writers. So sometimes you’ll hear the word scale. That really just refers to minimum. Essentially the scale of minimums. Technically it’s the schedule of minimums. In television, the minimums have always been important because unlike features where our residuals are calculated by how many copies of a movie are sold or rented, in television residuals are calculated with a couple of different kinds of formulas that are based on the minimums.

Although one of the issues that has been coming up lately is that the minimums have become more and more what they are actually paying television writers. So, minimums are an essential part of any union’s work. They are the floor underneath our feet. And if anything occurs to degrade those minimums, then at that point the union starts to lose its effectiveness.

**John:** Absolutely. So other functions the Guild has. The Guild collects residuals. So residuals are those things we talked about on previous episodes. They kind of feel like royalties. That’s the amount per DVD sold, amount per stream of your show that the writer gets for subsequent reuse of that material, that TV show, that movie after its initial airing. That’s incredibly crucial to the long-term career of writers.

The Guild supervisors the writer’s pension and health fund, which is crucial for the ability to get your health insurance, to have a pension at the end of the day. And, finally, a very unique thing that the Writers Guild does, it determines credit on who should get credit for that movie, who should get credit for that episode of TV. And so we’ve talked in previous episodes about arbitration which is how the Writers Guild determines whose name shows up as Written By or Screenplay By.

**Craig:** Yeah. For our international listeners, they may be shaking their heads saying, “Wow, a huge part of your union is getting you healthcare, which you should just have.” Because those of us who live fill-in-the-country-here just have healthcare, like they just have roads and water coming out of their faucet. But in the United States, as many of you know, that’s not what we have. Even with Obamacare, which may or may not survive in some form or another, that is kind of basic healthcare. And even that, you know, is ultimately paid for through taxation.

But for what we would consider to be more traditional health plans that have a wider and more beneficial coverage with more choice, it’s a private healthcare system. The way it works it writers earn money and the companies as part of our collective bargaining agreement and on a percentage above that and send it off for pension and health. I believe, this could be slightly off, I believe it’s something like 8.5% at this point. But I could be off on those numbers, so don’t hold me to them. But for each pension/health.

So, John, if you work on an assignment and you get paid $100,000, you get the $100,000, the companies then send $8,500 for health and $8,500 for pension. They send those directly to the plan, if those percentages are correct. Again, I may be off. They don’t do that forever. They will stop. I believe the cap is at 250. So they will pay that extra amount up to you earning $250,000, what they call the cap, at which point they stop. But that’s essentially how our pension and health fund are funded.

The pension plan, like most pension plans, really does work as this enormous pod of money. We have – our pension plan has well over a billion dollars in it. And the idea is that it grows over time through prudent investments and that we – a lot of the money that we make from it really is about earning interest and capital gains. And so it is that kind of pyramid effect. That’s the way pensions work. With health, it’s far more precarious, because it’s really money-in/money-out each year. They take in a certain amount of money. And not every writer qualifies for healthcare. You have to earn a certain amount. I believe currently in our union you need to make a minimum of something like $39,000 in earnings, writing covered earnings, in a year to qualify for the following year’s health.

**John:** And one factor that is sort of unique to writers is that sometimes writers are sharing a salary because they’re a writing team, so that can influence people’s eligibility for healthcare and other things as well. But that gets to be a little more esoteric. So the money that’s being paid in, well, who’s paying that? Those are our employers. And those are the studios essentially. They’re the signatories of the Guild.

In order to work as a WGA screenwriter, you have to work for one of these companies. And these are the companies who we negotiate with every three years to figure out the contract and what those rates are going to be. So the rates for residuals, how much money is going to health and pension, how we are going to schedule the minimums for the different kinds of work we do. And so together all these signatories are called AMPTP. The Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers. These aren’t producers in a normal sense. It’s a little confusing. But we just call them the AMPTP.

And those are the people we get together with every three years to figure out a new contract. And that process of figuring out the new contract, that’s what’s starting right now.

**Craig:** Right. So, the AMPTP is a strange organization. It’s essentially, I think it’s a trade organization. And it doesn’t actually represent all of the signatories. It largely represents the major ones. And then the major ones return back to all of their minor members and say, “This is the deal we made. You’re taking it.”

So, we ultimately really find ourselves negotiating with a group of people that largely represent Fox, Sony, Disney, Warner Bros, Universal, Paramount, the networks. That’s roughly the big names.

**John:** Yep. So, I say that the process is starting now, but that’s actually not quite accurate, because the process of figuring out this contract starts years ahead of time. So, it really starts pretty shortly after the last contract was done. Our contracts run for three years, I should preface by saying.

So, the early discussions happen among writers. Generally kind of informal. But it’s private conversations, especially talking with showrunners, other sort of bigger writers to sort of get the temperature of the room to identify what the major concerns are. And to really see if there’s any changes in the landscape that the WGA needs to be focused on as they’re going into the negotiations.

So, I was on the Negotiating Committee for 2014. So some of the things we were hearing is that the change to shorter TV seasons was having a weird impact on writers. It really affected writers, especially for options and exclusivity, which is that if you are hired to be on a show, they will try to hold you under an option for a long period of time for that next season. Well, that wasn’t a big problem if you were on a 22-episode season. So basically you were working the full year. But if you’re working on a 10-episode or a 13-episode season, that was a long time you were being held under option. So that was a thing that was being singled out to us by writers in 2014.

On the feature side, we heard about sweepstakes pitching, where they were bringing a bunch of writers to pitch on a project that may not ever go anyplace. And paper teaming, where they would stick two different writers together who really were not a team, so they could hire them as one writing team for a television show. So those were some of the kinds of issues that were coming up during this early discussion phase of negotiations.

**Craig:** On the one hand, it would be very easy to negotiate a certain kind of union contract if everybody did the same kind of job in the same sort of place. You could just say, look, what it comes down to is we get paid $12 an hour to work on the line and we’d like to get paid $15 an hour to work on the line. Also, our lunch break is too short. Because we are essentially like freelance employees at the same time, these things come up all the time. And our business is changing so rapidly. We don’t have a factory that keeps doing the same thing. The delivery systems. The kinds of entertainment that we create. The length of the entertainment we create.

I mean, this – for instance, the miniseries that I’m talking about doing. That’s not really something that anybody was doing maybe 15 years ago. If you wanted to tell a story that required a five-hour series in five chunks, I don’t know. Nobody was doing that. That wasn’t a thing. Well, now they do it all the time.

**John:** Well, they used to do it sort of broadcast networks. Like Aline Brosh McKenna and I will one day do our Winds of War remake, which was a classic sort of miniseries. But I think what you’re describing though is sort of the prestige, The People vs. OJ Simpson, that kind of thing has not existed for a while. And it’s a new thing and it creates real challenges to figure out like what is the business model for writers for that kind of thing. It’s new territory.

**Craig:** It is new territory. I mean, there was a time when you and I were growing up where networks would make, television networks would make made-for-TV movies. And they would make television miniseries. But then there was a long stretch of time where both of those things went bye-bye completely. And then they start to come back because of new ways of delivering content to people. Similarly, for most of our lives, and for most people’s lives in the United States, television was dominated by the network model of 22 episodes a season. Whereas across the pond in the UK, their seasons were typically more like eight episode, or ten.

Well, we seem to now be moving towards that model because the network model of a season and that many episodes supported by advertising has essentially collapsed into something very, very different, which is a subscription based notion of watching. And we also have the emergence of major new content. I won’t say content creators, but content providers. Netflix and Amazon are two new outlets that are buying up an enormous amount of, well, you could call it TV if you want.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But some of it’s movies. Some of it’s TV. Some of it’s miniseries. What it really is it’s entertainment that you watch on your television. And all of this is putting enormous pressure on whatever the old models were. And our bargaining and our contract, all of it, it is a mature contract, it is all steeped deeply in the tradition of the time in which it was first conceived which was post-World War II America.

**John:** I love looking through the minimum basic agreement, which is the big contract that sort of shows like how much you get paid for different things and how everything works, because they’ll have these formats for different kinds of shows. Like no one makes that anymore. Like, you know, if it’s a half-hour show involving horses it has to have this kind of, like this is scale for it. There are really strange things that you can’t imagine are used that often, but they’re still in there from when those things were done more frequently.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, I would have to look it up, but the formula, I was talking about the TV residuals formula. And those residuals formula, there’s two kinds. And one of them I think is called the Hitchcock formula, because it’s based on old Alfred Hitchcock Presents. I think and one of them is Sanchez based on some television show that was maybe from the ‘70s. I mean, it is an old contract based in old, old stuff.

So, unsurprisingly, every single negotiation that we have been through since I would argue 2001 has been about trying to address these industry-breaking and contract-breaking developments that are occurring in our industry. I mean, 2001, that was really the first negotiation that earned us a residual rate for work that was rented over the Internet.

**John:** Yeah. Whole new things. So whenever there are changes you have to be really mindful of making sure that writers are being paid for those things, so that initial outreach is basically to identify those things.

The second stage is survey. So they basically survey the membership to ask, hey, what’s going on? Are you experiencing these things? Basically trying to get some quantifiable data to match up with the anecdotal data they’re getting from these early discussions. It’s mostly for planning. Basically trying to identify what are the big key issues here that writers are concerned about, that it’s not just like those three guys over there that have this problem, but it actually is a bigger issue for more writers.

So, those surveys happen. And then there’s sort of really internal meetings where they quietly sort of talk through what the priorities are, what the strategy should be, what do they think they want to do in this round of negotiations. That’s where the Writers Guild board, but also the Writers Guild Negotiating Committee, which is a separate group, figure out what their plan is for going into the negotiation.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it is all done in a sort of vacuum. Until they start to talk to the membership at large, they are doing a strange dance internally. And it’s really the only way they can. They look at the landscape. They look at what they know. And they decide this is what we should do. And that is coupled with a creation of a message. This is why we should do what we should do. And this is why our membership should support us in our efforts to do what we should do.

**John:** It has an aspect of a campaign. Basically you’re testing some messages, you’re testing to see what is it that we think we want to try to do here. And, you know, in this pattern of demands and in these sort of initial outreach meetings to showrunners and to other members of writing staffs and to individual writers, they’re trying to get a sense of like does this accurately reflect your concerns as we do into this negotiation. And that’s the end of a long process, but it continues throughout the process of these outreach meetings.

**Craig:** Yeah. And the name of the game, really, for all of these things is to balance yourself where you feel like you have enough of a message where you can get the membership to support you fully. And fully means and if you come back to them and say they’re not giving you the things that we all agree we should get, we should walk? Right? So there’s the strike threat. You need that, but you also need to come up with a message that doesn’t feel like essentially you’re saying there’s no way out for us, we have no options here, all we can do is strike. You don’t want to come up with a message that feels out of touch with the membership, that either feels like it’s underserving the membership or vastly too aggressive. It’s a very tricky thing. And it makes negotiating on behalf of a union very difficult because unlike most negotiations in business, where both parties are working privately and then facing across each other at a table, or similarly in politics where people work somewhat privately and then sit across the table, for unions a lot of this discussion leading up to things is public.

It’s open because union members have a right to freedom of speech, even within their own union. It’s specified in something called the Landrum-Griffin Act. And as a union leader, you’re walking a careful line because you don’t want to give away too much. If you’re bluffing, you don’t want to necessarily bluff both the membership and the companies, but sometimes it’s hard to bluff the companies if you can’t bluff your membership. Very difficult line to walk. It’s a hard gig to do.

**John:** We should also then now think about the other side of the table here. So, the AMPTP, they’re coming into a round of negotiations thinking like what are we prepared to give. What are we prepared to ask for? What do we want out of this negotiation? And they’re having their own meetings where they’re figuring this out as well. They’re taking their temperature among their members. They’re listening to see what’s happening on the writers’ side. And they’re trying to come up with an approach which will be their initial offer for like this is what we think the contract should be. And sometimes that offer is designed to send a certain message about how the negotiation is going to go.

**Craig:** Yeah. The actual dance that is done is highly formal. And you will hear people on both sides repeatedly refer to it as Kabuki Theater. Both sides will begin the negotiations the way perhaps two animals start their courtship dance. It’s very ritualized. And not surprisingly, so much of the ritual is that the union is asking for so much and the companies are insisting they can’t afford anything. And then once the dance is done, things get down to it.

I was on the Negotiating Committee in 2004. That certainly was going on then. And it’s gone on every time since. What are you looking for are those larger signals and we can talk about 2007 was clearly a different situation. We were sending a very different signal then. And certainly the response from the companies was a very clear signal as well. But traditionally in negotiations there’s a dance. There’s some more dancing. And then the work happens, often very rapidly and in a much smaller room. A room inside a room inside a room.

**John:** Absolutely. So, let me get you inside the room for 2014. The actual process of negotiations happens over a period, it was about two weeks in 2014. We were at the Sherman Oaks Galleria, like actually the shopping mall. So the AMPTP has a headquarters there and when the negotiations start there’s a room off to the left which is where the Writers Guild Negotiating Committee is headquartered and we are there and we are talking through stuff. There’s a room where the AMPTP, bigwigs and lawyers, are headquartered and they are talking.

And every once and a while they will say, OK, we’re going to get together. We will go into their room. We will make our points about a specific issue on the table. They will ask some questions. We will then leave the room and it will go through this process several times. That’s the Kabuki part of the whole thing.

But what Craig is referring to is a lot of the actual discussions and like the changes that happen happen in other conversations that are not the whole group, but just between a few key members going off someplace else to discuss through one specific point or a different point. Sometimes they’ll be asking for clarification. There’ll be give and take. And then our leaders will report back to the Negotiating Committee and we will proceed to the next part.

I wrote a whole script while I was in that Negotiating Committee room.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** Because literally you’re in a room with a bunch of tables. You know, Susannah Grant is behind me and she’s typing away. I’m like, man, if she’s writing something, I got to get down to it. And so it’s a situation where it can be incredibly intense at moments. But then it can just be incredibly like lots of free time.

And so you can chew the fat with people, but you can also get work done. And I took it upon myself to get some work done. It was a really fascinating experience that I don’t necessarily want to repeat again really soon.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, the truth is serving on the large Negotiating Committee, which I think is about 17 members, is thankless and the committee itself is required by our constitution. It is a formality. The truth is you could never negotiate anything with 17 people all in a big room asking questions and bickering amongst themselves because, of course, even within a group of 17 writers who are, let’s just stipulate that they’re all largely aligned. They won’t be completely aligned.

So, inevitably what happens is the larger Negotiating Committee is a group of writers who don’t get to do much and they don’t get to decide much. Really all they’re there to do is hear the reports back from the front lines, give their input, which matters or doesn’t, and then vote at the end.

**John:** Yeah. So I will say that part of our function of being there is that we tend to be sort of writers that they recognize, and so the reason why Susannah Grant was there, or I was there, or Shawn Ryan was there is like these are the people that they’re hiring all the time. So it was useful to have us on the other side of the table looking at them, just because we are – we can speak with some authority and occasionally like Shawn Ryan would speak about a specific issue that was related to his experience in television.

Me, I said nothing in that big room. The only thing I was there to do was in the writer’s side I could ask some questions about things that were going on that I felt weren’t clear.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But that was my function. My function was to be a body there. And I took that as my charge.

**Craig:** Well, you’re exactly right. That they do choose – I mean, this is a committee that’s appointed by the board, and it’s carefully curated. And the point of having people like you there is we are advertising to the companies that we have our best and brightest. We have our most rational. We are not stocking this committee with writers that they maybe think represent a certain class of employees that they simply could do without. We’re advertising that you can’t do without us because look who’s here.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But in the end, there are sidebars. And by the way, this is the same thing on their side, too. They have so many people. They have individuals representing each of the companies and then they have their lawyers and then they have their labor specialists. All these people. In the end, there are sidebars. And the sidebars typically take place between Carol Lombardini, who is the Chief Negotiator for the AMPTP, and a couple of her chief lieutenants. And then on our side, David Young, who is our Executive Director, and typically then one, two, or in this case we have three co-chairs of the Negotiating Committee. And this year it’s Billy Ray, Chris Keyser, and Chip Johannessen.

**John:** Yep. So, at the end of this process, which is very intentionally kept under a cone of silence, like no one reports out what’s happening inside this room. And that, I think, has been well maintained and I think it’s a really smart idea. But at the end of this process hopefully you come to a tentative agreement, which is a compromise that neither side is entirely happy with, but they are saying like this is the best we think we can do. And you go to membership. Then the membership votes on it and hopefully approves the contract and then you’re done. For now. And then three years later you’re going to be going through the whole process again.

**Craig:** That’s right. And while you’re doing this, there is a certain formal process going on on the parts that are not in sidebar. That’s why sidebar is so important in negotiations. When both sides are presenting their formal requests to each other, and when anybody says anything in the big room, all of it is carefully written down. And those notes are considered essentially evidentiary going forward. If somebody – let’s say David Young in the big room said we are willing to sacrifice blah-blah-blah if we can get so and so. That’s written down.

And they will say, “You said you were willing to…” That’s a thing now, right? So everybody is very careful about how they say what they say in that big room. And in the sidebar all the horse trading goes on and on. Those large room notes are also important because sometimes there’s a dispute after the deal is allegedly determined about what a certain deal point actually meant. And so both sides have their copious notes to be able to present to some kind of independent arbiter in the case of a dispute, or, you know, I think it may even go to the labor department if there’s a dispute.

And, for instance, we had something exactly like that at the conclusion of the 2007/2008 strike. And unfortunately what we thought we had gotten we had not. So, those can happen.

**John:** So, let’s circle back to where we’re at right now which Mike B’s question. We’re talking about the outreach meeting. So that’s sort of step three in the process. We’re not really into the negotiation yet. We’re still figuring stuff out. So the outreach meeting that Mike B went to, or that, Craig, you went to an outreach meeting last night.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** These are chances for the guild leadership to talk with the members about what the plans are and also what the concerns are. And so that’s a good thing. So it’s good for Mike B to have gone. It’s good for Craig to go. If, you know, you’re another writer in the Writers Guild, it’s good for you to go just to sort of hear what is being discussed about the upcoming negotiation. So, Craig, I’m in Paris so I’m not hearing any of these discussions. But what I gleaned are sort of the important issues. The health fund is always going to be an issue because we have, again, we are in a system where we have this private health insurance and you have to keep it solvent, so that’s going to be crucial.

A lot of the concerns are TV concerns. Which seems weird in a way because this is clearly a boom time for television. There’s more TV shows. There’s more TV writers. There’s more TV income than before. But when you actual talk to individual writers, a lot of TV writers are struggling. And it has to do with this weird thing about how TV writers work is that they are writing TV shows and they are also producing TV shows. And they’re doing both jobs. But the Writers Guild portion of it, the WGA is responsible for the writing aspect of that. And writers are being paid minimums for that stuff. But those minimums that they’re being paid for, well that money is also being counted against their producing fees.

This may not be such a huge problem if you’re on a 22-episode season that’s lasting the whole year, but if you’re on one of these short shows, ten episodes, 13 episodes, sometimes you’re writing that episode months, and months, and months before you’re producing that episode. And you’re basically having to work as many weeks as if you were on a 22-episode season, but you’re only being paid for that short show. And that’s creating real issues for a lot of TV writers.

**Craig:** That’s right. And it seems like what’s really at stake here in this negotiation is an extension of the very issues that you and others were dealing with in our last negotiation, and dealt with somewhat successfully in 2014. And I think the great hope is that additional incremental gains can be made in this area. And this – these kinds of gains aren’t specifically about being paid more. Although, the guild will certainly ask for that, as well they should. And every cycle, I mean, so the DGA made their deal, and it’s a very typical deal where minimums are boosted either 2.5% or 3% on a year-to-year basis over the three years. But it seems like it’s more of an implementation and lifestyle problem where the companies are saying we’re going to pay you the minimums, but we are going to own you for a year and for a bunch of that year – and we’re going to spread that amount of money out over so much time of exclusivity that even if you’re not working for us, you’re not working for anyone else. So, effectively your payment, which would have once paid for four months say of your work is now going to pay for a year of your work. And while technically that’s not violating your minimums, it is essentially violating minimums.

Now, this as I pointed out in the meeting last night is a problem that screenwriters are far too familiar with. We’ve talked before about the pernicious abuse where – this is writers up and down, but really more the middle class and starting writers deal with this the most and in the most egregious way – you’ll be hired to write a screenplay and you will write a script and hand it to your producer. The producer will give you notes and say we can’t turn this in. You have to write it again. And you will maybe write seven or eight scripts. Seven or eight drafts of that script, just so you can send it in.

Meanwhile, if you’re being paid close to minimum, that’s a year of your life? A year and a half? For minimum. And so what does the minimum mean at that point? And so TV writers are now it seems dealing with this sort of stuff that feature writers have been dealing with forever. And so what happens as a result of this? Not only does this negatively impact individual writers, of course, but it also negatively impacts our pension and health fund because the fringes of pension/health are paid on what writers are paid. And if they are paid less frequently, P&H gets less money.

One thing that’s important to understand about pension and health is that it is not as simple as if you qualify, you get healthcare and the money that has been contributed on your behalf will cover your healthcare. It does not work that way. Not at all. The way our system works is we presume that a number of writers that qualify for healthcare are going to over-qualify. They’re going to earn much more, all the way up to that cap I described, the $250,000. Those are the people that are essentially subsidizing things for everybody else.

You may only take $39,000 to qualify for your healthcare, but on average the contributions that come out of that do not cover the typical writer’s year of health costs. So, the more writers we have moving towards the lower end of the scale, the harder and harder it is for pension and health to be solvent. And, of course, there’s also been this ongoing problem of how television writers are paid. On the screen side, it has been very frustrating for my entire career to watch as I pay 1.5% of dues on every dollar I make to the Guild and all of my money is pension and health contributable.

But on the writer’s side, we have showrunners who make millions and millions of dollars, the vast majority of which is paid out as producing fees. They don’t pay any dues on that money, because it’s not writing money. And none of it is what we’ll call fringe-able. None of it gets that P&H contribution. So, the Guild is trying to address these things. And, it is a real issue and they have all sorts of choices about how they’re going to try and get those things, but certainly it is a problem. Part of my function at the outreach meeting last night was to say, correct, hey also in screen we have issues, too. We have to be addressed.

**John:** Yeah. Agreed. And let’s take a look at the other side of the table, too, because we’re not the only one coming in with an agenda. So what is the AMPTP looking for as they’re going into this negotiation? Well, overall they’d like to keep things in line. They’d like to keep the industry running. They’d like to be able to keep making TV shows and movies. That’s crucial for them. That’s how they make their money.

They’d like to keep things in line with the other deals they’ve already made. So they’ve already made a DGA deal. They’re going to have to make a SAG deal with screen actors after our deal, so they’d like to keep those things consistent. So, you know, their goal is going to be to not go above 2.5% or 3% on those kinds of things that are so similar between the different contracts.

But there are things like these options and exclusivities which are kind of uniquely ours, and so that’s a thing they’ll be looking at too because they want to be able to keep making the best TV shows that we’ve ever made. And in order to keep doing that they’re going to have to be able to make this system sustainable. So, I think they’re going to be looking for ways to be able to keep doing the kind of stuff that they’re doing and not, you know, hopefully decimate a class of writers. They’ll hope.

**Craig:** Right. Well, they have a vastly different approach, as one might expect, to these negotiations. It’s quite typical that writers, directors, and actors will begin negotiations by pointing out how much money the companies are making off of the work that we do. And the companies typically will say, “Oh no, no, no, you don’t understand. Our business is on the edge of disaster.”

In truth, neither point is particularly relevant. No, of course their business isn’t on the edge of disaster. You and I have punctured this myth a hundred times. We did it a couple of weeks ago.

On the other hand, they are corporations. They exist to maximize profits, so the idea that somehow if they’re very profitable this is a problem for them, I mean, they love that, right? Their whole point is we take in as much as we can and we send out as little as we can. I think the things that they are always thinking about in the back of their minds is what is the benefit of labor peace, what is the value of labor peace, what is the cost of labor peace? Because in the end they do get hit by a strike. And they do suffer some costs for that.

So, they are constantly worried about that. Maybe not worried as much as they should be, or as much as we would hope they would be. But they are.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I think they also in the back of their minds are concerned that they don’t create a situation whereby their ruthless pursuit of maximizing profit by minimizing labor costs doesn’t actually dilute and damage their labor pool to the point where they’re damaging their product.

**John:** Yeah. You look at sort of what’s been possible to happen in TV and in film over the last ten years and the profitability that it has been able to see, that comes from really talented people who are choosing to make this their livelihood. And if they can’t make a livelihood doing this, they go away. And then they’re sort of stuck.

Let’s talk about these concerns and sort of the fear and anxiety around it. Basically what should you tell your mom if she asks you about the WGA negotiations? And I think I would stress that this does feel different than 2014. Like 2014 I wasn’t hearing some of the same conversations. But then again 2014 was a really different year. And I think some of what I’m sensing is that we’re just in such a really strange place as a world right now. We have protests in the streets. We have talk of union busting and right to work laws that may be coming out of congress. And we have all this anxiety over healthcare which dovetails really closely to our own concerns about our health plan. So, I think it’s natural for us to feel some of this anxiety right now.

But I don’t think it’s useful to push that into real fear. Fear is useful for like ginning up action, but it can also lead to some sort of rushed and sort of bad decisions. And I think the reason why we wanted to talk this long explaining is that the process of negotiations isn’t rushed and hasty and sudden and spontaneous. It’s actually kind of planning. It’s a real process.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, it’s normal I think for writers to be concerned about a strike. A strike is a scary thing. We don’t strike very often. We used to. The Writers Guild in the ‘70s and ‘80s struck constantly. And so it was a very unstable time and I think people probably did live in a constant state of some kind of fear. But since 1988, we’ve struck once. Came close in 2001. And that’s the balance that the Guild has to find. We never want the companies to feel like we are refusing to strike under any circumstances because ultimately that is the leverage we have.

On the other hand, I think the companies and at least a few people in the Guild understand that when we do strike, we are essentially pulling a pin on a grenade, hugging them close to us, and letting it explode. We get hurt, too.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So it’s not something that we’re looking forward to. Essentially a strike – when a strike occurs, it is an indication of a failed negotiation. So I agree with you, the panic and fear are essentially useless. And I hope very much that our negotiators are able to go in there, particularly because they’re – look, there is a deal. We know that there is a DGA deal. Right? There is a certain package and a certain amount.

My basic philosophy is that I hope they get more. They should not bring us back less. It’s pretty simple.

**John:** So let’s move on to some other questions that are not about the Writers Guild specifically.

**Craig:** Oh good.

**John:** Why don’t you start with Conner in Ireland?

**Craig:** So Conner in Ireland asks, “What do you do after you’ve finished a first draft, but before you start sending it off? Are there any particular things you do to make sure a script is as good as you can make it? Do you have a checklist of things that a character should be doing or saying? Do you map out the plot in each scene and make sure the drama is coming in peaks and troughs? Or, do you just make sure everything is spelled and formatted correctly and just send it out and wait for notes?”

John, what’s your post-flight checklist?

**John:** So I feel like we did an episode about last looks at a certain point. But it’s an evergreen question. My personal way of going through this is when I’m done with a script Godwin is the first person to read it. He makes sure that it actually makes sense. He checks for mistakes. I leave out words all the time. I’m terrible that way.

He’ll read it. Then I’ll read the same draft and when I say read it, I’ll literally print it out because sometimes I can only catch the mistakes on paper. And I’ll really just try to get a feel for like did I actually accomplish the things I wanted to accomplish? Because sometimes there will be a long period of time between that scene I wrote on page 20 and what I just finished up on page 96. And really make sure that it’s feeling like the same thing the whole time through. That I’m not making really some stupid choices. Or like sometimes I’ll create a character in two places that it’s not really quite the same character. I’ll be doing that kind of sort of idiot check, but I’m not going through to make sure is this scene meeting the character goal of this thing – am I hitting these peaks and valleys? It’s none of that stuff. Hopefully I’ve done my work in the process of writing it that it’s not going to have that sort of fundamental issue.

But I won’t know that until I have somebody else read it. Somebody who is out there in the world.

Craig, what’s your process?

**Craig:** Very similar. And I agree with you. At this point it’s too late to start asking questions like is this any good? Some people have different ways of approaching how they write things. Some people are much more loosey-goosey. I am very much a planner. So, there won’t be problems like that. However, I’ll forget about Jack who I have here, because she reads things for me the way Godwin reads for you. Let’s just talk about people that are just by themselves. That’s probably most of you. Read it out loud. That’s the best advice I can give you. Read the whole damn thing out loud. You don’t have to read the action stuff. Read the dialogue out loud. And hear and listen. Things will crop up. Little things that are easily fixed. You may sense suddenly that you’re bored. You may sense that you used the same word too frequently. You may sense that something doesn’t quite make sense.

And you’ll make little changes. And then read through the script carefully. And look for those little things. But don’t panic over small, I mean, I don’t think I’ve – typically I will have one mistake in a script. And I really carefully proofread it and I have somebody else, I have Jack who is proofreading for me as well. There will always be one. It’s not the end of the world. It really isn’t. You just don’t, I mean listen, don’t send in a script full of mistakes. That’s a disaster. But just read it out loud. It’s remarkable how much that will do for you.

**John:** I agree. Some writer, and maybe you’ll remember who this was, their advice was to remove page 17. That in any script you can take page 17 out, and maybe I’ve got the page number wrong, but there’s some sort of classic advice, there’s something early in the script that you just don’t actually need. I think it can be a useful exercise as you’re going through that first draft to just like take a random page out and say like do I really need this. And recognize that your script, even though it’s as good as you can possibly make it at that moment, it’s a flexible document. It can change. It doesn’t have to be – you shouldn’t expect it to be perfect right now. It just has to be the best version of this first draft it can be.

**Craig:** Writing screenplays is a function of balancing a dozen competing interests that are all functioning in different ways. That’s why we need to do multiple drafts. You fall into a trap if you either expect perfection on your first draft or believe you have attained perfection on your first draft. You have not.

So part of sending screenplays off is also adjusting your own expectations and not thinking so much in a fantasy-like way that what I’m going to do is send this script off and in return applause, tears of joy, and so forth. That’s just not how it works. You always have another draft. And so at some point, send it, just to see what happens.

**John:** Yeah. All right, that segues very nicely to our second question from Tobias in Sweden who writes, “I read this article on no film school,” we’ll put a link in the show notes, “that argues that instead of writing a story for a reader, newbie screenwriters are often mistakenly writing a movie for a producer. Instead of telling a story, they’re explaining a movie. Can you give some guidance on too much or too little scene description?” Craig, what is your take on this article?

**Craig:** [laughs] Well, this is an article written by Tom Long who is a screenplay consultant. And I promise that is not why I am annoyed at this article. I’m annoyed at this article because it makes no damn sense. It feels like somebody came up with a vague gimmick for an article and then wrote around in circles. This is what he says. “This is why you shouldn’t think of your screenplay as a movie. For non-established spec writers, a screenplay is a written story that if loved by enough industry folk can then lead to being setup at a studio and hopefully produced in a movie.”

I don’t know–

**John:** I want to stop right there. That was the point where I wanted to bail on the article.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** And so this sense that a script written by a newbie writer, a spec script, is a completely different thing than what you and I are doing is just not true. And that is a thing that has to be killed dead. A script is a script. A screenplay is a screenplay. It’s the same thing. And so the script that I write for Disney or that Karen writes for herself, they’re the same thing, and there’s no fundamental difference between those two things. The rules are not different for me or for Karen. It is the same process. It is the same words on the page. We’re all equal when it comes to those words on the page.

So, the idea that a spec script is a fundamentally different beast than the script that I’m turning into a studio is just wrong. And that’s where I fundamentally lost faith in this article. But I kept reading, so. [laughs]

**Craig:** That’s funny. So did I. So he goes on to say, “Yes, writers should be envisioning their screenplay as a movie, which means writing visually, externalizing actions and conflicts, and applying form and function. However, the story has to be fully executed on the page first.” What? Yeah. That’s what a screenplay is. What is he – what?

**John:** Some of what he’s saying does match up to things we say all the time. You have to be thinking visually. You have to be thinking about what is it going to feel like to experience this as a movie. So, that’s why I’m often saying don’t think about writing a script. You’re trying to write a movie. The goal is to make a movie.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But when he’s getting to – especially as he gets to his examples, I don’t think are selling his point very well. And I don’t think he has a clear logic behind the point. So, people who are listening through to this, you need to click through the article to see the two samples here, because they’re sort of like our Three Page Challenge samples. The little sections of things.

**Craig:** In reverse. [laughs]

**John:** Well, yeah. He sort of shows the early version of a scene that had too little scene description. And then like a second version which has much fuller scene description. And I will be generous in saying like if this was the first scene in a movie, then yes, I could see why the second thing would much better set up who the character is and what’s going on, but the second one if it was on page 90 is just completely overwritten for what that moment is. And so I think it’s a useful exercise for people to compare these two scenes, because the second one is – you know, if it’s the initial scene in a movie, I can see why it’s written that way, but it’s not how you would write most scenes in your film.

**Craig:** Correct. If the scene is in the middle of a movie, and it has to be, because the slug line is EXT. THE GRAVE – SECONDS LATER. So I’m going to just go out on a limb here and say we’re not opening a movie this way. So he says this, “It’s a spec script he consulted on.” And he says, “When I sat down with the screenwriter I explained that the scene confused me on many levels and that I senses there was supposed to be much more here that wasn’t being articulated.”

And so then that writer rewrote the scene per their discussion. If this in fact is a scene from the middle of the movie, I vastly prefer the writer’s original version. And I vastly prefer it because I feel something from it. It actually felt emotional because it was delivering a movie scene to me.

And the second one, I got bored. My god are there a lot of words here. Way too many words. It’s just overwritten. It’s purple. And overdone. And it turns what should be this kind of lovely little moment into a – I don’t know – boring. Boring. And this blows my mind. Blows my mind.

**John:** Yeah. So going back to the initial question that was asked. I think the amount of scene description is the appropriate amount of scene description for what the scene actually is and where it’s functioning in your script. And so it’s absolutely true that earlier scenes in your script tend to be a little bit denser and fuller because you’re setting up the world, you’re setting up the tone, there’s a lot more stuff to them.

They get a little bit leaner in general as you sort of go through the script. That’s fine. That’s good. I say you got to be thinking about you’re writing a movie and you’re writing a movie that is, yes, a literary document that’s going to be carrying the feeling of the movie. So therefore you do have to do the work to pick exactly the right word in the scene description. But that doesn’t mean you have to write reams of scene description to get that point across.

**Craig:** Look, I don’t really know what he’s trying to say here. God’s honest truth. I don’t know what this title means: Avoiding a Screenwriting Trap: Tell a Story Instead of Explaining Your Movie. I don’t know what he means by “this is why you shouldn’t think of your screenplay as a movie.” I don’t know why he’s assigning certain kinds of writing to writing a screenplay as opposed to a movie. It’s all the same to me.

I think you and I have the same experience. I just feel like this is just a bad article that misunderstands how we do what we do. And I think the lessons in it are questionable. So, to sum up, don’t read this.

**John:** [laughs] I think you should read it just to know what we’re actually talking about.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** But don’t take it to heart.

**Craig:** Don’t take it to heart. Fair enough. Don’t take it to heart. Exactly.

**John:** All right, it’s come time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is Greece. So this last week was French Ski Week, so I was on vacation. We went to Greece, sort of last minute decision. Like, you know what, let’s go to Athens and see ancient things. And for whatever reason, Greece was not high on my list and I think it was because I thought like, you know what, Greece is going to be a hassle. And I got this idea in my head like it’s Greece, it’s sort of hard to get there, you can’t take trains there. It obviously had economic crisis. I don’t speak Greek. It seemed like it was going to be a lot of hassle.

And I don’t know why. I was just so wrong. And so I would just encourage people to go see Greece because I really loved it. We spent some time in Athens. Saw the Acropolis. The Parthenon. All amazing. Then we went up to Delphi to see the ruins of the Oracle, the Temple of Apollo there, which was incredible, too.

People in Greece are really cool. Their economy is basically built on tourism, so they’re really good at it. I just really liked it. And so I’d encourage people if you’re headed over the European direction, go to Greece, because Greece was so much better than I was expecting. And really worth it, especially if you have any interest in sort of how civilization with democracy and really crucial aspects of our culture started. Greece is the center of it all.

**Craig:** Grease is the word.

**John:** It is the word. No, it’s spelled differently. Sorry.

**Craig:** Yeah. I was hoping that you were going to be talking about the musical Grease, then I was hoping that you would talk about just the all-purpose lubricant. But I’m happy that you talked about the country because, you know what, they gave us Steve Zissis.

**John:** Nothing better than Steve Zissis.

**Craig:** Nothing better.

**John:** And the new little Zissis of the world. It’s all good.

**Craig:** Mini-Ziss.

**John:** Mini-Ziss.

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is one creepy thing but one very cool thing. There is a series of games available for the iPad/iPhone. Again, maybe for Android, but we don’t give a damn about Android. And it’s called Fran Bow. Fran like the girl’s name, and Bow. B-O-W.

And the story is released in chapters. Each chapter is its own game. I think two bucks a game, two bucks a chapter. Fascinating game. Really cool. Very simple controls. You are investigating your world around you and you’re picking up items and manipulating them to solve puzzles. What makes this game fascinating, it is the darkest thing. You play this little girl. She is sweet and so innocent. And she constantly asks sweet and innocent questions of the world around her. Her parents have bloodily butchered. And by the way, this is not a game for children. This is 17 plus all the way.

And she has now been committed to a mental hospital for observation. And they give her pills. And one of the main game mechanics is when she takes one of these pills, the world transforms into this horror show. An absolute horror show. It is disturbing. It is visually gorgeous. The game play itself is the least important part of it. It really is just experiencing the remarkable creepiness of this game. I love it. Fran Bow. Check it out.

**John:** Well done. So, while you’re on your long flight to Greece, you can play Fran Bow. And you’ll see the glorious wonders of ancient world and the wonders of the iPad. Well done.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s our show for this week. So, as always, our show is produced by Godwin Jabangwe. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week comes from Kristian Gotthelf.

**Craig:** Gotthelf.

**John:** If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send longer questions like the ones we answered today. On Twitter, I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. Send us your short questions there. That’s always delightful.

We are on Facebook. I do occasionally check the Facebook page, so find us there. Like us. Liking us does something. I don’t know what.

Even more useful though is if you give us a nice review and some five stars on iTunes, because that helps people find the show through iTunes. We are on iTunes. We’re also on Google Play. We’re other places, too, but iTunes is sort of the main catalogue of things.

People often think that iTunes delivers podcasts the same way that people – like you download a song from items. You don’t download podcasts from iTunes. It’s just a catalog. It’s just a bunch of RSS feeds.

**Craig:** It’s a directory.

**John:** It’s like old Yahoo! That’s what it’s sort of like.

**Craig:** Oh my god. I remember when Yahoo! was just a vertical list of websites.

**John:** Amazing.

**Craig:** That’s how old I am.

**John:** Yeah. My daughter has no sense of what the Internet used to be. I mean, she’s never lived in a time without the Internet, and so just like, well yes, everything was always there whenever you wanted it. We had a situation in Paris where our power went out in our apartment. And so I’m trying to find the fuse box and she comes in and she says, “The Wi-Fi is out, too.” I’m like, well of course the Wi-Fi is out. There’s no power. But it hadn’t occurred to her that like without power we don’t have Internet. And so like, oh no. The worst.

**Craig:** She thought it was more like, well, the power is out. And the water isn’t working.

**John:** [laughs] Oh my. So, if your Internet is restored and the Wi-Fi is back up–

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** You can come visit at johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find the show notes for this week’s episode and all the back episodes. You’ll also find the transcripts for previous episodes. They go up about four days after an episode posts. And you can find all the back episodes of Scriptnotes at Scriptnotes.net. That’s right now the only place where you can find all those back episodes. There’s talk of future USB drives, but at the moment there are none of them, so that’s where you can find them. It’s $2 a month for all the back episodes, the special episodes.

**Craig:** Come on.

**John:** The Aline Brosh McKenna specials. Aline was gracious enough to live tweet our most recent episode, so maybe she’ll do that for this one, too. She won’t. She won’t do it.

**Craig:** You know what happened last night at this screenwriter outreach meeting?

**John:** Tell me all about it.

**Craig:** When I got up to speak, [laughs], a woman said, “Sexy Craig.”

**John:** [laughs] Oh no!

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s so inappropriate.

**Craig:** No, it was amazing. So I think it’s been so long. I think next week – I’m not going to drop him on you now – but next week Sexy Craig is going to have something to say.

**John:** Ugh. So a reason enough to tune in or not tune in. Reason enough for me to bring in a guest host for next week to avoid or to have some Sexy Craig.

**Craig:** You can’t, man. Can’t avoid me. I’m with you.

**John:** Ugh. Everyone have a great week. We’ll see you next week. Bye.

**Craig:** Thanks.

Links:

* [Kellyanne Conway’s interview tricks, explained](http://www.vox.com/videos/2017/2/13/14597968/kellyanne-conway-tricks)
* [On shared false memories](https://aeon.co/ideas/on-shared-false-memories-what-lies-behind-the-mandela-effect)
* [Allison Schroeder](http://johnaugust.com/2011/allison-schoeder-first-person)
* Avoid a Screenwriting Trap: [No Film School article](http://nofilmschool.com/2017/02/screenwriting-tell-a-story-instead-of-explaining-your-movie)
* [Greece](http://www.visitgreece.gr/)
* [Fran Bow](http://www.franbow.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)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Kristian Gotthelf ([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_289.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 286: Script Doctors, Dialogue and Hacks — Transcript

February 6, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

**Craig Mazin:** And my name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 286 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the podcast, well, way back in Episode 37 we discussed dialogue. Today we’re doing a follow up on that. A part two on dialogue. The ways in which characters communicate with each other and let us know what’s inside their heads. Then we’ll be discussing two terms often applied to screenwriters and I will be urging people to stop using those terms.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s a great idea.

**John:** Plus, we’ll have a chance to answer some listener questions if we don’t run out of time, so we should probably get started. Craig, last week we asked How Would This Be a Movie, and several of our listeners wrote in to say that was already a TV show.

**Craig:** Yeah, who knew? So, this was the Alexis Manigo story. This was the girl who was stolen from her parents when she was born, from the hospital, and raised by an entirely different woman. And then comes to find out when she’s 17 or 18 what the truth is, and it was an interesting story. So, she was born Kamiyah Mobley and then was raised as Alexis Manigo, and I guess now she’s back to being Kamiyah Mobley. Regardless, many folks wrote in, including – do you remember this guy, Stuart Friedel? [laughs]

**John:** Vaguely. I think he was a producer early on on Scriptnotes. That’s maybe how we knew him, Stuart.

**Craig:** Only for the first 98% of the shows. Regardless, Stuart and others wrote in to direct our attention to an MTV series that was called Finding Carter. And that show was about – we’ll see if this sounds familiar- a teenage girl whose life is turned upside down when she discovers that the woman she thought was her mother had abducted when she was a child. That’s the exact same story. And it was created by a writer named Emily Silver. So, yeah, looks like I guess life has imitated art there?

**John:** Perhaps. Or Emily Silver was ahead of the game. Perhaps she traveled through time and she saw the story and went back in time so she could be the first one there with that story.

**Craig:** That’s the most likely explanation.

**John:** That is absolutely. Occam’s razor suggests time travel is clearly what was at work here. It’s a good idea for a story in general. So that was a fictional version of that story. I kind of remember a promo for it, because I don’t watch a lot on MTV, but I watch MTV’s The Challenge and I would see promos for Finding Carter back in those days.

**Craig:** I got to tell you, I have forgotten that MTV even exists. I mean, look, when we were kids MTV came out and it was the bomb. Right? We all loved MTV. The astronaut dancing around. Videos were this new thing. We were just thrilled.

**John:** We also said words like The Bomb.

**Craig:** Right. Like that’s how old we are. And then MTV stopped playing music videos and started doing other stuff. And we were like, meh, I don’t know. But then they had MTV’s The Real World. And that became the new hotness. Right?

**John:** I loved The Real World. I probably watched the first six seasons of The Real World.

**Craig:** I don’t know how long I stuck around. I think I probably checked out after San Francisco, which was kind of the height of drama. At least as far as I could tell. And then I stopped watching MTV. I don’t even know where to find it. I don’t know what’s on it. And I’m not sure that’s necessarily a function of me being an old dude. My son is 15. My daughter is 12. I don’t even know if they know that MTV is a thing.

**John:** I think MTV is still a thing, it’s just because channels have become much less important, networks have become less important, and programs have become more important. So, like Teen Wolf is a big MTV show.

**Craig:** Ah, OK.

**John:** And so that is a big scripted show. And so that is sort of what they do now. And Finding Carter was a series, like Teen Wolf, but it didn’t break out in the way that Teen Wolf broke out to become a phenomena.

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** Yeah. I think you can still make some sort of movie version of that story, but I kind of feel like we were – obviously we weren’t going to know about Finding Carter. We’re just not in that demographic. But I think a TV series is actually a really interesting way to go with that idea, because it’s an ongoing journey. It doesn’t have to be a one-time situation to discover that you’re kidnapped. There’s a lot of story that you can stretch out ahead there. And so a TV series is a good way to do that. Congratulations, Emily Silver, your time travel seems like a great opportunity for narrative.

**Craig:** Silver!

**John:** Silver! Next up, we talked about sea monkeys. And, again, there was a TV show. I have no idea there was a TV show. There was a television program that ran for 11 episodes in 1992 called The Amazing Live Sea Monkeys. It starred Howie Mandel as the professor. The show was created by Howie Mandel, along with Stephen Charles and Edward Chiodo, who I looked up and they are like puppeteers. They are puppet makers. And so this was a live action show. The sea monkeys had sort of puppeted faced. I mean, they were like makeup faces. And so they were full size people.

I should probably just read the Wikipedia summary. “The plot revolved around the notion that the Professor had accidentally enlarged three sea monkeys to human-size, and plotlines followed their ensuing comical ineptness in the world. Each Sea Monkey displayed a certain odd character trait: Aquarius could not keep a secret, Bill was afraid of an Imperial, Dave would grow excited at the sound of polka music. They occasionally come into contact with their next door neighbors the ‘Brentwood’s, whose daughter Sheila becomes the Sea-Monkeys best friend.”

**Craig:** First of all, what is happening? I mean, we’ve talked a lot about what it means to build a character. This is a good example of what to not do. “Dave would grow excited at the sound of polka music” – not really a solid substitute for verisimilitude in a living creature. But, what the hell does “Bill was afraid of an Imperial” mean? What?

**John:** I don’t know. I feel like we shouldn’t entirely judge a show based on its Wikipedia summary.

**Craig:** The Wikipedia summary. Right.

**John:** But we will put a link in the show notes to the YouTube clip so people can watch it. I feel like if you were taking advantage of California’s new medical marijuana laws, this might be the thing to start watching, because it is surreal in the strangest ways.

**Craig:** Well, it is. I watched about, I don’t know, two minutes of it. And it is – “ensuring comical ineptness” – sounds correct. There was comical ineptness all around there. But I was struck by how, once again, John, how old we are, because this show looked honestly like it was – other than being in color, it could have been made in 1840. [laughs] And it was from 1992. I graduated college in 1992. I can’t believe that this was what was happening back then. Not good.

**John:** No. Not good. I will say that this falls into that gap of – I grew up watching Saturday morning shows. I think this was a Saturday morning show. I hope this was a Saturday morning show. But I grew up watching those. But then, of course, you turn to junior high and high school and you stop watching those shows. And so there’s a whole generation of those shows that you would not have caught.

So, Stuart Friedel, again, probably would have watched this show.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But you and I would not have watched this show.

**Craig:** I bet you Stuart still watches it occasionally.

**John:** Stuart is a huge fan of children’s television. And I guess sort of young adult television. That’s why he knows about Finding Carter. He can tell you what’s happening on the Thundermans. He’s very good at that kind of stuff.

**Craig:** And not in a weird way, by the way.

**John:** No, there’s nothing at all weird about Stuart Friedel. He’s as straight-forward as you could come.

**Craig:** He legitimately loves children’s–

**John:** He really does.

**Craig:** I had dinner with Stuart the other night.

**John:** Tell me about dinner with Stuart Friedel, or after the air if it’s too embarrassing.

**Craig:** No, it was – well, after dinner was what normally happens with me and Stuart. And, you know what, we’re good. We’re cool. It was delightful. It was delightful. He is a lovely person. And a very, very smart person. He’s doing quite well.

**John:** Yeah. And he’s married. Congratulations, Stuart Friedel.

**Craig:** He’s married. Yes. One day our show may be produced by Jimmy Friedel, Stuart’s son.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah, just named his kid for him. Why not?

**John:** So, if you’re curious about the sea monkeys, we will link to an episode called the Octapotomus, which is just fantastic.

**Craig:** People should know, by the way, that this episode is going to be wild, because normally we try and do this where it’s kind of mid-morning for me, and early evening for you because of our continental divide. But because of scheduling issues, it’s currently nearly midnight for me and crazy early in the morning for you. This is going to be wild.

**John:** It’s going to be wild.

All right, last bit of follow up here is the Sinbad genie movie. So, we talked last week about the Sinbad movie that never existed in which he plays a genie. And so as we were discussing it, in our show notes we were going to talk about the Mandela Effect. And there’s even a link in last week’s episode to the Mandela Effect because we were supposed to talk about it. We didn’t talk about it.

The Mandela Effect is a general term for situations like what’s happening with the Sinbad genie movie where people have a memory that is not actually true. There’s a collective memory that’s not true. And the Mandela Effect describes people’s memory of Nelson Mandela dying long before he died. Sort of a theory that there’s something weird and metaphysical happening there. So, we didn’t get into the Mandela Effect last week.

But, Craig, this past week you were describing a situation you had with David Kwong which sounds like a very similar kind of phenomenon.

**Craig:** Yeah, so the Mandela Effect I guess posits that there’s parallel universes and there’s like a glitch in either the computer simulation that we all live in, which I believe we do, or a glitch in parallel universes so that a lot of people are accessing some parallel alternate reality in which Sinbad did in fact play a genie in a movie called Shazam, which he did not.

So, David Kwong, our friend of the show, world famous magician, and now creator of a TV show. He’s got a new TV show that he’s doing. I was at dinner with him and the word dilemma came up, you know, just in use. And he said, “You know, up until three years ago,” and David Kwong for context, Harvard educated, one of the smartest people I’ve ever met in my life. He said, “Up until a couple years ago, I was convinced that the word dilemma was spelled D-I-L-E-M-N-A.” As in “dilemna.” With the M sound sort of being like autumn, which of course ends with M-N.

And he said what prompted him to go down this rabbit hole was he saw a poster for the movie a few years ago called The Dilemma, and he thought, “Oh, that’s somehow they’ve done a pun or something. Because they’ve spelled dilemma wrong.” And he looked it up and realized, no, you spell dilemma with two Ms, not M-N.

So, he goes online and realizes that he is one of many, many people who not only were under the impression that the word dilemma was spelled D-I-L-E-M-N-A, but have very clearly memories of being instructed that this is the case in the way that we are instructed in school about words that we might think be spelled one way, but are in fact spelled another way.

You know, so in school I remember we learned that the word separate, there was a poster that said, “There’s a RAT in SEPARATE,” because people sometimes misspell it Sep-e-rate, and it’s Sep-a-rate. These people have clear memories of being instructed, even textbooks instructing them that it’s DILEMNA, and there’s a website dedicated to this called dilemna.info.

So, we’ll link to that one.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And you can read all about this bizarre glitch in the matrix.

**John:** Yes. So when you told me about David Kwong’s situation there, I have a memory, too, of having spelled dilemma with an N in it for some reason. And I don’t remember being specifically instructed, but I do remember thinking like, oh, that’s how you do it. And words like column or autumn have similar sort of patterns so it would kind of make sense. Also, dilemma is a word that you don’t use as a child. It becomes a middle school word at earliest. So, I can see sort of how that happens. I still think dilemma looks a little weird with two Ms. There’s something just really strange about the word dilemma. So, it’s not surprising to me that we have this weird situation around it.

Again, I don’t think it’s a metaphysical Mandela Effect necessarily. But, I get it. I get why people are a little bit creeped out by a false memory of having learned it a certain way.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So this idea that it was in your textbooks, well, we can’t find the textbooks that would actually have it printed the wrong way. We can’t find dictionaries that have it printed the wrong way. Yet, I could believe that teachers might have taught it the wrong way. And it’s not a recent phenomenon. Apparently it goes back 80 years. You see examples of people misspelling it in that specific way. So, something is going on there.

**Craig:** Right. And at the dilemna.info site you have – because the one theory was, well, if it’s people from a certain generation, maybe there was just like a bad textbook or something. But there’s a 90-year-old man who remembers this. There are 20 year olds who remember this. It’s a weird one for me because I always remembered how to spell dilemma because of Lemma. I don’t know if you remember the word “lemma” when you were doing geometry or not, but so it’s a Greek word. And dilemma is just two lemmas.

So, I – this is a weird one for me. I’m surprised. And, by the way, they do – they talk about how they remember it in textbooks, but no one can find them because, of course, they don’t exist.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Or do they?

**John:** Or do they? Hmm.

All right, let’s segue to our main topic today, which is words again. It’s dialogue. So, way back in Episode 37 we had Let’s Talk about Dialogue, was our first conversation about how we write dialogue for film and for television. And I wanted to sort of revisit that, because I’ve been thinking about that more over the last week. I’ve been doing some polishing. I’ve been doing some nips and tucks on a project. And it comes down to the dialogue for what I’m doing right now.

And I thought we’d start with sort of a history of what dialogue is, because obviously human beings who have been speaking for our entire existence – that’s one of the things that sort of makes us human. But dialogue is a very special case. And so I was thinking back to well what is the first example of dialogue. It would probably be reported speech. So, if I’m telling you a story and I’m using the speech as the characters in the story, or like I’m recapping something and saying like that he says, then she says, and it’s that situation where you’re modeling the behavior of what was said before. And so you can imagine sort of cavemen around the campfire doing that kind of reported speech would be the first kind of dialogue. Within a monologue, it’s the speech in that. Sort of like how an audio book works.

But then we have real plays. And so have the Greek dramas, the Greek comedies. If you think about the Greek dramas, a lot of Greek dramas are not people kind of talking back to each other. It sort of feels like I say something, then you say something, and there’s not a lot of interplay. But the Greek comedies, they do actually sort of talk to each other in ways that are meaningful. Of course, Shakespeare has plays in which characters are really communicating with each other. The thing I say influences the thing that you say back to me.

And then you have the Oscar Wilde comedies, which are all about sort of the craft of those words, and sort of like badminton where they’re just keeping the ball up in the air. It’s not a ball, but I’d say it’s a birdie.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly. I went through a period where I was reading some of the old Greek comedies, Aristophanes and so on, and I was stunned at how contemporary they felt in terms of the back and forth of dialogue. It was kind of remarkable. And they are plays – so you’re reading essentially a script. A thousand and thousand year-old script. And they had figured a lot. It’s actually insane how little has changed.

**John:** Yeah. But I think it’s important to distinguish the comedies from the dramas, because when I look at the old Greek dramas, there is back and forth, but it’s not the same kind of back and forth. And it ends up being sort of a lot more like I’m going to tell you this whole long thing, and the next person is going to tell you this whole long thing.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** There’s less of that sort of back and forth.

**Craig:** I agree. It’s very declarative. The dramas are very much about speeches.

**John:** Yeah. But then you look at what happens next is as we get into radio plays, then it’s all dialogue. So, when you have stage plays, you can see the action happening in front of you. You have people there. But we get to radio plays, it’s just people talking. And so the words have to do so much more in order to communicate not only what’s being said, but sort of the world around what’s being said. And so it’s more naturalistic in some ways, but it also has to be sort of pushed in a way because it has to explain everything through just the dialogue.

Same time we were seeing radio come up, you have the silent movies. And so in silent movies, of course, you have characters in scenes together, but the dialogue, if there is dialogue is just title cards that are put there. So, you have characters emoting a lot and then we cut to a card that has a very shortened version of what they would say. That’s a strange form–

**Craig:** It’s very strange, because the cards – they don’t make conversation possible so even though people are talking together, they will choose a, I guess, some kind of representative line of dialogue for one person to sum up this entire exchange that these two people might be having. And, of course, that is probably why a lot of silent films also de-accentuate conversation. And it’s very much about one person making speeches, while another person listens.

**John:** Yep. Then, of course, we transition to the talkies, and then everything is changed, because in once you actually have dialogue and characters that are in a scene together, it changes the frame of reality around things. So you can’t just have a person emoting wildly and then you cut to a title card. They actually have to have a conversation. You have to keep that ball up in the air. And it’s a huge shift in sort of how the audience’s experience of a story and really the writer’s experience of how you’re going to communicate this information. You cannot expect the audience to just be watching and gleaning something. They are expecting to have a real conversation happening in front of them. And that changes everything.

**Craig:** It also famously changed the skill of acting. I mean, the school of acting prior to talkies was very much about being emotive and really more of a filmed version of what people would do on stage, which was very formalized.

And because their faces and movement had to stand in for so much, but once you shift to sound, we begin to see the birth of naturalistic acting which peaks with the method movement that leads to all – you know, famously some of our greatest American films of the ‘70s.

**John:** Yeah. So there’s an expectation that the performances are naturalistic, and therefore the dialogue is supposed to be more naturalistic. It’s not always that way, but the dialogue gets twisted towards naturalism quite heavily once you have real characters speaking to each other.

**Craig:** But then eventually you get to the sea monkeys, which that’s a different kind of–

**John:** That’s really the pinnacle. It’s sort of sad that we peaked in 1992, but at least we have YouTube so we can go back and look at sort of what the sea monkeys were able to do.

**Craig:** [laughs] Because they talk, their mouths are all – ugh.

**John:** It’s amazing. Television in general was a huge shift in dialogue as well. Because you think about how people watch television, you’re watching the screen, but sometimes you’re not really watching the screen. Sometimes TV is playing off in the background. So, there’s a midway quality between what our expectations are of film dialogue and radio dialogue. There’s a little bit of over-explaining that tends to happen in TV. I think less so now than, you know, 20 years ago. But TV dialogue could be a little bit more artificial because there was an expectation that you got to talk people through the process. Even procedural shows right now, there’s an unnatural quality which is sort of inherent to the genre where you are talking as if the other character doesn’t have that same information so you can get it out to the audience.

**Craig:** And prior to – a fairly recent revolution where so much of our television is streamed, commercial-free for instance, if you’re watching it on Netflix or Hulu. Network television which dominated all television was highly bifurcated/trifurcated/quadfurcated because of commercials. And there was an understanding that some people were just coming in, you know, they had missed it. Or, they went to the bathroom while stuff was going on. There was no TiVo. There was no pausing. So, people were constantly reiterating things so that folks wouldn’t get lost just because they went to go get a sandwich.

**John:** Yeah. As you were saying, in recapping what just happened.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So let’s talk about what characters are doing in scenes and sort of what ideally you would love to have your dialogue be able to perform in the scenes you’re writing. So, the first thing we’re looking for is dialogue, which means characters talking to each other, with each other, and not just intersecting monologues. And one of the great frustrations I have in some of our Three Page Challenges is I feel like characters are just having a monologue that’s just occasionally interrupted. Or like two parallel monologues that don’t actually have anything to do with each other.

When dialogue is working well, it should feel kind of like Velcro. Those two pieces of conversation, they’re designed for each other. And so they can only exist together and they’re strong when they are together. But you couldn’t take those people’s lines independently. They would be sort of meaningless. They’re all informed by what the person just said before that.

**Craig:** That’s a very good way of describing a common rookie limitation – intersecting monologues. And it’s understandable because the complexity that is required to create dialogue that answers and is responsible to the reflection back from another character, it is logarithmically more complicated than one person saying something and then another person saying something. The listening is that, you know, they always say that silence is just as important in music as a note. And it’s the listening of dialogue and the reacting and the incorporation and the adjustment, that’s the swordsmanship. So, I think when we look at stuff where we have the intersecting monologue problem, it’s like we’re watching two fencers who are putting on an exhibition for us, and they’re showing us their fencing moves towards us.

But they’re not fencing each other, which is just a totally different thing.

**John:** It is. So let’s take a look at sort of how we indicate in the real world that we are listening to each other and how listening shapes the lines we’re going to say next. And so I want to talk about discourse markers, which is the general term for those words that function as parts of speech that are not quite nouns or adjectives or anything else. They’re basically just little markers that say, “Yes, I heard what you said. I’m acknowledging what you said. And here is my response to it. So, I’m talking about words like you know, actually, basically, like, I mean, OK, and so. Things like also, on the other hand, frankly, as a matter of fact. As I do very often, as you’re talking, I go, “Uh-huh.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s those small acknowledgments that I hear what you’re saying and keep going, or I’m about to respond back to you.

There’s an acronym which I found online for it called FANBOYS. So if you’re trying to remember those words it’s For And Nor But Or Yet or So. Basically it’s ways to take what has just been said and put your spin on the next thing that’s going to come out. And so let’s take a look at why you would use those discourse markers and as a screenwriter how to be aware of those things. Because I think so often we try to optimize our dialogue to the point where we’re getting rid of all the natural parts of speech. But without some of these little things to help you hook into the previous line, it can be hard to make your speech flow naturally.

So, here’s one function. It’s when you want to soften a blow, especially if it conflicts with what the person just said. So, it’s an example of like, “Well.” “Well, that’s not entirely true.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** You could say, “That’s not entirely true,” but that’s a harder line. The well takes a little of the edge off that. And sort of connects like, “Yes, I heard what you just said, but I’m going to say the opposite.”

**Craig:** Yeah. So, these words are wonderful to indicate that the person who is starting their sentence with them has changed. Somehow what you said to me changed my brain. I’m not saying it changed my mind in that I have a new opinion. But it has changed my state of brain, which is exactly what goes on in conversation. So, as you’re talking to me, you’re changing my brain because I’m listening to you. Actors understand this. They’re taught very carefully and very rigorously how to listen. You can always tell a bad actor because they’re not listening. They’re just thinking about their next line.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** Similarly, bad writers write characters who are just thinking about their next line. And so you lose these little things. And when we talk about, well, everyone is familiar with the phrase “an ear for dialogue.” A lot of what an ear for dialogue is is this. It’s really not so much an ear, it is a sense of human psychology and an understanding of how it feels to listen.

So, when you’re writing two people talking to each other, you have to schizophrenically – I use that in the wrong sense – you know, split-mindedly say something and then immediately throw yourself into the other person and hear it. And that is what will naturally lead to some of these very useful words.

**John:** Yep. So, you know, we talked about softening a blow. A lot of times you’re also comparing two ideas. And so an example would be, “So, it’s like Uber for golf carts.” And so you’re basically taking the idea that’s been given to you and synthesizing it and putting it back. You might want to add onto an idea. So, that’s, “What’s more, there’s no evidence he even read the book.” So that “what’s more,” you could take that off, but without it it doesn’t connect to the previous line of dialogue.

**Craig:** Right. It’s not an acknowledgement that you’ve heard that. You’re agreeing with it, tacitly. And now you’re adding. So much gets unsaid by a “what’s more.” But we hear it, and the audience hears it, and they know so much because of it. That’s amazing. I’ve never really thought about that. Interesting.

**John:** Yeah. It’s a way of like sort of underlining that previous point. Another example would be indicating that a point has already been conceded and that you’re kind of moving on. So, an example would be, “No, you’re right to be concerned.” And so essentially saying like, “You said to be concerned. I’m agreeing with you to be concerned. Let’s move on to the next point.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** What I also find so fascinating about that no is that’s an example of how no can mean yes in dialogue. And I hear myself doing it all the time, where I will say no when I mean yes. And it’s basically that no means I’m putting no argument up against you. I’m agreeing with you. I’m not denying you. It’s awkward that, and of course, it’s an example of no really meaning a yes. But it’s just the way that it works in our language.

**Craig:** Sometimes I think the – we’ll call it the affirmative no – sometimes when people use it, I feel like they’re actually responding to themselves. So you say something, I’m thinking a thing. You give me a different point of view. And I say, “No, yeah, I think that’s right,” as in, “No, stop thinking the thing you were thinking. This new thing is correct.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It is fascinating how many words we elide as we go through. Yeah.

**John:** A lot of times you’re going to use one of these words to demonstrate a sense of logical sequence. So, “OK, once we disable the cameras, then we can start working on the vault.” Basically, I am going to now set forth a chain of events that describes what’s going to happen next. Or, we’re going to offer an illustration, an example. So, “And we all remember how drunk he got at the Christmas party.”

Again, you could take off that “and” and start and say, “We all remember how drunk he got at the Christmas party.”

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s not a–

**John:** But that “and” is really helpful because it means I’m adding on to the thing you just said. I’m giving you an example of the situation that we’re talking about. That “and” is incredibly helpful and without that “and” the sentence doesn’t mean the same thing.

**Craig:** I think sometimes when educational therapists, there’s a whole world of people who work with kids who have autism, or Asperger’s and they struggle with social interaction. Some of these things are the things that they’re actually instructing them, because for some people, that “and” is absolutely superfluous. And from an informational point of view, it’s close to being superfluous. But what they’re missing is that they’ve eliminated that social glue that says, “Just so you know, I listened to you, and I heard you.” When, of course, somebody who is very regimented and perhaps rigid in their thinking might think, “The fact that I am here staring at you is an indication that I heard what you said.”

And some people need to be taught these things.

**John:** When I was in Madrid last week for the screenwriter’s event, it was the first time I clocked that people say in Spanish say “Vaya” all the time. And Vaya is basically OK. It’s like it’s the uh-uh, it’s the acknowledgment. The equivalent would be d’accord in French. And a non-fluent speaker doesn’t know to say that. And so I don’t know to say that. And so therefore I seem kind of autistic in Spanish or in French because I don’t have the social cues to sort of like acknowledge that thing. So I can sort of nod and sort of say that I’m getting it, but the Vaya is that sense of like, “Yep, got it.”

**Craig:** That’s why you seem autistic in French? Really, John, that’s why? Not your autism? [laughs]

**John:** No, my robot programming.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a phrase that I picked up when I was taking Italian in college. We had a professor who was a native speaker and he would constantly say, you know, he was giving us a lesson and then he would pause and go [vediamo un po]. And [vediamo un po] means let’s see a little. I think that’s what it means. Yeah, vediamo un po. Let’s see a little. Which is like, okay, so it’s a version of that. And, yes, you’re right, it’s the kind of thing that makes you seem like you’re in the moment. And when you’re not a native speaker you just don’t have those little bits and bops.

**John:** You don’t. But talk us through sort of then the modes of dialogue. What are the tones of dialogue? What you’re trying to do in basic structures of dialogue.

**Craig:** Yeah, I was thinking about this question of the kinds of ways that we – we meaning humans or characters – speak. And if they could be divided up into categories. And I don’t know if these are all of them, but these are certainly many of the ones that you’ll see and use as a writer all the time.

The first one is the easiest and most obvious, which I just call neutral. And that’s sort of the way we talk throughout the day. It is – it’s how we’re talking right now. It’s low stakes. It’s even-tempered. It’s not particularly loud or soft. It can be inquisitive, or informative, or social. It’s two people chatting at lunch. And in movies sometimes that’s what’s going on, but it’s important to match the neutral mode to the actual circumstances. You don’t want to have people speaking neutrally when perhaps it might be more interesting or dramatic or appropriate for them to be speaking a different way.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** Then there’s emotional. And that’s what we probably think of when we think about Oscar movies and so forth. But emotional dialogue is in every movie, of all kinds. And that is dialogue where the character is revealing some part of their inner emotional state. It is typically well controlled speech. It can often be uneven because we understand that it is an expression of the lizard brain, our flight or fight type of instinct. Very often this kind of dialogue is irrational. It can be contradictory. It can be very loud. It is rarely well-articulated – and this we’ve seen a lot in Three Page Challenges. People speak in this remarkably well articulated, even – well, I won’t say even-tempered, but very well-articulated way when in fact in the moment they should have an emotional mode which is clumsy and often truncated or weird.

**John:** There was a screener I was watching this last week, a movie that I genuinely loved, but there was a moment in there where a character has a huge emotional moment and I was frustrated that the character was far too articulate in that moment. They actually dialed up the sophistication of the dialogue in that incredibly emotional moment. And the actor was talented enough to pull it off, basically. And, yet, it didn’t actually track. It didn’t actually make sense. Like the moment should have been less coherent and more emotionally clear. And it was sort of too precisely, too finely written for where that character was supposed to be at emotionally.

**Craig:** Well, it sounds like perhaps the writer fell into a fairly common trap where when you should be emotional, you opt for something that I’ll call declarative. This is the mode of speaking when you are intentionally getting across some kind of meaningful insight or important news or dramatic revelation. Declarative, the most obvious example would be a lawyer giving a final argument. There’s that moment in – what was that movie called, A Time to Kill, where Matthew McConaughey delivers this impassioned speech about what happens. And then he says, “Now, imagine she’s white,” which is a very declarative, insightful, there’s a wisdom to it. And actors and writers love these moments because they are so remarkable.

You know, Yoda is always declarative. These very – but when you are emotional, you should not be declarative. That would make the emotion seem fake and it would make you and the character and scene feel inauthentic.

**John:** Yep. It’s the reason why the lawyer can’t give that passionate closing argument after having just found out that his wife died.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** There’s a mismatch of sort of what’s going on in his mental state to be able to do that. And it’s a very controlled thing for him to do that remarkable speech.

**Craig:** That’s right. And, by the way, that example that you just gave, oh and interesting, I just used “by the way” which is another great signifier to indicate that I heard you and it’s triggered something else. Sometimes you’ll see these notes come up where somebody will say there’s a mismatch in the way this moment with how they feel and without putting their finger on it what they’re saying is you’re using the wrong mode of dialogue for what would be the mental state of this person.

Interestingly, there’s this other mode that I’ll call manipulative, which makes it sound Machiavellian, but I’m using it more as an over-arching term. And manipulative dialogue is anything where you’re trying to either convince somebody or calm somebody down or inspire somebody or avoid their questions. You’re using dialogue purposefully to achieve an effect in this other person. And if you think about our example of the lawyer, that’s the difference between a lawyer who is trying to get one over on a jury, and a lawyer who fervently believes what he’s telling them. One person will be manipulative, and the other one will be declarative.

**John:** Absolutely. So, what I find so fascinating about everything we talked about with dialogue in this segment was it’s all about the emotional state and the emotional content of dialogue. So, in no ways are we trying to talk about dialogue as a mechanism for conveying story, at least story in terms of plot. We’re really talking about like how do you convey characters’ emotional states and how are you going to let them try to change the emotional state of the other characters in the scene.

That’s really what dialogue is supposed to be doing as it functions now. Not like how it functioned historically, but what we do now when we write dialogue is to be able to provide insight to the audience about what’s going on inside the character but also let the characters try to change the emotional state of the characters around them.

It’s part of the reason why the example of neutral modes of dialogue, that’s why those scenes are generally not so exciting because there’s not going to be a conflict there. There’s not a challenge for the character there. There’s nothing they’re trying to do to the other characters in the scene. There’s no inherent drama there.

**Craig:** Precisely. And this is one of the great challenges of writing a scene is that you have to be – let’s just say – we’ll limit it to two people talking. Forget three or four. You have to be three different people at once. You have to be the architect of the story, who understands in an intellectual way that something must be achieved in terms of plot and character to advance this narrative.

Then you have to be both people, who do not know that, and don’t have access to that, and are reacting and living in the moment. Reacting to the world around them. Reacting to the feelings inside of them. And most importantly, reacting to what the other person is saying. So, that is very difficult for a lot of people. When we talk about talent in writing, sometimes I think that’s what it is. Those are three different people at once and the best writers are the ones that are talented at being all three of those people. The writer, and then the two people in the scene. And one of the ways I think I immediately am aware of quality in these moments is when there’s a mismatch of mode between two characters. Maybe one character is being neutral, and the other one is being manipulative. Or the other one is being emotional, and the other one is being declarative.

You know, Luke is very upset and Yoda is very calm and wise. Or, somebody is very emotional and the other person is calming them down. So, whenever possible you do want that mismatch because that is creating conflict or resolution. When two people are emotional, it’s just two people yelling and absorbed in their own minds. And when two people are being wise and informative, you’re wondering why they’re both telling each other these incredibly wonderful fortune cookie insights.

Mismatching these modes is a huge help when you’re navigating your way through a scene.

**John:** Absolutely. You want to be able to give the characters someone to play against. And if they’re trying to play the same melody, it’s not going to be nearly as exciting as if there’s a conflict between what they’re trying to do and sort of where they’re at in the mode of the scene.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But, talking about the skill of the writer here and sort of good writing versus bad writing is a great segue to our next big topic which is two terms you hear thrown about about screenwriters, specifically the quality of screenwriters, and I’m going to urge people to stop using these terms because people don’t really use these terms. And whenever I hear them, the hairs on the back of my neck go up.

And so I want to talk about and hacks.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So let’s talk about script doctors, Craig. Do you ever hear people in Hollywood use the term script doctor?

**Craig:** The only people I ever hear use that term are insecure writers trying to convince other people that they’re important. That’s it. And thankfully there are not too many of them. But every time some on the bubble or low self-esteem writer announces that they’re doing some script doctoring, everybody else puckers up, clenches their buttholes, and gets very awkward. Because it’s atrocious.

**John:** It’s atrocious. And so I heard this term a couple times the last months. When Carrie Fisher passed away, some of the articles talked about her “script doctoring,” always in quotes, and then when I was in Madrid someone asked what is it like to be a script doctor. And I had to say like, “First off, no one uses that term.” And truly, honestly, the only people who use that term are people who are like outside of Hollywood who have seen that term in a magazine and thought it was a term that was being used.

So let’s describe what they’re trying to talk about here and the real words we use for that work. So, I think by script doctoring they’re meaning a writer who comes in to do a short bit of work on a specific project, usually a movie that’s about to go into production. Usually in a sort of high stakes situation. There’s actors involved, directors involved, lots of money is on the line. And that writer is coming in to do specific work to fix, change, alter something in the script to make people happier. That is the function of what these writers are doing in those situations. But we don’t call them script doctors. And we shouldn’t call them script doctors because doctors are like – Doc McStuffins’ mom is a doctor. These are just screenwriters.

And Craig and I both do this kind of work, but we would never call ourselves script doctors.

**Craig:** No. And you put your finger on why it’s so gross. It’s a forced romanticization of what we do. Oh no, the movie is in trouble, we’re two weeks away – what do we do? Call the doctor! That’s ridiculous. And then I’ll come in with my eyepatch and I’ll say, “Everybody, get out of my way. I need a computer, a glass of water, a window.” [laughs] I don’t know, it’s ridiculous.

It’s not how it works.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** At all. What you’re doing is you sit down and you’re like, OK, I read the script, here’s what I think. What do you guys think? What are you trying to achieve? Got it. OK. Here’s what I think I can do in the time I have. Let me talk to the director. Let me talk to the producer. Let me talk to the actor. OK. Here’s my proposal of what I should do. Does that sound good? Great. Let me start writing it. I’ll start sending you pages.

And then hard days ensue where you’re too tired. You’re not some – they might as well call it Script Hitman, or – do you know what I mean? Like Script Assassin. Script Savior. It’s ridiculous.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Script doctor.

**John:** I don’t know where the term first originated. I remember the first time I heard a Hollywood person use it, I think, was an interview with Spielberg where he was talking about Steve Zaillian coming in and doing something. And I’m paraphrasing here, but I remember saying like, “Oh, we call him the doctor because he comes in and can solve these problems.”

Steve Zaillian is Steve Zaillian. He’s a remarkably talented writer. So, as a metaphor to say that he was a doctor who was helping out on something, fantastic. But it’s not a term that’s used in daily life here. No development executive is going to say like, “Oh, we need to get a script doctor in here to work on this.” Just doesn’t happen. And so when I hear people outside the business say that term, I think of like – it’s like me describing an NFL kicker as a “field goaler.”

It reflects what’s actually be done, but no one would actually use it. And when they hear me say it, they think, “Well, he’s an idiot.” And so I would just urge people to stop saying it.

**Craig:** Right. When Ted Cruz was in Indiana and referred to a basketball hoop as a basketball ring. [laughs] What an idiot!

**John:** Yeah. Remember Ted Cruz? Remember that life?

**Craig:** Don’t worry. He’ll be back.

**John:** He’ll be back.

**Craig:** He’ll be back. No, you’re absolutely right. It’s grating. It sets your teeth on edge because it’s so goofy. And, yes, sometimes in conversations when we’re doing this work we might say, “Look, we’ve got a sick patient here.” You may do that – internally, you may talk about things like that. “Or like, no, there’s definitely a pulse here.” But you would never describe yourself as a – that’s just like a silly metaphor. You’re not a script doctor. That’s ridiculous.

**John:** It’s ridiculous.

**Craig:** And I guess, more to the point, if Steven Spielberg wants to call you a script doctor, great. But god knows you should never refer to yourself as one. That is just goofy.

**John:** That is goofy. So, if script doctor is the glorious term applied to the very high level writers who are doing this work, hack is the opposite of that. Hack is a pejorative, reductive term. Because it’s pejorative, you know, sometimes it’s used on yourself, sort of self-mockingly, like I feel like such a hack for that scene. Or, this line of dialogue feels so hacky. So, it’s one of those things I will hear writers refer to themselves that way. But I don’t hear writers refer to other writers as hacks. Or if they do, I throw some major side eye there, because it’s not cool at all.

**Craig:** I know. Again, it’s clunky. If you want to go after some writer and, you know, look, I never do that publicly. Like you and I never do that on this show. Not once in all these episodes, nor do we ever do it on Twitter. But in a private conversation, you may say, “Look, I don’t understand why everybody loves this person. I think they stink.” You know? And you might say, “I just feel like they’re kind of a fraud. I don’t know, they just seem hacky to me, or whatever.”

But that’s private. You know? Where I’m shocked is when people use that word seriously and you’re like, what are you, from 1930? “You’re a hack, kid.” It’s a dumb word because it doesn’t mean anything. It’s taking the place of what you should be saying which is, “I don’t like their work,” which is completely fair. That’s your opinion. And the work is meant to be absorbed by other people. Naturally, some will like it and some will not. But if the purpose of the term is to denote somebody who doesn’t care about their creative work, which is I think what that word means, somebody that literally doesn’t care about the quality or the writing, the passion, nothing. They’re just doing it for a check. That person doesn’t really exist, as far as I can tell. Or exists very briefly. [laughs] And is never hired again.

I mean, do you know anybody who consistently just writes whatever they need to write so someone gives them a check without any care, love, passion, concern?

**John:** You know, I have encountered some writers who at a certain point in their career seems like they stopped caring. They would literally just take any note and just do that note and not sort of worry about. And seemingly not lose sleep over it. And so that’s, I think, what we are pointing towards when we talk about hack. Who is doing the lowest common denominator version of any joke, of any scene. You sort of feel like a robot could write those things.

But I’m not going to call those people out as hacks, because I don’t know sort of what their real situation is. And a lot of times I think the people who are pointed at as being hacks, they’re trying to do something very specific and very true. And they’re actually killing themselves to do it. It’s just not working out especially well. So, it’s such an ad hominem to attack the person rather than to look at the work that they’re actually doing.

**Craig:** I think hack is the definition of ad hominem, right? You’re saying I know why you wrote something I don’t like. No you don’t. It’s OK to just not like it. But to presume that you don’t – I mean, reviewers will use the word “lazy” all the time, like, what? Were you there? What? Lazy? How do you know? [laughs]

I mean, that’s lazy, right, to just decide that somebody was lazy because, you know. A lot of times when people look at something and they go, “Oh my god, I saw that movie. That guy is such a hack.” They don’t understand that that guy or that woman showed up to try and make something good and it was destroyed by the process, or by other people, or maybe that person showed up and something was bad and they just did everything they could to make it a little bit better.

Nobody knows why these things happen because they’re not there. And Hollywood is really good at concealing its process from everybody else. They are a restaurant where you cannot see into the kitchen. The more you see into the kitchen, the less interesting the food is. It’s an illusion business.

So, while there is somewhat ironically this enormous industry that professes to know what’s going on behind the scenes and what’s going on inside people’s minds and their hearts and why they do things, the truth is most of the time not only are those implications of hackery or motivation wrong, most of the time as far as I can tell they’re nearly completely wrong.

**John:** Yeah. It’s so maddening. So, I think we are casting major aspersions on anybody who uses the term script doctor on themselves positively, or calls any other writer a hack. Because they’re unacceptable. And so if you see this being done on Twitter, please mock them and CC us. @ reply us so we can join in on the call for these two words to not be used.

**Craig:** It will be a nice break from the current Twitter stream I have from Nazis. [laughs] Oh my god. John, there are so many Nazis on Twitter. Like legitimate Nazis.

**John:** Why are Nazis a thing again? It frustrates me so greatly that like, you know, I like them as a historical and fictional adversary. Not actual adversaries who show up in our lives.

**Craig:** It’s so strange. My wife was like, “Does this upset you?” Because some people are using terrible slurs and talking about putting me in an oven and so on and so forth. And I just thought, no, I actually feel great. This is kind of remarkable. I don’t know why it put me in such a good mood. Something is really wrong with me.

**John:** Something is really wrong with you. Not a shock. Not a surprise.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** Also not a surprise is that we completely ran out of time for our questions. Sorry Jessica and Alyssa and Telly Archer. We will get to your questions. We promise.

**Craig:** We’ll get there.

**John:** But it is now time for our One Cool Things. And this actually ties in very well with your Twitter escapades. This is a great article I read this last week written by Mirah Curzer called How to #StayOutraged Without Losing Your Mind. And so what she’s describing is how – it sort of goes back to right after the election you and I had that horrible short episode in which we talked about like not that everything will be OK, but this feeling will end.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And you described I think in very good psychological terms why you cannot stay at this level of peak paranoia and fear, because your body just will just it down.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, what she’s looking at is how do you stay outraged, how do you stay fresh to what’s going without just completely falling apart. And as I was reading it, I was nodding a lot, but I was also recognizing that a lot of what she’s describing is not just about our current US situation. It’s really about any sort of like long term conflict, like which is making a TV show, or a long shoot on a movie. It’s how do you sort of keep fresh on something when it’s just so hard day after day.

So, the four things she sort of focuses on that you need to look away in order stay fresh. To see clearly, you have to be able to look at something else. And that’s something I’ve really found while filming or trying to run a TV show, you have to not be thinking about it for certain hours of the day, otherwise you cannot even see what you’re doing. You have to be able to focus on something in the distance so you can come back and take a look at it.

If we’re in the editing room, doing a cut, if the editor is working on the cut, I will deliberately put my gaze someplace else so that I cannot see what he’s doing. And then I can look back with fresh eyes. And you have to do the same with in a bigger scale for sort of world events.

She stresses you can’t do everything, so you have to pick what you’re going to focus on and let others pick what they’re going to focus on. And that’s a thing I really learned as a director is that I can have an overall vision for how the things are I want to do, but I have to let people who are specialists in different fields really focus on those things. And so I can look at the things that are most important to me, but I’ve got to let other people worry about those things because I can’t do everything.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** You have to make it fun. You have to have some enjoyment in your days. You have to look forward to going to the set. You have to look forward to being part of that. You have to find some moment of joy in your day, or else it’s just going to be horrible.

And then, finally, you have to focus on staying healthy. And people who are on TV shows a lot of times, like they will not go to the doctor or the dentist for the entire run of filming, and then in the two months of hiatus they’ll have to do all that stuff. You can’t do that. You got to go to the gym. You got to sleep. You got to get your appointments. You cannot, you know, put aside your entire life just for this one thing. You got to do all the other stuff to stay healthy.

So, I thought it was a great article both for sort of how to address the current conflict in the world, but also how to look at the long term conflicts that a person is going to encounter in their life.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s really smart. I wonder if – I don’t know if this is in there, but I would my own little fifth thing to that, which is don’t respond to or take seriously anybody who tells you that these things aren’t right. Because there are people who are like, “Why are you talking about this when this is going on? And how can you laugh at a time like this? And why are you spending your time blah-blah-blah when you seem to care about…”

Just ignore all of that. Ignore all of that. There are people who will demand that you express your outrage purely and perfectly. But you can’t. So, don’t.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** And don’t bother defending yourself either. Just ignore them. Man, I find that I have become an ignoring addict. I love it.

**John:** On Twitter, you just ignore it? Oh yeah, I love it.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s so many things where like, you know, there are phases of it. I think the first phase is people say things and you respond and you’re in fights. That’s like the first run of your life online. And then the second run is you start to respond to them and you go, no, I’m deleting this. Then you get to the enlightened place which is, well, that’s stupid. Ignore. [laughs] It’s gone. It’s literally gone. And the funny thing is that the people who are poking at you, they’ve forgotten about you and the thing they said the second they’re done typing it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So why not give them the gift of that in return?

**John:** I was talking with a friend who was describing – she got this long email and she was going to respond to it. And then she’s like, “You know what? I’m not going to respond to it.” And she just deleted it.

And so this person wrote back this long response. And we talk about the joy of deleting without reading. To know that somebody spent half an hour writing this thing and you’re like–

**Craig:** I know!

**John:** It did not even hit my inbox. It’s just gone. You’ve wasted your time.

**Craig:** Talking about declarative modes of dialogue, when my wife first started getting really active in PTA and she was the president of the school PTA, and then there was this older woman who was the president of the council, which is the Over PTA for all the schools. And Melissa was talking to her and saying, “I’m getting these – I got a couple of wacky parents, a couple of wacky moms in particular, who keep emailing me these long things and I don’t know how to respond to them because I think they’re crazy.”

And this older woman just looks at her and went, “Delete.” [laughs] I thought that was the best advice ever. Just delete. That’s it.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And you’d think like, but they’re going to keep writing me and demand why I haven’t written back. No they don’t. They don’t. Because they have 12 other letters they have to write to people. And whomever responds, that’s the winner of the day for them. And they just keep going with them.

Well, speaking of staying outraged, my One Cool Thing, John, is women.

**John:** Women are great.

**Craig:** Women are spectacular. And I say this today that seems perhaps a little general. A little too wide of a category. But specifically I’m saying women because the Women’s March was remarkable. Not only was it massive. I think the largest protest in history in our country? I think. I think.

**John:** Yeah. Yeah, probably.

**Craig:** But it was the most peaceful protest I think we’ve ever had in this country. Not just in Washington, DC, but in New York, and Los Angeles, in Boston, in Chicago. In every major city and every minor city it seemed. There were women that were marching in Alaska and Antarctica, all across the world. And everywhere it was perfectly peaceful. No violence. No ugliness. It was the utopian ideal.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Of what a civil protest should be. And it could have only been that way because it was women. Because if you throw – like once you hit, I don’t know what the tipping point is, probably 15% men, you have fist fights. Fist fights. Molotov cocktails. And people getting punched in the face.

So, fantastic job, women. Outstanding. What a great example. And also great proof of, I think, hope for us all. And for humanity as it goes through this challenging time.

**John:** I had a delightful time with the Women’s March in Paris. I was there with my family, with my daughter, with a friend’s family. And it was just remarkable seeing everyone gathered together. We marched from Trocadero down past the Eiffel Tower, and to the Ecole Militaire. And it was remarkably well put together and run. Every sign was great. Some were in French. Some were in English. But just to see everybody coming together to do this was great.

It was also wonderful because of time zones, again, we were ahead of the US marches, and so this went really well. And so fingers crossed that the American marches are going to go great. And, of course, they were nutso and fantastic. And the Los Angeles march was off the charts great. So, I’m so proud of everyone who did it. And also inspired by sort of what can happen next given this energy. So, more hope.

**Craig:** It was great. I saw they were talking to a cop in New York. And he seemed stunned. They were asking him about the march and were there any problems. And he said, “No. Nothing. I’ve never seen anything like this.” Actually, he seemed a little scared. Because he’s just like this isn’t the way this goes.

It was just great. So, congratulations and thank you, women. Outstanding job.

**John:** I would also like to single out Carrie Fisher as the Princess Leia’s character was featured in many, many signs, sort of a woman’s place is in the revolution. It was wonderful to see. I think she would have been delighted to see her place in the memes of this march and I think what’s going to be coming forward.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** That’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Godwin Jabangwe. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week comes from Puddles Pity Party.

**Craig:** Oh, of course it does. [laughs]

**John:** So, I’ll put a link to the video, because you’ll see that he’s actually a clown who sings. But he’s singing the Mary Tyler Moore theme, because Mary Tyler Moore passed away this past week. That show was a huge inspiration for me growing up. It is so well constructed. It is a character on a journey. It was an amazing show. She was an amazing talent. And, weirdly, the Mary Tyler Moore theme song is kind of close, melodically, to the Scriptnotes theme. So I’m going to call an audible there and say it’s sort of like the Scriptnotes theme.

**Craig:** That’s what they were thinking at the time.

**John:** That’s what they were thinking.

**Craig:** It’s certainly not that our theme is a little bit like the Mary Tyler Moore theme, because that would be ridiculous.

**John:** No, come on, Mandela Effect. You know, they traveled through time. Somehow it all bled over. So, I’ll let you listen to this.

If you have an outro, you can send it to us at ask@johnaugust.com. A link is fantastic for those. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we neglect to answer. But for short questions, I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

We’re on Facebook as well. Look for Scriptnotes podcast. Also iTunes. That’s where you’ll find us. Leave us a review. That helps people find our show on iTunes.

We have an app that lets you get to all the back episodes. It’s through the app store for Apple and for Google Play. You can find us there. Scriptnotes.net is where you sign up for all the back episodes.

We used to have USB drives. We no longer have USB drives for the back episodes, so right now the only way to get to those back episodes is through the service, through Scriptnotes.net.

You can find show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com.

Craig, thank you so much for staying up late.

**Craig:** Thank you for waking up early.

**John:** All right, and we’ll talk to you next week. Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* Episode 37: [Let’s talk about dialogue](http://johnaugust.com/2012/dialogue)
* [Finding Carter Trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS9Th9Drujg)
* [The Amazing Live Sea Monkeys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7yF-F1IVWw)
* [The Mandela Effect](http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/24/the-mandela-effect/)
* [David Kwong and Dilemma](http://dilemna.info)
* [Discourse Marker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_marker)
* [How to #StayOutraged Without Losing Your Mind](https://medium.com/the-coffeelicious/how-to-stayoutraged-without-losing-your-mind-fc0c41aa68f3)
* [Women](https://www.womensmarch.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)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Puddles Pity Party ([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_286.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 234: The Script Graveyard — Transcript

January 28, 2016 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2016/the-script-graveyard).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 234 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Very often on the program we will talk about the birth of a project, the excitement of bringing a movie to life. This is not one of those episodes. Today, we’re going to take a look at what happens to scripts when they die. So join us, won’t you, as we visit the screenplay graveyard.

**Craig:** I like that you did the “Join us, won’t you?” You’re picking up — it’s a Longworth-ism.

**John:** It is. I’m playing the Longworthicon.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think it’s — yeah, is it Longworthism, Longworth-ism?

**John:** Longworthism, yeah, sure.

**Craig:** But I like long. It’s like because it’s worthy.

**John:** As long as it was Longworthy, that’s important.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So Karina Longworth, we’ve talked about her podcast often. You Must Remember This is the name of the podcast. And also, like a good advice is that you must remember her podcast because it’s such a terrific resource for people curious about the early years of Hollywood.

**Craig:** Right. And all the people that she talks about are dead. So it’s a good — it’s in keeping with our theme today.

**John:** Indeed. On our last episode, we promised that if you left a review in iTunes for us, we’d read those reviews aloud. And so we’ve got a few of those. They’re all five-star reviews because you are the best, and apparently, you think we’re the best. So we’re going to quickly read some of these reviews that were left for us on iTunes this past week.

**Craig:** Should I start?

**John:** Start.

**Craig:** I like that the reviews get little titles. You know, people come with fun little titles.

This title is “Yes. This. Yes” by Arlow Thompson. “Possibly the most useful screenwriting tool ever created, not to mention engaging and very entertaining. I can’t thank John and Craig enough for the wisdom and humor they dole out weekly.”

**John:** Oh, thank you Arlow.

**Craig:** That’s really nice.

**John:** So Breezy Nuts writes — [laughs]

**Craig:** You know, I wasn’t planning this but it’s worked out great. [laughs]

**John:** “A Free Neuro Exam. If you have any interest in screenwriting and you do not like this podcast, please see a doctor immediately because something is horribly wrong with you.”

**Craig:** Like for instance, you’ve got breezy nuts. [laughs]

**John:** What I like about Breezy Nuts is like that’s actually the handle here she had to create in order to leave this thing. So if he or she leaves other comments somewhere else — let’s say — it’s a he — when he leaves comments for some other thing, it will be Breezy Nuts. [laughs]

**Craig:** There is literally zero chance that Breezy Nuts is a woman. [laughs] Women are simply too good. They’re too good to call themselves Breezy Nuts. [laughs] What is a breezy nut?

**John:** I don’t know, someone who is free-rolling, someone who’s not refined by briefs.

**Craig:** Right. Well, here’s somebody called Josephine. I’m not sure how to pronounce that. But regardless, it says, “Interesting even though I’m not in the industry. I write fiction, non-fiction, and poetry, and I find this podcast incredibly useful in terms of what makes a good story. It’s also just interesting to get a window into the screenwriting world, to hear about what goes into the movies and TV I love.”

**John:** Oh, well thank you Josephine.

**Craig:** I like when people that aren’t necessarily doing movie and TV listen to this anyway. I like — I think there’s — you know, we have a nice little community of writers. And writers, no matter what you’re writing, we’re all in the same boat of misery.

**John:** Absolutely. And Becca Baldwin calls this, “Team Scriptnotes. Interesting, inspiring, empowering, and free even, or $1.99 a month, so you know, free.”

So thank you, Becca, for that.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** The $1.99 reference is for people who want the premium feed at scriptnotes.net where you can go back to the first 232 episodes of this show and listen to those and catch up if you’re a new listener.

But thank you very much for everyone who’s left a review. It actually really does help us a lot because it gets attention within the iTunes ecosystem and gets them to feature us more prominently. So it’s nice for that.

**Craig:** Thank you folks.

**John:** If you are a person who attended our Lawrence Kasdan session with Jason Bateman last night, I hope you had a great time. We’re recording this before that time so we have no idea how it went, but hopefully it was great. That episode will be in the feed some point in the future. So I’m not sure if it will be next week but we will definitely have that episode for everyone to listen to.

**Craig:** Can you just promise me that if, for some reason, Jason goes crazy, attacks Larry, Larry has a fatal heart attack.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Jason is arrested and sent downtown for murder, that we will not edit what you just said. [laughs]

**John:** Yes. I will leave it exactly untouched. Matthew has strict orders to not address reality in this podcast.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** Yeah. Matthew is mostly there to make sure that my fumbles and misspeakings are not corrected.

**Craig:** Misspeakings was almost self-definitional. [laughs]

**John:** So it’s fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right. Let’s get to some follow-up from last week’s episode.

So we talked about How Would This Be a Movie? And two of the three things we talked about like How Would This be a Movie actually are movies or are about to be movies. So first off we had the Hatton Garden’s robbery, which was a bunch of old men who committed an audacious two-day bank heist.

**Craig:** Yeah. And not only is this something that I think is currently in production — or I guess it’s about to go into production or something. But I actually got an email from a producer friend of mine who said, “I went after the rights to that thing and lost to the guy that’s doing the version that they’re planning.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Now, we never know. You know, people get the rights to a story, and then they develop a screenplay and try and get financing. And sometimes the movie happens, and sometimes it ends up in the dead letter file we’re going to be describing later.

So we don’t know if it’s going to be a movie. But it certainly seems like, yeah, that was — I mean, we both felt that was the obvious one. And it turns out yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s pretty obvious.

**John:** So we’ll put a link in the show notes to an article in The Guardian that talks about the movie that’s apparently going into production. The script written by Simon Cluett. They say it’s in production. But really, if you’ve look at the language that they’re talking about, they’re not announcing the director or the cast. They’re really in development. But it sounds like they’re trying to get that movie made.

Also, a listener, Andrew Aman, wrote in to point out that the real men in this robbery were not nearly the Robin Hood characters that we sort of had described. They’re actually — I’ll put up an article that also shows sort of their criminal history and sort of the things that they’ve done, including like dousing a man in gasoline.

It seems like they’re actually a little bit more like old Reservoir Dogs rather than old Robin Hood. So sometimes real life doesn’t match what you kind of wish it would be for movie purposes.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, you know, we did — I think when we were talking about what it could possibly be, we started to zero in on the idea that maybe one of these guys was actually pretty dark. Criminals tend to be dark.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. It reminded me a little bit, once I started reading about the real thing, it reminded a little bit of Begbie, you know, from Trainspotting, you know, there’s a group of mates, and then there’s one of them that’s just psychotic.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it does sound like — yeah. You know, all too often, we get suckered into the narrative. The Robin Hood narrative is very seductive. But generally speaking, people that do stuff like break into banks are not good people.

**John:** Yeah. I would tend to agree.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We also talked about — sleep paralysis was the second topic we talked about in our How Would This Be a Movie? And there actually was a sleep paralysis movie that I’d forgotten about. And so this was not strictly a fictional film. It’s by Rodney Ascher who also did Room 237 which looked at the conspiracy theory surrounding Stanley Kubrick’s version of The Shining.

So he made a movie that’s about sleep paralysis that uses a similar kind of technique to explore people’s experiences with sleep paralysis. So that’s out there in the world. But it’s not the horror thriller version that I think we both foresaw someone trying to make.

**Craig:** Well, it’s not too late.

**John:** It’s not too late.

**Craig:** Somebody will do it.

**John:** It’s an open ball.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Someone dive on that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Also on an open ball, I tweeted this this morning, you’ve seen about the ninth planet they’re pretty sure exists now?

**Craig:** Yeah. Yeah, I did see that.

**John:** Yeah. So I mean, someone will make a movie called Planet Nine. And we’ll see what that is.

My pitch for it was that it turns out it’s not a planet whatsoever. It’s actually some very massive alien thing that’s been lying dormant out there. And in our attempt to discover it, we will turn it on. And we’re going to regret that.

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

My pitch is, we discover this ninth planet and it’s totally inhabited. In fact, it’s almost exactly like ours.

**John:** Yeah?

**Craig:** And then we start to think, “Wait a second, is that a real planet, or is that just a reflection of ours? Or are we the reflection?”

**John:** Yeah. I mean, we’re already — we’re living in a simulation, regardless.

**Craig:** Regardless. But I’m going for — I’m going for trippy. I’m going for a head trip.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** I like you’re going alien super structure.

**John:** They’re both great choices.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

The other bit of follow-up was from our discussion of Matt. And so if you remember, Matt was a guy who had a 10-block walk in the cold to his favorite coffee shop. He couldn’t do it in the winter. He’s in New York City. But he lives in a studio apartment with his wife, so he couldn’t write in the apartment.

And so we asked our listeners for their suggestions about places Matt could write or solutions to Matt’s problem. And five of them wrote in with really good ideas. So I thought we’d read through some of their suggestions.

**Craig:** All right.

So RJ has a pretty decent one. He said, when he first moved to LA he lived in a two-bedroom, one bath with his wife and another couple.

Wow, that’s a lot of people. That’s almost Charlie Bucket-esque.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** There was no space for him to write. So what he did was he ended up locking himself in the bathroom. He put on headphones and he just worked in the bathroom, which, you know, he says worked like a charm.

Eh, you know, it’s still a bathroom.

**John:** Yeah, but it’s your own room.

**Craig:** It’s your own room, I guess, yeah. You know, if there’s — I would think that there would have to be — he says it’s a two-bed, one bath. So all the other people in your crash pad are just going to have to hold it in for a while until you finish your scene.

**John:** Yep. I got it. Someone has needs. You have needs, too. Your characters have needs. They need to be written. [laughs]

**Craig:** You know what this guy has?

**John:** What?

**Craig:** Breezy nuts.

**John:** Yes, breezy nuts. He’s free-balling.

Liz writes, I have two four-hour blocks per week in which my boyfriend is not allowed in the apartment at all. My boyfriend uses his time to practice flying his quadcopter or to go to the gym.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** It took us awhile to come to this, but the degree of stress and resentment relief he saw in me when we made this time sacrosanct was significant enough to make it totally worth his while. And he actually likes having an enforced me-time out of the house that can’t be wasted on Reddit.

That’s a smart solution.

**Craig:** It is. And I feel like I know Liz’s boyfriend just from the description. He goes to the gym, okay. Gym bro.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But likes to practice flying his quadcopter and Redditor.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I feel like actually we’d get along pretty well with this guy.

**John:** I think it’s going to be a good choice.

**Craig:** Yeah.

David says that he finds himself in Matt’s exact same position. His solution, his apartment, and most have a TV room. Some call it a theater, some call it a movie room, but most apartments I’ve been in have something similar. If not the lobby, lounge is also good.

Well, Matt, I think said he was in a studio apartment. Studio apartments don’t have more than one room. They’ve got a room that bleeds into a kitchen. And the only separate room really is the bathroom, right?

**John:** So I think David is mistaken because I think he — wherever David is living, which may not be the US, stuff may be set up a little bit differently. I think he’s thinking sort of like more how dorms used to work, where there was like a TV room or like a —

**Craig:** Oh, like a common space.

**John:** A common room.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** And so that lobby aspect of it is true. And there very well could be some sort of public entry vestibule kind of place where you could kick back with your laptop and write. It’s entirely possible.

The laundry room is a possibility, too, if your building has a laundry room.

**Craig:** That’s an interesting one.

**John:** Some place that’s not your main space.

**Craig:** Yeah. In New York you’ll see that less frequently than you will in LA.

**John:** Oh, for sure.

**Craig:** Yeah. They just don’t have the space to waste it on lobbies and so forth, or big ones.

**John:** Yeah.

Do you want to do Tom?

**Craig:** Sure. Tom says he does a lot of writing at a local pub. So Tom is an alcoholic.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’m sorry, Tom.

He does a lot of writing at a local pub to the point that the first serious script he co-wrote was based in a pub. And when the owner — he’s such an alcoholic. [laughs] And when the owner of the pub heard about it, the owner offered up the actual pub as a location for the project. And they ended up shooting there for a couple of days. So that actually worked out pretty well.

**John:** That worked out great.

**Craig:** Yeah. As long as Tom isn’t just, you know, drinking himself to death, that’s the only thing.

**John:** Yeah. I’m a big fan of going to sort of bar kind of places for lunch because if you’re not actually drinking there, there are sometimes decent food and they are really quiet. So there have been times where I’ve been in New York and I will go to a place that’s sort of mostly a night place. And if you’re there during the day, it’s kind of empty.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

Finally, Jessica writes, “If he doesn’t mind spending money, there’s an app called Breather that lets you book a workspace for an hourly fee. It’s available in New York.” And so we’ll put a link to their website, an article in Fast Company.

So this is not something I was aware of, but it does make sense, especially in a city like New York where everything is just so busy and so crowded that just assuming you could — you know, Uber for a car, you could probably Uber for some space to do some work.

**Craig:** This is really interesting. It’s sort of like the Airbnb of offices.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And you could just hire an office for an hour. Because that’s the thing about New York, everything is so constrained and all resources are so diminished that if you have an office and you’re not in it for a day, you’re losing money by not renting it to somebody.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** Which is crazy, but true.

**John:** Yeah. So I mean, some sort of shared workspace might be a possibility. And you’re going to find some combination of things that will get through it. There’s probably not going to be one way that’s going to magically solve all of these problems. But just, you know, carve out the time more than anything else, and then find the space.

**Craig:** Yeah, absolutely. When there is a will, there is a way. You’ll figure it out.

**John:** Cool.

We have a question from John Hess. And John Hess has this website that does a series of videos about filmmaking that’s really useful. So there will be a link to his website in our show notes.

John Hess writes, “I am in the process of putting together a video for filmmakers and the general movie goer that tries to explain the function of every credit they would see in the end titles. It’s a big task, obviously, and I can only dedicate a little bit of time to each role. But I do want to dedicate more time to explain the role of producers, directors, and screenwriters. So I want to ask you, is there some common misconception about the screenwriting credit you wish the average movie-going audience would know?”

Craig, how about you? You can start.

**Craig:** That’s really good. I’m glad that he’s doing it.

Well, here’s one, a simple one. Unlike everybody else’s credit, which is, okay, you acted in the movie or you directed the movie, or edited the movie, we have two kinds of credits. We have story credit and screenplay credit.

So it would be great for people to know, first of all, that when they see Written By, it means story and screenplay. If they see a story credit, what that means is that those writers were responsible for what we think of as the basic plot, the basic characters, the basic idea, the basic themes. The way I like to put it is those people are responsible for stuff that could have been put in a prose document describing what the movie would be.

Screenplay is the credit we give to people that actually then are responsible for the authorship of the execution. So individual scenes, how they are crafted, the ins and outs, the transitions, all the dialogue, the way that the basic characters are expressed.

So it’s an interesting dichotomy. People aren’t aware that it exists. And sometimes you won’t see any story credit. And in that case it’s because the movie was based on an underlying property and the story of that property really is the story of the movie, so no writer is going to get additional story credit for it.

**John:** Yeah. I do think when people see the story credit, they assume like, “Oh, it’s based on a short story, or it’s based on something like that.” It just means that, you know, it could have been based on a screenplay but the screenplay’s story, a certain writer got credit for that and someone else got credit for writing the screenplay.

**Craig:** Yeah. Sometimes somebody will write a treatment, which is what we call a summary of a movie. You know, a prose summary of a movie. And then someone else will write a screenplay. Well, the person that wrote the treatment, that’s a story credit thing. And the person that wrote the screenplay is a screenplay thing.

Where it gets tricky is sometimes people do write screenplays. But then a subsequent screenwriter is really just taking the story elements from it and writing a new screenplay of it.

So you know, how you can get to a story credit? Lots of different ways.

The other thing you’ll see is Screen Story By. And all that means is, it’s the same thing as Story By. It’s just the term we use when the movie was based on a book or something. But the story of the movie is significantly different from the story of the underlying property or the underlying property didn’t have much of a story at all.

**John:** I’m trying to think of the simpler way that he can explain that because that was so long.

I would say a story is what we kind of think of as plot and screenplay is everything that you think of as being the movie. So the scenes — the scenes, the characters, the dialogue.

That’s the very short version. That’s not quite fully flushed out but would get people through most of it.

The simple thing I want to point out to people is the difference between the word and — A-N-D — and the ampersand, because people often ask about that.

An ampersand means that those two writers worked together as a team. The words A-N-D mean that those two writers worked separately. So you could tell if someone’s a writing team because there’s an ampersand between their names.

And so sometimes those credits look kind of strange because it will be Writer A & Writer B and Writer C. And that’s because letter A and B are a team and writer C worked on his own.

**Craig:** Correct. That’s a very good summary.

**John:** Great. All right, let’s get to our main topic for the day.

So this actually came up because over the weekend I decided to do some housecleaning. And I went through a bunch of old file cabinets, like literal file cabinets where I had stuff from a bunch of old projects. I also went through and cleaned up some stuff from my hard drive, moved some stuff on to Dropbox, got rid of some stuff I didn’t need. And I came across so many old things.

And one of the things I came across was this project called Father Knows Less. I’m like, “What is this?” And it’s like, “Oh, my god! I actually wrote this script and I did not even remember it.”

But I didn’t even start writing it. Aline Brosh McKenna, our friend of Scriptnotes, she wrote this script. It was a spec script she wrote and sold. And how I first met Aline Brosh McKenna is I was hired on to rewrite her.

And so I called her before rewriting and saying like, “Hey, this is incredibly awkward. But our mutual friend John Gatins said that you are an awesome person and I should talk to you before I start rewriting this.” And that was our first conversation ever in this entire history of the world was about her script. And so —

**Craig:** See, that’s wonderful, actually.

**John:** That’s wonderful. And that’s why — by the way, that’s what you should do when you’re coming on to a project, is talk to the previous writer. Unless there’s some crazy bad blood reason why you don’t talk to that writer, talk to that writer.

And so she was great. And she told me the history of the project and sort of where the bodies were buried and why she wasn’t writing the next draft. And I did my very best on the project and it never got made. It became a dead movie.

So I thought we would talk about dead movies, dead screenplays, the things we’ve written that have never gotten made.

**Craig:** I like the idea of dead movies. And I’ll tell you why. I always feel like I have two possible jobs. Either I’m going to convince everybody that we’re making this movie or I’m going to convince everybody to kill it. [laughs] To me, the only failure is when you don’t convince them to make it. And they’re also like, “But we do want to make it, just not with you.” [laughs]

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So I like — I’m always trying to either make it or kill it. And I’ve succeeded to kill quite a few of these things. [laughs]

**John:** I don’t think I’ve ever deliberately killed a movie. I think anything that died on the table was — it was just going to die by itself.

**Craig:** Well, no. I mean, I didn’t set out to kill it. But in my effort — I think what I did was I proved beyond a shadow of doubt that there was no possible movie there. [laughs]

They’re like, “You did the best possible job we can think of and you’ve convinced us to not make this.” [laughs] So this has happened a number of times. It’s very gratifying.

**John:** So each of us has in front of us a long list of movies that we’ve written that have not gotten made. And when I say movies we’ve written, I deliberately excluded anything that was just a rewrite. So these are only projects that I was the first writer on or sort of initiated.

**Craig:** Oh. Okay.

**John:** So you have a few that maybe some rewrites. But like, my list of like 15, these are like original things I wrote.

**Craig:** Actually, I’m looking at it. And nope, they’re all — one was a page one.

**John:** Right. So why don’t you quickly go through yours, I’m going to quickly go through mine. But then let’s talk about the patterns we notice about why these movies are dead movies.

**Craig:** Sure. Okay. So mine range from 1998 to 2011, and here they are in the order.

1998, the Texas Grease War. This was a spec script about guys in Texas who were stealing grease from fast food places to sell them. And it was this very morose, sad downer that I wrote mostly just to show people that I can write other things.

**John:** And that was a spec script.

**Craig:** It was a spec and it was based on just some information that a couple of friends of mine had brought me. They were producers. But it wasn’t anything anyone had ever asked for. And after people read it they’re like, “Yeah. Nice. But we don’t want it.” So that went to a drawer.

Next was a sad one, A Short, Happy Life. This was based on a Phillip Dick short story. And I wrote it for Miramax.

And that script actually got me a lot of attention, and it was really rewarding to work on. It was very sweet and people really liked it. But unfortunately, Miramax. So they couldn’t quite get their act together. They lost the rights to it. It just — it never — and it was also intended for Robert Benigni — I’m sorry, Roberto Benigni. And between the time I started writing it and the time I turned it in, Pinocchio happened. [laughs] So —

**John:** Oy.

**Craig:** Yeah. Then in — that was 2001.

Also in 2001, Into the Fire. This was a broad comedy that was loosely based on the idea of a guy going into the Iron Chef competition. This was during the Iron Chef craze.

And this was something that Neal Moritz and Erik Feig wanted far more than Sony ever did. [laughs] So I think they twisted Sony’s arm to hire me to write this thing. And then, Sony was like, “Well, as we said before — [laughs]

**John:** “We never wanted this.”

**Craig:** “We did not want this.”

Really sad one, from 2004 to 2006, Berkeley Breathed and I worked on various ideas for an animated movie based on Opus, his famous penguin character from Bloom County, a comic strip that has returned.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** It was incredibly rewarding because I was a lifelong Bloom County fan. I became friends with Berkeley. I’m friends with him to this day. And it’s just — it was so rewarding to work with him.

On the downside, Miramax. They —

**John:** There seems to be a recurring pattern here?

**Craig:** Yeah. They didn’t seem to understand that animated movies cost money and stuff. So they just couldn’t ever get their minds around the budget. It was a rough one.

In that same period, another great disappointment for me, I was hired by Miramax to adapt, Harvey, the Mary Chase play upon which also the famous Jimmy Stewart movie was made. And that one also got me a lot of great attention. And I was feeling really, really good about that. Miramax just couldn’t quite, again — it was like — it was hard. [laughs]

And none of those, like on every single one I’ve mentioned, after me, nothing, you know. I think they developed Harvey later. After the rights went away, they started a new chain of titles, so I don’t count that. At a different studio.

In 2009, for Jerry Bruckheimer, I was hired to — this was a page one rewrite. It was called Game Boys. And it was basically kind of a new take on The Last Starfighter concept.

And I loved working with Mike Stenson over there. And you know, they were really good about, you know, paying for drafts and stuff. They were total gentlemen.

Don’t write comedies for Jerry Bruckheimer. [laughs] He’s not funny and he doesn’t — he’s literally just like, why would I make a comedy?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Amazing.

Right after that, in 2010, The Secret Lives of Road Crews. This was a screenplay for Paramount. They were attempting to make a movie based on a series of Hasbro toys, which I don’t think people were familiar with then.

**John:** I’ve never heard of these.

**Craig:** I don’t think they’re familiar with now. Or they were trying maybe to create a movie that Hasbro then could create toys for. Anyway, don’t do that. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. Don’t do that.

**Craig:** I needed a gig at the time. I was young and I needed the work.

And then lastly, The Game Changer. This was another spec script I wrote in 2011. This one I wrote for Michael Shamberg and Carla Shamberg, the producers.

And that was a great experience because, again, I was getting a chance to show like, “Look. I can do other things, you know, not just rated R comedies.” And that actually was very helpful. A lot of people took notice of it and it helped kind of open eyes. But it wasn’t a movie anyone was ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to make because it’s a very like small, thinky piece about stuff no one cared about. [laughs]

**John:** Before we get to my list, just on to that last thing, The Game Changer. At the time you were writing it, did you have the inkling that like, “Oh, this is too small, too quirky, and it’s never going to get made”?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** Yeah. No. I mean, in my mind, it was entirely about, “Hey, let me just show some people what I can do and if for some wackity schmackity reason somebody…” — and by the way, at this point, now even in 2016, I wouldn’t show it to anybody else again. I’ve got — I’ve done better and I’ve had better opportunities and it’s a little dated, even now, after just five years. But it served its purpose.

It was more — if anything, it was more of like a confidence builder, I would say.

**John:** I think I get that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right. I’m going to quickly plough through mine because I have so many.

First is Here and Now, which was my first spec script. It got me an agent. But really, no one should read it. Very small. It’s sort of a Sundance movie. It’s just not fantastic.

How To Eat Fried Worms was my first paid assignment. It was for Imagine. I went through like six drafts on it. It got a director on it, Tommy Schlamme. And it was great to learn how to work with a director.

Eventually, that movie got made, but I think it’s really a very different chain of title. So I was not even involved with the arbitration on that. So it was a good first experience.

A Wrinkle in Time was based on the classic Madeleine L’Engle book. That movie I think also did get made from my chain of title but it was — I think they got — they made it really quickly as a way to sort of lock down the rights on something. So they made it like a cheapo version which I’ve never seen.

I wrote a spec called Devil’s Canyon, which was kind of aliens out west. It was like aliens in a Colorado mining town in the 1800s.

I like it. It was one of the few things I’ve rewritten sort of massively a couple of times. But then Cowboys and Aliens came along and everyone was like, “Oh, it’s like Cowboys and Aliens.” It’s like, “No. It’s not.”

**Craig:** I hate that.

**John:** Yeah. And that’s going to be a recurring theme here.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Demonology was not — it was actually technically a rewrite, but it was a page one rewrite. It was for Paramount. It was for Galen Hertz’ company. It was — like, if the girls from Clueless had to stop the apocalypse in Manhattan. And so it was a big, sort of very expensive action movie but with like Cher from Clueless. It was not going to be a movie.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** I did Barbarella for Drew Barrymore. This was after Charlie’s Angels. And I loved Barbarella. And Barbarella is actually a movie I’d still love to get made. But rights became impossible on Barbarella. Two different studios controlled portions of the rights and so they got together, Warners and Fox got together to put the rights together. But still it wasn’t even clear that even they had the rights to make this thing. So they paid me.

American McGee’s Alice is my only Miramax experience. And I got Miramaxed. [laughs]

Fantasy Island was for Sony. And my take on Fantasy Island was Roarke dies on about page 10. And then the island starts falling apart and all the fantasies bleed together. And so it was — there were funny aspects but it was more of a thriller. And that was not the version that they were going to make. [laughs]

By the way, they’ve been trying to make a Fantasy Island for forever. There was an Eddie Murphy Fantasy Island.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** They’ve done everything.

**Craig:** I love those because eventually it gets made and then they send out the notice of credits and there’s like a thousand names on it.

**John:** It’ll be crazy.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. Fenwick’s Suit was — I should be giving years, too. This is 2001 Fenwick’s Suit. This was an adaptation of a charming, little book about a man whose suit comes to life. And it was actually very fun to write. It was fun to write a completely silent character and try to express emotion with a character that has no face and just has lapels. And it could’ve been great but it never went anywhere. That was Fox 2000.

Fury is a spec I wrote out of, kind of, anger. [laughs]

**Craig:** [laughs] Ruh?

**John:** Roar. And it is a very violent thriller about a guy who comes back from the dead. It’s actually sort of like Deadpool, in a way, but not even remotely funny.

**Craig:** So it’s like Deadpool without the thing that’s makes Deadpool good. [laughs]

**John:** Pretty much. If Deadpool was a straight, eh, or I guess that’s kind of The Crow.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah.

**John:** It sort of was like The Crow now that I think about it.

**Craig:** Crow-ish.

**John:** I actually had an offer on that. Sony wanted to buy it and they wanted to turn it into Ghost Rider at some point. And I didn’t want them to do that and so I just sat on it.

Shazam. I wrote Shazam, which was Captain Marvel, and I loved it. It was a great comedy about Billy Batson who has the power to become Shazam.

At some point The Rock was attached and The Rock is still apparently attached somewhere. But there’s some plan that he will fit into the DC Universe. That’s where I first met Jeff Johns, who’s a great, wonderful human being who runs the DC Universe. But it was not a great experience.

I did Preacher, which was based on the amazing series.

**Craig:** I liked that script.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** I’ve read that script. That was a good one.

**John:** Thank you. Preacher was great. And I was — I really wanted that to be made. That was with Sam Mendes. And then it was with another director after that. I just never had the love from Sony to try to get it made.

Monsterpocalypse. I wrote a movie in which people in these giant metal suits have to battle these aliens who’ve come to destroy the world.

And at the same time, there was a movie called Pacific Rim, which was about big monsters being fought by guys in big, giant metal suits. And they were remarkably similar. And theirs got to the starting line first. And so I remember the call where they said like, “You know what? That other movie is too close. Sorry.”

**Craig:** Argh!

**John:** I wrote a Lovecraft movie for Ron Howard. That’s not a good combination of director and —

**Craig:** No. [laughs] But I love the — was it about Lovecraft himself or was it —

**John:** Oh yes, it was about Lovecraft.

**Craig:** Okay. Okay.

**John:** It’s basically — I mean, all the things he was writing about were coming true.

**Craig:** Oh. Oh, so, okay. So it wasn’t like a bio pic, it was —

**John:** No. It was like a bio pic where everything became true. So it was trying to sort of be both. It was completely historically-based —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And yet there were aliens coming true.

**Craig:** And yet there was Cthulhu.

**John:** Yeah. Cthulhu. So good.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** I wrote my Fox project. So, I — on the previous episodes we’ve talked about the deal that you and I and a bunch of other screenwriters made at Fox where we owed them an original script. I wrote that script. It could still technically happen but it is — it’s not happening right now.

And then I put two pilots on here just for good measure. I wrote a pilot called Chosen, which was for ABC, which was about a young woman who may or may not be the reincarnated prophet of this cult. And then I wrote a pilot about an industry undergoing tremendous disruption which was about two years ago and which also seems to have stalled out completely. So neither of those shot.

So those are some of the projects we’ve written that we’ve been paid to write in some cases but are not movies.

**Craig:** You know what strikes me is, if I were listening to this podcast —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I would think good God. It’s not like you and I haven’t had a bunch of movies made.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So we’ve been working on those movies and when you do have a movie that gets made, you tend to work on that one a lot.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It takes up a lot of time because once it’s made, it’s like okay, now we got to deal with this actor’s notes, now we’re going to deal with the producer, now we have to deal with production issues, now we have to deal with the director, and on and on and on and on and on. It takes up a lot of time. So all this time dedicated to the movies that we’ve done that people know got made. And then on top of that, a bunch of time dedicated to movies that got made that our names aren’t on.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And in between all of that, all of this.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And one of the things about this job that we have as a career for those of you listening and thinking and dreaming about doing this is, the amount of writing you have to do, if you stop and think about it is insane.

**John:** It’s incredibly daunting. I mean, just thinking about like those 15 projects I listed, each of those is 120-page scripts that I rewrote multiple times.

**Craig:** Exactly. And it gets to the point, you know, I’m now about like 50%, 40% of the way through this script that I’m writing now which is the first draft of an adaptation and I’m the first guy in, so there was nothing, right? And I started writing it and it’s like I don’t even feel Fade In anymore.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know that feeling of like, “Oh, boy, here we go.” I don’t even feel it anymore, nor when I get to the end do I feel like, “Woo. Did it.” It’s all — it’s like —

**John:** It’s all middle.

**Craig:** It’s like my life is one big middle. There is no beginning, there’s no end. It’s just this endless iteration. It’s kind of a crazy thing. It reminds me a little bit of like people that want to be baseball players and you’re like you pitch and stuff, but now, “Okay, you’re going to pitch year-after-year, year-after-year, year-after-year.” Once every 5 games, 162 games a season, season after season. It’s like the grind. You have to be mentally prepared for the grind. That’s what —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That’s what this drives home for me.

**John:** The other thing — once I put these scripts in order that it made me think about it, is sometimes you’ll look at a writer’s credits and it seems like wow, there was a long gap between those two movies that got made. Like — maybe they left the industry for a while, maybe like — no [laughs]. They wrote a bunch of stuff for other people that just was never made.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that’s — that — you look at like starting with Shazam in 2008 to this pilot in 2014, there were seven movies there that I’ve written, but none of them made.

**Craig:** Well, precisely. And then sometimes your — and sometimes the weird thing is you’re writing them in and around movies you are making, you know.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So people go, “Wait, you had a movie that came out that year, and you also wrote two other movies that year?” “Yeah.”

**John:** Yup, yup, absolutely true. Or you wrote movies that were not your movies, so you didn’t get your name on it.

**Craig:** Exactly, exactly.

**John:** That’s the thing. So let’s talk about some categories of what happened and try to break these down and figure out the patterns for why these movies are not movies. The first and most obvious ones are, the movies that just never — you never actually wrote the script. And so the things we listed ahead were the full scripts we wrote, but my files are full of these things that never actually became movies, these are the projects you pitched on, that you didn’t get, these were —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Ideas that sort of never fully came together. So you have a couple of those, right?

**Craig:** Sure. And this is a big thing that occupies time especially earlier on in your career. It still, as you go on, you will occasionally, depending on what you want to do, sometimes you will get caught up in these deals where you’re trying — you’re working hard to get something.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But when you start, that’s almost all you’re doing, is working hard to get things. There’s a bunch of these. The one that comes to mind that I remember is, there’s a AY novel called Skulduggery Pleasant. I don’t know if you ever heard of it.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** It was an Irish guy who wrote this series of books and they’re really interesting. It was about this girl whose uncle was like this cool, like an Edgar, like a modern Edgar Allan Poe. And he’s the only one in her family that she really likes. She doesn’t seem to fit in with anybody else in her family. He dies and leaves her his entire fortune but she has to spend a night in his house. And that night, she discovers this portal into a world and she realizes all the things he had been writing as fiction were true and there’s this world of darkness and ghouls and demons and all this cool stuff.

And I really loved it. And David Dobkin was attached to direct, and he asked me to write up a treatment because he wanted me to work on it and I just remember at the time it was like, you know, this could — you can — if Warner Bros approves you, so a couple of guys from like British Warner Bros approve you, you’ll have the job, there’s only one other person going up against it but, you know, it should work out. Then, you know, I did this whole thing and in the end, these British guys who were very snobby about this property like it was, I don’t know, a Pulitzer Prize winning book or something, they didn’t hire me and they didn’t hire the other person.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And this was in 2009. And the other person, Kelly Marcel.

**John:** Our own Kelly Marcel.

**Craig:** Yes, and we didn’t — I didn’t even know until like later on, you know, I don’t know, like last year or something, I mentioned this whole thing. She’s like, “Oh my, God. I was the other person. You were the other person? I also had the other person. It was you?” So the two of us — although I actually like wrote up a thing and she was like, “Yeah, they were like you need to write a treatment. I was like, Nah. So I didn’t and then so I just pitched something. And they were like, where is the thing? And I was like, Nah.”

**John:** Nah.

**Craig:** So none of us got it and nobody — by the way, I don’t think anyone ever wrote it. Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. That’s sort of an indication that there’s no Skulduggery Pleasant movie out there for someone to watch.

**Craig:** You have not seen that franchise, have you?

**John:** So back in 1996 or so, I pitched on Highlanders. Basically a sequel to Highlander and I didn’t get it then and I think Goyer got it. I think Goyer did a draft. He was the person they hired on to do it. And in the meantime, they tried to do Highlander so many times. And like Ryan Reynolds was supposed to do Highlander and so it has come back to me several times, but that was a project I pitched on I never got.

I pitched really hard on Catwoman, and this was back in 1999. I went in to Warner Bros with Denise Di Novi, the producer, and we sat down with Lorenzo di Bonaventura and pitched Catwoman which is Michelle Pfeiffer who was still Catwoman and I had a really great take. And it was very exciting to do it and he said no.

And then also there was a movie I was going to write for George Clooney and Brad Pitt set in Sierra Leone and that didn’t happen.

**Craig:** Yeah, there’s — I mean there’s a ton of these, you know, the “that didn’t happen”. I guess in part, if you try and get something going and it doesn’t happen for you, and it doesn’t happen for anyone else, that’s a little comforting.

**John:** Yeah. I had one movie that I’d set up and never wrote, and that was called Monster. It was over at Sony, and it was a big monster movie. It was a sort of like a King Kong/Godzilla kind of monster movie set in Tokyo and it never happened. And so it’s one of those rare cases where I actually made a deal but then the movie itself kind of never came together and I never wrote it and we all just sort of agreed to walk away from it. Have you ever had one of those?

**Craig:** I — no, I’ve never had one that fell apart like that. I had one that we kept talking about like it was going to happen and all these people were interested and then just didn’t. It was this crazy independent comic called The Invisible Nine. And it was about — it was actually kind of awesome. The premise of it was that there were nine people in a space station circling the earth that were manipulating the world through the creation of brands. So for instance this conspiracy explains why there’s Zima because nobody — have you ever seen — does anyone drink Zima?

**John:** No.

**Craig:** It’s still for sale. So this explains Zima, but what was fascinating about the comic was that the nine people, the Invisible Nine, men and women, each were an outrageous racial stereotype. It was awesome. It was bananas. I don’t know why — and we — you know, I had my writing partner at the time, Greg Erb, I don’t know why we thought that this would ever be realistic. Betty Thomas was like, “I’m directing this. This is going to be great.” We would go around and pitch this thing and people would be like, “Wow, that is great.” I think everybody was just high, completely high [laughs].

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah, that never happened.

**John:** That’s fine.

**Craig:** Yeah, nothing.

**John:** Never happened. So those are the movies that we never wrote. So at least there was less time wasted because we never wrote them, but let’s talk about the ones we did write, and sort of patterns about why those movies we wrote are not movies these days. So first off, it just wasn’t right. So there’s just something — it just fundamentally didn’t work. It could have been a flawed idea, it got developed the wrong way. What are some other reasons why the script just didn’t work?

**Craig:** There can be this weird thing that happens where you pitch something or you describe something and people get excited, and you think they’re seeing the same color you’re seeing but they’re not. They’re seeing a different color and so you turn it in and they go, “Oh, no, no, no, wait, what?” That’s actually exactly what happened to me on that Secret Lives of Road Crews. I said, “Look, I want to make kind of a science fiction ode to the working man. I want to talk about what it means to have true blue collar heroes and make them actual heroes and pit them, I mean, the enemy is going to be monsters, but the real enemy are the people that keep blue collar workers down.” You know like, yes, yes, and then I wrote that. They’re like, “Wait, why isn’t this Ghostbusters?” It’s like, because it’s my ode to the working man.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And they’re like, “No.” I don’t know. They didn’t see the same color I saw.

**John:** Yeah. That sense of where you just couldn’t get everyone on the same page is probably a recurring theme for a lot of these things where especially you pitch a certain idea, you went in and did this. Maybe they were excited by the draft you handed in, but by the time they attached a director, that director had a different idea and it just got steered off track and it just never sort of went back to a movie that people were excited to make.

**Craig:** That’s a whole category of the — well, you know, let’s call them the toxic attachment.

**John:** Right.

**Craig:** There are directors who attach themselves and then never — literally just never pay attention to it ever again. This is typically a very big director, an A-list director, somebody with a lot of weight at the studio. They say, “I love it. I want to do it,” and everybody goes, “Okay, back off, that guy says it’s his.” And then that dude just puts them in a drawer because maybe he’ll do it, maybe not, but in the mean time, you can’t have it and then it just dies, right?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So it just goes into this weird phantom zone. Sometimes the studio says, “We’re jamming this actor in there,” and the actor starts to unwind everything because they’ve been emboldened to do so and everybody is just saying, “Yes, yes, yes,” because the name of the game is let’s see if we can get this person to finally agree to step in front of a camera with a script that isn’t completely unwound. And sometimes they lose that bet.

**John:** Yup, and you can understand why the studio is servicing that relationship because they want to be in business with that director, they want to be in business with that actor, and as long as they say yes, they’re still kind of in business with that actor or director. So Big Fish is sort of an example of this for us because Steven Spielberg was attached to Big Fish for about a year and he’s not a toxic person, whatsoever. He’s a lovely, wonderful, talented director, but it became kind of clear that he wasn’t actually going to direct the movie.

And so we had to had the really awkward conversation about, “Hey, are you going to direct this?” And he said, “I guess not,” and he left and Tim Burton came on board and that was great. But I have to give props to Sony for having the — you know, cojones to actually ask that question because so many other studios at that point would not have asked and they would just be happy that Spielberg was considering directing one of those movies.

**Craig:** I don’t know what he was making at the time. It becomes really difficult when that director is making a movie for that studio.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** Because then they’ll say, “Look, yeah, I like the script by Craig. It’s at Universal. I, Steven Spielberg, I want to direct it.” “Okay, cool,” “But first I’m going to direct this for you, Universal,” “Oh, well, okay.” And then I’m going to direct this for you at Universal,” “Oh, okay.” Well, every movie takes two to three years.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So in the meantime, these six years go by and you could think, “Well, that’s okay, I’m in the hopper, right, I’ll be next.” No, you won’t.

**John:** Nope.

**Craig:** Because along those — during that six years, 14 other scripts come in.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it’s getting — you know, I can’t blame directors because they need those opportunities, right, especially directors that aren’t writing their own material, they need that great script. They’re not going to say, “Well, I just got handed a script that I think would be incredible and I know I can knock it out of the park and I’m ready and available, but it’s not in the queue.” They don’t that.

**John:** No, they’re not going to do that. The other real challenge is, if you’ve been on their list for two years, they are bored with that project by now. They have no — you’re not exciting and new. They already know they have you, so they’re not going to focus on you. They’re not going to want to finally go back and direct that thing. They just won’t, so that’s why you have to be so careful about attaching people. It’s nice to be able to say, but like you could be so excited that a big director signed on to your project and at the same time go, “That’s just doomed.”

**Craig:** Yeah, and similarly it can happen where you have a powerful producer who is obsessed with something and believes that they can jam it through a studio and they can to an extent. They can jam a studio to pay a writer to write it, but what they can’t do is make the head of the studio press the green light.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And eventually, they just get — it’s a war of attrition. And you’re hired, you’re paid, I guess it’s a nice writing exercise, but none of us want to go into these things thinking that this is just academic.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, we’re trying to get a movie made, we all are. And you can occasionally get swept up in the enthusiasm of a producer who’s got a few chips they can cash in but to no real end.

**John:** Yeah, I agree. Another common pattern for why these movies stall out is a change of regime in the studio. So basically the president of production, the head of the studio has left and a new person comes in, takes a look at all the projects in developments and says like “Nah, not this one. This does not fit our needs at this time.” And this project that you’re writing is suddenly no longer a priority for them.

**Craig:** It’s probably the most common cause of script death.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I would say maybe the second most common cause of script death is regardless of what we think about your screenplay, we have read it and we determined that it’s going to cost too much for what it is.

**John:** Exactly. A related factor can often be a similar movie has just bombed and they look at that movie and they look at your movie and they say, “Uh-uh, this similar movie just tanked. People don’t want to see this movie. Therefore we are not making this movie.” So that could be the genre, it could be the actor, it could be the director, it could be something else that they feel like it’s too similar to this, we just can’t do it.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** In some cases, it’s another movie is about to go into production that is just too similar which was what I described for Monster Apocalypse, because everyone sort of knows that you don’t want to be the second movie in those circumstances, you don’t want to be the Deep Impact to Armageddon.

**Craig:** Right, or the Dante’s Peak to Volcano, or I can’t remember which one came first, but you’re right, this is always an issue. Although occasionally it works out, I mean everybody looked and said, wait a second, DreamWorks is putting out a movie called Ants, about animated ants, and then a month later, Pixar is going to put out a movie called A Bug’s Life about animated ants. And A Bug’s Life did pretty well, did better than Ants.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** You know, sometimes it works out, but you’re right, there’s two kinds of stinks you can have, you have the stink of being the also-ran and you can have the stink of being something that people think has just been proven to be a failure at the box office. Of course you and I both know that’s nonsense.

**John:** It is nonsense. So let’s talk about how dead things are because there’s different kind of levels of dead, so there’s completely dead, there’s movies that are impossible to make, that are no longer relevant, they’re are too much like another movie. So I would say, Monster Apocalypse for all intent and purposes is completely dead because it was too much like Pacific Rim, and because at this point the rights are gone, so you’d have to reassemble the underlying rights and get the rights to that script. It’s just very difficult for that movie to not be dead.

**Craig:** Yes, for sure. I mean on my list, a number of these feel dead, dead, but Into the Fire could, I mean you can’t be deader than that movie. There was one draft written of it, it was buried under concrete somewhere, you know, in Culver City. Nobody wanted it in the first place, and it was capitalizing on a trend that is now 15 years old. Dead.

**John:** Dead. There’s another status which we’ll call not really dead, but not really alive. And so these are the specs that you owned that never sold, they are things that a studio still owns, they could theoretically make it any time, they just don’t seem to be making them. They could be movies like are passed around all the time. So Unforgiven is a movie that sat on a shelf for 10 years, 15 years, the great David Webb Peoples’ script and Clint Eastwood said, “You know what, I’m going to make that script,” and he basically shot the white script and it became Unforgiven. So it does happen where those movies just sort of sit for a long time, and then suddenly are made, but they’re very rare.

**Craig:** Yeah, that one actually is a special case because Eastwood bought it early on and said, “I’m going to put this in my drawer on purpose, I’m not old enough to play this guy yet.

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** I need to wait 12 or 15 years until I can actually play this character. But yeah, there are these scripts that kick around for year and years and years, and then suddenly, oh my god, it gets made, it can happen, you know. There’s that, you know, list of the Hollywood’s best unproduced screenplays and you know, maybe one day, somebody might make one of them. The thing about the things that I have that haven’t, that are original to me that I haven’t sold, I don’t want to show them to anybody. In my mind, I’ve killed them, they’re dead.

**John:** Yeah. That actually is a conversation you will have with your agent after a certain point is which scripts that they have are they allowed to send out. And so my agent a couple of years ago said, like, people have been asking about Here & Now, your first script, do you want people to see that? I’m like, god, no. I can’t believe that anyone would ever read that script now. It doesn’t reflect my writing today.

**Craig:** Well, this is the scary part, like, so even as I was thinking about doing this podcast and you start to say these things, well then you’re like, you know, I’ve had meetings where people were like, well, what else do you have? Do you have anything that, you know, like a spec that nobody else bought, you know? Because then they can go, “Hey, you know what, I can get a John August script and I can get it cheap, and who knows?” But you know, maybe people didn’t buy it for a reason. And if I super duper loved it, you know, I would have pushed it earlier than this.

**John:** The final set I’ll say is like, things that will never die, and so I have two of those movies, so Shazam which I talked about before eventually, they’ll make a Shazam movie, and also Tarzan. So I was the first writer on Tarzan, and so the Tarzan movie which the trailer is out for now, I was a part of the chain of title on that Tarzan. My movie was completely different. My movie took place in modern day Africa with civil unrest, and it was a completely different sort of way of doing Tarzan. There was khaki and pith helmets, but that was my chain of title for Tarzan. So someone was going to make a Tarzan of movie and that chain of title is still uninterrupted. So that’s kind of a third theme. So like, my Tarzan is dead because this other Tarzan exists.

**Craig:** That’s really interesting. I always wonder about my Harvey script. I always wonder if it might get somehow revived, but probably not because see, it’s a rights thing, you know. So they followed Tarzan all the way through at Warner Bros. And similarly, you know, for Shazam, it’s a DC property, it’s Warner Bros, they could follow through. You know, Miramax blows the rights on something, can’t figure out how to pay for a movie, it’s dead. That thing is dead.

**John:** Well, let’s talk about raising the dead and sort of when that happens and when it doesn’t happen. You know, Passenger, which is a Jon Spaihts script, wasn’t dead, but it wasn’t getting made. So it was a really great script that people loved, Keanu Reeves was attached to star in it. He wasn’t a big enough star to justify the budget. It was stalled out and they were able to shake Keanu Reeves off and suddenly now they’re making that movie with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt and suddenly it’s going to be a big, giant movie. So it is possible to resuscitate some of these movies at times.

**Craig:** Yeah, for sure. I mean so that’s an example of a movie that — well, first of all, it got Mirmaxed. So there. You’re looking for a pattern here, Miramax. So there are certain movies that tempt lots of people. Lots of people creep up to it and go, “I know how to do this. I know how to do this. I know — oh, no, I don’t.” “Okay, well, I do,” “Oh no, I don’t.” In that case, I don’t even think they — it’s not that they shook Keanu Reeves off. I think that Keanu Reeves was going to make the Miramax movie. Miramax couldn’t figure out how to pay for it or didn’t want to pay for it, so they let it go.

**John:** Right.

**Craig:** And then Sony picked it up and Sony had a different theory about who should be in it and —

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** But yeah, there are some movies that kick around and I don’t think of those movies as dead. I think of those movies as like dodging bullets.

**John:** Cool. So what conclusions can we draw from our visit to this script graveyard? Maybe we could talk about sort of letting go and sort of how you say goodbye to a script because the process of cleaning out these drawers, it may be looking at some of these projects and say like, “Oh, you know what, you were lovely but you’re gone now. I’m going to let you go. I’m going to stop ever thinking about you again.” Because they just — there’s — I’m never going to bring you back to life and that’s maybe okay.

**Craig:** Yeah. I feel like the value of these things in the past is that you did them. And I never think about these things as failures per se, I don’t think about them as wastes of time. I think of them as experiences I had writing.

The truth is that you can’t do all the work that you and I do without finding some internal pleasure in the experience itself. So that becomes its own reward, you know. For a while, I got to live in the world of Harvey. For a while, I got to live in the world of even the Secret Lives of Road Crews. And it was my world, and I lived in it, and I did the best I could, and I like to think that, you know, hopefully, I honed a few things here and there that made me a little bit better for the next time.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But there’s no sense in crying over this stuff because it’s inevitable.

**John:** Yeah. There’ve been a few things I’ve circle back on that I was really glad I took a second look at. One of them was Writer Emergency Pack. So I started Writer Emergency Pack four years ago. It was going to be an app and so I had the artwork and it just sat dormant. And then when I looked at it again, it’s like, oh, you know what, it’s a card game, so like, that was a good thing to sort of resuscitate. As I look at some of these scripts I’ve written, there are a few that are probably worth a second look, both for, there’s essentially a really great idea there, or there’s a way to make this now, that I couldn’t have made it before. So there’s a few that I’ll probably revisit, but most of them, I have to honestly look and say, is my time better spent trying to rejigger one of these things that didn’t work, or doing the new things that I’m excited about. And I have so many new things I’m excited about on the list, that that’s probably where I should spend my time.

**Craig:** I completely agree. And I think that that spirit is why you’ve written so much because you’re always excited to move forward. I think the people that dwell on these things in the past are trying to continually resuscitate them over and over. I mean sometimes it’s prudent, but a lot of times, it’s a tacit capitulation to the thought that you don’t have something new to do or think and that you just can’t let that one go. I am thrilled, the second I’m done with a script, to me it’s like a plate of food I’m finished with, get it away from me. I don’t want to look at it. New. Next. Let’s go.

**John:** Yeah, maybe if there’s a lesson to take from a visit to the cemetery is that, to be glad that you’re alive and that you can write new things.

**Craig:** And to avoid Miramax.

**John:** Yes. And notice like cause of death, Miramax.

**Craig:** So many of these people died here. Most of them died of Miramax, that one was small pox.

**John:** All right, let’s do our One Cool Things.

**Craig:** All right. Well, my One Cool Thing is a French company called Wyvings. They’ve been around for a while, they make a lot of Internet of things devices.

**John:** I have a Wyvings scale.

**Craig:** There you go, so as do I. So it’s mostly health products. The Wyvings scale is very nice, you step on it, it measures your weight, it measures your body fat, and then it pipes that info wirelessly to an app on your phone, you can track things. And there are a lot of versions of that sort of thing. But, they have a new thing that is not yet on the market, it’s coming soon, and it’s called The Wyvings Thermo which is the most French way of saying thermometer, ever, thermo. Now here’s what’s so great about it. I hate thermometers. Thermometers, like the whole category drives me nuts. You have thermometers that you certainly don’t want to put them up your butt anymore, that’s old school.

You can stick them in your mouth, they move around, and then is it digital, if it’s digital, is it accurate, nobody really can tell, and then you have the ones that you put on your forehead which are junk. You have the ones that you can put in your ear, but if you’re holding it slightly wrong, it doesn’t work. There’s a million things about these things. Well, these guys seem to have solved it. So what they do is, and it’s you know, Internet of things, it’ll pipe into your app and all that, and that’s great, but here’s the genius part of it.

There is a way to take your temperature by using an infrared sensor on your temple. The problem is, it has to be done the right way, it has to be the exact proper distance from your temple, and ideally, you take a lot of readings at once, to try and you know, counter for fluctuations and things. So this thing is designed so that there’s a cup. The cup goes right up against your temple, and then it’s inside the cup, the proper distance from your temple.

It takes 4,000 measurements with 16 different infrared sensors in two seconds, and finds the hottest spot, which is the one you’re most concerned about, and gives you your proper temperature. And it adjusts the temperature because, you know, our body temperature like the whole 98.6 thing in the thermometer, really probably is supposed to go up your butt, so if you put it under you arm, or on your forehead, you’re not quite getting the same up your butt reading.

So if you have 101 from your forehead, you might actually have a 102 or 102.5, so I love this thing, I can’t wait to get this. This finally, I mean like, good, I know that I’m actually getting the right temperature here. Not so much for me, I don’t care if I’m sick, I’m sick, but when you have a sick kid, you kind of want to know.

**John:** Yeah, you do want to know. Cool.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** My One Cool Thing is an app that Apple put out this last week. It’s called Music Memos. And it’s a very smart little app for a very specific need. So if you are coming up with a song, you have a melody, and you want to record it, you can use the voice memos app, you can use Evernote, you can use — there’s lots of different ways you can record it. This is just so much better for the music of it all. And so when we’ve been doing stuff for Big Fish, we’ve been working on other songs, very often I’ll be sitting with a composer and we’ll plunk it out and we’ll just record it in Voice Memos, and you’ll label the note.

This is what it does, when it records it, it actually breaks it into measures, it tracks the keys, it can even build a simple accompaniment with it just so you can actually hear that idea and share that idea and really have a good sounding track to listen back to. It’s very smart, it’s very Apple, just really incredibly useful if you’re a person who works with little snippets of songs.

**Craig:** It’s like they knew that I was a few weeks away from handing a script over to Jeanine Tesori and then we were going to start making songs. It’s like they knew. I’m so excited to use this. I think it’s great.

**John:** Cool. All right. That is our show this week. So as always, our show is produced by Stuart Friedel, it is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Sam Tahhan. If you have a comment for me or for Craig, find us on Twitter. I’m @johnaugust, Craig is @clmazin.

If you have a longer question like some of the ones we answered today, you can write into ask@johnaugust.com. Johnaugust.com is also where you can find the show notes for this episode, they’re always in order there. You can also find us on Scriptnotes.net, that’s where you find all the back episodes. On iTunes, search for Scriptnotes, while you’re there, you can also download the app. We have the Scriptnotes app which gives you access to the back catalogue, and it’s also on the Android app store.

As a reminder, I am hosting a Q&A with most of the writers who are nominated for the WGA Awards. That Q&A is happening on February 4th at 7:30 pm. There are still some tickets left, so if you would like to go to that, go to wgfoundation.org, or there’s also a link in the episode notes for this show.

Craig, thank you so much.

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

**John:** You too.

Links:

* [You Must Remember This](http://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/) podcast
* [Scriptnotes](https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/scriptnotes-podcast/id462495496?mt=2) on iTunes
* [Become a premium subscriber at scriptnotes.net](http://scriptnotes.net/) for access to the entire back catalogue
* [Hatton Garden heist film goes into production](http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/18/hatton-garden-heist-film-goes-into-production) from The Guardian
* The Sun on the [Bloody past of Blingo Blaggers: PC stabbing, armed robbery and mayhem](http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6862427/Bloody-past-of-Hatton-Garden-Blingo-Blaggers.html)
* [Rodney Ascher’s The Nightmare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nightmare_(2015_film)) on Wikipedia
* The Atlantic asks [A New Planet or a Red Herring?](http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/01/a-new-planet-or-a-red-herring/426810/)
* [Breather](https://breather.com/) helps find a place for you to work
* John Hess’s [filmmakeriq.com](http://filmmakeriq.com/)
* [Writer Emergency Pack](http://writeremergency.com/)
* [Withings Thermo](https://www.withings.com/eu/en/products/thermo)
* [Music Memos](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/music-memos/id1036437162?mt=8)
* [Tickets are now available](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/beyond-words-2016/) for the Writers Guild Foundation Beyond Words panel on February 4
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Sam Tahhan ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

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

Recommended Reading

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

Screenwriting Q&A

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

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.