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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: spaces after a period

Scriptnotes, Episode 728: Beats to Scenes with Drew Goddard, Transcript

March 18, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 728 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

What is the basic unit of story? In the outline and treatment phase, it’s probably the beat, whereas in the script is the scene. As film and TV writers, how do we move from beats to scenes? I’d argue it’s perhaps the fundamental skill in our craft.

Today on the show, we welcome back a guest to help us to discuss this transformational process. Drew Goddard is a writer whose credits include Cloverfield, Cabin in the Woods, The Martian, Bad Times at the El Royale, Daredevil, High Potential, and a new film, Project Hail Mary, which is absolutely fantastic, Drew, and I got to say this last week. This is coming out, presumably, in a period of time where the embargo is off, so we can say how good it is. Congratulations. Welcome back, Drew.

Drew Goddard: I’m so happy to be back. Thank you for having me, John.

John: It will not be confusing at all that you are both named Drews, Drew Goddard and Drew Marquardt.

Drew Goddard: We’re interchangeable. All of the Drews, we’re like the board. We can just move one Drew into another Drew.

Drew Marquardt: Were you ever an Andy?

Drew Goddard: I never was an Andy.

Drew Marquardt: All right. Good.

Drew Goddard: That’s right. An Andy, of course, wrote The Martian.

John: Andy Weir, yes.

Drew Goddard: Are you an Andrew or did you start Drew?

Drew Marquardt: I started Drew. I’m full Andrew, but always Drew.

Drew Goddard: Great.

John: It’s always confusing when our business manager will say, “Well, Andrew does a thing.” Like, “Who is Andrew? Who is this person?” There are other times where I’ll be talking to my husband about Drew, and it’s like, “Is that Drew Barrymore? Is that Drew Marquardt? Which Drew is that?” It’s the list of Drews.

Drew Goddard: Again, all interchangeable.

John: All the same. On this podcast, Drew Goddard, I want to talk about this movie, obviously, but writing, your career in general, and we have some listener questions that I think are going to be perfect for you.

Drew Goddard: Let’s do it.

John: In our bonus segment for premium members, I’d love to talk about TV because you grew up in TV. You still do TV. You have one of the recent hit broadcast shows, so I want to talk about the future of television with you.

Drew Goddard: Let’s do it.

John: We’ll solve it. For listeners who have been longtime subscribers to the podcast, you were on the show in 2015, but it was a bonus episode. It wasn’t part of the main feed. I think we referenced it before. Did we ever rerun the whole episode?

Drew Marquardt: I don’t think we have.

John: Maybe we should do that at some point when we need to.

Drew Goddard: Please don’t. Let’s go with this one.

John: Let’s briefly recap because you grew up in Los Alamos. You had a transformational experience with Olympia Dukakis upon arriving in Los Angeles.

Drew Goddard: That was actually in Santa Fe.

John: Santa Fe, all right.

Drew Goddard: I was a PA on a movie called Scattering Dad With Andy Griffith and Olympia Dukakis, and I almost bled to death on her porch. We don’t have to get into that. We can just breeze past that detail.

John: People should listen to the other episode where we go into further depth on that. Upon arriving in Los Angeles, I remember that you were working on Buffy in a period of creative crisis, and were able to contribute at a meaningful time, which is an experience which is true for myself and a lot of other people. It’s like when things are going great, sometimes it’s hard to get your way in, but you were able to help out in a pinch.

Drew Goddard: I think that’s the case. I think that in TV in particular, there’s a lot of crises. There’s a lot of crises constantly happening. I think I dropped in at a time where it was like I was young. You’re like, “Oh, I’ll stay and work 24 hours a day. This doesn’t seem strange to me. This is what I want to be doing.” I think that that has opened doors for me to learn there’s just no better experience than just doing it.

John: Absolutely. Let’s talk about the just doing it because our main topic I want to get into is beats versus scenes. Let’s talk about, what do you think about with a beat? Because there’s the outlining kind of beat, that sort of unit of story, but there’s also beats within scenes. You’re planning a story. You’re planning an adaptation of The Martian or Project Hail Mary. What is a beat when you’re talking about that level of granularity?

Drew Goddard: By the way, I’m so glad we’re talking about this because this is, not to just jump into Drew’s speeches in the writers room, but you’re going to hear what I talk about a lot because I do believe our job is to make scenes. At the end of the day, the thing that differentiates us as screenwriters are scenes. I see it a lot with young writers is they will come into writers room, and they’ll have beautiful grand ideas about what this needs to be about, what the themes are, all these wonderful things that you want from writers. At some point it will get very quiet, and one of the upper level people go, “Yes, but what’s the scene? What is the scene?”

That’s what we’re here to do, is figure out, how do we shape this scene? Jumping in, I think beats to me are just moments. My process is very much, whether it’s an adaptation or not, I tend to just start with moments that I respond to. It could be big or it could be small. It could be just, “Oh, I like when he said that thing to her.” It could be, “Oh my God, this giant story turn. I’ll put them on a board,” and I’ll just start noting them. Then at a certain point, I’ll go, “I have enough beats,” or just things that I like just to make it simple and go, “Okay, let’s start trying to put scenes together.” Then that takes a while.

Then at a certain point, I’ll go, “I have enough scenes to start thinking about structure.” It builds out. That could take, in the case of something like bad times, years. We’re describing years of my life as I would just put, “Oh, here’s a moment. All right. I don’t have no idea how these things will stitch together, but I like this.” I find myself drawn to this moment over and over.

John: When you’re talking about these moments, they could actually be pretty big. They could be set pieces. They could be sequences rather than scenes. They’re pretty big ideas. These are the big note cards on the board. To achieve the goals of that big note card, it’s a bunch of smaller moments that actually get there. Something that Sorkin talks about is that when there’s an obstacle that forces a new tactic, that’s a beat. Basically, when you see a character make a choice, make a change, do a thing, the story has changed because of this incident, that is a beat.

That’s the granular, smaller version of that. Starting from this big picture of these are the giant tentpole moments, you’re getting the smaller moments that are building up to those bigger things.

Drew Goddard: I love that. He sounds smart.

John: He does sound smart.

Drew Goddard: Sorkin or something?

John: Yes, Aaron Sorkin.

Drew Goddard: Let me jot that down.

John: With two As.

Drew Goddard: Oh, got it.

John: Seems smart. Let’s go back to the writer’s room, though, because this is where you’ll often find beats being discussed. We’re talking about beat sheets also, which is basically the very rough bullet point outline of what’s going to happen in the course of an act or a movie or a script. What are you looking for in a beat? What’s going up on the board? How much are you breaking that? How granular are you trying to get?

Drew Goddard: There’s no right answer. There’s no wrong answer. It’s like you just start shaping. Let me think. There was a Daredevil episode. Here’s a good example of how this starts. The second episode of Daredevil, which is one of the scripts I’m most proud of that I’ve done, on the board, we were just brainstorming ideas. I wrote Matt in dumpster. That’s it. That was the beat. Matt in dumpster. We go, “What is that?” I’m like, “I don’t know, but I like the idea of starting an episode early with our main character nearly beaten to death in a dumpster, and let’s just see.” That beat goes on the board. It’s not a scene yet. We don’t even know what we’re doing here. It’s just, “This sounds interesting.”

You put it on the board, and you think about it. It does start to beg the questions like, “How did he get there? What happens next? Who’s going to find him?” Now we’re starting to shape it. Now we’re starting to start asking questions that connect. “Oh, if somebody finds him, that is going to suggest the scene.” On its core level, this is how we’re building story. Really, when I’m saying, “Yes, but what’s the scene?” What I’m really saying is, “What are the actors going to do?” Because I know, having done this a long time, that’s really what this is about.
We need to figure out what are the actors going to do. You are going to be called to the carpet over and over and over about, “What are the actors going to do here?” You start to just start to build and build things around that very question.

John: It’s, what are the actors going to do? Also, where is the camera? What are we looking at? What is the sequence of events in it? We’re talking about adapting books, but I’ve written many books myself, and those books have beats in them. They don’t have scenes, per se. There’s sections where you’re in one continuous moment of time, and there’s beats that happen within them, but it’s not the same as what a screenwriter does in the sense of there being an actual scene that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, which I guess we have to define what a scene is. A scene does have a start and an end.

While it’s something that could change in the editing, it has a point of view on, “This is where we’re coming into it. This is what happens during the middle of it. This is how it exits. It should exit with a different energy than it started.” That’s the crucial fundamental thing. Your writer’s room could come up with a list of, “These are the beats,” but then you still have to transform those beats into actual scenes.

Drew Goddard: Yes. Part of it, and then to make it even more difficult, you need to make the scenes have a relation to each other. Each scene has to inform the next scene. It doesn’t have to, but it’s helpful if it does. I’m glad you brought up the visual part of it, because one of the most important things that happened to me, this was at Buffy and Angel, I turned in an early script. I think my scripts early on were very sparse description. I remember reading things like, “Don’t know, leave that to the director, leave that to the director.” I turn in the script, and Jeff Bell, who was a wonderful writer and very important to my growth, said, “Okay, but where’s the camera in this scene?”

He made me talk about where the camera is. It wasn’t in a way of direct this because we have directors, but it’s like you as the writer, I want you to think about how this is actually happening. Is it important to you in this scene what we’re focusing on? If it is, we’ve got to figure out a way to put that on the page. If it’s not, that’s okay, too. You don’t want to force it. There are places where you want to let the directors play, but if you know, “No, this is a living, breathing organism. We are making a document for 300 people to figure out how to make this show,” and your job is to direct their attention to what matters for you so that they can go be the best versions of themselves as artists. It took me a while to understand that, but I think they all tie together with what you’re talking about.

John: Going from Buffy to Angel and other early TV experiences to working on Daredevil, working on High Potential, how detailed do you like the beat planning to be? Is it a several-page beat sheet? Is it a detailed outline? What do you like before you start writing scripts?

Drew Goddard: Part of this is just my own, what works for me. Part of this is, it started on Buffy, where we would spend, if you have a pie chart of how much time a script takes, you would spend 90% working on the story and getting it, not even the outline, just getting the board to a place where you can defend every moment, and you can tell production, “Here’s what we’re doing.” What it did was it allowed you, when you started writing, to actually be more free, if that makes sense. I think there was this thought, and part of this is TV. Part of this is the grind of every 8 days you need 60 pages.

In order to do that and do that in a way that you can keep that train moving, you have to be very clear about what you’re shooting early. That got deeply instilled. There’s no better training than having to do that 22 times each year, 22 times each year, and then in Lost, you get to Lost, it’s 24 times each year. That’s an insane amount of pages, an insane amount of beats that have to become scenes. That, really, I’ve internalized that almost to a depressing degree, whereas I will work on beat sheets or outlines for years. I will do 50 because the goal for me, I don’t like to do lots of drafts. I think it’s much easier to be ruthless when it’s in beat sheet form.

John: When you don’t have sharp characters saying [crosstalk]–

Drew Goddard: You don’t have characters and you don’t have things that you fall in love, you don’t have these moments that have taken this become living and breathing. I fall in love with these things, and it’s harder for me, but when in beat sheet form, it’s like, “We’re great, we’re done. Let’s cut it, let’s try it. Let’s try this other thing.” I can be much more free creatively, and so I will do, and I force, there’s an amount of time, especially in the feature world, where they’re like, “Just do a draft, just do a draft, and let’s just start this.” I’m like, “Absolutely not.”

To me, the hardest part is we need to get to a place where we all agree what we’re doing so that then I can go be playful. If I try to be too playful too early, we’re going to end up not making something.

John: I absolutely hear that and want to protect that as an idea. I will say, to give the other side of this argument, is that sometimes you do, it’s actually writing scenes that you discover what your story is, and who the characters are. You actually hear all of it together. We had Katie Silverman on the podcast, and she was talking about how before she starts writing something, she will write a bunch of scenes with these characters that don’t have to actually fit into the movie so she knows what they are.

Drew Goddard: I do that too. I love doing that. I used to. Part of that came from TV where the job nobody wanted was, “Oh, you got to write sides. You got to write sides for the actor.”

John: Tell me about side scene for that, for casting.

Drew Goddard: For casting. If we know, and usually you have to start that process before you have a script in TV. What happens is whoever’s writing the script is not going to do the sides. They’ll say it usually gets dumped to a lower-level writer. Like, “Will you go write a three-page scene that will showcase this character in three pages?”

John: “Make sure that we’re getting the tone that we want, what it feels like.”

Drew Goddard: Exactly. Make it hard. Make it really difficult so that you can see it. In the case of almost everything I work on, make it funny and make it break your heart in three pages. Make it over and over. I got dumped on a lot as a lower-level. I grumbled about it at first, and then I started to really love it.

John: Of course. I would love that too.

Drew Goddard: Oh my God.

John: The stakes are weirdly high and low at the same time.

Drew Goddard: Once you start having fun, you can throw crazy shit in there. You’re just like, “Oh my God, a tentacle comes out of nowhere and eats the person,” because you’re never going to shoot it. It’s fun when you’re in the room. All of the bad times in the casting process for that, all of those scenes are delightful because you’re free in a way you’re never free, because you’re like, “We’re never going to shoot this. Let’s just make it fun for the room.”

John: Then the actors are always weirdly disappointed when they get the actual script. They’re like, “Wait, I think I did. I wasn’t even there.”

Drew Goddard: That was Cabin in the Woods, by the way. Cabin in the Woods. If you can imagine how crazy we went in that movie, the sides were 100 times crazier. Then they would come up, Hemsworth would be like, “What about that?” The scenes I was doing, I was so excited for that. Like, “I know we can’t do that part.”

John: It was never going to be part of. It was all, it was bait-and-switch.

Drew Goddard: That’s part of it. No, I preface this by saying there’s no right answer here. I know friends who will do 30 drafts. They will constantly be doing draft after draft and they find it that way.

John: Scott Frank overwrites, and then has to cut back down, and overwrites.

Drew Goddard: To be fair, when I’m doing the beat sheets, outlining, I’m doing a version of that. On Lost, Our outlines ran longer than the scripts, which is really hard to do.

John: That’s crazy. That’s really hard to do.

Drew Goddard: It’s really hard to do because we were still in screenplay format, but without dialogue.

John: They’re scripting?

Drew Goddard: Yes, but to go longer than the script without dialogue is insane.

John: That’s crazy. That’s wild.

Drew Goddard: That’s not something we’re proud of. You would learn be detailed is the point. When I say outline, they’re functioning as drafts.

John: You have this incredibly detailed beat sheet or outline, but there’s still a fundamental skill of going from that to, “This is really what it’s going to feel like.” I guess you’re capturing some of what it feels like in that outline, but it’s the specifics of what the characters are saying, how they’re interacting with stuff, which line comes first. Are your outlines that detailed that it’s essentially a script but in a prosy form?

Drew Goddard: Sometimes or some scenes are. If I know a scene’s really hard or very technical, I don’t want to be doing anything other than having fun when I’m writing. I will do the hard parts. If I’m like, “Oh boy, I don’t understand,” like with Project Hail Mary, the scientific concept, I don’t want to be sitting there trying to write the scene because I hand write everything. I don’t want to be sitting there trying to figure out the science part. Knowing that I’m making outlines for myself, I’m doing the work so that I don’t have to worry about that part. Like, “Oh, I better detail out the beats of this part.”

If I know the emotional point of the scene, that’s enough. Then I’ll get real simple. Like, “Oh, this is what he’s going through, this is what–” Because I know that will be fun to write, and I don’t have to worry about it. It’s really for me. By the way, we should talk, part of this is an outline for me to write as the writer. Then there’s also the part that you need to do to convince everyone to let you do this. Those are two separate things. I’m looking at it both ways. In that case, what I just described, I probably wouldn’t put all the scientific stuff in there.

If I’m doing this to get people to sign off, whether it’s our directors, whether it’s the studio, whether it’s our producers, in that case, I’m just saying, “Here’s what the story is. Let’s just walk you through the basics of the story. Here’s the point of the scene,” if that makes sense.

John: It does. It’s helping me understand something I’ve never really gotten about TV writing, and TV writing with rooms for especially network is, you do all this work to create these incredibly-detailed outlines and sheets, and then you get approvals on those, and then someone goes off to draft. It seems like going off to draft, it’s a short process and surprisingly simple. I always think, “Oh, well, to often write a draft, I must take three weeks.” It’s like, no, actually, if it was a really detailed outline, it could be incredibly quick because you know exactly what’s in there.

Drew Goddard: I wish that was true.

John: You wish that were true. Okay, yes.

Drew Goddard: Every writer that’s gone through this is mad at you for saying that right now, because, invariably, you then get it off the board, you get the outline, and then you’re sitting with that blank screen or page in front of you, and you’re like, “Oh, God, none of this works. None of this works? What was I thinking?”

John: When none of it works, is it the stuff within the scenes that’s not working or is it the flow from scene to scene to scene, or both?

Drew Goddard: Or both, or just like you start to question your own existential reason for writing this script. That happens a lot where you’re like, “Why did we think this was a good idea as a group?” Sometimes you need just the emotional support. That’s the other reason writer’s rooms are helpful of like, “No, no, no, no. We all know what it feels like to panic,” because that’s the other problem. I would get anything for reads. I think the average, Buffy was four days. Same with Lost, four days. Again, not a good way to do this. I’m not suggesting this.

One of the nice things about how we’ve moved the model from 24 episodes to 8 or 10 is you do have more time. It is the grind of being so far behind, but there’s benefits of that part, too, because you also go, “Oh, I can’t second guess it. Let’s just go.” The beats are not so much dialogue-based. As you know, dialogue’s also really hard in which you want to do it well. Then if you get into that stuff, you’re trying to shape it. No stage is easy. There’s never an easy part of the process.

John: Now, as a showrunner, you’ve had situations where you’ve figured out a whole episode on the board, you’ve transferred that down into a written document, you’ve assigned it off to a writer, and then that writer is struggling, or that writer’s having a hard time doing it. What is the conversation with that writer who’s having a hard time going from, “This works as an outline,” to, “This is working as a script,” what do you do?

Drew Goddard: I start from a place of compassion because I’ve been in that writer’s shoes. I just have the amount of times I was having a nervous breakdown. I remember early some of my showrunners saying things like, “It’s okay. You might wipe out. It’s okay. That’s why we do it this way. We do it this way so if you wipe out, we are all clear on the story, too.” Whoever’s the show writer is, “I’m clear on this too.” It takes the pressure off of, this doesn’t have to be perfect. In fact, it’s not going to be perfect. In fact, there’s things that we thought we wanted that you are going to write, and by you writing them, we’re going to realize, “Oh, that’s wrong.”

John: It wasn’t necessarily their bad execution, it wasn’t a good one.

Drew Goddard: It was like, “Oh, this is what it is.” I think it’s important for writers to hear that. I do think that the fear of failure is one of the great things that stops us in our tracks and can really paralyze us as writers. By the way, as artists, with actors, too, with any of the artists, is why when I’m directing, I want to take fear of failure off the board. In fact, say, “Failure is actually a wonderful part of the process. If we’re not screwing something up, it means we’re not pushing the boundaries hard enough, we’re not trying to.” I think especially when you’re early and you haven’t worked with people before, it’s really important to let them know, “It’s okay. It’s not going to be perfect. This is really hard, what we’re doing, and we are going to get there. We’re all safety nets for each other.”

John: Advice to a staff writer who, for the first time, is taking this document and turning it into the script, how faithful should you try to be to what that was? Is it your own discovery process? When do you need to check in with the show runner if it’s something that maybe it’s not working? Or do you just try it and deliver it? What’s the best way to do it?

Drew Goddard: I think the important thing is before you go to draft, start developing the skill of trying to figure out what’s important to the show runner. Every show runner’s different, and it’s not always clear, because you also have passionate people in a writer’s room who have their own points of view of what’s important. The show runner’s the person that’s going to have to arbitrate all of this. You really want to get a sense of, “Oh, this scene is really important to the showrunner. The show runner, she’s pitched this exact line of dialogue every single time we’ve talked about this. “That line, I better put in.” “This place, she’s adrift. Let me play around here.”

That’s what you’re looking for, you’re listening in. If you’re unclear, talk to the show runner. Say, “I’m not sure about this.” Hopefully, your show runner will be able to talk through this a little bit.

John: All of this is built around the classic broadcast model where the writers were employed in a room during this entire time, and therefore have a lot more exposure to the show runner now that we’re getting onto shows that will have a 10-week development room, and then maybe another 10 weeks to actually do the thing. There’s less time around that writer to get that stuff. That must be a real challenge for getting a sense of what the showrunner wants, and needs, and how the whole thing is going to fit together and work.

Drew Goddard: It’s not ideal. It’s not. It falls upon showrunners to carve it out and do what best they can to get as much time with the writers as possible. It’s a struggle we’re all going through, but it’s crucial. It’s crucial.

John: How do you as a showrunner decide which of the writers in the room is the right person to do a given episode? Is it the one that you see that they spark most closely to, that they do it, or is it just, it’s now we’re rotating through, and it’s now this person’s turn?

Drew Goddard: It’s a little of all of the above and every show’s a little different. Part of the reason I got so much experience so quickly at Buffy is they went in the order of seniority. There’s a reason for that, is that then the seniority leaves to do an episode so that they can come back when it’s time for the younger writers in the room to be there. It cycles. What happened at Buffy was suddenly everyone either had to go off on script or had babies. Suddenly, it was just me by myself. It was like, “Oh, come to set, work with the showrunners on set, and just learn how to do this because there’s nobody else. Everyone’s gone.” I don’t know that that was ideal.

Part of it is weirdly the math of, “Well, if that person’s off on script, who’s in breaking the story? Who’s figuring that part out?” Which is in the back of your head as a showrunner, because you know as a showrunner, you’re going to get pulled 100 directions, and you need to know who’s in the room because some people are really good. It just comes with experience, frankly, at breaking story. You don’t want to abandon the younger writers in there. You can find what makes the most sense, and there’s no right or wrong answer.

John: There are, classically, some shows that they have writers on staff and they are never in a room together. They work on everything separately. There’s different ways that different shows work, and you have to understand what your show is. We’ve been talking a lot about TV, but I want to talk about features. Beats and features are just as crucial, and yet there’s not a room. It’s just you. Can we talk about The Martian, because we actually have pages from The Martian. Just available for us here. We’re looking at pages 12 through 14 of The Martian.

What’s happened in this section is the rocket has taken off without our hero, without Matt Damon. He’s announced that Mark Watney is dead. The Earth has announced that Mark Watney is dead. Then we’re back on Mars and we find that, oh, Mark Watney is not dead. He was just passed out, and is needed to go back to the base. He realizes he’s alone on Mars. Can you talk to me about your experience of reading this sequence in Andy Weir’s book? Let’s talk about what the beats were in the book. Then we can look at specifically how you’re implementing this, where the camera is in trying to tell the story.

In the book, I read Project Hail Mary, but I did not read The Martian. Is it a third person? Is it as a neutral POV on the thing, or is it all from his point of view?

Drew Goddard: All from his point of view.

John: This is very different. Even though it’s a very close third person to the movie, it’s a different experience. Tell me about reading it in the book, and then how we got here.

Drew Goddard: At least I should say, this part is all from the first part, because then it does shift as we start getting back to Earth. When I look at it, it’s funny because this was the original opening to the movie. If you look at it, what I’m trying to do is start, and this is the way the book starts, which is a guy wakes up, injured on Mars, which I always thought was delightful.

I was like, “Oh, this is a wonderful way to begin a movie,” right? If you look at this, what I’m trying to do here is find the moments, okay, he’s going to wake up, and slowly but surely, you’re trying to look at the beats of the scene. He looks down, he sees a jagged length of antenna in his abdomen, right? We’re telling a story, we’re building the mystery of what the hell happened to this guy, right? At a certain point, I realized I need some context for this, which made the previous scene necessary. I was like, “Oh, it’s too much, I’m throwing too much.”

What I need to know, the sentence that I need to, which is the end of the first scene is, “But Mark Watney is dead,” I need the audience to know that the man they’re about to meet, the world thinks is dead. I think that’s really important to this next part, because then you’re building this sort of mystery of what the hell happened, but also, I try to be emotion first and foremost, right?

I want the audience to understand just how lonely this man’s about to become, because, it’s one thing to survive on the planet, it’s another thing that the world doesn’t know you’re alive yet. I feel like that was a crucial part of this movie.

John: You had to backfill and to get up to like, well, how do you actually get to that press conference? They actually need to see the sequence, so we need to spend tens of millions of dollars for this whole sequence of the escape from Mars and why he’s left.

Drew Goddard: What we did, that sequence was in the middle of the movie. That sequence was in the middle.

John: You’re saying that this sequence was originally in the middle of the movie in your early drafts or in early things you handed into people?

Drew Goddard: No, all the way through shooting.

John: Oh, wow, crazy.

Drew Goddard: All the way through shooting, including the first couple cuts. This sequence was in the middle of the movie. The sequence that showed what happened to Mark before was in the middle of the movie, and it was delightful. There was a building of like, “Oh, I want to see what happened.” “Oh, we’re finally going to show you what happened,” and it worked. Then Ridley at some point calls me and he says, “You’re going to hate this.” Because we had talked about this a lot. He’s like, “Can I just show you a cut of the movie where we moved that before?”

He was really nice because he wasn’t sure himself. It wasn’t like he was demanding. He was like, “Well, you just watch. Let’s just watch and see.” I was grumbling thinking this is not going to work for all these reasons. It’s going to ruin all this beautiful tension I have created. Then we watched it and I was like, “Oh, it’s better. It’s just better.” You just felt it. You’re like, “Oh, I like this.”

John: By the way, the reveal of things later on, of course, the movies, is what you end up doing in Project Hail Mary so successfully. The whole movie is built around that, which is not the mystery engine of this. The mystery engine of Hail Mary is, why is he there by himself in space? Getting to that point is built up throughout the whole course of the movie. This was a one-off.

Drew Goddard: It’s a good lesson of nothing ever really dies. If I can’t do something in one place, it’ll work its way back in. If I really want to try something like that, and we definitely found our places in Hail Mary.

John: Yes. The writing and the sequence is great. The reason why I picked this is because there’s essentially no dialogue. It’s a great way to show like, “Oh, scenes are not just dialogue. Scenes are what characters are doing, the obstacles, the challenges, and how they move past, the choices that they make.” We are seeing him wake up on the surface of Mars, realize that this piece of antenna is piercing his spacesuit, getting back to the airlock into the base, trying to treat his wound, and realizing, “Oh, crap, I am alone,” and then we smash cut to the title, The Martian.

Drew Goddard: It means a lot. You say that it’s fun looking at this, because I do take scenes seriously when there’s no dialogue in them. I really feel like that’s one of the things that separates good from great in screenplays because nobody wants to read blocks of texts. There’s something in your brain, especially in a screenplay form, that you’re used to how quickly it moves. I work, even just looking at this now, which I haven’t looked at in 10 years.

John: It’s well done. There’s a reason why you should have gotten an Oscar nomination for it, and you did.

Drew Goddard: Bless you, John. If people are trying to learn, without even reading the words, you can sit back and look at the page and see, “Oh, there’s dense words in certain parts, we’re taking space,” and those words are, “Here’s the character’s name, here’s the thing the person’s going through.” I’m using italics sparsely.

John: You’re using italics, though, just to show what the internal mental state is. The thing that we could see as an audience, we could register that on his face, but you need to stick it there on the page that as a reader, we get it.

Drew Goddard: If you look, what I’m trying to do is actually make the reader complicit in this. I’m trying to make the reader the main character. These are the main character’s thoughts when I’m going into italics that are, in some cases, that are putting you in his place, which I find is very effective, especially if you’re trying to get people on board doing this. Something that, long sequences without dialogue, it really helps to have a point of view.

John: Things like, on page 13, in parentheses, this is not exactly going to be easy to watch. Yes, and that’s true. Again, you’re complicit, you’re saying, “We’re going to get through this together,” and there’s a point of view and a purpose. Drew Goddard, are you still a double-spacer?

Drew Goddard: Oh, yes.

John: Oh, yes, you haven’t changed.

Drew Goddard: Oh, I will, until the day I die. How much do you want to hear my rant?

John: Tell me your rant, because I was a double-spacer, I switched back, but tell me your argument for maintaining double-spaces. In the light of all rationality.

Drew Goddard: Great. I will be happy to go down as well.

John: Let’s start with the screenplay form. The screenplay form is ridiculous. Take a moment and realize that the screenplay form is something that was designed because of typewriters, and how quickly that we could use typewriters, and how quickly you do revision pages. One of the nice benefits of the form that came to be is that, in general, one page equals about a minute of screen time.

John: Yes, the roughest approximation, but useful.

Drew Goddard: It’s crazy how close it comes. In most scripts, you’re not that far off. Now, each page might be way off, but in the aggregate–

John: Most scripts are about 120 pages or about 2 hours long.

Drew Goddard: Yes, and I’ve found that shocking, because I’ve written wildly different forms of scripts, whether it’s straight comedy, or hardcore action, or whatever it is, end up at the same place, which I find incredibly useful. I find it incredibly useful to understand when you’re getting into the budgeting phase, when you’re getting into the directing phase, when you’re getting into time management phase, it’s really helpful to know how long this scene is going to be. For me, why are we changing this? It’s arbitrarily because people don’t text that way. Yes, people don’t write in Courier.

Also, I’m a believer that the negative space on a page is almost as important as the positive space on a page. I believe that if the goal is to be helping your reader through an artistic experience, the negative space on a page is a wonderful weapon at your disposal. Why would you want to crush that weapon? Why would you? Let it flow. I understand we’ll all knife fight. I also understand I’m probably the last person on the hill. If you want to see Drew lose his mind, there was points that we could talk about Hail Mary. There was parts when Chris and Phil would write, our directors would write scenes, and single-spacer, and you would look at it, and they would put the single spaces in the middle, which is the worst defense. At the very least, if you’re going to force it–

John: If you’re going to rewrite me, you should at least double-space it.

Drew Goddard: Or make it all single-spaced, and I will be ashamed. To jump back and forth is the most egregious in a script. To read a script that you’re doing both, we should all be shot.

John: There have been cases where I’ve come in to do cabinetry work in a script where basically I’m not changing, but I’m just doing some certain scenes, and I will try to match the style of whatever was there, including double-spacing or just the difference between double dash and dot, dot, dot. I will do what the thing is just so it actually reads like the thing. That said, if I’m doing a page one rewrite on thing, I’m searching for double spaces and breaking them down to one space because that’s just where I’m at now.

Drew Goddard: I respect that. I do the same, by the way. You and I do a lot of script doctoring. I want to be respectful, but I will start by talking to the writer and saying, “Are you sure? Because if you don’t feel strongly, let’s try it this other way. If you feel strongly, we will go with your version.”

John: That’s great. Let’s talk about Project Hail Mary because it’s just fantastic. Andy Weir has written a new novel. At what point does it cross your transom? When do you start having the conversation like, “Hey, maybe Drew Goddard should adopt this movie since he did such a great job the last time?”

Drew Goddard: Andy and I have stayed in contact just in life since The Martian, but that’s 10 years ago now, right? I actually remember the date because it was so clear. It was April Fool’s Day, so April 1st, 2020. Two weeks after the pandemic shut everything down, world sky is falling. We are in full.

John: It’s not clear that civilization will survive.

Drew Goddard: It really feels that way. Andy texts me and goes, “I don’t know how you’re doing, but I did just finish a new novel. Do you want to read it?” I’m like, “Andy, I’m trying to find groceries right now. No.” He’s like, “Come on.” I’m like, “Of course, I do want to read it.” I also was like, “Are you messing with me on April Fool’s Day because that’s not–”

John: Yes, not cool.

Drew Goddard: He was like, “No, it’s lovely. I’m really proud of it. Would you read it?”

John: Had he told you anything about it before?

Drew Goddard: No. He probably would have if I’d pressed, but I tend to not press writers when they’re in the middle of writing unless they want to open up. I’d love to, but I also know give it space to be nurtured. I didn’t know anything. I prefer that, especially if it’s something that I may want to work on. It’s better so I can have a clean experience. Then he said, “Ryan Gosling is already attached.”

John: Oh. How that happened?

Drew Goddard: Andy’s at CAA. I think CAA sort of put it together. Those are the two pieces I knew.

John: He’s ideal casting. Also, it’s a weird situation to come in with just that piece.

Drew Goddard: Luckily, yes. If it’s in the list of weird situations, that’s a weird situation you want, right? Great. I was also insanely busy with other things. I thought, “There’s no way I’m going to be able to just life-wise, I’m not going to be able to do this,” which I gently tried to tell him because I knew, I’m like, “If you’ve got Ryan Gosling, you guys are going to go. You’re going to be shooting soon, and I’m not the person to be shooting soon right now just because of life.” He said, “We’re going to wait. If you do it, we’ll wait.” He was very sweet about that.

I said, “Well, don’t do that. I’m not going to let you do that.” He said, “Well, will you just read it?” Then I read it. When I’m reading something that I might do, I don’t know if you’re this way, John, I’m constantly looking for ways out.

John: 100%. Absolutely. Oh, this is there, yes.

Drew Goddard: I’m looking all the reasons to not do this, because I know, especially if it’s people I’ve worked with that I don’t want to let down. I’m like, “I want to do a good job for you,” so I’m looking for all the ways I’m about to do a bad job for them. I’m reading it and talking myself out of it, trying to be like, because quite honestly, this book is a screenwriter’s nightmare. It’s a screenwriter’s nightmare, and we’re going to get to that in a second.

John: I read the book well before I saw your movie. I was reading and thinking like, “Oh, Drew easily has this.” Yes, it’s challenging, but it’s not impossible. The reason why I want to talk about beats versus scenes is because the beats of the book are the beats of the movie. It’s just like the challenge is how do you actually implement them, and the fundamental decisions you’re making in terms of how close you’re sticking to his POV, and how to get out of his head. I’m sure as you were reading that, you were thinking like, “This is all inside his mind.”

Drew Goddard: It’s all inside his mind. Then when you finally– All right, let me tell you, I disagree with you passionately that it’s going to be easy.

John: All right. Great.

Drew Goddard: I also knew everyone else that this to me all the time. “It’s going to be so easy for you it’s like The Martian.” I’m like, “It’s not. The Martian–” It’s surfacely like The Martian, but where it becomes wildly different, you have a disaster movie where the threat, the disaster is microbial, so I have to get into microbiology to help an audience.

John: You have a lot of good text from the book that can be incorporated into his drylands figuring out what’s going on.

Drew Goddard: Yes, but you try to make it visually interesting.

John: I’m sorry.

Drew Goddard: Try to do that part. Yes, try to shape it. Okay, that’s step one. Step two, most of it takes place in a narrator’s head who does not know what’s going on. Not only do you not have someone to talk to, he actually doesn’t know what’s going on, which is challenging.

John: Yes, but fundamentally, there’s a second character.

Drew Goddard: Great. I’m glad you brought up that second character. That second character is a rock who speaks in whale songs. He speaks only in whale songs, and he’s a rock, and he’s delightful. Don’t get me wrong. You realize these are challenges when going back to scenes. You’re like, I have an actor.

John: Every crisis is an opportunity. I’m sorry. I’m going to sell you on adapting this book.

Drew Goddard: It’s true. I said yes for the reasons that you’re saying, but I also knew this is going to be way harder than everyone realizes, because when you read it, it moves, but once you sit and go, “Wait, what’s the scene? What is the scene?”

John: “What is the scene?” That is the challenge.

Drew Goddard: That’s where you go, “Oh my God, I’m screwed.”

John: Yes. You had to make fundamental decisions. Reading the book and then watching the movie, a lot of the choices he made were the choices that I also saw in my head, but the actual nature of the ship itself is much different because you needed to create physical spaces that would enable you to have individual scenes and moments in development, and to get out of just his head so he can have physical challenges to get through to demonstrate what the emotional, intellectual puzzle he’s trying to face is.

Drew Goddard: Yes, exactly. Part of this is also your job is not just, I got to make a scene that Ryan Gosling wants to act in. I need to make a scene that my directors are going to want to direct. I need to make a scene that the production designer is going to want to design. [crosstalk] That’s in a good way. That forces you to go, “Okay, let’s think about the room. Let’s think about the space that we’re in. Let’s actually be in this.”

John: Yes, the spaces are bigger than I would have expected them to be, which is completely appropriate.

Drew Goddard: To be fair, that’s the directors, also like, that’s Chris and Phil, because what you’re describing is expensive. I’m like, “I’m not handing you something that’s going to drive the budget through the roof.” They’re like, “We got that covered. We’re going to drive the budget through the roof.”

John: They can handle it all by themselves.

Drew Goddard: Then, to their credit, I watched the movie, and I’m like, “I have no idea how human beings made this.” It is a stunning [unintelligible 00:40:34] production design. It is unbelievable. It was scary. What we’re really describing is my own fear of myself failing. Going back to fear of failure, I didn’t want to fail for Andy. I didn’t want to fail for Andy above all else.

John: You read the book, you have all your excuses for why you’re not going to do it, and then how did the yes come–

Drew Goddard: No. Two-thirds of the way through the book, something happens that made me sit up. I don’t want to spoil it for people, but you will know it. You will know because it will be the thing that you have not seen done yet. At least, we can compare notes later. I don’t remember it happening. I sat up and went, “Oh my God.” There’s four or five of those things in the movie. There’s one in particular that made me go, “Oh, all of the hardships that we are describing actually is set up for the thing that happens.” All of the reasons that I’m complaining as I’m reading this book, I go, “Oh my God, this is what’s going to make this movie transcend,” from my point of view.

A couple of things I do when I finish the book like that, that I’m actually thinking of doing, I quickly write down the 5 or 10 beats that I think that I love more than anything, that are the things. I write them down. I put them in giant font on my wall before I speak to anyone because I know at some point, all of these things are going to come under siege, all of them. Also, not just the outside world, not just people working on the film, not just executives, not just– also by me because you do start to second-guess everything in the course of making a movie. I kept looking at that.

One of those things that I describe is on that wall, which we don’t have to get into that part, but there’s a lot of fights about that. There’s a lot of fights. Anything that’s bold and different, I promise you somebody wanted to cut along the way. You have to remember, “Oh, but when I first read it, that’s why I wanted to do it.”

John: Watching the movie, you can say it’s long, but it’s really this full length. It does the whole thing, and it’s an entire experience. Luckily, I think we’ve become more appreciative of long movies that work really well. They don’t feel long because it’s always exciting and always invigorating. The Marvel movies, to some degree, are probably part of the reason why we’ve been trained to take longer movies, which is great.

You get all of the book in there. As I was watching through it, it’s like, “Oh, what did they actually cut?” The cuts are so smart and so surgical. They’re generally things that a reader of a book who has all the time in the world and all the pages in the world can sort of like, “Oh, that’s an interesting thing about how we paved the deserts of the Sahara.” It doesn’t affect the stakes of the movie that we’re watching. That was good, and it was crucial. There’s reasons to go back to Earth, and there’s reasons not to go back to Earth. You basically chose not to go back to Earth when we didn’t need to anymore.

Drew Goddard: Having done this a lot, the thing that every time I’m working with a new novelist, I have to gently say, “Page count-wise, I have room for about 5% of your novel.” We all have to make peace with that and figure out what are we going to use? You know going in that you’re going to have to do some brutal cuts that are going to hurt. If you love the book like I love the book, it’s going to hurt me more than anyone.

One of the things on that list of 10, at one point—and we’ll just talk about it because it’s not in the movie—was they make a decision to nuke the polar ice caps. It’s wonderful. I loved it, and I thought it was the one thing on the list that’s not in the movie because we all were like, “Let’s try to–” but when you went to what is the scene for that, there’s no version of seeing that quickly. If you want to do it correctly, you have to set up what is the problem, what are we trying to solve, why is this the correct solution. You can’t just say, “And then we nuke the polar ice caps.”

John: In a 10-episode series, it absolutely makes sense. In a three-hour movie, it does not make sense at all.

Drew Goddard: It’s an [unintelligible 00:44:26] end sell. It was a late cut. Even after we had shot it, we were still trying to be like, “Can we try? Let’s try. Let’s mock it up.”

John: Yes, “Let’s nuke the ice caps.”

Drew Goddard: This is a credit to Chris and Phil, our directors. They are not afraid of anything. They were like, “Oh, we’ve already shot a full movie. Great. We can still nuke–” They’ve been right. It’s been wonderful working with them because they come from animation.

John: They’re used to it.

Drew Goddard: They’re like, “If the idea is good, we’re going to figure it out.” There’s something thrilling about that. We tried, but part of it, it’s the scene. You couldn’t figure out what the scene was that could do efficiently.

John: Who’s POV are you in? Ryland doesn’t really make sense for it.

Drew Goddard: No.

John: Sandra Hüller’s-

Drew Goddard: Character could do it, but–

John: -could do it, but what I like about what you do in the movie is that her character exists for how she interacts with Ryan Gosling’s character. That’s the relationship.

Drew Goddard: When you’re setting out to adapt something, you’re going to make a ton of cuts. You need a defining principle. I, very quickly, not that this is deep, but it’s important to say it. You’re like, this movie is about Grace and Rocky. That’s what this movie is about. Every scene needs to be in service, even if neither of those characters are in it. It’s on the B side, on the space side. Then it’s about Stratt and Grace on the A side. That triangle is telling the same story. It comes together. Do you understand?

John: Trust, yes.

Drew Goddard: Yes. Sacrifice and what this means, and what the bigger purpose of life is. When you think about it like that, it’s like, “Oh, yes, every scene is on theme between that.” When you start to divert from theme, it ends up on that cutting room floor.

John: Yes. You’ve decided to say yes. What is your internal process for coming up with an outline? Are you sharing that with anybody else? Is that just yours? What was that process for you?

Drew Goddard: Before I say yes, I like to come up with a very simple beat cheat of like, “Okay, do I think there’s a movie here that I can see?” Even if I don’t have the answers, is there enough that I go, “Okay, I don’t want to disappoint anyone. I want people to know, okay, it’s going to be hard, but we’re going to figure it–” I’ll do a very rough beat cheat only for myself before I even engage. It’s very, like, “In this 30 pages, this happens. In this 30 pages, this happens. In this 30–” It sort of [unintelligible 00:46:40]. It’s not thought through. It’s more what happens every 15 quite often.

John: If it was a road trip, what it is you’re going to stop at on the way?

Drew Goddard: What’s great about Andy is he does have a wonderful sense of structure. He really does. It’s one of the things I respond to so strongly in his writing. There is an inherent structure in what he does.

John: Cliffhanger after cliffhanger after cliffhanger, which is what pulls you through the book so quickly.

Drew Goddard: Exactly. It makes all of the problems we were just talking about easier because you know, “Okay, we can build to these things.” I do that. Then at that point, Chris and Phil were on to direct. Chris and Phil, we’ve been friends for two decades now. We’ve had parallel careers. We both started in TV. They were doing Jump Street when I was doing Cabin in the Woods. We have always been fans of each other and trying to find things to do. That was thrilling, but I also knew our processes could not be more different. They are very much when we’re talking about–

John: They’re jazz. Is there–

Drew Goddard: They are. It comes from animation, and it works really well for them. Whereas it’s not measured twice, cut once; it’s measured 20 times, cut once. They’re, “Why are we measuring? Let’s just cut, cut, cut. We’ll just keep packing away and building something.” I was kind of excited because I knew it was important to try a different process. It was important for me as an artist, when I respect the other artists, to say, “Oh, let’s give this a try. Let’s see how this works.” I think they probably felt the same. I knew, “We need to talk about this now. We need to talk about what this is because we have very different process.”

What I said to them was, “I don’t want my process to stop you from your process. I think the way to do that is let me hyper-focus on structure. If I hyper-focus on structure so that we know this is when this needs to happen, this is the rough structure of the movie, and we can agree on it, you guys can go crazy. You guys can have so much fun.”

John: To paint within the lines here.

Drew Goddard: Yes, “Have fun. I want that, but let’s start with structure.” Those conversations were crucial because then, as I’m doing outline after outline, the goal is to say, “Let’s find a structure that we can be playful inside of.” That is what’s on the screen. We’ve moved scenes around here and there, but if you look at the big arcs of the things, it’s like we have not deviated that much from the initial outlines.

John: Yes. The movie is funny and funny in ways that you wouldn’t necessarily expect, given the stakes of everything that’s happening. That’s because I think you have both a very strong backbone for everything and then a lot of moments for the natural comedy that comes up that I’m sure some of it was scripted, but some of it was just finding in the moments that can absolutely play.

Drew Goddard: Without question. I’ve learned from doing comedy and drama,-

John: The intersections.

Drew Goddard: -if the scene does not have a dramatic reason to exist, it’s okay. You can sometimes have diversions that are purely comedic, but it’s really helpful if they have a reason to do both.

John: Going back to the beat and scene description, it’s like that beat that it just has a bunch of funny banter; it’s not really a beat. It’s not a thing that happens. Nothing changed over the course of it. It’s very unlikely it’s going to first survive the outline stage, but then actually survive the edit. Because it can go away, so therefore it will go away.

Drew Goddard: Especially on something like Hail Mary, where screen time is a premium. You’re constantly having to look at, “I need to do exposition in this scene, I need to do emotional growth in this scene, I need to drive the story forward, I need to explain what the hell’s happening with the science.” You can’t do each one of those scenes on their own. All of the scenes have to be doing a version of that, for the most part.

You realize what starts to happen as we got into it is Drew became the internal clock of, “Do we have the page count?” which I try not to do, but at a certain point, you’re like, “It’s going to really hurt us later in the editing room if we don’t have a structure here.”

John: Congratulations again on the movie. It’s just so, so good.

Drew Goddard: It’s a joy to talk to you, John. It really is. Thank you for having me.

John: We have a listener question here, I think might be really good from Carlos.

Drew Marquardt: “I’m currently working on a pilot. I’ve organized a schedule that requires me to write a specific number of scenes per day, two to three tops, in order to meet the deadline. However, I find it hard to give my brain a rest in between writing sit-downs. Sometimes after an hour or two of writing, I find myself too mentally drained to start the next scene, even though I know what happens in it. Do you have any advice on activities that could help disconnect and recharge the brain battery effectively?”

Drew Goddard: I do.

John: Yes, please go. Go for it.

Drew Goddard: This is a great question. When Twin Peaks: The Return came out, there’s an eighth episode that’s all in black and white, and it’s exquisite. Have you seen it?

John: I haven’t anything.

Drew Goddard: It’s exquisite. I highly recommend it. It’s so bonkers that it made me go, “Whatever David Lynch does, I want to see what he does,” and I started doing meditation. It’s the thing that made me go, “Let me try meditation. Let me see–” I’m not super new-agey, but I was like, “Let me understand how this works.” What works for me is it calms the nervous system. It does exactly the thing that you’re describing, Carlos, which is how do you turn your brain off for a second? The other thing that works is walks. I’m a big fan of walks.

John: Yes, I was going to say walk would be the right choice.

Drew Goddard: Put the pen down, stop writing, just take a walk, and build that into your process because what will happen is those things will become the reward for the writing. Both of those things really help me.

John: Great. Yes. Walks, showers, anything to get you out of your–

Drew Goddard: Showers. I mean showers, especially in the age of smartphones. They were always important. I know this Aaron Sorkin of which you speak; he also talks a lot about showers, and there’s a reason, because it’s forcing you to be bored. That’s the other thing you’re looking for, is: it’s so hard to be bored right now in our world, and you have to force yourself to find ways to do it.

John: The other thing to remember is just like Carlos says, after two hours of writing, I sort of came to the next thing. It’s like, “Yes, because you were working really, really hard. If you were digging a ditch for two hours, you would know that you had to take a break. Your muscles would tell you you have to take a break. Your brain is telling you have to take a break.” Yes, it’s the right instinct to go do something else.

Drew Goddard: It’s a thing I don’t think people who are not writers understand, that it is grueling. There is a fatigue that sets in. By the time I’m finished with any script, I do feel like I’ve run a marathon, I do. I always talk about those videos of runners whose legs stop working just as they’re getting to the finish line. That is how I feel when I get to the end of every single script.

John: Yes, for sure. Let’s try this question from James:

Drew Marquardt: “My friend Simon and I had the same idea for a movie and decided to team up and write it. Because we have jobs, it took us two years to write the first draft. After Simon went through some personal issues as well as losing some interest in the project, we agreed that I take control of the rewrite. I was happy about that, as I thought we’d struggle to have a succinct tone and voice as a pair anyway.

I’m aware that legally this script will always be written by James and Simon, and I’ve no intention of cutting him out of anything, but by the time I will have finished the rewrite, I’ll have probably rewritten 95% of the screenplay. When we start entering competitions or shopping it around, how can I position myself as the writer who has really made it what it is, even though the characters and story were a 50-50 effort?

It’s not about money; I just want to be recognized as the person who’s put the extra hours in to get the screenplay where it is.”

John: Wow. It’s a group project, and somebody did most of the work in a group project. That’s the reality of it, and that it’s probably always going to be true. There’s never a partnership that is equal 50-50. This was not a good partnership. You probably should not write another thing with this person.”

Drew Goddard: I think that’s right. To answer your question, if you really want the credit, you need to write something else on your own if that’s what you’re seeking. Even in the best of times, it’s probably not going to happen, nor should it.

John: All right. It is time for our one cool thing. My one cool thing is Kalina, K-A-L-I-N-A, which is the last name of Noah Kalina, who is a photographer in upstate New York; he mostly does landscapes. He has this series called Kalina on YouTube, which is a bunch of video wallpapers of just video from upstate New York, forests, mostly, that are so amazing and meditative and just quiet and wonderful. You should watch them on the biggest screen you can.

If you have the YouTube TV app for your Apple TV or whatever, put them on a big screen and just watch them there. They’re, I think, better than the Apple screensavers because they are, lots of times you’re in a forest, and you’re just watching him walk around taking photos, but it’s just one still shot. You hear the forest. It is great. Sometimes it’s snow, sometimes it’s rain.

Drew Goddard: Wait, say it again. That sounds fantastic.

John: Kalina, K-A-L-I-N-A. Noah also has a newsletter that’s great, also. You may have actually seen him once before because he was one of those first photographers who was taking a photo of himself every day, and it stacked up. You can see going from 20s to 50 or whatever, and just what time does to a person. His nature photography is incredible, and to have it as video is just an absolute gift. Just free on YouTube. Often, we’ll be watching a show and then when we’re done watching a show, when we’re not quite ready to go to bed, he pops that up on the TV. It’s delightful.

Drew Goddard: Sounds fantastic. Great.

John: Drew, what do you got for us?

Drew Goddard: I think teachers have been on my mind because this movie is about teachers saving the world. My mom’s a teacher. She’s been teaching for 50-plus years. I love teachers. I would not be where I am without teachers. Since we’re talking about screenwriting, the most important thing that happened to me in my career is that I arrived at the University of Colorado at the exact same time that Lucia Berlin, the author, showed up to start teaching. We found each other. She was the person who believed in me, and she was the person that said, “I’m going to spend the next three years with you. We’re going to do this together.”

She was doing it with lots of other students, too, but we really had a connection. She changed me as an artist and as a person. I think because this is on my mind, I’ve been rereading her short stories. I cannot recommend them more highly. I think especially if you like the sort of stuff I do, which is big in genre, it’s not that, and yet you will see the influence. A good place to start, her short stories got repackaged around 2015, and she finally exploded. She’s been dead for a while, so she didn’t get to see this. It would delight her. Start with any of them, quite frankly, but A Manual for Cleaning Women.

John: I’ve heard of that, yes.

Drew Goddard: It’s exquisite. I can’t recommend it more highly.

John: Lucia Berlin?

Drew Goddard: Lucia Berlin.

John: Great. Fantastic.

Drew Goddard: Great.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find the transcripts at johnaugust.com along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

The Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books. We’ll give you a Scriptnotes book while you’re here. You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram: @scriptnotespodcast. We have T-shirts, hoodies, and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to our premium subscribers.

You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes, including Drew Goddard’s back episode, and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on television. Drew Goddard, an absolute pleasure chatting with you about film and TV and your incredible movie.

Drew Goddard: John, it has been an absolute pleasure. I hope we get to do it again.

John: Hooray.

[Outro – by Nick Moore]

John: All right. Drew Goddard, we’ve talked about some television over the course of this thing, but mostly about putting stuff up on boards and figuring that out. I want to talk more about TV overall, because in addition to everything else you’ve done, you adapted a French series into High Potential, which is one of the few breakout broadcast shows over the past few years. How optimistic are you about TV in general? How do you feel about TV at this moment? What’s possible? What’s good? What are you seeing?

Drew Goddard: I suppose I’m perpetually optimistic, even knowing there are dark skies above us, if that makes sense. I remember, and part of this is just coming from New Mexico, coming from a small town, not understanding the business at all. When I got here in the late ’90s, everyone was saying, “Oh, it’s a terrible time. It’s a terrible time. It’s not like it used to be.” I was like, “But I just got here. We work in Hollywood.

There’s elephants walking down this set. What are you talking about? Let’s go and enjoy this.” I think that’s always stuck with me. I do think every time period has challenges, and we are definitely in a time period of challenges, but also, what are we supposed to do? Give up? Let’s keep making stuff. Right now, they want to make it, so let’s start shooting. That tends to be my approach of, “Can we shoot something? Let’s go shoot something.”

John: High Potential was a pilot.

Drew Goddard: Yes.

John: It’s a very classical model because you think, “Oh, you just go straight to series and stuff like that,” but you wrote a pilot, they shot a pilot, and we had friends in common who worked on the show originally, so yes.

Drew Goddard: Look, I think I’m a contrarian by nature. When I first got out here, the only thing people were making was CSIs and versions of that. I was like, “No, I want to go work with Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams. J.J., he’s only doing this alias thing. Nobody really wants it because there’s serialization, and we hate serialization here in Hollywood. I was like, “Yes, but I want to write that. That sounds fun,” and that guided my career.

Then what happened was suddenly everything swung. TV became an eight-episode series that probably have been three episodes that we’ve just stretched out. I like episodes. I like beginnings, middles, and ends. Even when something is highly serialized. When I think back on the television that has moved me, I think in terms of episodes. Like, it’s Jose Chung’s From Outer Space in The X-Files. It’s every episode of The Sopranos, if we’re being honest. We could just go down the list. It’s The Body from Buffy. I love episodes.

I was like, “Wait, hang on. We’ve over-corrected here.” There’s something about this art form that I like. I do like broadcast. I don’t like the part of broadcast that makes it impossible to see your family.

John: Yes, the meat grinder of it all.

Drew Goddard: I thought, “Oh, I can create this as a concept.” The French version—I’m always looking to say no. We talked about this—when I saw it, I was like, “Oh, this feels special. This feels like a voice that is needed right now. A single mom speaking truth to power feels like something that we need right now. Maybe I can help Trojan horse it.”

John: Well, it’s also a very clear engine, which is basically, every week, it is a case of the week kind of thing with a different protagonist at the center of it. It feels very doable. Also, let’s talk about the sustainability of it. You wrote it, and there was a star attached who was like, “I need to stay in Los Angeles.” It’s designed for a star who’s going to stay in Los Angeles, a show that would shoot in Los Angeles. Those feel like fundamentally good choices.

Drew Goddard: I realized this before our studio and network, which is the main character’s a mom. That suggests a certain age range. They want somebody who’s a known quantity. In that age range, asking somebody to then go drop everything and move to Budapest or wherever the tax break is right now, it’s not going to happen when you’re trying to do this many episodes. Our only hope of finding a name is to say, “I can get you home to your kids. I can make your life good.”

I said, “We’re looking for two places, New York and Los Angeles. You guys need to come to peace with that because you’re going to hope we can find some actress that will be like, ‘Sure, I’ll move to Toronto.’ It’s not going to happen. It’s just not.” That’s what we said to Kaitlin Olson. She was like, “I don’t want to do this.” I’m like, “I understand. I get why you don’t want to do this, but let’s talk about how we can do this in a way that actually will be delightful to your life,” because that’s how it used to be.

That was Buffy. We shot here. We shot [unintelligible 01:03:29] here. We shot all of my first shows until Lost, which you couldn’t shoot here. There is a joy and an efficiency to being here that I don’t think the studios fully understand. I was like, “This is a show that lends itself to the processes of the days of old. I actually want to shoot a pilot because you learn a lot from shooting a pilot. I actually want to do these things.” There was a reason we did these things. It wasn’t arbitrary. It gave you opportunity to make the best product possible. Not everything needs it, but this one did.

I’m glad to hear you talk about story engine because I think that is the single biggest mistake young writers make. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read pilots that are very good pilots that I read, and I go, “There’s no story engine here. What you’re really writing is a longer feature.” That’s fine. I know there’s lots of wonderful six-episode shows that have been wonderful. If that’s what you want to do, fantastic. I’m always like, “Don’t tell me what Episode 1 is. I need to know what Episode 50 is.” Not in the plot of Episode 50, but where are we? I’ve been a person that’s had to sit in those rooms and go, “How are we ever going to get to this?” You realize the importance of where is the story coming from.

John: There’s a project I’m working on where I wrote, it’s a very premise-y pilot. It’s starting up the things, but then when you actually have the conversations with buyers, you have to say, “This is Episode 2,” because you have to explain, “This is what you expect to happen over the course of a normal episode.” That’s fine. Lost is a premise pilot. You have to explain, “Episode 2 is crucial for this is the kind of thing that happens in a normal episode of Lost.”

Drew Goddard: I believe that Episode twos are the hardest episodes. You can look at most shows. I’m in awe when people do Episode twos well. If you can look at Breaking Bad as a phenomenal Episode 2, they’re really hard to do for the exact reason that you’re talking about. They usually derail everything, if we’re being honest, for a while. In most shows, you learn, “We got to spend extra time on Episode 2.”

John: Yes. It’s always so fun to see, like, the set completely changed from Episode 1 to Episode 2, because I didn’t actually figure out–

Drew Goddard: Yes.

John: That happened to you, too. Yes.

Drew Goddard: We shot in Vancouver, and then we’re here, and so it changed.

John: Tell me about High Potential. You wanted to do this adaptation of this French show. You wrote the pilot, but you didn’t direct it, and you weren’t going to be a showrunner there. How do you make the decision to, like, “Okay, I want this to exist, but I don’t want this to become my life”? Is that really what–

Drew Goddard: That factors into it. That’s part of the equation, but it’s not the only equation. I also really like collaboration. You can look at my career. I am not a person that’s just secretly always wanted to direct, and bitter about it. There’s times I really want to direct. There’s stories that I feel like I’m the best person to direct, and then there’s times where I’m like, “I am not the best person,” and it’s delightful to work with other people. I enjoy that tremendously. I think that’s hard for people to understand, where I go, “No, no, I enjoy being this screenwriter. Right now, I enjoy that part and let you be the director, and I can support you.”

In the case of High Potential, I was like, “Oh, no, Alethea should direct this.” Alethea directed our pilot. She’s better than me at this. For this project, she is better at this. The same goes with showrunner, I knew very quickly, “This show, I’m going to try to start deconstructing the show.” I will start to get bored.

John: You’ll get bored, yes.

Drew Goddard: On a plot level, on a character level, I will start to be like, “And all of these characters by episode 18, they’re going to end up dead, and that’s not what we should do here. I don’t think that’s–“

John: Because you have meta-exploration of what it means to be a procedural showrunner.

Drew Goddard: I don’t want that. I actually think that it’s going to require a resolve of a different time, and part of that resolve is saying, “Drew shouldn’t be the person doing this.” I can be helpful with all of the other parts, but I don’t need to be. It’s fun. It’s fun to not be the showrunner. I’ve done that too, and I enjoy that, too. Every project has its own; it’s like you’re building a combination of what’s the best thing, and I’m lucky that I get to choose.

John: There are more pilot shooting this year than last year, and there’s also longer episode orders coming through, which seems like a promising development. I don’t know that we’re going to get more series to happen, but if we can get more episodes, it’s not just more work, but it’s also just more sustainable.

Drew Goddard: I hope, and this is going to sound cynical. I don’t mean it as cynical, but what I hope is studios are going to remember that this is wildly profitable. I think part of the problem with four/six-episode seasons is it was hard for studios to make profit on that. I don’t care. Studios meant to be clear, I don’t care. I care in the sense that if it’s profitable, they’re going to let us keep making more stuff, and they’re going to let me hire more people, and we’re going to get to do this. These things build on each other. I think we over-corrected as an industry as we were trying to get people to sign up for Screamers. That’s stopped, and now you’re remembering, “Oh, no, the longer this goes, the more profit there is,” and I think that’s helpful for all of us.

John: What recent series have gotten you most excited? What series are you watching that you didn’t create that you’re like, “Oh, wow, that’s a show”?

Drew Goddard: Again, I’m not saying anything that we don’t know, but Succession, I thought, is the show that I go back to. I’ve been rereading the scripts and looking what Jesse and his writing staff did, and I’m in awe of the writing. If you really want to study writing, study Jesse’s scripts. Jesse is really operating at a level right now that I find very profound. Even though obviously showered with Emmys, I still don’t know that people realize how much he’s writing about at the time, and seeing that move forward. It’s good when I’m looking at the scripts and wanting to reread the scripts. That’s the one.

John: Over the weekend, I was having a conversation with somebody who knew a lot of stuff behind the scenes at HBO and was saying that for years, HBO was looking like, “What is our next Six Feet Under? What is our family drama that actually has an engine to it, so it’s a family, but stuff,” and that was Succession. It took a long time for them to find their new Six Feet Under, which became Succession, which was, again, an even bigger hit.

Drew Goddard: It’s one of those, “Not try this at home.” I don’t know how you would ever pitch it. I don’t know how you would ever figure out what Episode 2 is of that show. All of the rules went out the window, and yet, in hindsight, it all makes sense, right? When you look at it episode by episode, I’m like, how did human beings pull this off?

John: They did. Thanks, Drew.

Drew Goddard: Thank you.

Links:

  • Project Hail Mary | Trailer
  • Drew Goddard on IMDb
  • The Martian screenplay
  • Twin Peaks: The Return – Part 8
  • Noah Kalina on YouTube and Substack
  • A Manual for Cleaning Women by Lucia Berlin
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 724: Introductions with Joachim Trier, Transcript

February 17, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August. You’re listening to Episode 724 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, how do you best introduce your characters and their world to the audience? We’ll discuss with an expert on the topic. Joachim Trier is a writer and director whose credits include Louder Than Bombs, Worst Person in the World, and this year’s Sentimental Value, which is now nominated for nine Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay for him and his co-writer, Eskil Vogt. Welcome, Joachim.

Joachim Trier: Thank you. Hi. Good to see you.

John: It’s great to have you here. I loved your movie. I’m so happy it got this amazing reception. It is just a terrific film. I want to talk about how it came to be, but I specifically want to focus on how you introduce the audience to both the world and to the characters. I thought that was when I knew I was in really good hands. The opening sequence is brilliant. How you meet Nora is so, so good. When you’ve stuck your claws into us that well, we are going to follow you on your story, and it’s just masterfully done.

Joachim: Thank you so much. That’s a big compliment coming from you. Thank you. I’d love to talk screenwriting. I’ve collaborated for all the six feature films and the short films before that with Eskil Vogt as a co-writer. I find that we are drawn to, on one hand, of course, wanting to do movies in a tradition of clarity of storytelling and all that, but more than anything, we are interested in the ambiguity of character. We are interested in building stuff around the psychological mechanisms and the yearnings of people. That’s where the energy comes from when we start writing a lot.

John: I definitely want to focus in on that initial part of the process. We’ll also answer some listener questions that were relevant to your film. In our bonus segment from premium members, I want to talk about screenplays on screen because we have a screenwriter in this movie. Stellan Skarsgård plays a writer. The printed scripts we see in the movie are different than what I expect.

I want to talk about how we depict screenplays and screenwriting in movies because it’s a thing that actually weirdly comes up a lot in movies because writers are often writing about writing. I want to talk about the choices you made and maybe some things that I’m expecting as an American screenwriter that are different than what you’re expecting as a European screenwriter.

Joachim: Let’s get into it.

John: Let’s start with the start of this movie. Let’s start with where this movie comes from because you’re saying this is the sixth collaboration with Eskil?

Joachim: Yes. On feature film [crosstalk]

John: On a feature film. Talk to us about where an idea comes from. What is the discussion before there’s any words put on paper? What was the impetus behind Sentimental Value?

Joachim: It started with wanting to talk about siblings, two sisters, two adults who are negotiating how come they feel so different about who they are as a family and why are their experiences so individually different from each other. That was some early stuff, the mystery of how we become who we become in a family. We thought that idea of mirroring between sisters was interesting.

The way we work, just to tell you a little bit about that, is that we sit for about a year in a room together, Eskil and I. We meet every morning and we work from 9:00 until 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon, every day on the weekdays. Some days we feel terrible. We don’t feel we’re doing much and other days everything happens in two days. It just rushes in of ideas and structure.

After we have structured everything and come up with what we want to do, there’s a part of two or three months at the end where Eskil actually writes it out. Then I go out of the room and I edit, I look at it, I come back into the room sometimes. Then finally we have a reading phase where we do sittings. We turn off the cell phone, we read it through to get a cinematic experience of reading it through in real time. Then we restructure a lot together.

Those two weeks are the most productive almost because then suddenly you have to rewrite something quickly, you have to come up with new ideas, you have to change the structure. Then we go into the world and pretend it’s our first draft. That’s the process.

John: It’s a much longer process than I would have guessed to get into that first draft. Talk to us about what you’re doing. You’re saying 9:00 to 4:00 every weekday. What are you actually doing? Is it all conversations? Are you mapping stuff out on a board? How do you know that you’re making any progress? What is the work in that daily session?

Joachim: I think what we’re aiming for is to find our own connection to the material. I have not developed one screenplay or written a screenplay that I haven’t filmed as a director. When we do a film, this is what we do for a few years. A bit more like someone who worked with a novel perhaps. We let a lot of stuff come up. Very often we start out with three, four different directions we want to explore.

Then something eventually after a couple of months, we see we have much more material or more yearning to tell something rather than something else. As an example in this one, we were struggling to try to find something interesting. We didn’t want to make just a domestic sitting around table, talking kind of movie that isn’t interesting. It’s like the chamber drama.

We want it to be cinematic. We want to have conceptual, formal scenes that we play around with, almost like set pieces. What we do is we gather material, a lot of material, almost like actors exploring the life of characters and then just playing those few scenes. When we then finally found out there was also the father’s point of view and the daughter’s, and more of a polyphonic, multi-voice, multi-character story, and it had that kind of novelistic feeling is what we were after.

Not that we wanted to feel like a book. We very much wanted to be cinematic, but what we’re yearning for is the slight of hand that you get when you read a book and you don’t quite know how you thematically get involved in what you’re getting involved in terms of thinking. That’s the kind of thing we’re trying every time, is that through character, you get involved in a space in the movie where there’s space for some thinking and philosophy around life and existence and how little time we have and why is it so difficult to be in a family and all that stuff. We don’t want it to be on the nose.

When we have all that material, we start structuring it after a few months. Then we get a timeline and we write a step-out line. Sometimes there are pieces or there’s ambitions of pushing material together. It’s not like a story arch just yet. It’s more like we know we want a montage that’s like an essay about a house told from one of the characters. We know that we want a panic scene when she has stage fright, but we also know what the ending is. How do we get there?

Then there’s this, how do we get into a situation where the other sister could go to the National Archive because that’s an interesting building and that’s a cinematic thing. All of these things come together. Eskil often says when he’s asked, use the word storytelling, we’re slightly ambivalent because the storytelling, the structuring is something we almost want to hang our material and our characters on. It’s not like one of these wonderful– I know there are wonderful screenwriters who are like, “I got the story, now I illustrate it.” We work the other way around. We want the material and the characters to come first.

John: For listeners who haven’t seen the finished movie yet, its story follows a Norwegian family, the two grown daughters and their father, who is a famous film director trying to make an autobiographical film at their longtime family house. How many of those things I just described in this logline existed in early stages of these discussions?

You said it was about siblings, so you knew that. At what point did you know there was going to be two sisters? At what point did you decide that their father was a character, you said polyphonic, that was able to switch to his point of view? When did you start to have those realizations?

Joachim: I think three to four months in, it all clicked. We suddenly saw what it was going to be. Then we went another round exploring character scenes and getting material, and a lot of stuff ends up on the floor. It gives us a deep sense of who they are. I would say that just for the listeners who aren’t that familiar with what we do, that we are in between two traditions a bit.

On one level, I feel I grew up with a lot of American great character films. I remember Kramer vs. Kramer undergraduates when I was a teenager being amazing films and ordinary people. Films like Hannah and Her Sisters or Annie Hall or Amazing or The Breakfast Club, which was a gateway drug to Ingmar Bergman because it was actually deep character studies done within a genre that seemed like it had levity.

On one hand, we love American character-driven storytelling. On the other hand, we’re also film geeks that love Fellini and Alain-René and Godard, and how do you do that modernistic, break the form, make some hard edits, not make it all fluid, make the audience have to fill in the blanks a bit. We’re going between these traditions when we’re writing these ideals.

When we gather material, we want, for example, when we do character scenes, how can we avoid it just being done through dialogue? How can we make a formal scene? I don’t know if this is the moment where I can use an example like the opening of the film, for example.

John: Absolutely. I want to segue right into that because you’re establishing in this opening sequence this narration about the house and what this is. I’m wondering, could we actually have you read a bit from the English version of the screenplay because I thought the narration voiceover here is so important in terms of setting things up, and it’s so unusual and so unique. Can I just share my screen and have you [crosstalk]

Joachim: Yes, please do. I’ll read off the screen. That’s great.

John: The film opens with this house. I love how you describe the house. This is a venerable old house in Oslo, sorely in need of a coat of paint. Other houses in the neighborhood may be more modern and in better condition, but there’s something soulful about this one missing from the others. Then we’re going to see this house in different times, different periods, inside and outside. This narrator starts talking to us. Joachim, could you read his narration?

Joachim: Yes, I’ll read the narrator. “When she received the essay assignment to write a story as if one were an object, she immediately knew that she would choose to be their house. She described how the house’s belly shook as she and her sister ran down the stairs and out the back door, the house’s butt, taking the shortcut to school through a hole in the fence and a neighbor’s lawn before they turned into the road and the house could no longer see them.

Her mother pointed out that it was a bit inconsistent that the house could also see behind its back as if a house couldn’t have eyes in the back. She remembered wondering if the house preferred to be light and empty or full and heavy, if it liked being trampled on, or that people crashed into its walls, the eager dog claw scratched the floorboards. She thought, yes, it liked being full and that the marks were just scrapes like you get playing tag or soccer.

Her father said that the crookedness was an old flaw discovered right after the house was built 100 years ago. She wrote that it was as if the house was still sinking, collapsing, just in very slow motion, and that the entire time her family had lived there was just a split second in midair. Before them, a number of people, pets, insects also had their brief flash in the house’s time.

Four people had even died within the walls of the house. Nora’s great grandfather, Edward Ergens, died in the bedroom on the second floor from the Spanish flu, in the same room where his granddaughter, Edith, was born just seven years later, which was now her parents’ bedroom.” I have to add, the pictures are then telling a complete story of parents arguing here, of people coming and going.

We are illustrating it with lenses and celluloids from different cameras through the 20th century and all of that stuff. This is a good example of how we are dealing with a cinematic language countered by a literary voice so that the voice only tells a part of it where the pictures reveal more. I’ll jump back into the narration’s voice.

“Her teacher gave her an A and her father had loved it. She dug out the essay when she was looking for a monologue for her auditions at the theater academy but was disappointed because it seemed so unemotional. She therefore chose Nina’s monologue from The Seagull instead.” Then we do a hard cut in the film, and we’re at the National Theater. Nora is now a grown woman, an actor, very accomplished, about to go on stage and the lead of a theater play and she’s panicking.

John: This is about six pages of script. It’s an unusual choice to spend the first six minutes of your film establishing a place rather than the individual characters you’re going to be following. What you’re doing so masterfully is saying, this place is going to be important and most crucially, the people who live in this house and their relationship with each other and with this physical space is going to be so important. This is a movie that’s going to involve death. It’s going to involve noise and fighting, but also this idealized version of what a house and a home should be and how everyone’s perception of it is going to be different.

Joachim: Absolutely. I’m going to be very straight now, and so listeners should turn off because I’m going to really explain stuff which an artist or a creative person should always be careful about. I think I love the craft. When I’m doing talks about screenplays, particularly directing, I always imagine talking to a younger version of myself and I always love when people were speaking straight about what they did.

Here’s the thing. This sequence sets up themes, as you were just pointing out, and character, which are the two things that we care the most about. Themes, in my opinion, or motifs are, “This is the area that I want you to think about when we go through the story.” What we’re learning is Nora as a 12-year-old, being the older sister, we learned that, parents quite dysfunctional, arguing a lot, she is avoiding describing that even though the film shows it to us by being creative, by telling a story, by being the daughter, by being someone who, in a psychodynamic term, sublimate her pain, I’m being very literal now, into something creative already as a child, as we all do.

Children do this. All people, whether they choose to be artists later in life, dance and sing to make their parents happy. We tell stories to try to understand who we are. All of this stuff is inherently human, in my opinion. We set that theme up, that in this creative family, that’s her choice, and she’s longing to become an actress. We later learn that’s also an avoiding mechanism. Yet, paradoxically, it also gets her closer to herself.

It’s a double bind of the creative role in life, that we both avoid ourselves and get closer to ourselves in strange ways that, to me, Joachim Trier, the filmmaker, is still mysterious. I’m exploring something. We also learn that the house has had a perspective on time. People come and go. They’re born, they’re die. Time is short. This story’s about reconciliation.

It’s about grown people realizing they don’t have those difficult parents around forever. Within that limited space and time that we have together, how are we going to deal with that? Maybe we’re never going to get what we quite want for our parents. Is there baby steps to reconciliation, we ask? All of that is placed in the background, hopefully not too explicitly, in that first part.

John: You’ve primed the audience for what they’re supposed to be looking for. I came out of this sequence going like, “Oh no, the house is going to burn down.” It sounded like this house is crucial to the film and something terrible is going to happen. Spoiler, it doesn’t burn down, but–

Joachim: Something worse happens. It gets renovated.

John: [inaudible 00:16:29] I don’t want to spoil it for people. I didn’t see it in audience, but I’m sure there’s an audible gasp when people see what happens to the house.

Joachim: I’ve experienced that and that’s funny. It’s turned very slick at the end, isn’t it?

John: I wrote Big Fish and Big Fish has a similar set where we go through many, many years to establish what is the underlying dynamic here and prime the viewer for this is what to watch out for. These are the things you’re going to keep seeing again and again over the course of the movie. How early did you and Eskil find that this was going to be the way into the film? It’s not an obvious choice and yet once you’ve realized that you want to make a novelistic film, it’s a very novelistic device. What you just read could have been the first few paragraphs of a book.

Joachim: I think there are many reasons to choose this opening. We love opening movies and we have several openings often and several endings. The freshness of an audience meeting a film is just a remarkable moment and one needs to be smart about it. It’s a luxury in a way. They’ve hopefully bought a ticket and go to the theater and they sit down. You got them, but you owe them something.

First of all, we want to establish a sense of narrative authority. I don’t know if that’s the right English word. The authority sounds a bit strict, but a sense of guidance that we really care and we’re going to have fun here. We’re going to try to make a movie that takes you several places. I often say to Eskil, as a joke, that why I loved James Bond movies as a kid was you know you were going to go to an island with the palm trees and a beach. You’re going to go into the mountains. You’re going to go to a cool city.

I’m going to take you several places. You bought a ticket to see a family movie, but we’re not going to get stuck by the kitchen table. That’s a promise. That’s one thing that we know very early. We want to show a formal playfulness because that’s what we do. In Oslo, August 31st, the film we did several years ago, we start with a documentary montage or in The Worst Person in the World, we start with a narrative playful story of how the lead character can’t figure out what to do with their life in a humoristic way.

There’s that establishing of sense of humor and levity to it, but also the theme. We knew that. Then also, we cut contrast out straight to a very subjective, intimate, real-time feeling of being behind backstage, going onstage as an actor and having stage fright and panicking completely, which is the opposite. It’s a formal opposition. It’s not about montage and moving in time and space freely. It’s sticking in that anxious space of going onstage.

To have that contrast in dramaturgical terms, that’s what Eskil and I talk about a lot. How can we make contrast? We have one posted note that’s been hanging there for several films. We’ve ripped them down every time and started all over with a new script. The one that keeps sticking on the board is, remember contrast. That’s the holy thing.

Contrast of scenes, contrast of characters, the formal devices, the character explorations, the unexpectedness. Remember that the dynamic of contrast is at the key of making interesting material. It sounds childish, maybe, and obvious, but it’s really good to bear in mind. We start with a very clear dramaturgical contrast between the opening scene and the next one.

John: Your opening sequence goes through over a century, and it’s jumping forward versus a real-time panic moment with Nora. Let’s talk about Nora because a choice you’re always making as a writer, is you’re introducing a character on a normal day or on an extreme day. You made the choice, like, this is Nora at a very big extreme. We’re seeing her. She’s supposed to be going on stage in this play, and she’s having a panic attack. She is both clearly a protagonist, but also the problem.

I love how you, as an audience, are not even panicked on her behalf. You’re panicked on behalf of the stage manager and everyone who’s acting normally, just trying to get her to effing go on stage. It’s a really funny sequence, and it’s harrowing. It’s just a great way into it. This sequence is seven pages long. We’ve got a six-page opening, and then it’s this seven-page sequence.

Some simple things you notice on the page, you never name characters who are unimportant. The stage manager, great role, really great performance, but their stage manager throughout, we don’t give them a name, because that way as a reader, we know this is not a person who’s going to be coming back. Same with the director.

Joachim, the actor, gets a name because he’s going to be coming back. There’s small things, but they just help the read because ultimately, Joachim, you’re going to be directing this, and we’re going to get a sense of people’s relative importance, but our first experience with them is on the page. Just making those choices help us know what to focus on, how to be thinking about this sequence that we’re seeing.

Joachim: The right things, yes. We knew one challenge with the screenplay was we’re going to throw a lot of characters on everyone. With the casting department, we worked for one and a half years getting this cast together. We’re super proud of it. Also, people have to look like themselves at various younger stages, and the previous family of the 20th century going 100 years back also needs to have similarities. It could be one family and all that.

A lot of work, and then we’re jumping straight into a theater world with tons of the side characters. We grew up adoring, really loving Martin Scorsese. Obviously, we all love good fellas, but also The Age of Innocence, like, this incredible variety of characters, and then the task is how are they important in different ways? There’s a hierarchy of who you’re going to invest in emotionally. That’s my job as well as the director.

Eskil always manages to do a good reading script. Credit to him, because I think he’s a much, much better writer than me. I think he’s very smart about conveying what the film will feel like. We know that we will do more shooting-like scripts later on, and that I will go with the actors, all of them. I even rehearse or meet smaller parts. Sometimes I cast amateurs.

I want them to get to know me so they feel safe on set, and so they don’t come and feel like, as a day player, they’re not up for the task. Then you give them names and background, and you discuss with them who is this character and all that. As you’re absolutely pointing out correctly, at this stage, we’re throwing a lot of less central roles into the play.

John: We’re meeting Nora here. We’re panicking with her and around her and about her. Ultimately, she does succeed and triumph there. In the sequences on the page versus what’s in the film, some things have changed. Let’s talk about some of the discoveries you make along the way. Like, she kisses him backstage, which is not scripted.

There’s the sense of geography and space is going to be dictated by the actual place you end up picking, and how it’s all going to work. How do you find, as the director who also helped write this film, that balance? When are you taking off your writer hat and putting on your director hat?

Joachim: I feel that I’m developing the same thing all along, and that the writing is such a central aspect of setting up the possibility of directing. Then I go to the National Theatre, which is very hard to get into. It’s where Henry Gibson did his plays. We were so lucky to be allowed to film there. It’s almost 200-year-old building. I get those late Sunday nights after a play to go there and research with my team, my AD team, my production designer, the cinematographer. Then I see a lot of possibilities.

I note it down. We do floor plans. We shoot on video. We do this stuff. I often bring it back to Eskil and explain it to him so we can do a quick redraft so that the team that comes in later will feel that it becomes an organic process of reaching that space. Writing is spatial. Writing for space. Eskil and I talk about it. The banal example, as all writers feel, is that if a character is in a kitchen and it’s important that they are looking into the fridge as someone saying, “I’m going to leave you,” and then they turn around and go home to the table, how far is that walk is going to be tremendously important to the dramaturgical weight of that scene? From the smallest to the biggest thing. I go back and forth.

Then ultimately, Eskil is not precious. He trusts me as a director. I go and do my thing with my team. It’s important, for example, this scene, in the editing of the film is when we shot a lot more for everything. That’s what we do. We invest a lot to go on screen, which is the magic of having less resources go above the line in Norway and more below the line because I shoot for 60 days. We get to try a lot of stuff.

For an ambitious film like this, in terms of all the spaces, remember there are several montages where we actually have to go through the century again a bit later in the film. For the National Theater, for example, I had a lot of material. In terms of character, what we realized was the buildup of panic is what we dropped. We got straight into the middle of it.

John: Exactly. People will put a link in the show notes to the English translation of the script. There is a lot more lead up to it. You were able to just come right to her at that moment. It seems an obvious choice in retrospect because you’ve just established this narration about who she was. To see her as the adult figure in this moment of panic makes sense. Yet, you don’t know that as the writer. Do you think you need more runway for the plane to take off and you didn’t?

Joachim: Yes, that’s exactly it. I find that during the editing of the film with Olivier Bugge Coutté, the editor who’s done all the same features that Eskil and I have written together, we have a very close collaboration. His job is to be dialectically opposite to all the establishing. He’s saying, “Do we need this establishing?” People are smart. The actors are great. He’s coming in at the other end. It’s a wonderful dialectic always. Eskil always says when we talk that, ultimately, Olivier makes us shine as screenwriters.

I must say, going back to the script, for example, I’m very proud about the script as a structure. It doesn’t mean that it didn’t work. It just means that we can be more effective and be more respectful to the audience. There are certain things you think you need to establish. Like the runway was a wonderful way of putting it that you just said. I like that metaphor. You think you really need to involve people at every step of that staircase. Actually, it’s quite exciting to jump into the middle of it and discover it a bit backwards. That goes for a few other points in the film as well.

John: Let’s talk about the introduction of Gustav. Gustav appears. Here’s the description from the script. The car stops in front of a house and a figure dressed in black steps out. This is Gustav Borg, 71. Gustav is a well-known film director with his heyday behind him. On a good day, he still has the energy and charm that once made him a force of nature, but today is not a good day. He is tired and his suit is creased.

At this moment, we are introducing another crucial player in the film. We don’t realize yet that he’s going to have storytelling power. The film is not quite a two-hander because the other sister also can drive scenes by herself, yet we greatly change the dynamic here. What you were saying about the audience doesn’t need to know, we often talk on the podcast about the difference between mystery and confusion.

We’re not confused when this guy comes on, we’re just curious. His arrival without any real explanation gets us curious about what’s going to happen next. What does it mean that he’s entering into this house during this post-funeral meal? What’s going to happen? We’re leading in because we’re curious because we weren’t told and that’s the power of holding stuff back.

Joachim: That’s very interesting. We often use the same dichotomy and we talk about ambivalence or uncertainty, or mystery as a positive, but vagueness is what you want to avoid. It’s how can we be specific yet not give all the answers? The reason we write it, just to comment on– I love that we’re having conversations also about the actual creation of the process of creating something that will read and hopefully be made into a movie.

We cheat only in cases like this, where describing all this stuff as a director, I won’t show all that. It’s give a context to the following scenes of him so that Stellan Skarsgard brilliantly will help us illustrate and we can even get rid of more of the exposition than we thought because he’s a great actor. There’s a moment in Notorious when Cary Grant gets introduced later and you have a lot of examples of films, and the way they do it, because Ingrid Bergman has established as the lead and then you’re doing a colleague, is there’s a long track in on the back of the set at the party where he’s smoking.

Just the film language tells you, this is important. It’s not just one of the guests at this party, this is a guy we’re going to follow and of course it’s Cary Grant. We have the luxury of having Stellan Skarsgard step out of a black car, which arrival we proceed and we use time. It is that and we follow him in and he looks around and he’s not doing anything for a moment.

Here comes a big difference between the screenplay and the finished film. As he enters the house in the screenplay, he goes in and sits by himself for a moment, and we get a huge second montage early on with the remaining story of the house and the death of his mother and all this stuff. In the film, again, let’s sustain the mystery. Let’s do that. Then we use that montage much later and it became much more interesting when the audience wanted to know all of that. At this point in the film that’s finished, we just want to be there with them. We want to observe, want to feel, want to be in the spaces. We’d just been on a montage not so long ago, and we want to be present. We want to explore the wonderful actress doing the character work.

John: Often in screenwriting, we talk about how you want to end a scene with enough forward momentum. They lean at the end so that you have some momentum going into the next scene, and your film does that all the time. Your film also makes a lot of use of blackouts. We fade to black, and then we come back up. Basically, it’s the curtain comes down, the curtain comes back up.

It gives you the power of a new scene. It gives you the power of starting a whole new idea, which is so useful. When did you know you were going to do that? How many of the ones you had planned ended up making it all the way through editorial versus disappearing in the edit? What was the discovery process there?

Joachim: I would say that those blackouts, they’re also noted in the film. They are important because they are a formal device that does a couple of different things. First of all, it gives that fresh, “Hey, here we go with something new.” It gives a freshness, and sometimes it’s fun again to use the energy of an opening. It also tells the audience, which is almost more important, that, “Hey, this film consists of pieces that have an autonomy in the sense that they might be little chapters that have an entertaining quality on their own, and you’ll follow a little story, and you’ll have to help us piece it together.”

It’s an invitation for interpretation space. Sometimes we jump time. “Oh, wow, something has happened.” It gives this urgency and energy jolt into the film, and it keeps us guessing, but it also gives us a possibility of shifting point of view, which is the difficulty of this story, is that we suddenly need to establish that the other sister is also really important, but it’s a slow process of her building from being an observer to being a subject. Through these kind of chapters, we have an allowance to jump somewhere else.

John: We had Eva Victor on the show recently. We were talking about their film Sorry, Baby, which has more formal chapters. The chapters are important for us understanding, like, oh, this is not told chronologically. It’s crucial for this. In the case of Sentimental Value, we are sometimes shifting between who is really driving the sequence of the films. It’s important for us to understand that we’ve moved not just in time, but also point of view. You are covering also many seasons here, so we’re going to see this house and these people in different seasons as well.

Joachim: That’s very important. Again, it’s a subject of time and memory, this feeling that it’s almost like a family album where we can jump between very intimate moments and more essayistic observations of how time passes in a family, that we have that dynamic at play in the narrative structure of the actual film, which I think opens up different thinking, hopefully.

John: We have a couple of listener questions here. Let’s start with Jeremy in Montreal.

Drew Marquardt: “On Scriptnotes, you often talk about outlining your script and knowing your ending before you begin writing. This makes a lot of sense, as knowing where you’re going feels like the best plan to actually getting somewhere. My question is, how often do you find that your ending has changed by the time you’ve gotten there?”

John: Now knowing your process and how much work you were doing before Eskil went off to do a very first draft, I would guess endings didn’t change a lot. Tell us, in this movie and the other movies, what’s been your process and how much of your ending shifted based on how the script turned out or how the film turned out?

Joachim: That’s a great question and a very important one. In our case, I would say that almost all the endings of the six films we’ve done, and particularly this last one, the ending, have been tremendously important to understand and believe we had a film. It’s not to put too much weight on conclusion as tying things up neatly, but it’s rather trying, like in Sentimental Value, to have an organic, dramaturgical feeling of this story is now ending, but there’s just enough to keep thinking about.

Getting that balance right, I think, is the magic we’re trying to achieve. That Nora, again, spoiler alert, forgive me, listeners, but Nora actually ends up doing the film with her father. That final scene encapsulates both her anxiety of marrying her grandmother and the mystery of transference psychologically, how come she feels the same depression as her grandmother.

That comes from the absence of her father, who himself had a difficult time being a child because what happened to his mother and all that stuff, but not explaining it. In the scene they do, he’s making a piece of art because he’s so incapable of talking in the social language to his daughters, he’s very clumsy. He’s a difficult-avoiding father, but at the same time, in that writing, he sees his daughter and she knows it and she feels it, and she does it well. He looks at her and says, after the take, “Perfect.”

They don’t know what to say to each other. The fact that they don’t embrace and have a conversation of resolution, which to me would be a lie, I don’t think that Nora and Gustav could just hug and it would all be fine. They’re probably going to continue to have a complicated relationship, but maybe they got closer. Maybe they saw each other in the act of creation, which is where they fled. They are very similar. They both fled into the creative, maybe also because that’s where they feel they can function, so that they meet in there, in that fictional room somehow, we thought was important.

To that question, which is a wonderful question about endings, getting an ending and writing towards it will very often give you a sense of what your middle part of the film needs to be and how luxurious you can just have character scenes in front and play as opposed to setting up the turning point when it goes towards an end. I will say this, what changes a lot is all those scenes leading up to the ending. We always have too many endings, too many resolution scenes in a way that we get rid of in the editing.

John: Another way to address this is that the ending, you’re saying it’s not a conclusion. It’s not the end-all be-all resolution of everything. You are answering the central dramatic question that you’ve established in the opening, which is, to me, was, can this family deal with their idealized versions of what their home life should have been?

It’s only by creating this artificial house and this movie set that two of these characters are able to grapple with what they actually wanted. It does feel like the right ending for the questions that you were asking of the audience at the start.

Joachim: Well put. Thank you. If it does that, we’re very happy. That’s what we’re trying to say, is that we have what I would call a more thematic closure without it being a cheesy happy ending that I don’t believe is like life. We try to create something which mirrors life on some level.

John: Question from Thomas in Brazil.

Drew: “Have you ever written a character whose traits and way of speaking were clear in the script, but during the casting process, you couldn’t find anyone who matched that? Or you chose someone who ultimately didn’t fit what you were looking for? Did you ever adjust the script because of this, whether during rehearsals or other stages?”

John: This is such a great question because, of course, we have a movie within the movie where you’re casting an actress played by Elle Fanning in the film. It’s a question of, is she even the right fit for this role that Gustav has written? Joachim, how do you as a director grapple with this when you have a role that is specific and you’re trying to find a person who can embody that character?

Joachim: That’s a great question. This is really at the core of character work, isn’t it? Both as a writer and director and the actors. We have rehearsal, which just is the time for the actors to look at the script and talk to me and get to know each other. It’s not about table reads. It’s not about having them sit around and half-fake read the script aloud. That’s not my vibe.

I’m interested in them getting on the floor and trying scenes a bit, and then that will affect it. Then as to whether I tailor it a bit more to them, very often it’s very similar, but just nuances. Two good examples from this film. One is Elle bettering the character. We did not want Rachel Kemp, the American star that comes to Europe, to be in a film to become a joke.

We wanted her to be a serious character that actually is pivotal and a catalyst to what happens to the family. I think she’s very important as the synthetic daughter. She teaches Gustav something about himself. She also, by stepping away from the role, opens up that this project, this film they’re making inside the film, is of a different nature than any other film that Gustav maybe has even made.

She’s very important, and Elle helped that a lot. Something that changed radically from the writing is the younger sister, Agnes, played by Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas, because we cast and met a couple of hundred actors, known and unknown. Agnes in the script is more in her avoiding of conflict and wanting everyone to feel good. She’s more jovial, playful, giggly, smiling, trying to avoid the pivot, “My sister and father arguing.”

Whereas Inga came in with this earnest groundedness, this sincerity, and that power shifted the character tremendously because that is how she holds her place in this complicated family dynamic, is through silence, observation, and honesty, in a straight way that the others are always avoiding. She’s not avoiding by joking it away or being jovial. She’s actually staying silent, looking, and being a pretty straight shooter when she actually confronts the others. That was forceful. That was Inga bringing that in. Actually, the dialogues didn’t change that much, but the interpretation of the scenes from an actor point of view changed a lot.

John: I’m sure I could have an hour-long conversation with you about Rachel is doing a scene from the script at a table and just how you have a conversation with an actor who’s playing an actor who’s playing a role as the levels of looking into a mirror is so challenging if the scene works so well.

Joachim: I’m so impressed with Elle because I don’t know if people understand exactly what you’re pointing out, how difficult it is to play inside the film and crying and being genuine, but yet doing it slightly within a style that makes us unsure as an audience, whether is this the kind of film that Gustav Borg is making? It’s not bad, but it’s almost like singing on the edge of a tonality or falseness, but still being in key.

There’s something really sophisticated. Then Elle shows us at the end when she leaves the film, she breaks down and she weeps and gets this fatherly hug from Gustav that he’s unable to give his three daughters, it seems. In that scene, she shows a different kind of vulnerability and acting style. Elle is really amazing, I think. I’m very, very impressed with her.

John: Both Inga and Elle are nominated for their work, which is not surprising. They’re both incredible in it. Let’s do one last question here from Peter.

Drew: Peter says, “I’m married with stepkids and early-ish in my screenwriting career, I’ve realized that when I’m struggling to crack a story or feel like I’m facing a creative brick wall in my script, my inner frustration can spill over into my mood when I’m spending time with family, especially if I haven’t had a chance to decompress from the work. Do you have any good transition habits that help you leave creative work frustration at the desk, or at least buried deeply enough in your subconscious, so that you can be fully present with your family?”

Joachim: That’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? That’s what the film is about, too. How do you transition so that you can be a parent?

John: Gustav never mastered that skill. He’s not good at it.

Joachim: No, he didn’t. What I do is I communicate very deeply with my wife. Now we have two young daughters, and we talk about it. I try to look at it like a really important life task, and that I try to be good enough. I know I will fail some days, but I will also be better other days. I find that during writing, those are actually where I’m the best at it in a strange way, because I go home and I don’t have the adrenaline and the stress of shooting so that I can go home.

I try to tell myself this. I don’t always manage, but I try to think I’m interested in characters and life. I love being surprised by what happens in reality. If I lose that contact, I will also lose my writing skill, because those are the kinds of films– I’m not entering into space in the movies, primarily, that I make. Actually being with people around me and my family can really, suddenly, surprisingly, if I let it go, come back to me as inspiration in indirect and strange ways. I try to tell myself that.

Then there’s also a weird thing. All parents at the moment are guilty about using cell phones. Doing a ritual of putting away the cell phone can almost be like a ritual of letting something go. You can actually use it to double up on the fact that I’m putting something aside symbolically when I’m home. I’m trying all these things and I’m grappling with it and I’m trying my best. I think it’s a relevant question for creative people to ask themselves. At the end of the day, I think we need to get our family to accept that we are as we are and to be open about it. I believe in transparency.

John: For me, I’m not putting my cell phone away necessarily, but having a clear separation between this is my workspace and my home space is really helpful. I’m lucky that my office is over the garage. Just those 10 feet going back into the kitchen, things are separated out. Then, when I’m in production, a lot of times my daughter has been around and she’s seen the work. For her to see how much work there is and the tedium of it, but also all the decisions and the questions and meeting who the people are around it, it’s just taking the mystery away has helped as well.

Joachim: That’s great. That’s exactly it. During shooting, I also take my family on set. My grandfather was a director. My father was a sound recordist. My mom did documentaries. I was on sets all the time. I have a couple of holy things. Also, before I had kids. I had kids quite late in my 40s. I try not to give anyone guilt when I make movies about going home to the family.

I always want to have straight talks because I know how hard it is. I was a child in the film family. Also, on the other hand, bringing kids on set and being nice about it. I love that people bring kids on set and I meet them. All these parents that do this wonderful work, it’s actually joyous. It’s actually wonderful to make movies and it’s a privilege. Kids can see that and maybe we’ll get them into the tribe.

John: For sure. My daughter learned that she doesn’t want to be in the creative side at all. She doesn’t want to be a writer or director, but she loves production. Through The Big Fish musical, she is there for all the tech rehearsals, which is incredibly tedious, periods where they’re adjusting lights, I guess, foot by foot. She loved it. She loves production.

Joachim: Wonderful. I have to give a compliment for Big Fish because it’s very relevant for Gustav Borg’s character. This idea that the histrionic crazy father, the one that exaggerates, it’s a double energy. It can be terribly annoying, but it can also be the most wonderful thing in the world because it’s truly that crazy, open, creative part of childishness that has prevailed inside a human being that should be grown up and responsible. There’s something punk and crazy and wonderful about it that we are all ambivalent about.

John: It’s an immaturity that as you grow yourself, you start to recognize like, “Wait, it’s unfair that I didn’t get a mature person in that role,” but that’s what you’re left with. It’s time for our wonderful things. My wonderful thing is something I was not aware of, a term which is useful called the Lindy effect. The Lindy effect is basically, for some technologies or ideas or cultural things, the longer they’ve been around, the longer they will stay around.

Generally, as things get older, you expect like, “Oh, they’re going to have a few years left.” For something like a Broadway show, if it’s been open for two weeks, you’d expect like it’s going to be open for at least another two weeks. If it’s been running for two years, it’s probably going to be running for another two years at least. Momentum will keep things going.

I think that also applies to friendship because as I think back to my friends from high school or college that I keep up with, I don’t have to see them that often, but I know that I’m still going to be friends with them until the day I die because that’s just things persist because they’ve actually been around for a long time. In a time where it feels like things are often in temporary or impermanent, it’s recognizing that things that have been around for a while will probably still stay around for a while. It’s called the Lindy Effect. I’ll put a link in the show notes to the Wikipedia article. I always like when there’s a name for a thing that I just didn’t know what to call it.

Joachim: My goodness, that is beautiful. The bad news is so we won’t get rid of the Oedipus complex.

John: Absolutely. People are always going to bring that up.

Joachim: Listen, that was lovely. I can’t follow that up other than to say that I have a recommendation that I feel that I haven’t really put out there yet, that I owe, which is Chris Ware, who is a graphic novelist.

John: I know Chris Ware. He does very cool books and things. I have a giant box of his comics.

Joachim: That’s the building project is like a box, but he’s also made more classical story graphic novels. I think maybe the most famous one is Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid in the World. I think the whole Ackman Novelty Library, which is available wherever they sell graphic novels, his way of dealing with space and characters is deeply inspiring.

Long before I made Sentimental Value, I valued him as a great artist. His books have been voted by New York Times to be the greatest graphic novels of all time and stuff. He’s quite renowned in that world. In the movie world, I think everyone should have a look at his work in all its variations because it’s formally triggering in the best way.

Like, oh my God, you could tell the story that way. He has a whole story, which is told with one, how do you say, square per year of a character’s life from birth till death. He just plays around with how we can elasticize and play with form of storytelling. I think that’s healthy for all of us to be inspired by. Shout out to Chris Ware, the master of doing character and space stories, I would say.

John: That’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Jeff Hoeppner and Richard Kraft. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask at johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with the sign up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

The Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books. You can find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram @Scriptnotes Podcast. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You can find show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber.

Thank you, thank you, thank you to all our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net. You get all those back episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on screenplays on screen. Joachim, congratulations on your film. It has been an absolute pleasure talking with you about screenwriting and filmmaking and parenthood. A great conversation. Thank you so much.

Joachim: Thanks for having me. I really enjoyed this. Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Here in the bonus segment, I want to talk about screenplays on screen. As I’m watching your film, Gustav shows up trying to convince his daughter to be in his movie. He has his script in a shopping bag. It’s just a bundle of loose pages that he hands over to her. She rejects the script at that point. That script will become– It’s not quite a MacGuffin, but we’re going to see that script a lot throughout the rest of the course of the movie.

Often when we see that script, we’re seeing spiral-bound copies of the script. There’s an English version and a Norwegian version. Are those forms I would expect to see if I were actually in Oslo shooting a film? Because we’re used to, in the US, scripts that have two brads in them. We’re used to a certain idea of a script, and they don’t look like that. Talk to us about the screenplays in the movie and in real life.

Joachim: Completely. Thank you for that question. I’ve never been asked that. The spiral back is very often what we give everyone because you can actually fold it completely over without hurting the pages. They’re quite solid. There’s a little transparent plastic cover on the front and a thicker something on the back. That’s what we give to the whole team, to the actors, everyone, usually, unless people ask for different things.

Very often, I would say something like Gustav Borg would just print it out at home and bring it in a plastic bag. That’s completely his character to do that. He calls his script, there’s a beautiful Norwegian word that we consider to call Sentimental Value.

John: Which is?

Joachim: It’s the Norwegian term of homesickness, but it’s called hjemlengsel, which is home-longing. It’s in Norwegian. It’s a more soft, poetic, it’s like what a child feels when you’re at camp. It’s not sickness, it’s more aggressive, it’s longing. Your heart feels it. It’s a softer term, more melancholic somehow. He calls this film home-longing. You see it in Swedish, which is almost the same as Norwegian, hjemlengtan, which is this equivalent. In Swedish, it means the same as Norwegian.

That’s the name of that script. You see it, if you see it on a big screen, you can see what the script is called. If you see it on TV, you probably can’t. That’s cinema. The thing about it is that– Eskil and I have read a lot of American scripts. You tell me, when you read our script, which I now realize [crosstalk]

John: It’s the same. All the layout and all the things are the same. It’s just that, literally, the binding of it was just such a different experience. The spiral binding, it makes sense. Of course, if you have pages that you were going to swap out, it’s much more difficult to swap out in a spiral down like that. That’s why, in the US, we more often use three-ring binders for those scripts because then you can just pop in the new pages if something small has changed.

Joachim: What we do is we give sides on the day to everyone and talk about that in the morning meeting with the actors. I have this rule that we never want to give new material to actors less than at least four or five, ideally, a week before we shoot something, or I have a personal conversation about them on the day and we change something.

I don’t want to throw it at people. I want people to almost forget the text because they know it so well. They need that time to learn it and forget it, and then do it. You know what I mean? There’s this intuitive way of dealing with text that I idealize in directing with actors. What I would say is that you’re absolutely right. You could change them out, swap them out.

There’s always a discussion on this. How do we do the numeric system? By the time we shoot, I also have floor plans. I do a lot of pre-production. I actually do a big production. I have floor plans for everything. I have new sides that we might have refined and all that stuff. The screenplay itself is just one of the tools that we have at our disposal as a blueprint.

John: In the course of the film, Gustav says, like, oh, here’s the English and the Norwegian versions of the script. It says Norwegian. Gustav’s character is natively Swedish, but he’s working in Norwegian. For you as a filmmaker, when do you actually make the English version of a script?

Joachim: We do it early on for financing to get all our wonderful partners to remember just without going into that whole thing. This is the co-production between the UK, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Then we also have a wonderful Neon, the American distributor who supported it from before it was even finished as a piece of writing. We have a lot of people coming in and want them all to read and talk to them about what we’re doing.

English matters for a lot of these languages. We also do a French translation, which we work on a lot, English, French, and Norwegian versions. In the Norwegian screenplay, there was also for Elle important that she could read it in English. In the Norwegian screenplay, all of the English dialogue is in English because the film has some English dialogue for Stella and Elle’s characters particularly. There’s never one which is all Norwegian in this case.

John: There’s not a sense that the canonical real version of the movie is the Norwegian screenplay. They’re all equally valid documents for you, or at least the English and the Norwegian?

Joachim: No, the Norwegian one is the real one because it’s the one we shoot with the real Norwegian dialogue that keeps changing and stuff. We don’t always update the international English one. In the case of Elle and Stella and speaking English, that would be equally the original, of course, because they are speaking English in the actual film.

John: Joachim, thank you so much for talking about the screenplay and for writing such a great screenplay and directing such a great movie. It’s an absolute pleasure talking with you.

Joachim: Thank you for having me. This was fun.

John: Thank you.

Links:

  • Sentimental Value | Screenplay
  • Joachim Trier
  • Notorious (1946)
  • The Lindy Effect
  • Chris Ware
  • Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Jeff Hoeppner & Richard Kraft (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 691: Collaborative Storytelling and RPGs, Transcript

July 7, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: Oh, my name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to episode 691 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Most weeks we discuss storytelling designed to entertain an audience watching something in a movie theater or at home on their couches, which are passive viewers, consumers, numbering in the hundreds, thousands, or millions. Craig, what if your goal is just to entertain a few friends around a table?

Craig: Well, in that case, I think we know exactly what we do.

John: Today on the show, we’ll discuss roleplaying games, their history, their narrative design. We’ll talk about Dungeons & Dragons, sure, but also a host of games that have pushed the form to new areas of collaborative storytelling and world-building. To help us do this, we welcome a man who literally wrote the book on it, Stu Horvath. Welcome, Stu.

Stu Horvath: Hello, thank you for having me on.

Craig: Hey, Stu.

John: All right, the book in question is Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground: A Guide To Tabletop Roleplaying Games. It’s out from MIT Press. It was a former One Cool Thing of mine. It is glorious. Congratulations on this book, Stu.

Stu: Thank you. It’s very large. Don’t drop it on your foot.

John: It is so, so heavy. It is a sizable tome, and it’s great. I want to talk to you about tabletop roleplaying games in general, the history of them, but also the evolution of the form, because Craig and I come at this mostly from playing D&D and a lot of video games. So much interesting stuff has happened in tabletop, and I just really want to talk about this and the similarities, the differences between the kinds of writing that Craig and I do and the kind of storytelling that’s happening in these games.

Stu: It used to be such a narrow thing that was very dice-driven, very simulation-driven, but now there’s just all kinds of storytelling that happen in roleplaying games. It’s almost impossible for me to figure out a place to start.

John: We’ll do our best, and so we’ll get into that, and then in our bonus segment for premium members, I want to look at your appendix chapter, because you talk in this Appendix D about the concept of dungeons as narrative spaces, which seems like it should have always been there. It seems like this idea that’s fundamental to human psychology, but as you point out in this appendix, dungeons are actually a surprisingly recent literary thing, so I want to unpack that a bit.

Stu: Happily. My next book is about that, actually.

John: Oh, my gosh. A preview of an upcoming book.

Craig: All right, it’s going to focus on dungeons? I love that.

Stu: Yes.

John: Stu, talk to us about what it is you do, because this all came about because you are a collector, right?

Stu: Yes. Like a lot of folks who played Dungeons & Dragons when they were a kid, and other roleplaying games, I lost a lot of stuff, either to the attrition of borrowing and lending. I had a flood in my basement, which is a surprisingly common occurrence for folks. I eventually just started wanting those things back. In collecting them, I saw that there were more things out there that I had never heard of that were really exciting. To this day, eBay has become the bane of my wallet’s existence. I’m actually in the process of trying to sell some stuff off to make room for new stuff.

I accumulated all this cool stuff, and I just got really, really excited about it, so I started an Instagram feed, dedicated daily posts to roleplaying games and supplements, and things that affected the development of roleplaying games, or that I otherwise thought were interesting. Out of that daily writing process, it just very naturally turned into a book. There’s also a podcast that’s basically the same thing. You pick a roleplaying game and talk about it for 20, 30 minutes.

Craig: Which you apparently have over 300 different roleplaying games that you cover in your book, which is astonishing. Are you going to get to our- what are we at, John? 691?

John: [chuckles] 691.

Craig: I don’t know if you’re going to get to 691, but you’ll at least get to 300, which is amazing. I’m curious, given that you’ve been doing this for a while, I suppose it’s a good thing that as you create a book like this, the audience for RPGs seems to have exploded. How do you greet the increase in popularity? Are you excited? Are you a little worried that perhaps this special space is being invaded? Is it just an opportunity to sell a whole lot more books?

Stu: I like money, so selling books is a big benefit. No, I welcome everybody in. I think that it was always a hobby that was looking for its players. I think that the more people who come into it with different ideas, the more types of games and the more experiences that the games provide, and the more options everybody has to play more different games.

There’s so many new, fine-toothed experiences that are coming out of this indie scene right now that is just fed by people who come in through the big game, 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons, and they filter out. It’s not a lot of people who filter out into the larger hobby, but the people who do come brimming with new ideas that they want to fiddle with and tinker with, and from that comes so many cool new things. That’s what I’m here for.

John: Going back to your collection, one thing that strikes me is that we talk about these things being lost to basement floods, but the whole reason that there is this collection that exists is there’s so much material. There’s a materiality to the history of roleplaying games. These were published and printed things from these tiny presses or sometimes bigger presses that existed that people could purchase in hobby shops and game stores or out of the back of Dragon Magazine. You have amassed this huge collection, but there are likely so many more things that don’t exist simply for lack of enough copies of them being out there in the world.

What your book does so well, it’s really charting the growth, the experience of how everything fed into the next thing. So many of these games were a pushback reaction against Dungeons & Dragons and reincorporation and then old-school roleplaying comes back in. It’s just a great history, but it’s all possible because there’s a record. It’s like we know so much about the ancient Egyptians because there were just so many tombs full of hieroglyphics that we could actually study these things versus other cultural innovations are lost to us because there’s not stuff around to document.

Stu: The beauty of the whole hobby is that it’s a tinkerer’s hobby. Immediately after Dungeons & Dragons came out, people were like, well, this is cool as a basic idea, but I could do it better. I could fix it. I could do things to it that are going to make this the best game.

Craig: I love nerds. They’re like, “Not bad. Can do better.”

Stu: Exactly. There was this really influential publication at APA, Amateur Press Association, which is basically a bunch of zines that was produced monthly, sent to a central editor who bound them together and then sent them out to everybody who paid for a subscription. Started almost immediately after D&D. Lee Gold has kept it in print up until April of this year, so 50 years-

John: Incredible.

Stu: -monthly. I think she missed two or three issues in that entire run. It’s insanity. It was a real testing ground for those kinds of ideas. If you look back, especially in the ‘90s, right before the internet made that stuff faster and digital and online, you can see a lot of game design just happening in those pages, and it’s all about people just sharing ideas and arguing about them. Gygax hated it too. He thought it was really cool initially, and then he was just like, oh, no, these people are bootlegging my stuff.

John: Could you give us a starting place? When do we need to start thinking about tabletop roleplaying games from your book? Spoiler, I know it’s Dungeons & Dragons, but can you talk us through the history? This is 1974 we’re beginning, and can you just talk to us about the transition from military simulation games to roleplaying games and what the innovation was that made D&D the starting place?

Stu: 1974 is when Dungeons & Dragons first comes out and is published. It is the first commercially available roleplaying game. Prior to that, there’s this big scene in the Midwest which is focused on military war games, reenacting existing battles like Waterloo or battles in the Civil War, World War II. That has a very long tradition that goes back to HG Wells, created a game called Little Wars which you played on the floor. Peter Cushing of horror movie fame was a big proponent of that game. There’s great videos of him painting his miniatures.

That goes even further back to the Prussian School of Wargaming which was actual teaching officers how to command on these sand tables with miniatures and terrain. There’s two things that happened. Lord of the Rings gets popular and fantasy figures in a military setting are something that people get interested in in the late ‘60s, early ‘70s which leads to Chainmail which was Gygax and some collaborators created this war game in which you had optional units that were fantasy, wizards and dragons and such.

John: We should say for our listeners who are not big D&D people, this is Gary Gygax who is acknowledged as the person who created what we think of as Dungeons and Dragons with many collaborators and there’s a complicated history there but it’s his name on those initial books.

Stu: It’s Gygax and Dave Arneson. The Dave Arneson part comes from Minneapolis I believe and he was playing, I can’t remember the fellow’s name, but the game is Bronstein. The idea was that there was this war game that was happening but there was also a village and people had actual specific characters that they were playing in the context of this war game. That idea of players controlling one singular character instead of a unit of characters or an entire army plus the advent of fantasy influence in the war game sphere collided into this storytelling game that grew out of the collaboration between Arneson and Gygax.

John: In your book, I’m looking at an image from the 1977 white box edition of Dungeons & Dragons. The title on the box is Rules for Fantastic Medieval War Games Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures. Which is just such a mouthful, but that’s how they had to frame it. It wasn’t saying roleplaying game yet. It didn’t seem to have the full sense, or at least it wasn’t presenting itself as this is a thing that you play make-believe with your friends, but it quickly became that. What were the first moments where D&D broke out of just a very small Midwestern nerd culture to become a national thing?

Stu: I think it was almost immediate. I think that there were small pockets of interested war gamers all over the country who immediately glommed onto this thing that was new. You can see that Tunnels and Trolls comes out almost immediately after. I’m pretty sure he was based in Arizona. Pretty far. There was already a pretty big war gaming scene in San Francisco, the Bay Area, with Chaosium.

There’s this urban legend that Greg Stafford, who founded Chaosium, a friend of his ran into a guy who was at a print shop where D&D was being first made, and he got one of the very first copies. It’s hard to imagine in a world of snail mail only but I do think that it proliferated really rapidly. Immediately there were different games coming out to iterate on the basic idea of roleplaying.

John: Now, we don’t have audio or video in its initial play sessions. How closely do we think they resemble what we think about D&D today? Was it players controlling individual characters, going into imaginary dungeon-y rooms and fighting a monster then moving on to the next room? Was that always there from the start? How did that happen?

Stu: I think that it was. The idea of the dungeon, I think, was almost an accidental innovation for playtesting. It was just a situation that gave you infinite possibility, but only a very limited number of options at any given time because you only had so many routes out of a room. Gary Gygax playtested in Castle Greyhawk, which was his mega dungeon. Dave Arneson had Blackmoor, which was a little bit more like a campaign setting. He was very interested in reenacting some of his favorite fantasy stories that he had read and adapting them to play through, whereas Gygax is more interested in testing the cleverness of his players.

I think that in play, it’s a much different thing back then because you have all these folks who are really interested in simulating things like combat. There’s weapon speeds and lots of crunchy numbers, and there’s a ton of players. They’re all running potentially multiple characters at the same time. There’s something called a caller who is an intermediary between the players and the DM to help manage the size of the group. I think that the actual play loop is really still explore, fight, and loot, rinse and repeat.

Craig: There is certainly explore, fight, loot, but on top of that, there is our beloved RP, roleplay. I’m curious, looking at roleplaying games, one thing is very clear. By the time, say, it gets to John and to me when we’re in middle school, other than D&D we’re playing Top Secret and we’re playing these other games where it’s quite clear that the people who are making these games understand that RP is just as important, if not more important, than explore, fight, and loot. Believe me, we love rolling for initiative.

I wonder if, in Arneson’s way of I’d like to just give myself a chance to be a part of stories I’ve already read, or Gygax saying I’d like a chance to create my own dungeon with my own monsters, that the players, almost from the start, were saying, yes, but also, we’d like to write, because really, RP is writing. It’s improv. It’s creation of character. The interplay between the characters is some of the most fun. When you look at Critical Role, 98% of it at this point is RP. Where do you think the actual business of roleplaying games figures out and adapts to what the audience seems to be wanting? It takes a long, long time.

Stu: Interesting. I think that, broadly, the hobby struggles with codifying roleplaying with rules. I think that it’s always been there, but it’s been something that has been outside of the scope, especially in the early days, of the mechanics of the system. I’m running an old-school-style game that has lots of random tables right now. It’s cool. I’ve never ran a game like this before. I run very narrative-heavy stuff. Now, I’m just giving myself over to randomness. From that randomness is where the beauty is. It presents situations and combinations of things that you’d never would have expected.

They are exactly improv cues for the players who then give me material back, and it goes back and forth. There’s very little, in terms of rule structure, we’re playing old-school essentials, which is basic Dungeons & Dragons. There’s no structure mechanically in the game for that. We’re just making it up as we go along. I think that’s always been with the hobby until the ‘90s when you have the storyteller system and it starts building into more structure for narrative in games.

John: Stu, this feels like a good moment to talk about crunchiness of rules versus the airy-fairy, we’re all playing characters, it’s a narrative, and it’s very player driven. That tension feels like it’s always been there. Most of the new versions of the game have been trying to push in one direction or another direction. We have things that are very open-ended. I had Craig and our group play through Dungeon World, which was too open for them. Then we’ve also struggled over just– A D&D session can get lost in the– Craig, what was it this last week?

Whether a hold person could be defeated by lesser restoration. It’s one of the annoyances, but also one of the great joys of D&D is those esoteric rule decisions. Can you talk to us about– Looking through this book with 300 games, it feels like a lot of it has been each game figuring out its own balance between these are the rules and this is what’s open for discussion and interpretation.

Stu: It absolutely has been. There’s just such a gradient of options out there now. In the early 2000s, that’s when the indie storytelling scene really opened up. These are just very open, loose, improvisational games really tightly focused in terms of theme. They’re fantastic to read about. They always have very clever mechanics. Dread is a good example. They use a Jenga tower for their conflict resolution.

Craig: Oh, that’s genius.

Stu: Every time you do something, you have to pull a piece out. If the tower stands, you succeed. If the tower falls, it’s a horror game, so your character dies. That’s it. That’s the only real rule. Everything else is just almost small improvisational theater. I love reading that stuff. I can’t run it, and I have a really hard time playing it. The structure of the rules is the thing that sets me free. I need something to lean on, or I start to panic.

Craig: I’m just like you. The rules let both sides of your brain work together. Screenwriting is the rules medium of writing because we’re constantly dealing with these constraints. General format and the fact that whatever we write has to be able to be filmed and so on and so forth, it is a more narrowly crafted way of thinking and creating. I find that when there aren’t any rules– John and I played what was it called? The one we played with Kelly?

John: Fiasco. Episode 142.

Craig: There you go. It was so much fun that night, in part because Kelly’s hysterical, but I wouldn’t do it again because there’s no rules. I love the idea that you get to ping-pong back and forth between your right brain creativity, coming up with characters with flaws, how do they talk, what decisions would they make in certain circumstances with. Now we have rules. The other part of this is, what do I do in my next turn? I’ve got options. How can I maximize my impact here? Engaging both sides to me is really important. I love an RPG that gives me both.

John: Just because we recently put this out as a YouTube video, when Greta Gerwig was on the podcast, she was talking about how she grew up in the mumblecore movement, which was wildly underscripted. Basically, they’d have a description of what happens in the scene, but then you just have to improv throughout it. She was so frustrated because she felt like the text actually set you free. The text gave it a form and let you explore and go further.

Without that, you’re just floating in dead air. You don’t commit to things because there’s no text to come back to. It feels like rules are part of that. You’re coming into a game with a set of rules and opportunities to succeed or fail can be really important. Finding the right balance between, okay, looking at everything in a table versus now I’m going to go do this thing, I can do anything in the world, is the real struggle.

Stu: One of the things that really differentiates roleplaying games, especially from theater, I think, because like theater is right there, aside of the fact that you have the script, it’s almost roleplaying games, it’s the dice, I think. It’s that randomness. I don’t think it’s so much about rules crunch. I think it’s more about where you decide to have the randomness that makes it a roleplaying game that is the thing people are trying to position.

With Dread the randomness is literally just that tower. With it just all the way over there in the corner that one time I don’t have enough structure in the game to figure it out. Whereas these random tables, we have combat and it’s D&D but the real juice of it is when we hit something that has random tables where I get to roll, and it just creates these situations on the fly. That’s where I like it.

Craig: Sure, you get suspense, but you also get a constant opportunity to react, which is fun. In the end, the most important letter in RPG is G. We’re there to play a game. We’re there to have fun. The more we get a chance to react– The first games we play, the simple ones as children, they all have either dice or a spinner or cards. There’s always random chance. That’s part of what makes it a game.

Stu: I want to talk about some of the similarities between the experience of playing a roleplaying game and other things that film and TV writers do. I’ve often said that our weekly D&D game feels like, oh my god, this is the most expensive writer’s room that you can find, because you have a bunch of well-played writers who are all around a table working together to tell a story together.

Whoever’s DMing that session is the share runner but there’s a much more shared authority. They’re coming down with the final rulings on some things, but the experience of playing the game is everyone should be contributing, and everyone is coming into that room with a point of view and a character and a voice and a unique approach to the world. Craig, that writer’s room analogy holds for you?

Craig: It does. We have to expand it a little bit to include a rock star because we have Tom Morello that plays with us. It does. Everybody in there either is paid to tell stories or is paid to analyze stories. We all love the structure that comes with a good tale. I think also, for me, we all appreciate the fact that we don’t have to actually create a great story for anyone else. It’s for us. That means we don’t have to tie off loose ends. We don’t have to do setups and payoffs. We can be sloppy writers, and in being sloppy writers, the stupid crap we do, and one of the things about our groups, whether I’m DMing or I’m playing, is the utter futility of plans.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, Stu, but when you’re playing and especially when you’re DMing, everybody loves a plan. We’re so familiar with the scene where people plan stuff and then they pull it off. Ocean’s 11, plan, execute, awesome. I don’t think one of our plans has ever worked. It is incredible. Sometimes they go so bad so fast. It’s hysterical. I love how not in control we are because when we’re writing, we have both the pleasure, but also the accountability of being completely in control.

John: I would say a similarity between the experience of writing for movies or television and playing this is there are still scenes. Each encounter is essentially a scene. It’s a moment, it has a beginning, a middle and an end, which is really what we’re looking for in scenes, but there’s a lack of structure overall. As Craig was saying, the payoffs don’t always come. There’s not a sense of where we necessarily are at in the journey.

A lot of times these campaigns end up being more like a soap opera that’s open-ended. There’s not one final thing you’re going to get to. Talk about the laughs around the table, we’re participants rather than the audience, or we are the audience ourselves, which makes things like Critical Role videos and stuff like that this weird middle ground, because are you a virtual player with them? Are you an audience? That dynamic is relatively recent and also new.

Stu: I’ve always felt that roleplaying game sessions are great in the play of them, and they make for really poor storytelling afterwards to somebody that has not played the game. You had to be there. Stuff like Critical Role has always let me scratch at my head because I don’t quite feel like I’m in the game like you said or an audience member or what. I’m not getting what I’m supposed to get out of it. I will say though just to Craig’s point about plans, my current game they’ll play an all week and then they’ll set off into the wilderness and they’ll hit a random encounter right outside of the settlement and that’ll be it. So much for the plan.

Craig: They never got to the plan. It’s interesting because we can talk about Critical Role for a second. For people who don’t know, Critical Role is an internet show. They have a cartoon. It’s an empire and it’s generally run by a man named Matt Mercer, who is the DM and general storyteller. Then he has a fairly stable theatrical troop that play characters. A lot of them are voice actors. Our own Ashley Johnson is one of them from our Last of Us universe.

You do follow along with them, and I think they have the benefit of a little bit of editing and preparation. There is something going on there behind the scenes that I think does help curate it a bit. When you’re playing pure RPG, it is not efficient. There are long stretches that, if anybody else were watching, would be falling asleep. There’s a lot of, okay, we’ve captured somebody. What do we do with them? Thirty minutes of back-and-forth argument, debate.

John: A war crime is being committed.

Craig: Yes, inevitably, the discussion ends when one character just murders the person. Then that gets discussed. It can be almost like watching a Congressional hearing. If you’re in the Congressional hearing, I suppose it’s probably fun. I think it is this weird, curated experience, and people are very connected to those characters, which I think is great. People who get it really, really love it. They are really into it, and I love that for them. To the extent that it might inspire people to play their own games, I think they will be shocked when they play their own games to go, oh, this isn’t anywhere near as consistently entertaining and crazy as Critical Role. This is actually more like a deposition. Hey, I love a deposition.

I’m curious from a writing point of view. Since some of roleplaying is pre-written, obviously each RPG creates a set of rules and a general structure of how to play and allows a game master to create whatever story they’d like. As was the case with D&D from the start and moving forward through most RPGs, they also write modules that they hand you and say, “Here’s a story you can guide players through.”

They will wander through in their own path, and you can customize, you can homebrew it, whatever you want, but here’s a story we’ve written. I’m curious, since you are such an impressive student of all these RPGs, you mentioned D&D 5E, the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons that came out a little over 10 years ago now, which absolutely changed everything and has not just the most popular version of D&D ever but it’s the most popular version of any RPG I think, tabletop RPG ever, why did that work so well and how much of it had to do with the writing of the early adventures?

Stu: That’s a very interesting question that’s probably going to get me into a lot of trouble.

Craig: Go for it.

Stu: I think that one of one of the things that 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons did poorly was their pre-packaged modules. For me, I don’t think there’s a legendary classic in the bunch. Partly because so many of them are very reflective of earlier material that’s been remixed. Almost all of them off the top of my head, like Tomb of Annihilation really goes back to Tomb of Horrors and so on.

I think that maybe those provided a controlled experience for people to experience these older things that they had heard about in a way that was new and had a lot of guidelines and help, support for the players and the people running them. I think it was a bright and easy enough system to pick up and at the right time, it came out of fourth edition that didn’t have the right amount of adaptation. People weren’t into that system. This felt similar but new. I think that the pandemic really juiced it. I think that it was really easy to adapt to online play at a time when online play was about to just become the only thing that you could do.

John: In fifth edition, and for folks who aren’t aware of it, that we’re talking about the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons, which reframed and reformatted a bunch of how the game worked and was wildly successful, and it became the baseline behind which a lot of other things are compared, I think I will say about the game as it’s run by Wizards of the Coast, there’s really good writing throughout.

If you look at the quality of the manuals and how things are laid out, the world building that’s around it is incredibly impressive. Where does world building begin in the history of RPGs? We talked about there’s Castle Greyhawk, there’s Ravenloft, [unintelligible 00:29:41]. Is Ravenloft the first of the cinematic universes within these roleplaying games?

Stu: I would say so. The module Ravenloft changes things. It really builds more of a narrative structure into the game outside of that looting mechanic gameplay loop. You’re there for a reason. You have a real villain for a change who has agency to work against you actively.

John: He’s not just waiting there at the end for you to fight him?

Stu: No, he shows up periodically and tests your strength and becomes a real pain in the butt. That was just never done. He was also a monster that combined aspects of the player character. He was also a very powerful spellcaster, which was surprising. Going after a vampire you knows certain things about vampires in the context of the game and all of a sudden, this guy’s throwing spells at you.

It was a paradigm shift. I think people look back before that and they want stuff like Castle Greyhawk and Greyhawk generally to be more cohesive and a more sensible world, but it really isn’t. Even though Ravenloft changes things, it really is the ’90s, ’89, ’90, when Forgotten Realms sort of starts to gather steam and Dark Sun comes out, and then these things start to become real worlds.

John: Yes, and also Ravenloft as a campaign, but also the books, which were very successful in themselves, is that one of the real innovations was that these roleplaying games then spun off a bunch of other merchandise. In your book, you talk about the Dungeons & Dragons wallets and other things you can collect. They spun off enough merchandise, and a lot of world-building which happens outside of the game. It was a virtuous cycle. It just all fed into each other.

Stu: Your Dragonlance.

John: Totally.

Stu: Dragonlance is something that they tried to make this big, epic narrative, but it didn’t really work as a roleplaying game. It was better as books. The novels are the things that people really honed in on.

John: Yes. Craig and I have played Fiasco, we’ve played a few other things along the way. I did a session with the Alien RPG, which I thought was fantastic. Do you have much more information about the innovations that have come from the indie space or other experiments we missed along the way? Help catch us up. What are the threads that we’re missing and what are the things we should be looking for now?

Stu: I think that if you’ve not played the original West End Star Wars game as movie people, that’s cinematic roleplaying. It takes the language of cinema and applies them directly to the mechanics of the game and it’s great.

John: Give us a sense of a thing that you’re doing in a play session of the original Star Wars game.

Stu: Oh, it encourages you to do smash cuts to pull out from the actual action. You have these asides where you read dialogue between other characters that aren’t there. This idea of the rules say, start in media res. It’s all just built around upping the ante and constantly referring back. The great thing about Star Wars is you have the text of the movies to tell you how to play the game. It’s just do that at your table, except with different characters in different situations. It comes together really well. It’s just six-sided dice. It’s a very simple system that’s so good.

Craig: I played that, John, with Ken White.

John: That’s great.

Craig: It is really fun, and the simplicity of the dice is fantastic.

John: With that thread, and again, the history of this, there’s a lot of licensed products that are coming through, and sometimes they’ve had more control or less control. The IP holders have had more or less control, but there’s also been this indie game movement, which I’m sure accelerated greatly with the rise of the internet and through the pandemic. Can you just talk us through that thread?

Stu: Yes, it was a direct reaction, I think, to the D20 D&D, and, starting in 2000 they universalized their system, the D20 system, and everybody started to make D20 versions of their other games. It was a really bad moment for the industry as a whole because it destabilized it, almost knocked a whole bunch of people out of business.

John: Tell me more about that. How did it destabilize?

Stu: Basically, everybody overbet on the enduring popularity of this system, which was too crunchy for most other play experiences. It just saturated the market, and then the market imploded. There was also some messing around on Wizards of the Coast part, where they changed the terms of the licenses, and they announced the 3.5 edition without telling anybody. There’s all this stuff that destabilized the market, made people not want to deal with it anymore, but everybody who was overcommitted to the idea of this system was caught out and went out of business.

John: Now, one of the things that’s always been a strength and a challenge for roleplaying games is that, especially at the start, you had to basically know somebody who knew how to play the game in order to play the game. You have to find out that the game exists in the first place and then go to a hobby store or a game store to buy something you could start with and then realize there’s also monthly magazines and other places you can find out more information. You needed somebody to play with.

I remember I was probably eight or nine, so I was really young, but you needed somebody or somebody’s older brother to teach you how the game actually worked because it’s not obvious and not intuitive. This was an era before there was YouTube, before there was the internet to be able to look things up. It’s probably both the reason for success, but also one of those limiting factors is that it spreads from person to person rather than mass worldwide all at once because to play it, you have to play with a group of people around you.

Stu: Yes, it was like an older sibling thing. If you were a younger kid, your older brother or sister could sit you down and go, “Okay, you’ve seen me play with my friends, let me pass it along.”

John: Yes, if Diego Rodriguez’s brother hadn’t played D&D, I probably would never have learned.

Stu: There you go. It really resists casualness in a lot of ways. It’s gotten better. I also think that it just resists a good elevator pitch. It’s really hard to explain to somebody who has zero context for it.

John: It’s like my friend Jason’s dad coming downstairs and asking, “Who’s winning?”

Craig: Well, nobody.

Stu: I think that in a very admirable way, the 2024 Player Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons really does try. They actually took time to start the book by saying, what is this? What actually happens in this? Then they give you an example of what some sample play would sound like. Is it a little bit canned? Is it a little bit corny? Sure. If I didn’t know anything and there was a time– The actual first rule book I ever picked up for an RPG was for Traveler.

This was back in, I don’t know, 1979 or something, 1980. I don’t know, way back then. It was just like, Traveler, here you go. Here we go. Here’s a bunch of tables. Here’s this, and I’m like, “What? What is it?” It takes time, and it feels like, in a way, they’ve grown up, Wizards has grown up enough to go, “Hey, a whole lot of people want to play this. Why don’t we take eight pages to talk to the people that know nothing?” It’s quite welcoming, I think.

Craig: The last 10 years has seen an explosion in starter boxes. The fifth edition had one in–

John: Lost Mines of Phandelver.

Craig: Yes, and it’s a huge success. That’s one of the best. If there is a solid gold campaign, I think that one’s great.

John: The fifth edition, that’s the one.

Stu: That’s the one.

Craig: I think it’s telling that it’s not one of the hardcovers. It’s in the starter set. Chaosium does great starter sets. The Alien game has a great starter set. The Chaosium ones are great because they almost always have a solo scenario for you to play, which allows you to get into the game and figure it out and see what it’s like without the onus of having to put together a group.

John: Can we touch briefly on solo RPGs, because that’s the thing I learned about from your book that I wasn’t aware were a thing out there. It’s the solitaire version of some of these games and it feels like there’s some real innovation in them.

Stu: It used to just be basically like the fighting fantasy games, game books, that thing, where it’s like a choose-your-own-adventure with light mechanics thrown in. Chaosium solo is going to really resemble that. In recent years, there’s just a whole bunch of different approaches that people have taken to solos. Black Oath Entertainment puts these games out that are where you’re simulating everything as you go and there’s all these rule mechanics. You’re not only like playing the game by yourself, and it’s a game that resembles something like Crunchy or like a D&D, but you’re also building the world as you go and creating these narrative touchstones. It’s really very interesting.

John: Yes, it goes back to one of the core mechanics of roleplaying games is play to learn, basically, play to explore. You’re building the world as you’re going through it. The Hex Crawler games were a lot of that, where the map is not filled out until you get there.

Stu: Then there’s games that are just journaling prompts, which have an underlying system to them. Thousand-Year-Old Vampire is just an amazing game in that regard, where you’re collecting memories, and you can only keep so many of them. As you go, the game is making you lose these memories. It’s a very emotional and sad game.

Craig: Isn’t that what’s going to happen to me just from living?

Stu: Yes. Just think of it as being 1,000 years old then. It’s horrible. Dementia, the RPG, I don’t know, that sounds terrible.

Craig: But also beautiful.

Stu: Yes, there’s a mechanic where you get a journal in the game and you can write stuff down, but there’s also mechanics in the game that take that journal away from you at once. Those memories are gone. It’s just like, oh my god.

Craig: Flood in the basement?

Stu: Yes, exactly.

John: There’s also a rise of GM-less games where everyone is just a player in it and you’re all doing the thing, which tends to emphasize the roleplaying it all. You have a little section on Honey Heist, which was a great example of the absolute most minimal game. There’s one page back and front and those are all the rules.

Craig: Honey Heist I’ve played and it is as ridiculous and as satisfying as the name promises. Just so folks know, you’re playing bears and you’re trying to steal the honey at the honey convention. There’s a table for random hats, so it’s just amazing. It’s all you need to go, and it’s great.

John: As we wrap up here, I want to talk just a bit about Lovecraft because so many of these games, especially in the horror space, use Lovecraft IP, I guess is the way to phrase it. I think you do a good job in the book of talking about Lovecraft himself is so problematic, and yet so many of these games are built upon these ideas that come out of that space. It’s a whole vibe that wouldn’t exist without him. Where do you see the current moment with these games and where are we headed?

Stu: I think that in the last 20 years in general, horror writers have explored the cosmic in ways that have left Lovecraft behind. I think that there’s different ways to approach it now that aren’t– Everybody uses the word ‘Lovecraftian’. If it has tentacles, it’s Lovecraftian. It’s not. Lovecraftian actually refers to the really peculiar racisms of one guy in Providence. I think collectively we’ve learned how to work with some of his ideas without always bringing him along. I think that’s good. I think it’s going to get better and better as we go.

John: I think it’s also an interesting example of by giving yourself away or basically not trying to bunker down and hold on all your stuff, your ideas get out there further. The people who like, no, use my characters, use these names, use whatever, allows that stuff to get out much wider. One of the reasons we recognize his name is because not just what he did, but the influence he had in a whole generation of other creators who took his ideas and ran with them.

Stu: That’s always been the case from the very beginning. He personally allowed it. It engendered this collaborative and free form expansion of his ideas. That has definitely grown beyond what he would have condoned.

John: To bring us all back to the start, obviously we don’t get Dungeons and Dragons without Tolkien. We probably don’t get the same version of Dungeons and Dragons without Tolkien there. Early on, Tolkien had said, “No, you cannot call these things hobbits. That’s my term.” That’s why we have halflings in it. It’s lessons there.

Craig: Didn’t really slow D&D down, did it?

John: D&D works just fine. Stu, because you played so many more of these games, if listeners are curious about trying out some of these things, what would you recommend as a first RPG for someone to try, a first tabletop RPG?

Stu: If you’re of a certain age, having grown up in the ’80, I think that Tales from the Loop is a fantastic game to try just because it has a lot of nostalgic and emotional touchstones that will juice your engagement with the game. It’s a fairly simple– It’s like Alien in terms of the basic system. It’s crunchy, but also pretty narrative. I think that’s a good one, but there’s also a gazillion simple games that you could play. Honey Heist, which is literally printed in my book, the full rules. You can grab that or Mork Borg or there’s so much stuff. Go to my website. Just look around.

John: That is a great idea. Let us do our one cool thing. Craig, what do you have for us this week?

Craig: Well, it’s more of a hope than a thing. Apple had their WDC 25, which is where they show off the stuff that’s intended for developers. Oh, I guess it’s WWDC, Worldwide Developer Conference, not just world. This is the upcoming technology that is going to power things. They show this to the developers. Developers then can incorporate it into the apps they’re building so that Apple can make money off of their genius. There’s a bunch of things in here that I’m like, okay, great. The thing that I zeroed in on is that they appear to be getting closer to what I think is going to be the really important shift in technology soon.

Obviously, AI is taking over the conversation, but AI is a mode. It exists to accomplish things. The thing that I think will make a real difference, and we’ve talked about this before, is translation, the elimination of the language barrier. It seems like they’re getting closer. They’re providing something called live translation where text messages will be automatically translated as they go. More importantly, spoken translation for calls in the phone app. That’s the one that made me sit forward. Now you can call somebody who does not speak the same language you do and have a conversation on the phone. If that works, okay.

John: Yes. Impressed. We’ve been on this trajectory for a while. It’s good it’s being introduced in a product. I think we often say this on the podcast, this is the worst it will ever be.

Craig: Exactly.

John: It may not be great out of the gate, but I think it will be transformational because I’ve definitely been in situations like Northern Greece and we’re going to a restaurant and, well, no one speaks English. They pull out their Google phone and you’re just talking back and forth and handing the phone back and forth as it translates, but it’s not the immediacy that you really want.

I would love to be able to be on a Zoom with somebody who doesn’t speak my language and have it really work. I think we’re getting closer to that day. I share your optimism. My one cool thing is a video by Sara Bareilles and Rufus Wainwright. They were performing She Used To Be Mine. I think it was at Lincoln Center or Kennedy Center. This is the song from Waitress that Sara Bareilles wrote the musical for and it’s her singing the song with Rufus Wainwright and it’s– Craig, you’ll love this. You love a good singer.

Craig: I do.

John: They are phenomenal together. I’ll put a link to the original video, but then also there’s a whole category of people reacting to it, including this Australian vocal coach who’s going through watching segments of it, then talking through how they’re doing what they’re doing. It’s always so great to see experts really help you understand why this thing is working so well and the techniques that they’re using. Two videos I’ll put in there, both about Sara Bareilles and Rufus Wainwright singing She Used To Be Mine.

Craig: Love it.

John: Stu, do you have something to share with our listeners?

Stu: I feel like mine’s not nearly as cutting edge, but I just finished watching Kolchak: The Night Stalker series. Have you seen it before?

Craig: Oh my gosh.

John: Tell us about it. I know almost nothing. I recognize it as a name.

Stu: Oh, it’s so good. There’s a movie called The Night Stalker written by Richard Matheson with Darren McGavin as Kolchak, who’s this hard, shouty, awful reporter who finds out that there’s a vampire terrorizing Las Vegas. He kills the vampire there and he gets run out of town and goes to Seattle, which is the second movie, The Night Strangler, where there’s an alchemist who’s the Count de Saint Germain who’s killing women to steal their blood to keep his youth tonic. Kolchak kills him and then he gets a TV series called Kolchak: The Night Stalker, which is one hour creature of the week.

Totally inspires X-Files and basically anything else that has that creature of the week format really comes right out of Colchak. It’s just, it’s great. It’s ‘70s. It’s gritty, but also hokey. Darren McGavin’s performance is through the roof. He’s so endearing and obnoxious at the same time. It’s 20 episodes and I’m sad to see it go, but I finished watching it last night and it’s a fever dream of a show too.

John: I love it.

Stu: After a while, it just doesn’t make sense. He’s so quick to be willing to kill monsters. It’s great.

Craig: You know how you know a program was made before the tyranny of focus groups and overthink? Its title is Kolchak: The Night Stalker. That would not get off a piece of paper.

Stu: It back to the movie. I didn’t realize how huge the movie was. Millions and millions of people. It rivaled the Superbowl’s ratings. It was a TV movie. In 1971, it was just–

Craig: Just to put things in perspective. Back in 1971, everything rivaled the Superbowl.

Stu: True.

Craig: Three channels to watch. Yes. How many people watched the finale of MASH, which was the most watched thing on television I think of all time?

John: What, 70 million? Is that something?

Craig: It is 106 million viewers.

John: Good Lord. Jeez.

Craig: If we say percentage-wise of the population, if you adjusted that to our population today, it would be 152 million. You get a million people to watch something now, it’s like, meh, not bad.

John: I think Magnum PI’s finale has something ridiculous too like 70 million.

Craig: Yes, back in the day, there was only three channels. It wasn’t that hard.

John: Great stuff. Kolchak: The Night Stalker.

Stu: Yes, it’s really great. Bring it back.

John: We love it. That is our show for this week. Scripted and produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions.

You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You can find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes. We have t-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau.

You can find the show notes with the links for all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes, including a Fiasco episode and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on Dungeons. Oh, and, Stu Horvath, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Stu: This has been a blast. Thanks for having me.

John: Let’s remind people the book is called Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground. It is available everywhere, but where should people find you online?

Stu: You can find me at vintagerpg.com. There’s something like 2,500 entries, over 750,000 words and 2,000 pictures, all dedicated to roleplaying games for your edification and enjoyment.

Craig: Amazing.

John: I love it. Stu, thank you so much and stick around and we’ll talk to you in the bonus segment.

Stu: Right on.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, so, Stu, I finished your giant book, and it’s huge. It’s a compendium. It’s so good. It’s the right size for a D&D book because it’s D&D manual size. There’s a specific size it should be. On page 409, you talk about, in appendix D, that dungeons are a recent concept. Can you give us a little of the history of dungeons as a literary space?

Stu: As I mentioned, this is the subject of my next book, which is supposed to come out this year, called Down Down Down.

Craig: What a great title. I love that.

Stu: That’s going to be out through Strange Attractor Press, not MIT. Everybody’s like, Dungeons & Dragons is the first roleplaying game, and that’s awesome. I’m like, yes, firsts are all good, and sure, it’s a new form, but I feel the game itself was inevitable. I think that the thing that makes Dungeons & Dragons special is the dungeon. I think that it brings this idea of this mythic, irrational space and puts people in it to explore it that we had scratched at, but never really realized fully until Dungeons & Dragons.

John: Actually, can I stop you for one second? Craig hasn’t read this chapter, so I’m curious what Craig’s instinct is. What’s the first thing you think about with dungeons in the sense of where this comes from as a human experience?

Craig: My suspicion, or I’m just reaching into my brain, and what I’m finding there is the Spanish Inquisition and their torture chambers. That feels dungeon-esque to me. I don’t know why I thought they were torturing people in the subfloor of a building, but I feel like they were.

John: Yes, we think about prisons being down below, which is great, and we have that sense. My first thing was, oh, well, ancient Egyptian tombs and that stuff. There were tomb robbers, and so that was a thing. There wasn’t a connected space where there were monsters who were living in it. That’s not a new thing. Sam, talk us through what you found.

Stu: Basically, everything that’s older than Dungeons & Dragons has a couple of the things that are recognizable as a dungeon, but not all of them. I think the earliest one is the Labyrinth of Crete, which is a maze space with a monster. There’s no treasures. There’s no real traps. There’s no real room for adventure either. Most people, except for Theseus, who went in there just got eaten by the minotaur. Then there’s other stuff. There’s oubliettes, which is a misunderstanding of medieval architecture.

There’s a lot of slander of the medieval world in the idea of the dungeon, where people think that the medievals were much more barbaric than they were. The idea of the oubliette is you throw somebody into a room that has the door in the ceiling, you close the door, and you forget about them. That’s not true. They were really like cellars. They were salt cellars and stuff.

Craig: That’s not as menacing, really.

John: it wouldn’t be good to be thrown down in there, but that’s not the purpose of the room.

Craig: It’s not the purpose of the room. You’re just getting salt. I think that’s fine.

John: We go back to Orpheus in the Underworld. We have that sense of a hero crosses into an underground place, an underworld place, but it’s not a dungeon. There’s not a treasure. It’s always that they have one specific quest that they’re trying to do, to kill this thing or bring back their true love.

Stu: The Underworld is expansive too.

John: It is.

Stu: It’s not a constricted space. Where does the first real dungeon show up? I think that the first real dungeon shows up in the Blackmoor book, which is 1975, I think, supplement 2. Even that doesn’t really feel like a dungeon. It takes a little while before we get the dungeon-ier dungeons, like Tomb of Horrors and stuff. That’s ’78. Then there’s also stuff in Dark Tower, which was put out by Judges Guild. Other people were playing with dungeons more. What about the Mines of Moria?

Craig: That feels very dungeon-y to me.

John: That’s 1954?

Stu: Yes. Closer, but again, there’s no traps, really.

Craig: It’s true.

Stu: Tolkien never really put obstacles in front of his characters. They just walk through and get chased out. There’s that one battle in the tomb, but for the most part, there’s something missing. That’s very close.

Craig: There’s a puzzle to get in, which is interesting, and it certainly does feel like you’re going down, down, down, although weirdly then they end up in the top of a mountain, which I never understood. It has a central monster, and it definitely has sections, but you’re absolutely right. It is a long slog with tons of spaces where nothing happens, and if Pip doesn’t accidentally fail his deck save and knock that thing down a well, they probably just walk out of there.

John: As we talk about dungeons in terms of Dungeons & Dragons, it’s a space in which the adventure takes place, which the story takes place, and so it doesn’t actually literally have to be you went into a mountain or you went underneath the city. It’s just this is the space. Using it as a general holding place for this is the setting for this series of adventures, and there’s going to be some sense of going from room to room and there being a place you’re trying to get to and resting spots. All that feels our bigger conception of what a dungeon is, even if it’s not literally a place underground.

Stu: Yes. I think that one of the things that disqualifies Moria is that it feels rational. There’s a sense of place and history and purpose to the architecture. It does get a little irrational when you hit that bridge.

Craig: Yes. It’s the worst bridge ever.

Stu: Worst bridge ever. Yes. That is, I think, Moria at its most dungeon-like, when you have this ridiculous bridge that the players have to cross to escape a giant monster. That’s a dungeon.

Craig: They’re getting shot at by little dinky NPCs with range weapons. That always felt like, okay, we went through this massive carved hall with these huge columns and then they just got to the most important part and went, eh, let’s just do a really skinny bridge.
[laughter]
Yes. Definitely. Definitely.

Stu: If Wonderland was more dangerous, I think that would maybe be a good example of a dungeon.

Craig: Oh, that’s interesting.

Stu: Gygax adapted Wonderland into a pair of adventures.

Craig: Oh, okay. I like that.

John: I remember reading through those modules and like all Gygax’s things, it felt like they were just designed to kill you.

Stu: Yes.

John: They felt completely unsurvivable.

Stu: You really did not have balanced encounters.

John: No. Oh, that’s great. We look forward to seeing the full book version of your conversation on dungeons because it is a clever thing, which I’d never considered until I read your appendix. Again, Stu, thank you so much for coming on this podcast. It was such a great conversation with you.

Stu: Thank you. This was so much fun. I was honored when I heard the book as a one cool thing and to be asked on was equally honoring.

Craig: Great convo, Stu. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom.

Stu: Thanks for having me on. Bye.

Links:

  • Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground by Stu Horvath
  • VintageRPG.com by Stu Horvath
  • D&D 5th Edition
  • Amateur press association (APA)
  • Little Wars by H.G. Wells
  • Peter Cushing painting his minifigs
  • Chainmail by Gary Gygax & Jeff Perren
  • Chaosium
  • Tunnels & Trolls
  • Dread RPG
  • Fiasco
  • Scriptnotes episode 142: The Angeles Crest Fiasco
  • Critical Role
  • Alien: The Roleplaying Game
  • Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game
  • Traveller
  • 2024 D&D Player’s Handbook
  • Blackoath Entertainment
  • Thousand Year Old Vampire
  • Tales From the Loop RPG
  • Honey Heist
  • WWDC live translation
  • She Used to Be Mine performance and vocal coach reaction
  • Kolchak: The Night Stalker
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 688: Writing Jokes with Mike Birbiglia, Transcript

May 28, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: Okay, so. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to episode 688 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we welcome back a seven-time guest.

Craig: Oh.

John: He is a comedian, filmmaker, and podcaster whose new special, The Good Life, debuted this week on Netflix. It is the legendary Mike Birbiglia. Welcome back.

Mike Birbiglia: Hey, guys. This is my favorite podcast. I, on the flight here, listened to the Taffy Akner Moneyball episode. As a fan of the show, I request-

Craig: More?

Mike: -more breaking apart a movie.

John: Oh, yes. The Deep Dives? Yes.

Mike: Oh my gosh.

Craig: I think he’s right. I think he’s right. We don’t do it enough. I guess what we do do enough, or maybe too much of, is having Mike Birbiglia on the show.

John: No.

Craig: Seven-time host. We should give you the jacket, the robe that SNLers get.

Mike: The Seven Timers Club.

Craig: The Seven Timers Club.

John: Here are the episodes he was on. First was in 2013 for My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend Screenwriter. That’s way back to your first film. Then, Austin Forever in 2014. That was an Austin Live show, which I had forgotten that we actually– that’s where you first–

Mike: My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend Special. Then, what was it? We talked about Sleepwalk with Me, the movie? My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend wasn’t a movie.

John: It was number two. Yes, okay. That was a special, wasn’t it?

Mike: That was a special, yes.

John: That was a special, right. I think I first saw you– Joss Whedon interviewed you at the Writers Guild Theater for Sleepwalk With Me.

Mike: For Sleepwalk With Me. 2012. Woo.

John: 2014, Austin Forever. 2016, Don’t Think Twice. Your movie, which we all loved.

Mike: Thanks.

John: It was so early on the dissection of how comedy groups work and how improv works and all that stuff. It’s held up really well.

Mike: Oh, thanks.

John: We had you on in 2019 for The New One. We had you in 2020. You were part of a big episode with What We’re All Up To during the pandemic. We checked in with you there. I was a guest on your show, which we also aired on this very podcast. Your show called Working It Out, your podcast, is phenomenal. I recommend it to–

Craig: I have seen it. That’s the thing. That’s why I like the idea of maybe putting this on video because I like watching you-

Mike: Oh, wow. Thanks.

Craig: -more than I like listening to you.

Mike: That’s fascinating.

Craig: I actually turn the sound off.

Mike: Oh, you turn the sound off?

Craig: Yes. I just watch you.

Mike: I’m like a silent film podcast star to you?

Craig: I blow it up and I just look at you mouth. Yes, Sexy Craig likes your podcast.

Mike: Oh, I’m so glad that we’re recording this.

John: Recently on your podcast, you had Gary Simons, who works with you on that podcast.

Mike: Yes, true.

John: He’s also a stand-up comic. You were talking through the process. It was so good in terms of answering questions about what it’s like to get a career started as a stand-up comic in the way that I think we’re trying to answer those questions for aspiring screenwriters. It was just so, so smart.

Mike: Thanks a lot. It’s funny. There were two episodes back-to-back that were Scriptnotes-esque but in the comedy space. The Gary Simons episode, which we basically speak to what do you do in the first three to five years of trying to be a comic? Then the week before Ira Glass comes on and decides, “Hey, I want to try to do stand-up comedy.”

Craig: I was impressed by this. I really was.

Mike: It was like, “Well, what happens if you’re not a stand-up comic? You want to try it. I perform 10 minutes. What is your critique of these 10 minutes? It’s not unlike the three-page challenge.

John: What I’d like to do with you on the podcast today is talk about how you write a joke for the stage, for a sketch, or for a scene. We have some scenarios. It’s like how would this be a movie, but how would this be a joke? We have some scenarios we’re going to talk through and figure out what is the comedic premise for each of these types of writing and how different they are. A joke you tell on stage versus a sketch versus a scene, they’re really different needs even though they are all potentially finding comedy in a situation.

Mike: That’s great.

John: Cool. We’re also going to answer listener questions on breaking a story, using an idea, TV remakes. In our bonus segment for premium members, let’s talk about video and social and all the infrastructure behind the scenes and stuff, because you and your team do an amazing job with video for your podcast, the marketing without making it feel like marketing. You must have email lists that are managed. I’d just love to know what all that’s like, because it’s just–

Craig: Because we want to beat you.

Mike: Sure.

Craig: Teach us your ways so that we may overcome you.

John: I just want to know more about that.

Mike: That seems great. I love that.

John: Cool. Drew, we have some news.

Drew Marquardt: We do. We realized that Spotify had comments on the podcast episodes.

Craig: Oh.

Mike: No idea.

Drew: So we turned them off. Oh, we have yours too.

John: The Spotify comments we were getting on Scriptnotes episode, and the reason we turned them off, they’re all about The Last of Us, Craig.

Mike: Oh my gosh.

Craig: Great. I’m sure the people that take time to leave comments on Spotify love the show and all the decisions we’ve made.

Drew: Very measured feedback.

John: Mike, yours are still on. You may not realize this, so we have a sampling of some of the comments on your Ira Glass episode.

Mike: Amazing.

John: Rory wrote in and said, “Maybe the best episode of the show feels like the core of what this podcast should be about.”

Mike: Oh, wow.

John: String of Numbers says, “Props to Ira for being open and vulnerable in his work. It was interesting to see Mike pointing out where the punchline should go and Ira being less sure how to approach that.”

Mike: Sure. All right.

John: Elise says, “Love this show but “Hiking is walking” is a joke made on Sex and the City-

Mike: Oh.

John: -by a character played by David Duchovny 20 years ago. It’s not original.”

Mike: Fair.

John: Then we also looked at the YouTube clip for that and it said, “You don’t know this, but in my brain, you’re my dad.”

Mike: Me or Ira?

John: Yes, to you.

Mike: All right.

Craig: You wanted it to be Ira, didn’t you?

[laughter]

Mike: He is in some ways, I said this on the episode. He in some ways feels like my dad.

Craig: He’s a very paternal.

John: He is, yes.

Craig: Yes, he gives that vibe.

John: Yes, but I think there’s a lot of dad energy in this podcast right now. We’re all very in that dad–

Craig: Even you. Even you, Drew.

John: Yes. He’s a young dad. Young dad. He has a young child.

Mike: Oh, you have a young child?

Drew: I don’t. No.

Mike: Okay. Perfect.

[laughter]

Craig: Because he seems so ambivalent about it?

Mike: Yes, exactly.

Craig: I know I have five kids, but I don’t know if I’m real.

John: Drew looks like he could be pushing a stroller, though.

Craig: Oh, for sure.

Drew: I’m going to take that as a compliment.

Craig: Drew, are we allowed to ask you how old you are by law?

Drew: I don’t think legally, no.

Craig: Okay. I’m not asking you. If you volunteer it, I’m just curious.

Drew: I’m 35.

Craig: I already had a five-year-old and a two-year-old by that point. I would say yes, he’s stroller age.

John: Final comment on your YouTube. Why do I just now realized Mike looks a lot like Matt Damon? Do you get the Matt Damon comparison?

Mike: Yes. Cross between Matt Damon and Bill O’Reilly.

Craig: Oh, wow.

John: Oh, wow. That’s it.

Craig: I would adjust that to just Bill O’Reilly.

John: Now, once it, you can’t unsee it. It’s crazy.

Craig: You are young, kind Bill O’Reilly.

Mike: Every time– so over the years, I get Paul Rudd. The one I got for years was James Van Der Beek.

John: [crosstalk]

Mike: When I was on Late Night with Seth Meyers once, and James Van Der Beek was there, I was like, “People tell me I look like you.” He was just like, “I don’t see it.” Anyway. Now I never say what people compare me [unintelligible 00:07:02]

Craig: The next time you’re on O’Reilly, you should bring it up.

Mike: Oh, God.

John: Where is O’Reilly now? Is it a podcast or is it a video? I don’t know. He’s not on a network anymore.

Mike: I think it’s probably some a self-release thing, right?

Craig: Podcast thing. From his bunker.

John: Yes, it’s wild. Mike, talk to us about this special. I saw versions of this along the way. I saw you had Mike Birbiglia and Friends, where you did some of the material in this. Then I saw the full thing on stage, and I saw it last night in its finished Netflix form. I think we’ve talked on previous episodes about your process, which we can see as a bunch of note cards up on a board.

Mike: Sure.

John: What was the inception of this, and when did you find the pieces fitting together?

Mike: The inception of it was two years ago when I finished The Old Man in the Pool, which was at Lincoln Center, and we filmed it for Netflix. I always talk on my podcast about this concept of obsession. What is the thing you’re obsessed about, can’t stop thinking about? As a writer, it’s like, “Well, just write that. Just free write on that. This Is My Journal, it’s like I’m free writing on that at breakfast this morning.

Two years ago, it was just like, “Oh, this is weird. My daughter is eight years old now, and I don’t know a lot of the answers to the questions, because kids just always ask so many questions. I was knocking it out of the park till age eight. Then all of a sudden, it’s like, “Oh, these are tricky questions.” I just went– my first thing is always like I go to the comedy cellar. I go to small 100, 200 seat comedy rooms, try out a ton of jokes. Those jokes eventually become stories. At a certain point, I start to form the stories into having, similar to how you guys talk about it all the time, of so-then causality versus and-then lateral movement story-wise.

About a year into the process, my dad had a stroke, and so much of my life became about taking care of my dad. I started to think in relation to, “Okay, what if the show was about how do I explain things to my daughter?” and also, “What is my relationship with my own dad?” It becomes this– the title is The Good Life, but it becomes a meditation on the question that my daughter asked me when she looked up at a smoke shop called, The Good Life, “Dad, what’s the good life?” It opens the special with an existential question, “What is the good life?” It makes the audience wonder that. Then I go through a lot of stories with my daughter and with my dad, and then it arrives at a thesis at the end of what is the good life.

John: Yes. Great. When you’re figuring out these pieces, one of these things you get to do as a stand-up comic is just constantly test the material and constantly see what actually resonates with the audience. When we’re writing scenes, we’re writing scenes but they just exist on a page. We don’t hear them. We don’t feel them. We don’t get a reaction. You’re constantly getting the reaction. What was the culling process like of like, “Oh, I think it’s this idea.” How developed are jokes you’re telling in those initial rooms?

Mike: The jokes at the beginning are– they’re developed insofar as I’ve run them by friends who are comics, usually. Our listenerships are similar in the sense of it’s a lot of creative people who are either working as creatives or want to work as creatives. I always say, try to build a community of the people around you. I look around at the people who I started with, and we were all broke and struggling in our 20s. I look around and go, “Oh, they’re doing really well now.” ‘You know what I mean? There is a thing to creating your own community of people who are at your level.

I feel like now it’s like people like Pete Holmes and John Mulaney are people who in my 20s were trying to figure it all out, and we would run jokes by each other. Now everyone has a really good career, but still you run jokes by each other. Then even, I think it was one of those Largo shows that you were at and Mulaney came on and he gave me a joke that ended up in the special. There’s a line where I go, “I’m a comedian. My wife is a poet. Together, we’re a sculptor.” I came off stage and he goes, “What about this?” He goes, “It doesn’t make sense, but what do you think of this?” I was like, “Yes, I’ll try that.” It somehow does make sense in the context of the special.

That’s what it is. It’s like, you start out with, you bounce jokes off friends, which is what my whole podcast is. Then when you figure out something that you think is worth an audience seeing, you put it out there. Then I go on tour, and that’s really instructive bringing it to all different cities because you see like, “Oh, yes, this isn’t just a provincial sense of humor in New York City. This is something that plays everywhere,” or it doesn’t play. I think a huge part of being a comedian is figuring out what doesn’t work.

Craig: Yes, I wish that we had that. Although I suppose what we do– we don’t quite have it on the granular level that you do because I don’t think any of our friends would just go, “Hey, here’s a scene.”

Mike: Yes, sure.

Craig: It starts on page 37. You don’t know what happened before. We will share scripts, and we will look at– maybe even it’s more common to happen deeper into the process where we’ll say, “Okay, here’s a cut of.” You, actually, you had that testing procedure for your movie-

Mike: Don’t Think Twice, yes.

Craig: -Don’t Think Twice, where you would have a reading and people would there and then discuss it, which was really smart.

John: It’s hard to iterate. Long form writing is just hard to iterate overall.

Craig: It is.

John: You can’t watch this whole thing. When I was doing Big Fish, the musical, we could iterate. Every night, we could see the show like, “Oh, this is what’s working. This is what’s not working.” I can swap out jokes. We could move whole scenes around. In film and TV writing, it’s not really possible.

Craig: Yes, it is a little scary to know that you’re chiseling in stone and then sending it out into the world. What I love about what you’re saying, it’s what– we talked about writers’ groups last week, I think. Part of me gets itchy when people write in and they’re like, “I’m part of a writer’s group,” because I think, “Well, what if all the writers in that group aren’t very good?” because the odds are they’re not.

Mike: Sure.

Craig: Then they’re all giving each other advice, and it’s maybe bad. Then I think, “Okay, if you do find yourself hitting a mark, getting a job, entering, to look around for people that are also like you, and what I think has changed, I don’t know if you agree with me, John, when we started in Hollywood, it felt like you were isolated and that, in fact, we were all meant to be in competition with each other. We were like horses in our stall before the gate opens.

I think as the internet brought everybody together, that went away completely and became more like, Okay, I’m going to pick up a phone, “Have you worked with this person?” or, “I have an idea. Do you think this is a good idea?” I love that you can do that with– does it ever hurt?

Mike: Which part of it?

Craig: When you’re like, “Okay, I’m going to try this show. Okay, Mulaney, I’m going to run this by you,” and he just stares at you and he’s like, “No.”

Mike: No, I don’t think that hurts. I don’t say– Look, I think not doing well with a joke with friends, it’s hard in that moment. Not doing well with a joke on stage is hard in that moment. I think you have to, like there’s an imperative to view it as I’m getting feedback for something that will be finished later. It’s like the wisest thing that almost anyone ever taught me is my editor, Jeffrey Richman, who edited this special, he edited both of my movies, he edited Severance, he did Escape at Dannemora, he does a lot of stuff with Ben Stiller. On both movies, I had moments in the edit where I go, “What are we going to do? This is a disaster.”

Craig: Oh, sure.

Mike: He just goes, “Oh, we’re not going to hand it in till it’s done.” It’s so simple of an idea, but I think that that’s– all artistic process, you just don’t hand it in till it’s done.

Craig: What I think people that work in comedy have, that people who have never worked in comedy don’t have, is this, which is, sometimes I describe it as a work ethic, but what I really think it is humility. Comedy humiliates you.

Mike: [laughs] Yes, sure.

Craig: Humiliates you. Then, as part of the process, you must get re-humiliated over and over and over-

Mike: That’s right.

Craig: -to the point where you don’t even see it as humiliation anymore. You see it as part of the process towards turning it in before it’s done.

Mike: That’s right.

Craig: A lot of people who come in drama have this opposite point of view. Their point of view is, “I need to treasure my instincts. That is my voice, and what I have done, therefore, is correct, regardless of what people think.” I think having a little bit of that isn’t such a bad idea, but I’m far more admiring of the humiliation sequence.

Mike: Liz Gilbert has this, who wrote Eat, Pray, Love, and many other great things, has this TED Talk that’s so good about the idea of not being a genius but having a genius, and holding it, and fostering it. That way it doesn’t become about you, or you, or you.

Craig: Oh, yes.

Mike: I think that that’s really key as a comedian. You can never think, “I am funny.” You have to think, “I want to create something that is funny for these people.”

Craig: That’s brilliant. I think that’s absolutely brilliant. Now, also, you probably need to then do the same thing for whatever the opposite of genius is, the self-loathing, the critic, I guess, which is sometimes hard for me. I should imagine like, “Okay, it’s easy for me to imagine there’s genius over there. That’s not me.” Now I have to figure out like, “Okay.” Also, there’s a critic over there not in here. That can be difficult. I like that.

John: I want to talk to you about how you bring yourself to your work. As writers, we’re always putting ourselves in our scripts and in our pages, but it’s all disguised. It’s never really exactly us. We’re never identifying like, “Oh, this is me doing this thing,” versus your stand-up, which is all about what has happened to you. All of your comedy is very centered on your experience of things that happened to you, and the people around you, which is a challenge because your wife, Jenny, your daughter, Una, they’ve been part of all of your specials. We know a lot about them even though we’ve never met them.

Mike: My parents, yes.

John: Your parents, especially in this one, and your dad, who’s unwillingly dragged into this story.

Mike: Oh, yeah. So you’ve been talking to him about it?

John: Oh, yes. Can you talk to me, as you’re developing this material and trying it on stage, how do you find the boundaries of like, “Well, this is me, Mike Birbiglia, as the individual person, versus me, the performer, who is creating this funny thing that’s not me”?

Mike: That is probably the most challenging part of it. I think that’s part of the reason why I’m going to take a few years off from autobiographical storytelling right now, because my daughter is 10, and she’s entering those years where I feel like you don’t want to make someone more self-conscious about all their stuff.

Craig: Yes, and you probably don’t want to be looking too closely at it either-

Mike: No.

Craig: -having gone through it twice.

Mike: Oh, yes.

Craig: It will be a great story for you 15 years from now.

Mike: Sure, yes. That’s what Jenny– My wife is a poet, brilliant poet, but she always says, whenever we’re going through something that’s really hard, she’s like, “Write it down. Just don’t release it now.”

Craig: I like how concise that is, have you ever checked to see if she’s constantly speaking to you in haiku and you just don’t remember?

[laughter]

John: It’s been a long constant this entire time. We’re going to wind back to the table, and I’ll think, “Oh, everything was a haiku.”

Craig: That would be the most brilliant thing ever.

Mike: She’s very wise and poetic person. Yes, that is hard. I’m pivoting over to the thing I’m writing right now. It’s fictional. I’m writing a movie and hopefully shoot next year, in the vein of Don’t Think Twice, a small-budget indie comedy. Yes, I’m going to take a few years off from it because I do think it’s hard. I’m talking about my dad. My dad’s in his final stage of life. He could go tomorrow. He could go in a year or two years, but it’s the final stage of life. It’s so hard. Yes, that side of it, I’m always juggling what am I saying and am I depicting the person well. Am I trying to find myself as the joke of the story-

John: Exactly.

Mike: -as opposed to just taking on people?

John: Absolutely. In this last special, you’re talking about how terrible nine-year-old girls are, which is just true, nine-year-olds are terrible. There’s a reason why you go to the jumpy gym where everyone’s going to get hurt because everybody gets hurt. All that stuff is very relatable, but none of it is directed. Your daughter comes out well in all of it.

Mike: True. I love my daughter, I hate her friends.

[laughter]

John: Yes, absolutely. A class of people is great, but the focus of the humiliation is always you. It’s your hard nipples.

John: That’s right.

Mike: It’s all-

Craig: I get that too.

[laughter]

Mike: The thing that’s funny about that, about the autobiographical side of that, is the hard nipple story is basically, I’ll paraphrase it for the audience, but it’s when I was 12, I had hard nipples. Sometimes something happens during puberty. I was always a hypochondriac, so I thought it was cancer. I went to my dad– he’s a doctor– and go, “Hey, Dad. I have hard nipples.”

John: On your special you say like, “Dad, I have cancer.”

Mike: I have cancer. He goes, “Why do you think that?” “I have hard nipples.”

Craig: I loved how calm he was. Why do you think that?

John: Exactly.

Mike: He’s a neurologist. No emotion.

[laughter]

Mike: I was like, “Well, see for yourself.” I take off my shirt. In the living room, he feels my hard nipples. Then he gives me the briefest medical diagnosis I’ve received to this very day. He goes, “Nope.” That was the end of the conversation.

[laughter]

Craig: What a comforting presence in your life.

Mike: Yes, exactly. This is a great example of when people ask me, “Are these stories true?” Sometimes they’re not true in small ways that you would never guess. When my dad felt my nipples, it was in his bedroom.

Craig: Oh.

Mike: I took it out.

Craig: Yes, that’s smart.

Mike: I relocated it to the living room because the audience–

Craig: You don’t want them going where you don’t want them going. You want them going there a tiny bit, which is, LOL, my dad’s feeling me up.

Mike: LOL, yes.

Craig: If he’s feeling me up in his bedroom, that’s not LOL.

John: What’s also crucial, though, is that you had already set up that your dad would come home from his two jobs and sit in his chair and read his war novels. You’re able pull it back to war novels. He sets down his war novel and puts his hands on your hard nipples.

Mike: That’s right.

John: You already created the image for us, which is why it’s so much better than what it is.

Craig: Apparently we have the same dad.

Mike: Yes, exactly.

Craig: I love dadness. I have to say it’s underappreciated in our society. We make fun of the fact that the dad comes home sits there and reads the war novel or watches the History Channel or plays a very long version of some World War II simulation with a friend. It’s wonderful. Let’s celebrate that.

Mike: Yes, sure.

Craig: Let’s celebrate that guy.

John: The last thing I want to talk to you about before we get to these “how would this be a jokes” is transitions. We talk on the show constantly about transitions and how you move from scene to scene. I’d seen your special on stage, but watching it filmed, I was very aware of when you’re transitioning from one idea to the next idea, from one tone to the next tone, from we’re in this world, now, we’re in this world. I’m sure it’s a thing that you worked out doing the show again and again live. You were able to pivot on such small spaces. Sometimes it’s a gesture, it’s a single word repeated, and pull us along to a completely new thing.

Mike: Sure.

John: Are you writing that? Are you thinking that or is just how it works on stage as you’re feeling it out?

Mike: I would describe that as the final stage of the development in a two-year process. It’s probably the final six months just figuring out how is this story, so then this story, so then this story, so then this story. My director, Seth Barrish, who also directed the special and– it’s a confusing title for people, but he is a dramaturgical person. He works through the script with me and the logic of the script. We’ll spend an extraordinary amount of time. He’ll go, “When you go to the hard nipples story, and then you go to but actually your dad wasn’t physically affectionate, but you are physically affectionate with your daughter. You hug her, you say, I love you. I don’t understand the connection between those two ideas.”

It’s almost like he’s making– what Seth is doing is he’s making his brain blank and — or attempting to — over and over and over again, making, trying to imagine what it would be like as someone who’s never seen the show, getting rid of the curse of knowledge. Getting rid of the curse of knowledge. We have these long, drawn out conversations. I’m sure you guys deal with this in television and films all the time, which is like, you’ll end up taking something that was 150 words, and then at the end of the edit, it’s four words. But those four words are the right four words.

Craig: Absolutely.

Mike: That’s a lot of what we do.

John: Last night, we were also talking about how a thing you do really well, which you see other comics do, but I was really struck by it last night, is we’re on one thread, and then you take a diversion, and we’re on another thread, which is really, really funny. Then you pull us back to the main thread, and we’d forgotten that we were on that thread, and yet we’re like, “Oh, yes.” You get a jolt of energy because you’re back on the main thread. You had forgotten that you’d taken a detour. It’s not a recall. We’re just rejoining the story that we were already on. It’s really well done.

Craig: You get to be a genius, because if you’re talking normally with people, you cannot maintain 12 spinning plates, including a hidden one up your sleeve, that you then go, ah-ha, and ah. You plan your own brilliance so that when you do come back around to things, it’s magician stuff. Right?

Mike: It’s a very strange art form, in the sense that, as a comedian, when you meet people, you are always a letdown because you look like that guy on stage, and your voice is the same as that guy on stage, but there’s less jokes, there’s less causality story to story. The transitions aren’t great.

Craig: No big surprises.

Mike: No big surprises.

Craig: No full circles.

Mike: Yes, nothing comes full circle.

John: No natural segues, no.

Craig: Just a lot of stammering, and then, and sweat.

Mike: Also, what I’ve noticed through the years is, I think comedians are people who are frustrated at parties because when we perform, people laugh or don’t laugh. They don’t interject. They don’t go, “Let me tell you about my sleepwalking story.” ‘You know what I mean?

Craig: “No, no. Sir, sit down.” Heckler.

Mike: This is the best one-

Craig: Yes?

Mike: “I’ve got the best sleepwalking story here. Everyone shut up.”

Craig: You do. You should just bring somebody with you to parties, who can tell other people to shut up.

Mike: Yes, can you imagine if comedians showed up at parties, and we’re like, “All right, everyone step aside.”

John: Yes, we do.

Craig: Yes, all of your stupid stories, wrap them up.

Mike: With your banter.

Craig: We’ve got a good one that’s crowd tested. Yes, that must be really frustrating. That’s like being, I don’t know, you play in the symphony, and then you go to somebody’s backyard where everyone’s like, “Oh, we’re going to do a quick jam. What do you play? Violin?” “Yes.” The guy banging the pot lid is really loud and–

Mike: You guys must have that, though, with movies, because people– everyone has a take on movies and television. Then you come in, and you’re like, “Okay, here’s my take, and mine’s right.”

John: Yes, but also, the movie is not happening in front of you. No one’s expecting, “Craig, make a movie right now.” There’s not that performance.

Craig: If it were that.

Mike: Yes, it’s–

Craig: If it were a party where the idea was to write a short scene, then I suppose that would be really frustrating.

John: Yes, I suppose, beautiful people who are photographed, they’re still beautiful in real life, but they’re not as attractive, they look immortal.

Craig: The wind machine is on and so forth?

John: Yes.

Craig: Yes, but you’re absolutely– you guys are in the worst spot. Congratulations.

Mike: Thank you so much.

[laughter]

John: Let’s take a look at writing some jokes. We have three different stories that I’ve pulled from recent news things. We’re going to start with the Run Club Haters. This is a story in Curved Magazine, a New York magazine, by Melissa Dahl. Drew, can you give us a short summary of the lead here for this story?

Drew: One Saturday morning in April, Amy was running along Kent Avenue in Brooklyn, one of her usual routes. It was a sunny spring day. The sidewalk was crowded with runners, some running alone like her, and others in big groups. At some point, she realized one of those big groups was headed straight towards her. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” says Amy, who’s 31 and has been running in New York since 2015.

It was, in her memory, a group of young women running five to eight abreast. They were completely across the sidewalk, she recalls. This is the most runners she’s ever seen taking up a path, but she’s gone head to head with run clubs before.

Usually she moves aside, even if it means briefly stepping into the street or a bike lane. This time, she wanted to test something. She didn’t change course, and neither did they. It was something of a game of runner’s chicken, which ended when Amy ran straight through the pack, colliding with one of the women. “Neither of us fell, but I think she was definitely shook,” Amy says. The woman started apologizing, but Amy didn’t stick around to.”

John: This article goes on to talk with organizers of run clubs, including some who accidentally started a run club because they just posted on Instagram, “Oh, I’m going for a run if anyone wants to join?” and then 100 people show up. They’re also talking about parks that are now requiring permits, costing $1,000 for people to do this. This is as a story space, and I was wondering, let’s first start talking about, where are the jokes? Where’s the comedy we could find in this-

Mike: If we were Amy.

John: -if we were Amy or if we were anywhere–

Craig: I don’t want to be Amy.

John: If we were anywhere–

Craig: I don’t want to be in the run club.

John: We could be any of the characters in the story, but if this is something that happened to us or around us, where are some of the jokes? Where are the comedic premises there?

Mike: I think, first of all, you’d have to be Amy in the story. If you’re one of the big group of bird people who essentially wallop someone in the street, that’s not going to be very relatable, but we’ve all been the Amy of the story, which is– I would say, if this were my story, if this were something that happened to me, it would be talking about the observation in general of when people take up the whole sidewalk. You can bring up different examples.

One of my examples that drives me nuts is people with dogs where they’re on one side of the sidewalk, the leash goes across. It’s essentially a trip wire created by them and their evil dog, and they don’t act like they’re taking up the whole curb. I would go into observational things about that, and then I would go into, how do you feel about walking? Are you afraid of walking? How do you feel about walking in the city?

Ira Glass, in some ways, taught me how to tell these types of 7 to 10-minute stories. He always thinks of it in terms of a story, non-comedically, is a little bit of plot, how do you feel about the plot, a little bit more plot, how do you feel about the plot? In my case, as a comedian, it’s a little bit of plot, some jokes about the plot. A little bit of plot, the jokes about the plot. In order for us to care about Amy’s story, or “my story” walking down the street and running into a herd of runners, is you have to know that pushes my buttons as a character. Right?

Craig: Not enough to know that anybody would feel particularly annoyed. You really feel.

Mike: That’s right.

Craig: If this were in a very broad movie, there’s the classic escalation technique. It begins with, I’m running, and there’s one guy just staggering, “I got to go run.” All right, and then there’s the guy with the dog, and then there’s two runners, and then there’s just a wall of runners, and then there’s a Zamboni.

Mike: Yes, that’s right.

Craig: You just keep– it just gets stupider and stupider if it’s–

Mike: That’s straight from Naked Gun.

Craig: That’s Naked Gun. I do think there could be a sketch version where you are part of the run-

Mike: Oh, the runners group? Yes.

Craig: -where the run club is the most heinous, horrible group of people. It’s not just runners, it’s people in stretchers, and it’s– I could see that.

John: It’s taking me back to– on safari and you’ll see a bunch of animals stampede, and it’s like, “Oh shit.” One runner by themselves is not threatening at all, but you see a pack moving towards you, they just– all of your instincts kick in. It’s like, “Oh, this is a dangerous situation.” I also want to get back to what you talked about, humiliation and Amy being humiliated or being the source of– the problem is her is also, I think, really important too. What is it about me that I decided like, “Today, I’m going to be the person, I’m not going to move.”

Craig: Today I decided is really good. Maybe the setup is like every day I see the run club, I turn around and flee. Today I’m not going to because a friend told me to stick up for myself and my therapist. I’m going to hold my head high, and I’m not going to move, and she’s killed. That’s all, they kill her, which is a really good lesson.

Mike: I have an analogous story years ago that I do as stand-up sometimes that’s never found its way into the special. It’s a similar city scenario, which is years ago, I’m rushing down subway steps at the West Forest stop. One of the jokes I make is, I’m always in a rush, I have nowhere to be. I’ve never had anywhere to be. I’m always in a rush. I trip on my lace. My dad taught me how to tie my shoes when I was a kid– he was never around. As I’m not good at it, and so I trip fourth step from the bottom, fly in the air, I land on the ball of my shoulder.

Craig: Argh.

Mike: I know. I often tell people growing up, I know. I was that guy writhing on the floor.

Craig: Dirty subway floor.

Mike: Dirty subway floor. People blowing past me-

John: Of course.

Mike: -just like, “Are you okay?” “No.” “Good,” or “Yes, good,” and then they’re gone. Then, what I sometimes say– nobody’s like, “Oh– “ “If you’re laughing, you’ve been one of these pigs. I want you pigs to know, we’re not fooled by your faux generosity.” It is a similar scenario where, essentially what you’re trying to explain is what your point of view is, what your status quo is. It’s not dissimilar to movie writing. Then what happens, and then what happens because of that.

John: Because of that, there’s a chain of events, there’s a causality like this was not the end of the story. It’s moving to the next thing.

Let’s try our next thing. This is a story from Slate’s Care and Feeding. The advice is from Michelle Herman, but the letter writer is anonymous. Drew, help us out.

Drew: My mother and father divorced more than 10 years ago when I was in eighth grade, after my mother learned my dad was cheating on her. Once my parents split, my father married his affair partner, Ruth, and moved out of state. They ended up having two kids who are now eight and five. After my dad moved out of the house, he never paid a penny in child support, and I didn’t hear a word from him again, until now.

My dad told me that my five-year-old half-sister, Amelia, was undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. Her medical team wanted her to undergo a bone marrow transplant, but neither he, his wife, nor my half-brother was a match. He asked if I would be willing to undergo a screening to see if I am. Long story short, I am.

I find myself utterly conflicted. This man, who was supposed to be my dad, to love and provide for me, shattered my family with his selfishness. He abandoned me for the woman he cheated on my mother with. He wasn’t there to teach me to drive or to see me graduate from high school or college.

While I spent a decade dealing with the pain and rage his walking out on me caused, he started a new family and forgot I existed. Had his daughter not needed a donor, I doubt I would have ever heard from him again. Here he is, crawling to me, hat in hand. Part of me wants to tell him and his wife to leave me alone and never contact me again. I’ve never met my half-sister. I feel no connection to her. But then, there’s this stupid part of me that says that my father and Ruth were the ones who hurt me and that Amelia is innocent. That denying her a potentially life-saving treatment as a means of taking revenge against her parents would be wrong.”

Craig: That’s the stupid part? Okay. Because this guy cheated on my mom and left and didn’t pay child support, I now have a golden opportunity to murder a little girl.

John: Oh my God.

[laughter]

Craig: It was pretty awesome, actually. I also like that she said “affair partner,” by the way. There’s a whole side bit on that, like partner, the way that partners become a thing. In our society, it was just husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, and now everyone says partner. I never know if people are gay or not. I have no idea what’s going on. I don’t know if they’re working together or romantic.

Mike: It’s a startup?

Craig: Affair partner.

Mike: It’s an app they’re working on.

Craig: Yes, exactly. An affair partner is incredible. That’s like granting status like cheating– Anyway.

John: There’s lots of things to unpack and potential comedic things to hold on to, even though this is not obviously comedic. There’s some good stuff here.

Her rage to this disappearing dad, that conflict and that my expectation of what this man is versus the reality is great comedic fodder. Obviously, her relationship to whatever this donor, her half-sister is fascinating. The space of bone marrow donations and would you help out a stranger? The trolley problem of it all is also fascinating. Mike, what’s your way in?

Mike: Yes, I think the way in, with anything that dramatic, I always say to people like, “You need to find one joke that works because the one joke that works indicates to the audience, ‘We’re all okay laughing about this.’” The way that Drew read it, and it was beautiful, was a little bit like a eulogy where it’s a sad story. That’s a tough story. If you just told it like Drew told it on stage in the first person, people would not know to laugh. They would go, “Well, what’s the funny part?”

I just think you need to find a joke. It’s like I have a joke in my special where I go, “My dad was a doctor and in his free time, he got his law degree. That’s how much he didn’t want to be a dad.” The audience knows that my point of view is I’m over that part of it. I’m okay with that part of it.

I had bladder cancer when I was 20 and the first joke I figured out was like, I had bladder cancer, but it’s funny because I’m a hypochondriac. I think the funniest thing that can happen to a hypochondriac is you get cancer because it affirms every fear you’ve ever had. “See, I told you. Remember last week when I thought I had rickets? I was probably right about that too. There’s going to be a lot of changes around here.”

Craig: “When I showed you my nipples–“

Mike: Exactly, yes. If someone wanted to do a comedy bit of this, it’s like, “Well, where is the first joke that indicates that this is okay?” That joke has to be really good. Probably nothing I could come up with now, but it’s like, “My dad wasn’t around as a kid, and then he called me because he wanted my bones.” Just something where just you break open how outrageous the scenario is, and then it turns on itself. I think you can do like, “My dad wasn’t around, and then he wanted my bones,” and then try to come up with a joke around that and then say, “But actually, I’m torn on it because this girl deserves this, and she needs this, and I could help.”

I think with a story that inherently has such high stakes, you have the ability to both have jokes and have dramatic moments. In The Good Life, there’s four or five times where it goes to a dramatic moment just because the audience– a lot of it is, the audience doesn’t see it coming at a comedy show. In some ways, it’s the ultimate surprise. I think the back and forth of jokes in comedy, I think jokes and dramas, it is the potential there.

Craig: You could also– I could see occupying a character and the character is a woe-is-me character, who’s like, “Anyway, my dad left, and cheated on my mom, and then married this other lady. They had a great family that was incredible. He never talked to me ever until his daughter was sick and he came for my bone marrow and I thought, ‘He loves me.’”

[laughter]

Mike: That’s good.

Craig: It depends, like occupying– I do enjoy comedians who occupy characters.

Mike: I love that.

Craig: I love that weird space. It’s always interesting meeting them afterwards and going– like Natasha Leggero occupies a character. Then you talk to Natasha offstage and you’re like, “You are the opposite of that person.” It is–

Mike: Then you can heighten that and be like, “Then he asked to borrow $75,000 and I was like, ‘Maybe this isn’t love.”

Craig: “Wait a second. As the marrow’s leaving me, I thought, ‘Wait. Wait.’”

[laughter]

John: Let’s talk about this as a scene. I would say it could be a movie, which is a whole dynamic, but you could also imagine a scene where you’re talking to this girl at a party and it gets to the point where it’s like, “So now I don’t even know if I should donate marrow to this kid.” It’s like, “What are you talking about? You are going to kill a small child.” There’s that, it’s a good build up for like, what kind of monster are you?

Craig: Or you’re like– Obviously, you all know where this went, I didn’t do it.

[laughter]

Mike: Right, exactly.

Craig: She’s been dead like, I don’t know, three or four years now.

John: Oh God. Oh my God.

Craig: I got to go tell you, it feels great. They tell you it won’t, but it does. Revenge is awesome.

John: Yes.

Craig: Got ya.

Mike: A lot of that is– Those are like three different POV takes on the same–

Craig: With different tones.

Mike: Yes, a lot of it’s persona. Anthony Jeselnik gets away with a different type of joke than I get away with.

Craig: I wish we could send him that. Oh my God, Anthony Jeselnik. Can I just–?

John: Again, occupying a character’s place. [unintelligible 00:40:43] area.

Craig: Completely, but I just want to salute–

John: Oh, I assume that. He’s not actually like that, is he?

Craig: Oh God, I hope not.

Mike: Not that I know of.

Craig: Yes, no, that would be insane.

Mike: I’ve never had an interaction with him like that.

Craig: The mathematical precision. He’s the closest thing that comedy has to Agatha Christie. You know there’s going to be a twist and you’re trying to figure it out-

Mike: Yes, that’s right.

Craig: -and you can’t. It just happens over and over and over and over.

Mike: That’s right. Yes, that’s right.

Craig: He’s just, the craft there is pretty remarkable.

John: Great. This last one, we don’t have that part to read, but this is a New York Times article by Heather Knight and Loren Elliott, with great photos and video by Elliott. It’s about the coyotes of San Francisco. Basically, there were no coyotes in San Francisco, but 10 years or so ago, they started coming back in, and now there are more than 100 coyotes in San Francisco, and they’re letting them be, largely.

One case, they were going after a young child and they went after that coyote. Basically, they do keep down rodent populations and other things, so there’s a reason to be there. It’s just so jarring to have coyotes in the city that never had them.

Mike: Wow.

John: Coyotes are cool. Obviously, in Los Angeles, we’re used to coyotes in our neighborhood. We have coyotes all the time. The comedic space of predators in an urban environment and like how a person interacts with them, what the moment is.

Craig: This is in San Francisco?

John: In San Francisco. Hacks this last season has a coyote episode where Jean Smart’s character is hearing the coyotes howl all the time. She’s putting out bear urine to scare them away. She has a showdown with a coyote at the end. Let’s talk about what can we imagine the comedic premises are for talking about coyotes on stage? What are the handles for that?

Mike: For me, it would have to be story-based interacting with a coyote. I’m trying to think if I have– Do you guys have any good animal stories of interacting with animals?

Craig: My mind goes to just right off the bat, but what is–? Isn’t a coyote just an asshole dog?

John: Yes. [crosstalk]

Craig: Why have we put it in this special category? It’s just, I’ve looked at them. They’re hungry dogs. That’s all they are.

John: It’s a sense of like, what’s a dog off leash though. We have a sense of like, “Oh, dogs are wonderful,” but when you see in a dog in a place you don’t expect to see a dog or a dog who doesn’t seem to have an owner, that’s–

Craig: You call it a coyote. Right. They’re like the hobos of dogs.

John: I was just in Egypt, and Egypt is just like, there’s just dogs everywhere. There’s street dogs.

Mike: That’s right.

John: I was like, “Oh, wait, why don’t dogs get hit?” Mike pointed out like, “Oh, we’re seeing that’s the logical fallacy. Basically, we’re seeing the dogs that survived and–

Craig: You see the dogs that aren’t hit.

John: Yes.

Craig: Yes. Coyotes in San Francisco probably, I think the hacky version would just be to start making fun of San Francisco. It’s like, “Oh, now the coyotes keep moving into our neighborhood and the rents are going up.” I wonder where [unintelligible 00:43:29] Coyotes don’t seem funny to me.

Mike: I feel like I would break it–

John: Come on, Wile E. Coyote is an incredible character.

Mike: [laughs]

Craig: The thing is, Wile E. Coyote is, we’re laughing at him, I suppose, but he’s not doing anything irregular. I’ve never seen a coyote use an Acme product.

Mike: If I were going to go into animals, which I ever, if I ever did, it would be the inherent contradiction. So much of comedy is about inherent contradiction. The contradiction is similar to what you’re saying, it’s like, we eat animals, we own animals. We shoo away animals. How are we deciding? Yes.
Who made up the rules on this?

Craig: I think Gaffigan’s got–

Mike: Oh, did he have–? [crosstalk]

Craig: He’s got a pretty good one of like, we eat the animals that aren’t cute.

Mike: That’s right. That’s right. Contradictions would be the thing that would go down, and also the personal story, but I always tell people, one of the probably the smartest things I did artistically was like 25 years ago, I had been doing set up punchline, set up punchline, set up punchline based on things in the news, things happening around town. Then, at a certain point, I was like, “If I wrote about my own experiences, then no one can steal that idea.” Really, no one has that idea. No one’s lived that.

The first thing this makes me think of is like, there’s animals in the walls of my apartment that just run over us. Sometimes Jen will just be like, “Mo,” she calls me Mo. She goes, “Mo, what are we going to do about the animals?” I’m like, “I don’t think you know who you married. I don’t really know. I have no plan for the animals in the ceiling, and I’m not going to have one.” You know what I mean?

Craig: Right, and, “You know that about me.”

Mike: Yes. I don’t know. I do think like finding the what’s your story, the thing about standup comedy and in relation to storytelling, is that the more you have examples of things of your experience of dealing with something, the more people can see themselves in the story. They’re not judging it as, “Oh, this is another guy or lady with a hard take on coyotes,” or this or that or whatever.

I always just try and think, “What’s the personal way in? What’s the personal way in?” Because ultimately, you actually, by telling stories are exhibiting a point of view. Because it’s in the form of a story, the audience isn’t as suspicious of the point of view.

Craig: Yes. Also to give you credit, it’s not a persona. This is actually you. You’re incredibly likable. You’re incredibly likable in no small part because you’re not afraid to be vulnerable. A lot of comedians, their persona is, “I figured it all out. I figured it all out. Let me explain the world to you idiots.” Right? Your persona and your personality is I haven’t– I’m on a journey. I often don’t know what to do. I’m scared a lot. I’m confused. Everyone’s like, “Okay, I’m with you now on this.”

Mike: It’s so funny you should say that because the other day, I did an interview for Time Magazine and she goes– The reporter was great. She goes– It’s a funny question. She goes, “What’s your appeal?”

[Laughter]

John: I love that. That’s so good.

Mike: I’ve never been asked that, “What’s your appeal?”

Craig: Oh my God.

Mike: It forced me to look inward.

Craig: Oh my God.

Mike: She goes, the appeal of Jim Gaffigan is that he’s clean and he’s relatable. The appeal of this person is that she’d go there. I go, “Huh.” It’s so funny what I–

John: It’s amazing.

Mike: What reminded me of it is that my answer is similar to Craig’s.

Craig: There you go.

Mike: If I really had to think about it, I think people think they’re on the journey with me because I’m cataloging these eras of my life as honestly as I can. The audience, I think, trusts that I’m trying my best. I think the people who like me are trying their best. It’s weird to say that that’s my “appeal”, but I think it is probably close to that.

Craig: When she asked the question, was it–? There’s two different meanings to that question. One is, “I’m curious, what do you think your appeal is?” The other one is, “What is your appeal?”

John: Yes, there’s two different reads of that.

Craig: “I’m just so confused why anyone likes you. Can you explain why people like you?”

Mike: It was generous though. I think she’s a good writer. We’ll see how the article comes out.

John: It’s reminding me of when we were doing Big Fish on Broadway, after the Wednesday matinees, sometimes we would do talk-backs, where people could stay in the audience and talk back. It’s always really old people who stick around, who’d go to the Wednesday matinees in the first place.

It’s me and several of the actors at the front of the stage talking to people who stuck around. This one old woman, she asked me a question, she’s like, “Why are you so confident?” I’m like–

Mike: Oh my gosh. Why are you so confident?

John: Yes, and it’s just–

Mike: Wow.

John: It was actually just.

Craig: What a confident-shaking question.

John: Yes, and it sort of put me on my heels, like, “I guess I am con–“ I had to sort of do introspection, like, “I guess I am confident, but why am I confident?” Like, “Who is this person who is speaking right now who is confident doing this thing?” It was a while. It really did shake me a bit.

Craig: Yes, of course. It’s a rattling question. “Why are you so confident?” It’s suspicious.

John: Yes, it’s a challenge to it.

Craig: Yes.

Mike: I think to go back to this point of view and comedy concept, it was like, why is Jeselnik Jeselnik, and me me, and Gaffigan Gaffigan? Is a majority of what you do if you’re trying to be a comedian is you try to figure out who you are on stage in relation to the audience.

Craig: What’s your appeal?

Mike: Yes, it’s what’s your appeal?

Craig: What’s your appeal?

Mike: It’s like, “Oh,” and it takes years. Sometimes it takes a decade or more.

Craig: It is interesting seeing comedians early in their careers as opposed to where they end up. Sometimes it’s sort of unrecognizable.

Mike: Absolutely.

Craig: It is a fascinating thing to watch them evolve into the groove. Sometimes I think like, “Oh, do people get trapped? Because they get very successful, and then suddenly, that fake accent and get ‘er done thing that you’re doing, you can’t stop doing it.

Mike: Are you speaking of someone specifically?

Craig: No.

Mike: Just in general?

Craig: No, just in general, like–

[laughter]

Mike: Hypothetically, if someone was like, said a joke and they’re like, “Get ‘er done,”-

Craig: That would be like–

Mike: -that would be a thing that you’re leaning on a crutch.

Craig: They were like had a job that isn’t really a job anymore, like a cable guy, [crosstalk] or a plumber, or whatever.

Mike: Yes, exactly.

Craig: Yes, like what do you do then, because you’re stuck making all that money?

Mike: What if you never were a cable guy?

Craig: Or had that accent.

[laughter]

John: So good. [crosstalk]

Craig: Then, what do you do? Then what do you do?

John: A crisis of inauthenticity.

Mike: This is like a three-page challenge of personas.

John: What if Mike Birbiglia had a heel turn, where I actually just like, it goes off for a little while, then it comes back, and it’s just like this shock comic, this– I would love to see it.

Mike: It’s funny–

Craig: “Hickory dickory dock.”

John: Yes.

[laughter]

Mike: No, I do think that there is a version of the next few years, where I’m leaning a little bit away from personal stuff, where I do something that takes on the religion, politics, world events, but in an evergreen way. I think what drives me crazy about topical comedy is that you just go, “Okay, this isn’t relevant today, even. It was relevant 24 hours ago,” but I would like to see something that has a wide-spanning, like the last 20 years of living in America.

Craig: It sounds like something that O’Reilly would do.

[laughter]

Mike: Yes, a cross between Matt Damon and Bill O’Reilly would do.

John: As we wrap up our discussion of coyotes, I do want to share one photo, which I think is a great comedic premise. This little white dog is wearing, it’s called a coyote coat, and it’s basically, it looks like a life jacket, but it has all these little plastic spikes on it, so that a coyote can’t bite it and carry it off into the woods. I can just imagine like having to buy the coyote coat for my dog, or just like my dog having to wear the coyote coat. It’s like you’re in a war zone now.

Craig: I think that is, some people might think that that disrupts the Darwinian process, but I think that it is an example of the Darwinian process. You become so cute that a larger, stronger animal dresses you in special things so that you aren’t devoured. It’s a strategy.

John: It’s a strategy.

Craig: That’s a strategy.

John: Yes. Let’s tackle some listener questions. We have one here from Chris.

Drew: Let’s say I heard an idea for a short film expressed on a podcast by a working actor, writer, comedian,-

John: Mike Birbiglia.

Drew: -and wanted to make that film, but was not able to make contact with said person to ask permission. Could that film still be made and shown publicly? Is there credit to be attributed? What if there’s a line spoken by an actor that is nearly identical to what was expressed in the podcast? In this case, this would be 60-second film for social media, just for context.” I can already hear Craig saying you can’t copyright an idea, but maybe the person or podcast details are important.

Craig: Yes, I will say you can’t copyright an idea, but that doesn’t mean you should be doing this.

John: It also feels like stealing a joke. It feels like–

Craig: There’s legal lines and there are moral lines. Legally, could you get away with it? Always remember, legally getting away with it means you were sued, spent money to defend yourself, and won, which is not ideal. In this case also, it’s just, yes, come up with your own idea. That’s my feeling, is if that person wanted to do a 60-second short bit about that, they would. It’s a little odd. I don’t think I would recommend that.

John: The fact that you’re doing this on a podcast with a working actor, writer, comedian, it’s their thing, they may actually do a thing with. If you heard it in a conversation or your brother said something, it’s a different kind of thing. You could also just ask their permission.

Mike: I also think, yes, building on what you were both saying, is as creatives, if you’re pursuing a creative profession, it is so oversaturated. There are so many things being made simultaneously. I actually think the only chance any of us stand is to have our work be so much ours and not something that’s already filmed, recorded, and out there in the universe that you’re actually– It’s a weird case against the argument. The idea is that it’s out there. Even if it’s not a short film already, someone said it, so it’s a little bit less original than you’d want it to be.

John: Going back to what we were just saying about hiking is just walking, that idea, what’s out there, is it’s not an original idea, and so great, do something else that is specifically to you.

Mike: 100%, and by the way, to speak to that person’s note, that’s an oddly helpful piece of feedback, is like, once that person says, “Hey, that’s out there in blah-blah-blah way,” sometimes people, along the tour for two years, people will say to me, “Hey, this line you have is similar to this comic’s thing you have.” Often, I’ll go and I’ll dig it up and I’ll try to find it, and then you have to make a judgment call. Is it too similar? If it is, can I write it in a different direction?

I had one a few specials ago where someone, when it came out as a special, was like, “That’s my joke,” and I was like, “I don’t know what to tell you, I never saw your joke, and it’s filmed right now, so I don’t– It’s parallel thinking, and I feel bad that that’s the case, but there’s nothing I can do.” It’s definitely best efforts to not do that.

John: Dylan in Little Rock has a question.

Drew: “I’m feeling myself getting a little bit paralyzed. I’m feeling that I need to start writing in order to feel accomplished and hold onto some momentum, but I’m not feeling that I have really broken the story in a satisfactory way, and I don’t feel that I know the characters as well as I could or maybe should. I’ve considered that the process of writing may help me to come up with new ideas and fill in some of the gaps, but when do you consider a story broken? How do you know when your characters are developed enough and how much character development work do you do before you write?”

John: Yes, so breaking a story means different things in different contexts. In a TV writer’s room, you break a story, you’re figuring out all the beats on a big whiteboard, you’re doing that stuff. The process of writing a feature film, it could be more experimental and you’re sort of putting things together as you’re doing them. I often won’t have the full thing broken as I start. I’ll just feel it out along my way. There’s probably not a perfect answer for this. You’re writing something right now, is what you’re writing broken? Do you know what all the beats are?

Mike: It’s so funny. Whenever people say this term, breaking a story, I’m always like, it’s not my process. Mine is, I have an idea for a story, I write it out in an outline. At a certain point, I take it as script. At a certain point, this is where I am right now, I take it back to outline because I’m trying to isolate all the individual character arcs, and I can’t do it in a script form. That’s literally what I am right now. My brain can’t do it.

How do you guys deal with that, actually? That’s a question from me to you. How do you deal with managing, like in the case of my movie, it’s like, there’s eight characters. It’s akin to a movie like Four Weddings and a Funeral where not everybody has to have a meaningful arc, but unless they have like a little miniature arc, I do feel like there’s some threads that are unfinished.

Craig: I think I probably wouldn’t start writing until I understood all of that.

Mike: All of it.

Craig: Yes, but that’s me. I think your process clearly works for you, and it’s perfectly fine. Anyone’s process is fine if the outcome is good. I think breaking the story is actually, I agree with you, it’s not a useful term. It comes really from writer’s rooms, from 14 writers eating Mendocino Farms and hashing out, “Okay, this episode, this happens. What’s the A story? What’s the B story? What’s the C story?” It is procedurals, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: There isn’t a mechanism to it, which is important for that process. For a movie, I never use the phrase, “breaking the story” for a movie. Really, I would say, outline. I start with a very broad outline. Who’s the main character? What is the thing that needs to happen at the end? What would be an interesting beginning for that? What is the premise of this thing, and what’s the journey?

Mike: I think one of the best things you can have in terms of breaking a story or to use that term is like figuring out, can I pitch this in 25 words or 50 words? And is that compelling? If I told this to a friend and I said it in the first person, are they interested? I think that if they’re not interested is when you start to go, “Okay, let me figure out where I’m losing their interest.”

John: Yes, I just pitched a project yesterday, and in the early conversations with people, it wasn’t fully broken. I sort of knew what the beats were, but by the time where I was actually pitching it to a buyer, it really had all the beats. You could feel what the entire movie was and that’s, I guess, what I would consider broken. It’s like you really can have a sense of what all the sequences of the story were going to be.

Mike: It’s funny, you hear terms like breaking story or industry terms, and in so many ways, the work I enjoy most is people trying to reinvent what their artistic process is. If you look at Last of Us, for example, I think my favorite thing about it is it’s not like other television shows. That it is, in some ways, weirdly, doesn’t resemble a TV show. That it feels like life, it feels like we are in this apocalyptic scenario and oh my God, what is that? What would I do? What’s she going to do?

Craig: Oh, it’s definitely not like other shows.

[laughter]

Mike: Don’t you think that’s part of it is like making things that don’t feel like other things?

Craig: Yes, I do think so. I think that’s become more and more important because there are 14 million television shows. The trick is to find a way to both be different and also compelling. It is very easy to be different and bad because a lot of difference were considered by our forebears and tossed aside because they were bad. I would say to Dylan, you need to slow down a little bit and ask yourself if maybe the story that you’ve come up with, any of the things that you think of as fixed in position should be fixed in position.

Sometimes we get stuck. We build a column and a load-bearing wall, and then we’re like, “I can’t fit the rooms I want around this.” Maybe the problem is the column and the load-bearing wall. Those things that we think of as immovable, maybe start moving them.

Mike: I also think you look at things that we admire, I was saying like Last of Us, another one would be like the films of David Lynch. It’s like if you try to put Mulholland Drive into the story-

John: No.

Mike: -the story format,-

Craig: You create that story.

Mike: -of McKee or something, it’s like,-

Craig: Or you could-

Mike: “I don’t know what that is.”

Craig: Pitch that in 50 words.

Mike: Yeah, I don’t know.

Craig: That would be the pitch.

Mike: Yes, exactly, that’s the pitch.

Craig: “What’s it about?” “Yeah, I don’t know.”

[laughter]

John: All right, let’s do our one cool things here. I’m going to call an audible, and so I’m going to pivot from what I was going to recommend to in terms of just like breaking the form and spinning a bunch of plates. John Mulaney’s show, Everybody’s Live, it’s just gotten really, really good.

Mike: Oh yes, it’s great.

John: If you’ve not watched it at all, go back and watch the episode, guests are Sarah Silverman and Patton Oswalt, but the show is just nuts, and Mulaney’s blindfolded through the whole episode. 19,000 things are happening, and it all holds together really, really well. It’s postmodern in the sense of like, there’s a theme kind of, but it’s just crazy. it’s just I’m really admiring what they’re able to pull off once a week on Mulaney’s show, Everybody’s Live, on Netflix.

Craig: Amazing. What about you?

Mike: I was thinking of young comedians and newer comedians. There’s this great comic named Chris Fleming who came on my podcast recently, and he just kills me. He’s a Massachusetts guy like me. He — talk about burning it all down — he just has no allegiances to anyone, specifically in culture, and so he’ll say things where I’ll just– I said to him on my podcast, “Do you know that–?” the person he’s referencing? He’s like, “No.” I go, “You don’t know that person you said that crazy joke about?” but he’s great.

Craig: That’s awesome.

Mike: He’s super funny, and to speak to the kind of David Lynch with The Last of Us of it all, of creating a thing that hasn’t existed before, when I look at Chris Fleming, I don’t go, “Oh, that’s like this.” I just go, “Whoa, that’s Chris Fleming. I love that.”

Craig: Yes, who is this?

Mike: Who is this?

Craig: That’s my favorite. I’ve been on a roll for one cool thing for games, so I spoke to Inevitable Foundation, which is run by Richie Siegel, and it was a lovely group of folks. He was kind enough to send along some of the feedback, which was all bad, and [laughs] not really. They were very happy. One person in their feedback said, “Oh, and by the way, since I know Craig likes these sort of things, he really needs to play Blue Prince, if he hasn’t.” Blue Prince is as in blue, the color, and then Prince, P-R-I-N-C-E, but of course, this is a pun on blueprints. The game is so simple and so hard, which I love.

Mike: Oh, wow.

Craig: You have inherited a mansion from your mysterious uncle. Your job is to go through and explore the mansion, which has 45 rooms, find the 46th room, and you will be able to keep the mansion. The mechanics are every day, you start in the foyer, and there are three doors, and when you open a door, it gives you a choice to draft what room goes there, and there are like 40 types of rooms, and you pick it, and you start to move through, and every time, the house is different, and some rooms just stop, and you know if they stop or not.

There are costs, and keys, and methods, and puzzles, and it’s roguelike, because then the next day, you’re like, “Okay, that didn’t work, let me try this.” It’s early on for me, and I’m so beautifully frustrated.

Mike: Wow.

John: Love it.

Craig: Yes, it’s really, it’s like when you come across a fresh idea like that, it’s really cool, yes. Blue Prince, and it’s developed by Dogubomb.

Mike: Great.

Craig: You can get it on PlayStation, Windows, Xbox, your Steam Deck, which is where I play it, and so forth.

Mike: Very nice.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, with help this week from Sam Shapson. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. Don’t leave comments on Spotify because we turn those off, but you can leave comments to our YouTube videos, which we have a Scriptnotes YouTube channel.

Mike: You do?

John: Yes, we just added this week.

Craig: Another place for people to yell at me about Joel. I’m Scriptnotes Premium, by the way.

John: Thank you very much for that.

Mike: I joined recently. I love it.

Craig: Oh– [crosstalk]

John: You get all those back episodes.

Mike: I love it. Two of my faves are Dennis Palumbo of course and the Craig Mazin, Here’s How to-

John: How to Write a Movie.

Mike: -How to write a Movie. It’s so good.

Drew: Those are both available on our YouTube.

Craig: We should probably charge extra for them.

John: We should. Yes, yes, how do we charge extra?

Mike: Yes, supplements.

Craig: Because we got to get these cool new microphones.

John: You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with the signup for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have t-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You can find those at Cotton Bureau. You get the show notes with all the links to the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all those premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this every week. For Craig to dream of new microphone setups in our office studio here.

You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net. You get all those back episodes, like episode 99 and How to Write a Movie. Bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on the infrastructure of being a standup comic and doing all the things that you have to do to actually make a living. With that, Mike Birbiglia, thank you so much for being on the show.

Mike: It’s such an honor. I love this show. My favorite podcast.

John: Aww.

Craig: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, Mike, one of the things that impressed me when I came to record the podcast at your place is that you do video, you’re promoting the podcast, but it’s also part of your bigger machinery because you have to, as a touring comic, you have to plan all that stuff, you have to do marketing, you must have a giant mailing list. I want to talk to you about sort of the infrastructure it takes to be a comic who’s doing the kind of stuff you’re doing.

Mike: It’s funny, I was on The Town podcast the other day, which is really good, and we had this discussion of this thing where Matt says, “Do comedians need Hollywood anymore?” The answer is they don’t.

Craig: Not at all.

Mike: Weirdly, they don’t, and I think that that’s good. I think the things to make comedy and get the comedy to market are less and less expensive and more easy to access. It puts the onus on you to make something that’s great and sets itself apart from all other things, but also, you have to get it to market and market it, really. There’s a lot to that.

John: Getting it to market, there’s Instagram, there’s YouTube, those are crucial channels for comics. What else?

Mike: Weirdly, sometimes I’ll say, because Mabel and Gary and Peter and Joe, that’s my company, and we all produce the podcast together. Mabel and Gary are in their 20s, and so sometimes they’ll point out things to me that I’m just going, “Oh, I wouldn’t have thought of that at all.” For example, at a certain point, like two years ago, Mabel goes, “We have to have the podcast on video. I’ve never listened to a podcast.”

[laughs]

John: Yes, that’s my daughter too.

Mike: I was like, “What do you mean you haven’t listened to a podcast?” She goes, “I’m sorry, I just I put it on. I don’t look at the video, but it’s on. Sometimes I’ll reference it, I’m like, ‘Oh’.” There is a degree of rolling with, so then we did it. Rolling with where culture and media is going. Then the other side of that is, sometimes I’ll say to Mabel and Gary, I’ll go like, “We have to be aware of what are the platforms that are next. Because when I was coming up in the 2000s, it was Myspace. Myspace is gone.”

Craig: It is? I’m spending so much time on that.

[laughter]

Mike: Your premium membership on Myspace is $49 a month?

Craig: Yes.

John: I have a friend request, and you never get nothing.

Craig: It’s the only place people don’t yell at me about The Last of Us.

Mike: Of course, Zuckerberg is spending billions of dollars every year to make sure that Instagram is still relevant, still relevant, still relevant. Cut to, at a certain point, it’s not going to be.

Craig: It’s the opening credit sequence of Silicon Valley, just watch them go up, watch them go down.

John: That’s right.

Craig: Explode, implode, come back, grow. You have to have– Well, really, it sounds like part of your infrastructure is youth.

Mike: It’s youth. Yes, it is. Yes.

John: A mailing list. Is there a mailing list people subscribe to and you send out blasts with all your upcoming tour dates?

Mike: That’s right, and I’ve been doing that oddly since I was in college. I would do shows at the Washington, DC Improv, and I would have comment cards on the tables and say, “If you have your email address, I’ll send out a newsletter once a month.” I think the infrastructure is Maichimp and one of the companies that does it–

John: Mailchimp is so effing expensive.

Mike: I know.

Craig: Mailchimp is expensive?

Mike: It’s on the pricey side.

Craig: Also, then everybody, their podcasts are sponsored by Mailchimp, so Mailchimp is just like rotating the money around.

Mike: Yes.

John: Yes, it’s a money cycle.

Mike: No, it’s true, but I do think the relationship between artists and audiences has just gotten closer and closer through the years, and such that things that are massive, and it’s a comedian who’s playing Madison Square Garden, you might mention that person’s name to someone else, they go, “I’ve never heard of that person.” They’re playing Madison Square Garden, and it’s just them talking into a microphone, you’ve never heard of them.

Craig: That’s right.

Mike: It’s astonishing.

Craig: That’s happened a few times recently to me, where I don’t know, and that’s part of getting old. I actually love the way the world is slowly getting cottony and sealing me off in preparation.

[laughter]

Craig: I don’t mind that, but I do love talking to the people that work for me that are younger because– Riding back and forth from location every day with Ali Cheng, who used to be my assistant, and now she’s a writer on The Last of Us. Ali was able to explain to me in deep detail the whole Kendrick and Drake thing as it was happening, because I was like, “I don’t know– What is going–? First of all, who’s Dot?” She was like, “Oh my God. Okay.” But then, I was so into it.

John: Yes, sure.

Craig: Then I was deep in, and I was– Then the next day, I’ll come in, I’m like, “Oh my God. Did you see?” It keeps you plugged in, but you’ll need somebody to help you.

Mike: Yes, I think the key thing about entertainers in this moment is continuing to be open to where everything is going and nonjudgmental about where it’s going. Because if you become the judgmental person of like, “Oh, back in my day,” blah-blah-blah, I think you’re toast, or you will be toast.

John: Someone like Gary, who’s working for you, or Mabel, they have their own careers, they’re developing their own online presences.

Mike: Absolutely.

John: They have their own analysts. They have to figure out all that.

Mike: Directing things and short films and all kinds of stuff, yes.

John: Yes, so who teaches you? Basically, you just have to learn. You get in the crowd and see what everyone else is doing, because it’s not like you can go to film school, you can theoretically, learn how to write a screenplay. If there’s no comedy school, I guess you could go through-

Mike: UCB-

John: UCB.

Mike: -or improv and stuff like that. Yes, there’s no path to be a comedian, but at the same time, there never was a path, right?

John: Yes, it was always figuring out how early in a career does a person need a manager or an agent who’s doing mostly standup?

Mike: I’ve always thought– People ask me who are starting out all the time, how do I get an agent? When I think back to my agent now, Mike Berkowitz, who I’ve worked with for I think 25 years, he was starting out. I was like one of his first two clients. He started out at a management company, but he was doing the side, booking thing on the side. We’re the same age, and so we came up together. Now, he represents Kevin Hart and John Mulaney, all biggest comics on the place. He’s a huge agent, but I think part of it is surrounding yourself with people who you respect, who are in your roughly age group, and even level.

I think there’s a sense of like, “Oh, I need to sign,” I’ll throw out someone who’s dead, but it’s like, “I need to sign with Bernie Brillstein.” It’s, “No, no, you don’t need to sign with Bernie Brillstein. He doesn’t have time for you. You need to sign for someone who’s three rungs below Bernie Brillstein.”

John: Yes, absolutely. Signing with an agent who was really a peer and who I was grinding with together was incredibly helpful, because he just knew the right people. He knew what was actually happening.

Mike: The people who are young, while you are young will be the stars of tomorrow across the entire field.

John: Absolutely.

Mike: -and so making friends and making bonds and collaborations with people who are in your peer group and investing in those people, and hopefully, they invest in you. That’s, I think, one of the best things you can do.

John: How much of your work time is devoted to writing, figuring out the comedy, figuring out that work versus the career of like setting dates, and doing social media, and doing all the other stuff? What is the split?

Mike: I would say like it’s 2/3 the art, 1/3 marketing, but I would say, there are periods in my career where it is like 70/30 marketing. It’s miserable, but it was because there wasn’t enough work, and so it’s like, “Oh, I have to advertise my work more. I have to market my work more.” It’s like, you’re always rest always, and I think this is true of everyone.
It’s like the next hurdle is like, “We got to figure out the key art.” The next hurdle is, “We got to figure out the trailer.” The next figure, “We got to figure out what the Instagram tile is that conveys the idea of this whole project.” All that kind of stuff. It’s like, it is important. Yes, I try to minimize it, but it’s like, I don’t think anyone gets out of doing that.

John: I think one of the big differences between a pure screenwriter and what you’re doing is that we talk about like a screenwriter has to be entrepreneurial, but it’s like that whole level of magnitude is greater. You literally are responsible for how much the money’s coming in, whether you’re getting that date, whether you’re getting that thing to happen. Your income is so directly tied into how much promotion and everything else you’re doing for yourself.

Mike: Yes, and also, I feel like you have to have an awareness or try to have an awareness of where the business is going, where it’s been, where it could go, where we can’t possibly imagine it’s going. The AI discussion right now is so interesting because it’s like, it’s some people going like, “All right, easy on the AI stuff,” it’s every other conversation, but it’s like “No, no, it literally could change everything.”

John: Oh, absolutely.

Mike: Everything.

John: Yes, next week or a week after, I do once a full episode where we really just look at it because you look at not just the, how it’s impacting writing, but you look at the new video production things that come off, which is like, “That looks completely photorealistic, and the speech lines up,” and I just don’t what we’re going to do.

Mike: It’s astonishing.

John: Because like, maybe you won’t have to tour anymore because you could just press the button and there’s Mike Birbiglia. You’ll be this age forever.

Mike: Yes, we can only hope.

[laughter]

Mike: I got to lock in age 46, because it’s not getting any better.

John: This is the good life. Congratulations to get on the special, and thank you for coming on.

Mike: Thanks for coming to the screening last night, it meant the world to me.

John: Cool.

Links:

  • Mike Birbiglia
  • The Good Life on Netflix
  • Mike’s previous episodes: 121, 168, 261, 427, 443, and Working it Out: Screenwriting Advice You’ll Actually Use
  • Episode 660 – Moneyball
  • Ira Glass on Mike’s podcast Working it Out
  • Elizabeth Gilbert TED Talk
  • The Run Club Haters by Melissa Dahl for Curbed
  • I Hadn’t Heard From My Dad in Over a Decade. Now He’s Returned With a Brazen Request. I’m Actually Considering It. from Slate’s Care and Feeding
  • The Coyotes of San Francisco by Heather Knight and Loren Elliot for NY Times
  • Coyote Vest
  • Everybody’s Live with John Mulaney
  • Chris Fleming
  • Blue Prince
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription!
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with help from Sam Shapson. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (74)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.