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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: storyboard

Scriptnotes, Episode 563: VFX Deep Dive, Transcript

August 30, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/vfx-deep-dive).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 563 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we’re going to do a deep dive with two VFX pros to figure out how they break down and discuss a sample scene. It’s a master class in thinking about how you turn that scene description into an actual scene.

In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we’re going to talk about friends.

**Craig:** Ew.

**John:** How to make them and how to keep them.

**Craig:** Yuck.

**John:** Especially as we get older.

**Craig:** That’s really sweet actually. Considering who we are and who our audience is, I think this is a really good topic. We should talk about this.

**John:** Listening back to old episodes for the book that we’re doing, at the start of the podcast, I said on the air, “We’re not actual friends in real life,” and you were heartbroken.

**Craig:** Oh, wow.

**John:** Now we’re friends.

**Craig:** More than friends, John. We’re partners.

**John:** Oh yes, we are. We are podcast partners. Business partners.

**Craig:** You keep talking, and you know who’s going to show up, right?

**John:** Nope, it’s not allowed. Matthew will edit him out. Let’s get to our main feature of the day. A few episodes back, we discussed how writers should think about visual effects and what they look like on the page. That was kind of abstract. It’s like doing a Three Page Challenge without three pages to actually look at. Today we’re going to take an effects-heavy scene and talk through it with two VFX pros. Before we do that, if you want to read the scene, it’s pretty short. Just click the link in the show notes. I’ll also put it on Twitter. Craig, you are a good narrator. Could you just read aloud this scene for us?

**Craig:** Of course. This scene was written by our own John August.

**John:** It is. It’s pretty impressive.

**Craig:** It’s pretty good stuff. Here we go. “Interior/exterior the cathedral, day. Oona gets to her feet, badly hurt but alive. She retrieves the eldenspear. She knows the fight’s not over.

“With one wall taken out by the missile strike, it’s incredible the whole building hasn’t collapsed. The altar has been reduced to flaming rubber. Smoke carries singed bible pages.

“Goodwin emerges from the debris, flames clinging to his Kevlar vest. One of his eyes is missing, a green light glowing in its place.

“He sloughs the flesh off his left arm, revealing the metal skeleton beneath. No sense pretending he’s human anymore.

“Oona gives a thunderous war cry, so powerful it shatters the remaining stained glass windows. Prismatic shards of glass rain down.

“Goodwin charges. Oona makes an acrobatic spring off a pew, leaping to drive her spear right through Goodwin. He’s impaled like a martini olive.

“But he’s not dead yet. With both hands, Goodwin pulls the spear back out and throws it at Oona. She barely dodges.”

That should be easy to shoot.

**John:** Easy to shoot. Simple.

**Craig:** Just put it in a volume and shoot it.

**John:** Half a day.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** It’s only like maybe six eighths of a page.

**Craig:** Yeah, we could do that in the morning.

**John:** 100%. Easy. Easy for me to write, much more challenging for the visual effects pros who have to make the scene come to life, so let’s meet them. Alex Wang cis a visual effects supervisor whose credits include Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Dominion, Terminator: Dark Fate, Fast and the Furious 7, and more. His most recent project is the VFX supervisor on The Last of Us at HBO. Welcome, Alex.

**Alex Wang:** Thank you very much for having me.

**Craig:** He’s got such a good radio voice too.

**John:** It’s really impressive. You have been working with Craig on this series, and so doing all the visual effects for a show that we’ve never seen.

**Alex:** Yes, that is correct.

**Craig:** And maybe we’ll never see. No, we’re definitely seeing it. We’re seeing it. It’s coming. It’s coming.

**John:** They bury your show, Craig. It’s like, “Oh, we’re never going to release it.”

**Craig:** No one will be hearing about this.

**John:** Next we have Addie Manis, who’s a visual effects producer/supervisor. Her credits include Marvel’s Agent Carter and Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey. After she VFXed for the first season of Foundation for Apple TV Plus, she’s transitioned to writing, as she and her writing partner were asked to join the writing staff for Season 2.

**Craig:** That’s amazing.

**John:** We could really use her help to make this scene possible. If you’re looking at the pdf that we have linked to in the show notes, you’ll see that I’ve numbered each of the paragraphs, which is not necessarily each shot, but it gives you a sense of what the challenges are going to be. Let’s start at the start. We’ll start with you, Addie. Let’s say this scene lands on your desk. What is your first step as you’re looking at this scene in terms of thinking about, okay, this is the visual effects challenge or issues that I see here on the page.

**Addie Manis:** Excellent question. Let’s say I get this as a script page. I’m going to read it out of the gate. That’s what everybody does with a script page. I’m going to read it with a highlighter. I am reading both for story, character, writing, pacing, tone, because all of that stuff tells me what’s this going to look like, what’s the director going to do, how are we going to cut it, like I am reading the final edit on the page out of the gate.

**John:** That makes it sound like the actual writing on the page is incredibly important in terms of your first impression. It’s not just like here’s a list of things that are in it. How it actually feels and reads on the page is influencing your choices at this early stage.

**Addie:** That is completely correct. I have in the last 10 years focused more on event television rather than feature film. Especially the first episode of something, which is often written by the showrunner, the showrunner’s first script is conveying to me very much what the final show is going to look like. Because visual effects lives in a world of edits or cuts essentially, we’ll say how many shots is how many cuts in a scene. I am reading the cuts in the sentences. Every clause, every period, every comma is telling me, okay, this is going to be three cuts, this feels like a master shot and it’s going to be one long cut. It tells me the pace of the action and what’s going to be the rhythm of the editing. I know that’s a funny thing to say, because the writer is not the editor. In my experience, it does flow all the way through.

**Craig:** It almost sounds like what you’re saying is that the writers are directing on the page, which is something we’ve been insisting writers should be doing forever.

**Addie:** Alex and myself will start very, very early in a process. What we have is the script. We may have only the script for six months, or a year if we’re doing really long prep. We root down into that script and see what is this show going to look like, what’s our pace, what’s our tone, what’s our rhythm, which I’m sure Alex could expound upon further. I read with that in one side of my brain, and in the other side of my brain, I am already saying, “Interior/exterior the cathedral. Okay, is this a practical cathedral? Are we going somewhere to shoot a cathedral? Are we going to build a cathedral? Are we going to shoot this on a blue screen? Are we going to shoot this in a volume?” Any of the answers to any of those questions kicks off a very long chain of action, building, budgeting, hiring, travel planning.

I think we’re both looking at the final product and what is the piece of art that we’re making and the story that we’re telling, and then also physically how do I get all this stuff? Is somebody building an eldenspear? Are we going to have fire on set that day? Is this all going to be CG? How do I get this actor scanned? It’s of two minds. It’s the artistic mind and the logistic mind simultaneously.

**John:** Alex, talk through this scene from your perspective. This lands on your desk. You probably are highlighting it also. If it’s for a show that you already know… Let’s say this is Episode 3 of a series. You have some sort of basis for how things are going. What are you looking at? What are your first challenges? What can you do before there’s a director or someone else on board?

**Alex:** Great question. Typically, when I get an action scene like this, the first step is, I’d say, “We should storyboard this,” because action scenes like this, I think what’s most important is camera angles, what is the scope. I read line by line. I break it down with my producer. We come up with the best methodology. Like Addie is saying, we go into very broad strokes as, “Okay, what is the art department going to be building? What is going to be practical? Do we need blue screen? Are we going to be in a volume?”

**Craig:** I’m going to interrupt you there, because I think some people at home may not know the difference between these things. Both of you describe this fundamental thing that happens when you’re thinking about where you’re shooting something. We have a practical location. We have blue screen. We have the volume. Can you just quickly give a definition for those things?

**Alex:** Absolutely. A practical set is essentially a set that is built practically that we can basically shoot in camera.

**Craig:** You may be in a practical location, which is a place in the world or a set that you built, but then blue screen you will put behind things to allow you later to replace that easily with stuff that wasn’t there, digital stuff.

**Alex:** Yes, that’s correct.

**Craig:** Tell us about the volume though. What’s that about?

**Alex:** The volume is something that is exciting and new. Basically, it is these LED screens where we can project content that is essentially what we would be doing in post early on on the LED screen. We can call it getting that it camera. We could still change it in post if we need to, but the idea is that we’re projecting what we will essentially be doing in post onto the LED screens.

**Craig:** The volume is essentially a room that is a bunch of TV screens that we fill with stuff. For instance, the Mandalorian, very famously, we shot on a volume. They put Pedro in his suit. They stand him on a ground that has some sand. All the stuff around him is actually not really there, nor is it done later with putting stuff into blue screen. It’s actually like rear projection except for much more advanced. You and Addie, the first thing you’re thinking is where are we doing this?

**John:** I want to bring up one other possibility for where we’re doing this, because when we say practical, it could be that you’re building a set for most of this. You’re building a set for the cathedral, maybe up to a certain height we’ll talk about, or in theory, you could be at a real location where you’re actually at a real cathedral, but the one wall that’s supposed to be missing, you’re putting up green screens or you’re somehow planning while you’re shooting this for like, “We’re going to take this wall out and put a virtual background behind that.” That would be a very early production decision, are we building anything, are we going to a practical location, versus this is all green screen or is this all volume.

**Craig:** From this very fundamental thing, is there anything that we as writers should be thinking about when it comes to this big decision of will we be going someplace in the world, will we be building a set, or is this something that has to be created virtually completely, or should we just write stuff and let you guys worry about it?

**John:** Addie, what do you think?

**Addie:** You guys should just write it.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Addie:** There’s just a wealth of professionals out there who can bring all their… People want to bring their skill sets. I think all your department heads really want to jump in and solve all these problems. I don’t even want to refer to them as problems, but they’re exciting problems, challenges to have. Tell the story, man, because Alex and I read scripts all the time. We read so many scripts. It’s a function of our job and picking what job we’re going to do next. We’re super jazzed to get a good script or a script that we’re going to be really excited to make. We bring all the visual effects, production and creative solutions to the table. I think the writers should write story and character.

**Craig:** Good, so one less thing for us to worry about.

**Alex:** I completely agree with Addie there. I think writers should just write the best script they can write. Close your ears, Craig. Visual effects can essentially do everything.

**Craig:** Oh, boy. Yeah, I know.

**Addie:** I would say, if I may-

**Craig:** You may.

**Addie:** Craig is now showrunning a show. In the transition from just writing to showrunning, there will become logistic, financial, and practical conversations about this script and the visual effects process, as it were with all departments.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know. It’s a good conversation to have. I think it is true that as you interface more with these departments from a showrunning point of view, you start to learn limitations. One of the conversations that Alex and I have had I think 4 billion times is this: “Hey, Alex?” “Yeah?” “Would it be hard to do this?” Then I watch his face, because he’ll never say, “That’s not possible.” He’ll say, “That should be good,” or, “Okay, yeah, doable. It’s going to be expensive, but we can do it.” Sometimes he’ll be like, “Uh, we could.” That’s when I know that it’s a problem. The nice thing is, as writers we don’t necessarily need to know what’s going to be a problem. I’m sometimes surprised by what’s difficult versus what isn’t. That’s what you guys do.

One of the things that I learned from Alex is, whenever possible, if there’s something practical… When we say practical, we mean something that physically exists. Whenever possible, if there’s something practical to base visual effects off of, let’s get something practical in there.

The best example I can think of is, let’s see, “The altar has been reduced to flaming rubble. Smoke carries singed bible pages.” It’s going to be hard to practically have singed bible pages where we need them in the air. That’s probably going to be digital. It may be very difficult for the rubble to be on fire just the way we want and for the smoke to move exactly where we want it to go. If we could have the special effects department, which those are the crazy guys that light things on fire, including themselves, if we could have them provide real flame there, just some, and maybe a little bit of smoke, just some, then maybe it will look better when the visual effects department comes on in there. Alex, does that sound about right?

**Alex:** Yes.

**Craig:** Tell me why that’s so important.

**Alex:** That is absolutely correct, because it really is important about the tone of the show as well. If it’s grounded and practical and realistic and the fire needs to look like real fire, though we can do a lot, it’s always that the hardest part of visual effects is trying to replicate what is real. It just takes iterations. It takes time, really talented artists to do that. If we have something practical to even reference off of, that just gets us a step ahead.

**Craig:** What do you think, Addie? Is that the method that you guys use as well, or when you were doing it?

**Addie:** Yes, certainly, especially on foundation, we leaned really hard into the practical. It’s definitely a show that has huge swaths of full CG. If we’re blowing up a planet, that’s pretty CG. Practical locations, practical effects, we did miniatures, we did all of it. The producer in the supervisor/producer dynamic is often the voice of no. I’m not going to say no to what Alex said, because I agree completely with him. I would only say the complicating factor is sometimes how much time production has to shoot something. If you had to shoot this scene that we’re talking about in half a day, one day, two days-

**Craig:** Oh, god.

**Addie:** I think Alex and I would be having secret meetings about how some of the other departments are going to struggle in that time frame. We are going to have special effects and stunts and everybody do their thing, but visual effects is going to brace to pick it up, because those departments need a fair amount of time to execute at the highest level. Alex might say something like, “Let’s shoot the special effects, but I would really like to get a clean plate.” That means I’d like to do one pass with no fire, and I would encourage producers and showrunners to let Alex do that.

**Craig:** I’m laughing just because I have heard Alex say, “Okay, and then we also need to get a clean plate,” about a thousand times. For people at home, a clean plate, when we’re shooting things that have… Let’s say we’re shooting this scene here. There’s something that we might want to have be completely CG. For instance, “Goodwin emerges from the debris, flames clinging to his Kevlar vest. One of his eyes is missing, a green light growing in its place.” Lots of ways to do that. Let’s say Goodwin’s body was half-skeleton or something like that, and he was going to be mostly CG. We can take real Goodwin, and we can do the best we can with him with a suit and maybe some green stuff on the suit that would get replaced by other stuff.

We’ll do that, and then Alex will say, “Great. Thank you. Now, just shoot the same thing with no Goodwin at all,” which seems weird. At the time you’re just shooting nothing. That stuff then becomes something where he can put an entirely CG Goodwin in there. That’s called a plate. Anything where we’re shooting something that then we stick something on to, or we’re shooting something that we’re going to stick into something, those are called plates. Yes, I have shot many a clean plate for our friend Alex.

**Alex:** I still thank you for that.

**Craig:** You are welcome. Listen to your VFX people basically is what [inaudible 00:17:08]. If they say they need something, give it to them. They need it.

**John:** Alex, the reasons why you might want that is say you might be inserting a fully CG character, but also you might be trying to paint out some stuff you don’t want there. You might be painting out his arm. There’s lots of good reasons why you might want to have that full plate for a reference to do some specific things, right?

**Alex:** Yeah, absolutely. The clean plate, like you and Craig mentioned, if I need to put in a fully digital good one, that’s helpful, but also just if I need to replace his arm where there’s a green portion on his arm or part of his head, and you might see his endoskeleton or something like that, what a clean plate allows is just something back there to help us paint back the background.

**Craig:** A clean plate is the visual equivalent of room tone for the audio guys. There’s a space here where we need the sound of a room without anybody talking. Sometimes you need that clean plate where there’s the space where nothing happened. One of the things Addie’s touching on here which is important to understand, I think, for us when we’re writing is that there are lots of levels of production capacity, and they’re all dependent on budget. Budget will not only drive the things that you can do in post, but they also drive how much time you have to shoot when you’re in principal photography. That amount of time definitely affects how you can go about doing the job of these VFX shots, which will start to head into the thousands when you’re doing a big show.

When you’re writing stuff, we have a general sense of, okay, we’re writing something that’s going to cost $10 million, we’re writing something that’s going to cost 40, we’re writing something that’s going to cost 200. Just be aware that if you’re writing something small, when you write anything that is not something you can shoot without visual effects people, it’s good to at least have a sense that you’re doing something that’s within the realm of reality. Otherwise, you’re going to end up with something rather disappointing like Birdemic.

**John:** Yes, or you may be making aesthetic choices at the very outset for what your effects are going to feel like. You just have to have a plan going into it. No matter what scale of scene you’re shooting, whether it’s a $10 million scene or a $100 scene, you have to go into it knowing what am I actually going to be able to do in visual effects afterwards, whether it’s something you’re doing in after-effects or you’re doing it on a huge, huge scale. Let’s just walk through the scene. Line 3, “Oona gets to her feet, badly hurt but alive. She retrieves the eldenspear. She knows the fight’s not over.”

**Craig:** Eldenspear.

**John:** Two questions for you guys. First off, let’s talk about Oona. She’s badly hurt but alive. A discussion about how much of her being badly hurt is hair and makeup versus how much of her being badly hurt is visual effects. Can you talk us through wounds on a visual effects level? Addie, you want to start us off with that?

**Addie:** Yes. Sorry, I’m so used to waiting for the supervisor to speak first. It’s like, I’ll let the supervisor go first, and then I’ll fix what he says. That’s how that works.

**Alex:** I was waiting for John to tell one of us to start.

**Addie:** “Oona gets to her feet, badly hurt but alive.” At least in the pre-production phase, I definitely flagged that as something to keep an eye on. Frequently, I would just make a note to plan for what I would call makeup effects assistance. I would probably assume that makeup effects is going to do the bulk of it, and we’re going to shoot with makeup effects, and then in post-production, visual effects might be called upon to augment it. There is a trick called heal and reveal, where we paint out the makeup, and then after the wound occurs, we reveal it again, and then we live with makeup effects for the rest of the scene.

**John:** I like that.

**Addie:** There might be squirting blood, and so we might remove a blood tube. If there is liquids involved, pus, blood, frequently those become continuity issues. We don’t usually want to stop filming to fix them, because it takes way too long. You might shoot a whole scene, and then by the time you get into the edit, you’ll say, “The blood’s all in the wrong spots. Let’s take it out in some spots and put it in other spots so that this looks even passingly realistic,” unless of course we have blown a leg off. Then that’s a much bigger visual effects process that makeup effects is not going to handle.

**Craig:** “Oona hops to her foot, badly hurt but alive.”

**Alex:** Just to really talk about the badly hurt part as well, I think just being as descriptive as possible really helps Addie and I understand how much… Is half of her face scarred? Is there a lot of blood? Just a few more descriptive words would really help us there.

**Craig:** In fact, this is where you’ll find out as a writer who maybe has been misled to believe that you shouldn’t be directing on the page, because you didn’t listen to us. When you get to a production meeting, there are going to be 4 billion questions. You want to try and limit when you get to those meetings to 4 million questions, because there will be 4 million no matter what. Once you get into the billions, you get really exhausted. If you do say things like “badly hurt but alive,” you’re going to get grilled by everybody. Getting some details in there will at least help the discussion along a bit further, so that Addie and Alex, maybe they can just relax, because “badly hurt” is just going to be blood. Alex, I think we’ve had… I try and avoid spoilers as much as possible, but people do get hurt in The Last of Us. That does occur.

**John:** Oh no, Craig, really?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I thought it was a comedy though.

**Craig:** I’m going to give that one away. It’s a comedy of errors. We do a lot obviously with makeup, but there are times where there are certain wounds where we can’t do it with makeup. Sometimes we use prosthetics, which help quite a bit. I think Addie’s brought up the crucial thing, which is continuity. The blood can change. Also, wounds are not static. You’ll notice that on a lot of things we watch in movies and television, somebody gets really hurt, and they’re just not bleeding, they’re just bloody. People bleed. How much do we want to make that wound active? These things are complicated. Hopefully the eldenspear has been described earlier in your script, John.

**John:** I really hope so too. It really is a question for the writer, who we’ll pretend is not me, and the director and everyone else involved in the project, that like, okay, does the eldenspear glow by itself? Is it like Wonder Woman’s magic lasso, or is it just a spear? Is it simply a prop, or is it a visual effects component to eldenspear from the very start, is something we need to know. Probably three pages earlier we may have found out that the eldenspear glows all the time. Alex, from your perspective, what is the difference between something that’s just fully a prop versus something that is also a visual effect?

**Alex:** If the prop is relatively static and there’s not much movement to it or there’s not a lot of say magic elements, supernatural elements to it, it should be a prop. We can do a lot on top of it if we need to add a glow, a subtle glow, or have some of those elements. If say the eldenspear has to transform in a way that can’t be done practically, and it constantly does that, then it’s a whole different conversation of, okay, maybe the spear should just be a green spear, so we can replace it later and have it do all those things. If it doesn’t, it’s a place where I would say we should save that money and just make the best practical eldenspear that everyone’s happy with and just get in camera.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Again, it seems like time is maybe the most precious of all resources, even more so perhaps than money, because if you have time, then the props folks can do some R and D and maybe build something great, but if you don’t, then you don’t. In ongoing series, and Addie, you’ve worked on some of those, there may be a situation where scripts are coming in late, and suddenly you need to have an eldenspear tomorrow. At that point, do you just put a green stick in their hand and figure it out later?

**Addie:** Yes, definitely I have done that. A funny classic one is photos in frames or newspaper props where somebody… Especially on a broadcast schedule or a broadcast show, you’ll get a script, and you’ll be shooting in five days, and you need all these photos from a family’s backstory. We put little green squares into a picture frame, and we make it later and stick it in in post-production. It’s a silly thing, because of course you could make that practically, but you just don’t have time, or production and design does not have time.

**John:** Production also sometimes gives you the dumbest looking Photoshops. So bad.

**Addie:** Sometimes you’re going to plus it up a little bit later on.

**Craig:** Plus it up.

**Addie:** I think to your point, I would say time is radically the most important factor in visual effects. It is for many, many of the departments. Visual effects can be such an expensive process. It’s sometimes confusing on even why it’s so expensive. Visual effects budgets on shows are tens of millions, hundreds of millions on feature films. The real component is time. What the money in visual effects is paying for is man hours, because many visual effects could take 20 different people. They could take 20 different people working sequentially over 6 months. You’re paying incredibly highly trained, skilled specialists to do creative bespoke work. Sometimes you can dump all the money in the world on that.

If we do not have enough time to design it, you want to iterate on it so that you can find what you really want it to look like as the director, showrunner. Then you got to stack 16 specialists on top of each other in a time frame, and you’re paying for computer hardware. It’s a complicated process. You’re paying for highly trained specialists to work many, many, many hours together to design something that’s probably never been made before. If you have 6 weeks to do that or you have 6 months to do that or you have 18 months to do that, the capabilities will be different, and the end result will be different.

**John:** I have a question about Line 4. “With one wall taken out by the missile strike, it’s incredible the whole building hasn’t collapsed.” Let’s assume that there’s either a practical that we are green screening off a wall, blue screening off a wall, or we’re building this a set, maybe set extending at the ceilings. The point is that we are able to look outside of this cathedral, outside this interior space into an exterior space, which could be a mountain valley. It could be a dystopia. My question for you is how much does that background need to be a 3D background, or could that just be a 2D background that’s painted in there? Do we need to send a crew to film what that’s going to look like out there, or is that something that we would do just pulling assets that already exist someplace else? What are you thinking about in terms of that background outside of the church?

**Alex:** I definitely know a thing or two about collapsed buildings.

**Craig:** What? Another spoiler.

**Alex:** I will say that at least if the actors are interacting or walking through this collapsed building, I would say I always would like to have a portion of that build, even if it’s just up to 12 feet. Then we can have blue screen. Obviously, going out and finding a plate of that is near impossible, so that will be all digital in my eyes. As far as 3D or DMP, it really depends on the camera, what the camera is doing. If it’s relatively static, we’re behind the actor, and it’s just an establishing shot, it could be what we call a DMP, which is digital map painting, or if the camera travels through that environment, then it has to be a 3D environment.

**John:** When you add a 3 in front of something, it becomes much more expensive.

**Alex:** Not necessarily. DMPs can be expensive too. I would say it comes down to what the camera move will be, what kind of a shot is it.

**John:** That’s a discussion with the director. You have to be deeper into planning and probably storyboards for you to know what those shots are going to be which would influence what we’re seeing outside of the cathedral.

**Craig:** In the case of television where you have a showrunner that is often not the director, then the visual effects supervisor needs to basically talk to the showrunner, and then the showrunner has to explain to the director why they can’t do something or why they should do it differently or what the limitations are, because we always have some limitations. I want to talk a little bit about this notion of movement and set extension.

In a very simple way of thinking about it for those of you playing the home game, when somebody is moving in front of something, if we want to replace the thing that is behind them when they’re moving, it’s hard, because every frame we have to basically cut our people out and then replace the background. God help us if they have a lot of hair that’s… If you’ve got Natasha Lyonne in there, oh no, you have to rotoscope Natasha Lyonne’s hair. That’s a nightmare. She has the best hair.

**John:** I love it.

**Craig:** For those situations, we try and put people in front of something that’s blue or green, because a computer can basically say everything that’s blue gets replaced, and everything that’s not blue, we keep. It gets much, much easier. Set extensions, what we’ll do is, okay, we’ve got somebody moving, and we want something practical behind them, so we will build enough behind them to cover where they’re moving. Where they’re not moving, it’s easy to replace that. That we can just throw blue on. The idea is to try as much as you can, unless you’re a certain kind of show or the environment is impossible to build, to try and make stuff real where people are.

For instance, in Chernobyl, there’s a shot where we see the firefighters marching up this hill of debris towards this reactor building. We couldn’t build an entire reactor building, but we definitely built that mountain of debris. You could see where the firefighters are moving even as they’re climbing up this thing. That’s all really there. Then everything beyond that, Alex and Addie come in and replace that with, like you said, a digital map painting, or in certain… I actually don’t know if I have one where it’s been a 3D environment back there. Do we have one, Alex?

**Alex:** Oh yeah, we definitely…

**Craig:** Shows you what I know.

**Alex:** Sometimes it’s just easier. Digital map paintings come in when you have to pull reference, whether it’s mixed photography. If it’s an environment that really 100% just doesn’t exist, it’s built.

**Craig:** Got it. Oh yeah, we do have that. I’m paying attention. I promise.

**John:** When you’re saying a built environment, is it on a real engine where you’re actually rebuilding 3D assets and creating a space? Is that the idea?

**Alex:** Very much like that. We have so many different types of software to do that. Essentially, it is that.

**John:** We talk about set extensions. I would imagine that this cathedral probably is a set extension beyond a certain point, because we have these high walls, the ceiling. On Line 8, “Oona gives a thunderous war cry, so powerful it shatters the remaining stained glass windows. Prismatic shards of glass rain down.” Those stained glass windows feel like a visual effect to me. Maybe there’s something. Maybe it’s the reason why you’re doing models or something else or shattering some real things to capture that. I have a question about what is raining down on our actors there. Is anything raining down there? Is this the time where we do some colored rubber glass? What are the things you’re thinking about as you read Line 8, Addie?

**Addie:** Line 8 with the shattering glass, so my gut is most likely this is potentially fully 3D, especially Alex had mentioned that maybe you would build a set up to 12 feet, which in that instance you’re aiming to build a set that goes above the actors’ heads so that you can cover the actors, maybe with a practical set. You only see above their heads in the wider shot. It keeps your shot count down. It gives the actors something practical to play against. If the stained glass is way up in the high part of the cathedral, which I think in a cathedral design it probably is, that is likely going to be fully CG, but you could rain what we call candy glass down on the actors to give them something to interface with. Probably a mix of visual effects and practical.

**John:** Even if you put the candy glass down on them, you would probably supplement it with additional stuff, just to give extra little bits of texture and something for them to react to.

**Addie:** Again, trying to read the movie in my head on the page, I’m also picturing a dramatic shot of the glass exploding into the camera, which will probably be heavily digital. Then maybe just the shards on the actor are practical. It seems like a very dramatic cinematic moment, where you might want to really art direct the glass performance.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Glass performance, I love that.

**John:** We talked a little bit about Goodwin. “Goodwin’s emerging from the debris, flames clinging to his Kevlar vest. One of his eyes is missing, a green light glowing in its place.” We’re assuming that this is a real actor. We’ve seen him as a human being for most of this. He’s wearing a Kevlar vest, so he’s some sort of law enforcement person maybe. The flames clinging to his Kevlar vest, am I right to assume that those are all going to be digitally added? Would you put any LEDs in there to create light on the actor? What are some things we’re thinking about with Goodwin emerging from this debris?

**Alex:** I would say that the debris should be practical if possible. Maybe we can add some debris on top of it or dust or something like that. The Kevlar vest, I would say it should be digital fire. Because it’s broad daylight, I don’t think I’ll need much LED lights or interactive lights. Only if it was nighttime, that would be helpful. In this case, I will say that that is not necessary. As far as the damage to him, we did a very similar thing on Terminator with Arnold’s character. There was explosion that happens. Basically, post-explosion, half of his face is missing, revealing his endoskeleton, and his arm is revealing the endoskeleton as well. Basically, we just had prosthetics do the burned skin portion, and then the other half would be… On the set, I think we had gray as opposed to blue, but some color of gray or green or blue for replacing that to be a digital endoskeleton.

**John:** Great. On his face, where they have this digital eye, does he have makeup dots on there so you can track where the eye needs to go?

**Alex:** Yeah, that would be really helpful. We have tracking markers, but we also have what is called witness cameras for helping, because sometimes if we have a long lens, it’s difficult to understand the position of the actor’s body. We position witness cameras around, which is going to be a relatively wide lens. It helps when we’re essentially tracking. If you think about if somebody’s on a ground getting up, we essentially will track where his body position is, in 3D. If we just have one camera doing that, that can be rather challenging or difficult, time-consuming. Like Addie said, time is the most important thing. Really when I’m on set, I’m trying to get as much data as possible that just buys me more time in post. Witness cameras, I’ll try to place them around the actor. Generally it’s opposite sides of where the main camera is to help me track the body.

**Craig:** That’s what those things were doing.

**John:** Alex, those cameras, those are synced to each take, so you can actually know on this frame, this is the same frame from this different perspective?

**Alex:** In an ideal world, for example on Terminator, we had A, B, and C camera. Generally if A camera’s rolling, then B and C, which is already synced, those can be our witness cameras. Otherwise, we have a poor man’s version, which is we just have our own visual effects cameras or consumer cameras. We just shine a little red light actually. The red light helps us when we’re looking at the take. Okay, we can sync our cameras to this. It’s like a poor man’s version.

**John:** What you’re saying is every little bit you can get helps, even if it’s just-

**Alex:** Absolutely.

**John:** … reference for things down the road so you get to feel what’s possible there.

**Craig:** It’s so much data being captured. It’s amazing how much data is being captured in a process that used to have no data. When you and I started, John, there was just film.

**John:** There was film, and we had a script supervisor who was taking pencil notes on paper about what happened.

**Craig:** That’s data, but I’m talking about digital data. There was zero digital data, and now there’s a gazillion bits of digital data, not only from the cameras that are capturing the actual footage that you see on film, but then there are these witness cameras. Then they’re scanning. Addie and Alex are making sure that characters that they may need to replace digitally, so for instance in this I would imagine Goodwin would be scanned for sure. They stand in a little cage built of a thousand cameras. Then they all just take pictures so that they have a fully digital 3D capture of this person. We had a van that did that. What would we call that thing? Was it a trailer, a scanning trailer? We also had a little portable scanning thing that we could set up. It was pretty amazing.

**Alex:** We had a scanning booth.

**Craig:** A booth.

**Alex:** It was a booth to scan our actors, our talent. What you saw was probably a Lidar scanner, which basically just helps us scan the set, the environment.

**John:** Now Addie, let’s talk about scanning an actor, because I’m sure your principals for foundation would have to be scanned, because sometimes you just have to replace them. Are you scanning them in their full wardrobe, or are you scanning them just bare so you can put wardrobe on them? What’s important for you on a scan?

**Addie:** It varies by project. On foundation, we scanned actors both in modesty dress and also in each individual costume that had to be recreated. I think an optimal scenario is as many scans as you can possibly get. That might be as naked as possible within the realms of everyone’s comfort level. It could be in 20 different costumes if each of those costumes needs to be used for something. We scanned extras in costumes, because we were filming during COVID, and we were creating digital doubles to populate large crowd scenes, because we were limited on how many extras we could have at each location for safety protocols. I would say both skivvies and costumes is ideal. A lot of times, that takes up too much time. As we’re saying, it takes too much time for the actors. It takes too much time on the day.

For this scene, you would probably ideally want to scan Goodwin in his costume and with his shirt off potentially so you could get his arm skin. The scan itself is getting thousands of mathematical data points. You can make a geo map of his body. You can recreate him as a digital asset. The costumes are good for that. You’re getting costume texture. Fabric is down into the minutiae of visual effects. Production fabric is a complicated thing to create. In a perfect scenario, we would scan him in his costume, but maybe we wouldn’t need to send that fabric or recreate that fabric. You could just get down to his bare skin, and then he peels his skin off and you reveal a digital robot underneath that.

**John:** That’s great. Let’s talk about this shot, 7. “He sloughs the flesh off his left arm, revealing a metal skeleton beneath.” I’m envisioning this as not necessarily a locked-off shot, but we’re close in on seeing this thing and this sliding off. To what degree are we talking about Rick Backer practical visual effects versus this being a digital thing? What are the decisions there?

**Alex:** I think I would do it digital, to be honest, just with the interaction. I would just have the actor give the best performance he can, as if he’s really trying to slide off his skin, so it doesn’t feel like it’s just such an easy thing to do. I think many times I always say just give me the best performance and it’ll make our lives a lot easier when it comes to something like this, because if you can really sell him trying to tear his skin off his arm and revealing what is underneath, I think that will actually make our lives easier.

**Craig:** From a production standpoint, if we had something practical there, which you could do, and which is the only option that existed prior to all this, the resets eat up your day. You need to do takes two, three, four, five, six, and you’re peeling something off that is a one-use thing because it’s getting peeled off. They peeled it off. Now you got to take 30, 40 minutes to get it back on again with the… They have to make multiples of it. Then you get to shoot it again. You could spend all morning and get three takes of this. Now you just have them act, and you can get 9 takes in 30 minutes and find the one later that you want. Again, time is the most precious resource, and it’s the one we’re constantly fighting.

There were circumstances on The Last of Us where because we were in Calgary, in Alberta, which is very north, we always seem to be shooting at the wrong time of year. We would shoot night in the summer, and we would shoot day in the winter. Things go very fast there. We were shooting some night scenes where we really only had about five hours of darkness maximum. In those circumstances, you have to do things like this digitally. Then the idea is to plan ahead and make sure that we give the actor what they need. That means talking to them as well, so that they understand what’s expected of them, and they don’t just get there on the day and go, “Wait, how are we doing this?” They need to know.

**John:** Let’s wrap up this conversation of this scene, talking about the stunt here. In Line 9, “Goodwin charges. Oona makes an acrobatic spring off a pew, leaping to drive her spear right through Goodwin. He’s impaled like a martini olive.” Addie, talk us through what parts of this enter into your department?

**Addie:** Line 9, “Oona makes an acrobatic spring off a pew, leaping to drive her spear,” that’s probably wire work. We are going to look at are we shooting this on a blue stage. What is she wearing, because she will have a bunch of safety harnesses. There will be a wire rig to allow her to perform this. Her costume and how the rig interacts with her costume can be easier or harder, although the first priority is and should be actor safety.

There’s been a few things I think in this conversation, like the fire on a Kevlar vest. Visual effects can pick up a lot of work to make sure that the actors and the camera department are safe, which should I think not get lost in the visual effects conversation. We want to make sure she’s as safe as possible, even if that is more difficult for visual effects, because digital work is very safe. She is going to leap to drive her spear right through Goodwin, so she’s probably going to be holding a practical spear that might not have a sharp tip on it. In post-production, we might add a sharp tip. That is mostly again for actor safety, because we don’t really want anybody interacting with swords.

**John:** Would the spear she’s holding be half the length so that as she drives it, assuming this is in a shot rather than multiple shots, so that she can hit him and we can imagine it went through him? Are what point are you making those decisions?

**Addie:** I think we would make those decisions with art department and stunts all together. The departments really have to collaborate to make this stuff go smoothly. She’s probably holding the spear handle, and it has no blade on it. Maybe that handle is built as big as it needs to go, up to his chest. She could drive a safe, blunt object all the way up to his chest, exactly how we want it to look in the end. Then visual effects can add gleaming metal, dangerous blade on it for the full leap. We can do digital blade piercing through him like a martini olive.

**Craig:** The other option is that maybe we’re doing this with stunt actors only, where we can use a full spear, and maybe the other stunt actor’s wearing a protective vest underneath the costume. It looks like they really are getting stabbed. Then we face replace. Oh, face replace.

**John:** Exciting.

**Addie:** Face replace, yep.

**Craig:** Face replace.

**Alex:** That is Addie and I’s nightmare.

**Craig:** Face replace.

**Addie:** You’ll notice Alex and I did not volunteer face replace once.

**Craig:** That’s right, but I’m always like, “What about face replace?” We don’t do much face replacing, but there’s a couple moments where there is a face replace. We do try and avoid it, because it is hard and takes up a lot of resources. It’s hard to do well I think is the biggest issue.

**John:** Addie and Alex though, is face replacement one of those things 10 years from now will be easier, cheaper, and better?

**Alex:** I think so. I think we’re definitely going with AI these days. Just the deep fake technology is really changing the way visual effects handles face replacement. Ten years ago we would have to do a very high-res scan of our actor’s face. We would have to create a digital asset that is photo reel of our actor’s face. That’s very difficult. Until this day I have to say I haven’t seen a single face replacement through that way of creating a digital face that is very convincing. However, the AI deep fake sort of technology, it really is just building an image library in a very thoughtful way of what is the actor’s emotion and why it looks convincing, because it is that person. It is that actor. It’s just pulling those images and blending them together.

**John:** I didn’t want to get through your segment without talking about you seemed to repose that maybe Shot 9 doesn’t take place in the same space as the rest of the scene would take place. Is there an argument for taking this one stunt and taking it out of this cathedral where we’re doing everything else and doing it in a different space?

**Addie:** Yeah, I think potentially. It can go both back to the issues of speed and safety. Let’s say hypothetically we were shooting this at a practical location in a cathedral that was partially destroyed, which would be excellent and would probably make for an excellent scene. It might be nearly impossible for stunts and camera to execute a safe set of wire work stunts like this out in a field, because you might need ceiling rigging and crash pads and all kind of things to make sure that nobody gets hurt.

You would want to control the lighting scenario very intensely, which might be impossible in a daylight location. You could pull a stunt like this onto a blue stage or a green stage, for example. We would shoot the actors in the stunts completely against blue, ideally key out the blue screen and put in the practical environment in the background. I am wandering into supervisor territory there, so I think Alex could speak to that more. You’re probably only going to perform that a couple of times, because like Craig said, the resets are very difficult. You don’t want to burn daylight. You don’t want to drag all your rigging equipment out into Notre Dame, Paris, because the logistics of that are completely insane. We put it in a controlled environment. It’s safer. It’s faster. Then Alex, you could probably elaborate on how all those elements go together into final shots.

**Alex:** The one thing I will say about the acrobatic spring-off is I think that is when I will walk over to showrunner or director and ask for a creative explanation of what the acrobatic spring-off looks like. If it’s something that is not humanly possible, then I’ll say, “Okay, then there’ll be a digital takeover. We’ll have to shoot it in a way where we can’t take it over.” I think that’s definitely something that I have to consider earlier on as well.

**John:** I want to wrap up this conversations with some things I couldn’t cram into this one scene, which is crowds, because Addie, you’ve mentioned on foundation, because you’re shooting this during COVID, sometimes you needed to populate things with more people than you were allowed to have in a space. Even things like filling up an auditorium with people or a mob of villagers storming something, can you talk us through… Maybe, Alex, you could start with talking us through how we create groups of people as opposed to an individual character.

**Alex:** With crowds, I always try to shoot plates if I can, just because it’s cheaper and it looks better. It gets us there faster. If I can shoot plates, then I will. However, if I cannot, then it goes into digital crowds, and I need to create these digital assets of these crowd members. We call them crowd agents. Depending on what they need to do, if they’re just doing a cycle of cheering up and down, that’s definitely the simpler route to go. However, if they have to interact and react to certain things, that’s only software that’s smart enough to know what to do with that. That obviously takes more time, and it’s more expensive.

**John:** As we wrap up, let’s say we have listeners who are hearing you guys talk about this, and they say, “You know what? This is the kind of job I really want to do. This is a thing I aspire to.” What should that listener do next? Let’s say this was a college student who’s really interested in this. What are the next steps for that person? Addie, what would you say? What advice would you give?

**Addie:** I have to think about this. It’s a valid question, because there’s quite a lot of discussion about the lack of diversity in the visual effects space, so how to get one’s foot in the door is a good question. For me personally, I started as a production assistant in independent film.

**John:** Great.

**Addie:** I think that having some boots on the ground experience on a film set is incredibly important for anybody going into any department. I think the strongest visual effects supervisors, producers, artists, coordinators, are fluent in filmmaking in general. I think having a basis in filmmaking and storytelling is actually more important than the technical, because the technical can be learned, but it’s really integral to know how the whole thing goes together before you start talking about the technical. I would say get a production assistant job, see how the whole thing works.

**John:** Alex, what would your advice be for someone who wants to start a career in visual effects?

**Alex:** I think there’s definitely a wealth of knowledge on the internet right now for visual effects, just listening to visual effects supervisors talk to there are podcasts out there. There are tutorials out there. I think there’s just so much that a young artist can grab, that I wish I had when I was starting out. The other thing I would say is be a master at your craft. Be passionate. It is a hard job. It takes a lot of hours, takes a lot of effort. You have to be really dedicated and passionate about it.

**John:** Great. Craig, any last questions for our team here?

**Craig:** No, I think you guys covered it well. I just want to thank you both for coming on, because most writers simply don’t know about this stuff. The most important part I think of this discussion was hearing from both of you about how important the script is and how closely you read it. In television where the writers are in charge, this makes sense. In movies where the writers aren’t, this is part of the tragedy that the script is being read so carefully, and oftentimes in the absence of the writer themselves, who’s just not there. You have to ask the person who didn’t write it what it meant. Again, the way movies do it, stupid. The way television does it, correct.

I think I really connect with what Addie’s saying, that so much of what makes somebody good at this, and I can certainly confirm that this is the case with Alex, is how carefully they interrogate the screenplay and how much they care about the point, which is the story, the characters, the relationship, the tone, and the feeling you want to create in an audience, and not so much about the ones and zeros. Those are just tools like everything else.

**John:** Addie, Alex, thank you so, so much.

**Craig:** Thanks, guys.

**Addie:** Thank you.

**Alex:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Now get off our show.

**John:** Craig, that was a great conversation. Now it’s time for our One Cool Things. Do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

**Craig:** I do have a One Cool Thing, and it’s directly related to my friend Alex Wang, who we were just speaking with. When we are reviewing visual effects shots, oftentimes we are discussing certain details inside the frame. We’re showing this on a television, or when we’re into our later final reviews, it’s being projected on a screen. We can’t walk right up to the screen or the television and start tapping on it with our fingers. That’s not going to work very well. The convention is to use laser pointers. We have all sorts of laser pointers over here. I like the green ones, personally.

**John:** Aren’t they really dangerous? I’ve always heard that green ones are dangerous.

**Craig:** They’re all dangerous. They’re all dangerous. Don’t shine a laser pointer in your eye. They’re all dangerous if you shine them in your eye. I like the green ones, because they’re really easy to see, especially against the typical colors of a frame. It’s rare that you have bright green in a frame, which is why, for instance, green screen exists. All the laser pointers we have are weak. I went and I got one on Amazon that I love. It’s $22.

**John:** That’s not much.

**Craig:** No. It’s called the Solid Craft High-Powered Green Laser, Tactical Long-Range Laser, Rechargeable Laser Single Press On/Off, Adjustable Focus Hunting Rifle Scope with Carrying Case. I love the way that they’ve just gamed the system now so the product name is just a bunch of tags. Anyway, it’s really good. It’s incredibly bright. Do not shine it anywhere near your eye or anyone else’s. It’s got a nice [inaudible 00:56:23].

**John:** Or on a plane.

**Craig:** Certainly not at a plane or the sky or anything like that. I’m so delighted with this thing that the visual effects department here in our post-production office has taken to calling it Excalibur. My Excalibur laser is my One Cool Thing.

**John:** I love it. My One Cool Thing this week is a Substack post by Gurwinder Bhogal called The Perils of Audience Capture: How Influencers Became Brainwashed by Their Audiences. What I really liked about it is he’s talking through how we always think about how influencers are influencing the people who are watching their videos or listening to them. This really is a case of a classic behaviorism, where these influencers are being rewarded for the kinds of things that their audiences like. They become more and more like that. They fall into a trap of just doing the same thing to more extreme levels.

It talks through Nicholas Perry, who started out as this vegan YouTuber but became successful with his eating videos, and now he’s 400 pounds. I think this is a really interesting study in how to think about the feedback loops that are natural and probably good in societies that are about 100 people large but really fall apart on the internet, where you’re getting feedback from people you don’t know, who for reasons you don’t know why they’re wanting to do certain things.

**Craig:** This is an example of the internet amplifying something that has always been part of human nature. That is the way that we respond to feedback. We love applause. We seek approval from the people around us, which in part is correct. That’s part of socialization is making sure that you can read the room and see what might not be working and see what is working. We all then preserve part of ourselves to be resistant to that, because we don’t want to just be the person that changes ourselves for what people want. That’s when we’re dealing with a room. The room on the internet is millions of people. If you don’t have much of an identity or you don’t have much of a presence of approval in your life, and suddenly you have 6 million people loving something that you do, that’s a drug that you’ll become very quickly addicted to. This is very sad to see, for instance, this guy essentially trading his physical health for love, or at least what he perceives as love.

**John:** We’ve always had people who changed themselves because they’ve come into the spotlight. We have A Face in the Crowd or All About Eve. We have these stories of how fame changes a person. The fact that everyone can be a little bit famous now is really part of the problem and is really the danger. Everyone wants to be a little bit famous right now. I think it makes it really hard for someone who’s growing up on the internet to really have this sense of who they are independently of people looking at them on the internet. It’s a real challenge.

**Craig:** It’s tricky. My daughter had some internet popularity. She writes songs, and she sings and performs them. There was a song that she wrote that was based on this fairly popular series of stories on Wattpad, which we’ve discussed before. By popular stories on Wattpad, millions of people read it. She wrote a song that was based on it, and it blew up on the TikToks and so forth. She made money, and she got a lot of attention. I remember at some point she said, “I’ve noticed that I’m now chasing that, and I need to stop.” She actually said it. She said, “I think what’s happened is I’m now trying to write a song that will make the people that like this song as happy as they were when they heard this song, and I’m not going to do that now.” She noticed it. She felt it. I was very proud of her, because I think a lot of adults really struggle with that.

What it comes down to is something that Dennis Palumbo said to me once, he of Episode 99, our favorite therapist. He said, “Many people, perhaps most people, get into the entertainment business because they are seeking approval that they otherwise did not get in their childhood.” That is a very dangerous situation, because if you don’t have a baseline of self-esteem, then this becomes your only engine for approval and meaning. That’s terrible, because what the audience will do is ruin you. A wonderful story by Kafka called The Hunger Artist, which is the opposite of the story that we see here of Nicholas Perry, pretty remarkable stuff.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. The outro this week is by Aguilera. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send larger questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. If you want to download the scene that we talked through, that’s where you’ll find it. We have T-shirts, and they’re great. You can get them at Cotton Bureau. We have transcripts that come up every week for our show and a weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You’ll find that at johnaugust.com. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on friends. Craig and Megana, as my friends, thank you very much for the fun show.

**Megana Rao:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Megana, our bonus topic was suggested by a listener. Do you want to read the listener question?

**Megana:** Yes. Jacob wrote in and said, “As I hit my mid-30s, I fear I am starting to follow in my father’s footsteps. Is it normal for men to have fewer and fewer friends as we get older? As a kid, I always felt bad for my dad, but now I kind of get it. If you’re going to be a good dad and a good husband, how many friends can you really have? Any advice on that balance in keeping/making friends as we get older?”

**John:** Such a smart question, Jacob.

**Craig:** What strikes me immediately is how gendered the question is, because there is a presumption here that if you’re going to be a good dad and a good husband, it’s really hard to have friends, but there’s no question that being a good mother and a good wife is incompatible with having lots of friends. I do think this is something that happens to men. Is it normal? It’s common. Is it good? No. Is it necessary? No. Is having lots of friends incompatible with being a good dad and a good husband? No. I do think I have a lot of friends. John, I think you have a lot of friends.

**John:** I have a lot of friends, yeah.

**Craig:** Let’s see if we can give some advice, particularly for men, since this does seem like a gender-oriented thing, but hopefully some women will take some value from this as well, on how to keep and make friends as we get older. John, what do you think?

**John:** I’m going to start doing a very John August thing, which is trying to define our terms.

**Craig:** Oh, classic. “What is I?”

**John:** “What is friend? Explain friend.”

**Craig:** “Friend equals one.”

**John:** I want to be able to distinguish between colleagues and friends, because I think men will still have a lot of colleagues, people you work with or people you know through different places, but they won’t necessarily be friends. I would say a friend to me is somebody you can call with a personal problem or a thing going on in your life or just to hang out and have a good time, which is different than a work colleague. I might chitchat a bit with a work colleague, but I’m not going to go deep on things. Sometimes you can make friends out of your work colleagues, which is fantastic, but you need to find someplace that you have friendships that are outside of your work environment.

I’m friends with all the folks who have worked with me at Quote Unquote, which is great. I see them outside of the work environment. If those were my only source of friends, that would not be ideal. My other friends are my D and D group. We play D and D every week. That’s a group of friends. While we’re mostly talking about this endless dungeon that Craig is dragging us through-

**Craig:** It does have an end.

**John:** We’ll reach Hallister eventually. Is a chance to have a social situation that is not about work or family or anything else.

**Craig:** I understand, especially for a lot of men who are not socialized to share feelings and to process their emotions and their feelings through talking, that maybe the idea of friends gets tougher. I want to point out that we all as boys had friends. That was a thing we had. We deserve friends. Friends are wonderful, and they’re essential. Part of what I think might help men is a friendship that has something in the middle of it, an activity.

**John:** Bowling.

**Craig:** Anything, really. If you have bowling, Dungeons and Dragons, fishing, whatever it is, we generally… Do men have book club? No.

**John:** Could they? Should they? Absolutely.

**Craig:** Could they? Yes. Should they? I don’t say should. If they love it, yes. I know from my wife, what book club often becomes is talk club. For some men, that’s hard. Talk club is hard, particularly for men that are struggling to have friends. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that they probably aren’t big into the talk club vibe. An activity that you can all agree on that you love is essential I think. It helps bring people together. A hobby-based group is a good thing, finding something like that. If you are married, you may absolutely loathe the following sentence, which I’ve heard a number of times. “My friend so-and-so would love for us to get together with her husband and go out to dinner.” You may go, “Oh, no.” Give it a shot, unless you already have-

**John:** Give it a shot.

**Craig:** If you have a lot of friends, then you can say no, which I do all the time. I’m full up on friends. If you don’t, you never know, because what happens is sometimes couples interaction helps you find friends. You may then get invited to a party, and you might start chatting with somebody. If you’re a guy and you meet another guy at a party that you like, or by the way, it doesn’t all have to be gendered friends, or a woman that you’d be friends with, pursue it. Pursue it.

**John:** That’s the thing is people are I think afraid to pursue friendships after a certain point, because in college it was easy, because you were just around people, and you could strike up conversations. You all had a thing in common, because you were all going to the same school. You have a little less now. Post-pandemic, Mike and I very deliberately tried to make some new friends, because we recognized that so many of the friends we made over the last 10 years were couple friends, parents of other kids at Amy’s schools. That was great while we had that shared interest. Our kids are at the same school. During the pandemic, we weren’t seeing those people. They all fell out of touch. We didn’t care about a lot of them. We weren’t going to get back in touch. We had literally nothing in common other than our kids went to the same school. Mike and I have been trying to make some new friends. Literally, just in line at Outfest, we started talking to the couple in front of us, and we went out to dinner with them, and they’re now friends.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** Craig, I think I’m going to scare you here, but you have to state it, then manifest it.

**Craig:** Wow. You may have to state it and manifest. You have to be the change you want to see in the world. That means, by the way, that you have to risk rejection of a kind. When you are pursuing friendships, keep your antenna up for resistance and reluctance, because that means those people don’t want to be friends with you, and that’s okay. You don’t want to be thirsty, as the kids say. You don’t want to be desperate. Just stay open to it. I would say, Jacob, you’re in your mid-30s. Don’t follow in your father’s footsteps. My dad, who he’s been dead for, I don’t know, a couple years now, he didn’t have friends.

**John:** My dad didn’t either.

**Craig:** None. My dad lived way longer than your dad. My dad didn’t have friends for decades. For decades. That’s not good. I used to worry about it. Then I realized, why am I worrying about this? This is not my problem. I can’t fix this for him.

**John:** For your own kid, model good behavior.

**Craig:** That’s right. Exactly.

**John:** Make some friends. Take a chance.

**Craig:** It’s actually part of being a good dad is showing your kid that you have friends and that you’re not just the guy at home that’s a lump on the coach. By the way, I don’t know if you’re married to a man or a woman, but whoever your spouse is, give them a break by going and having your own friends. Otherwise, you’re like, “I don’t know. You’re going out. I’m alone.” Megana-

**John:** Give us your perspective on this, because you’re closer in age to Jacob.

**Craig:** You’re Jacob-ish.

**John:** Do you sense your friends groups changing, your friendships changing? What’s going on with you?

**Megana:** I definitely sense as I’m getting older, the texture of my social life changing a bit. It’s hard to tell whether that’s because of the pandemic and how that’s affected us the last two years or if I have to admit that I’m just getting older.

**Craig:** You’re getting older.

**Megana:** An uncomfortable thing to realize. I wholeheartedly agree with what you’re saying. Male friendships fascinate me. I think it’s just beneficial for everyone for men to have more friends, because I think classically, straight male guys tend to expect their significant others to do a lot of the emotional labor of helping them process and talk through everything, and they only feel comfortable talking about that with their partner. It’s exhausting. It’s so much better if you have a group of guy friends or just a group of friends that you can bounce things off of.

**Craig:** My wife would love it if I talked to her more about my feelings. She would actually love that. I don’t do it ever. She’s like, “Can you please just say your words related to whatever you’re feeling?” I have to make an effort to do that.

**Megana:** Are you having those conversations with your friends, or you’re just not having them at all?

**Craig:** Straight guys. It’s time for the straight guy hour. How do straight guys do this? Here’s how the straight… I don’t know if this is typical or not for straight guys. What I do with my friends is we do talk about these things, but we don’t talk about them in emotional ways at all. We talk about them in… The only emotion that we express generally is anger. That’s entirely acceptable for straight men. It’s like, “I’m so pissed off about this.” “Yeah, me too, blah, and here’s why.” Ultimately, it turns into comedy of some kind. You get heard without it being this thing of being heard, because we can’t ever just go right at it. We have to go around it, because again, we were instructed not to, at length, in our childhood. It’s interesting.

That’s why I think guys having friends is so important, particularly straight guys, because we were conditioned to not talk and not share and not listen. If we find friends that we can do that with and feel like we’re not doing it but still do it, if you know what I mean, it’s really helpful.

**John:** Now this is not a new observation at all, but I do feel like the root cause or one of the root causes of so many of the challenges facing America right now is the epidemic of male loneliness and just men who don’t have anyone to talk to or anything to do, so they’re only reaching out to the internet. It’s not good. It’s not healthy for women. It’s not healthy for society. I’d urge our male listeners to just be proactive about trying to find some more friendships. Just find an activity you want to participate in and do it. Find some other men around you or people around you that you can go do this. It could be board games. It could be hiking. My brother is in a four-wheel driving club.

**Craig:** There you go. It’s a club.

**John:** He loves it. Find a club.

**Craig:** There’s a reason why gangs exist. There’s a reason why teams exist and squadrons. I don’t know, there’s just something kind of groupy about men. They like to be on a team. They like to be a part of a thing where everybody wears the same shirt. Men love uniforms. I don’t know why. It’s just in there somewhere in the bones. That’s a good thing. Just be careful that you don’t end up in a club with a bunch of other people who are super angry about not having friends.

**John:** That’s not good.

**Craig:** That becomes a little toxic stew of bitterness. Then that’s where men start to egg each other on to do terrible things. What is al-Qaeda if not a club of lonely men, or what was it? That’s what happens. Just be careful about that. Keep your antenna up for people that are maybe just miserable, because then that’ll be a misery club. Find something that’s positive and fun.

**Megana:** Like golfing. This is why people golf, right? You are outside, and you’re just walking and chatting.

**John:** You’re not looking people in the eye. You’re standing side by side doing this.

**Megana:** You’re also not looking at a screen, which is a plus.

**Craig:** You are not looking at a screen. Golf is a fascinating one, because you’re also not competing against that person. You’re competing against yourself, which is amazing. Alec Berg, who is an excellent golfer, has often pointed out that golf is one of the only sports where anybody on any given day could be as good or not better than a professional. If golf isn’t for you, or if you’ve got a physical disability and you can’t golf, there are other things, for sure. You just have to make an effort to find them. The internet is a great tool and a terrible tool. More toxic groups on the internet than not. Maybe that’s a way for you to find something there. You have to try. Jacob, it’s really important. You may find that you could also reconnect with some people that you could naturally be friends with, you just lost touch with. Just see how it goes. You need it. It’s really important.

**John:** It is important.

**Craig:** You guys are my friends.

**John:** Thanks, friends.

**Megana:** Aw.

**Craig:** Aw.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** Bye, friends.

**Megana:** Bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Follow along with the sample scene [here](https://johnaugust.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/sample-scene-for-VFX-discussion-2.pdf).
* Alex Wang on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1647984/)
* Addie Manis on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1982088/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/adicaroy?lang=en)
* [The Perils of Audience Capture](https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture) by Gurwinder Bhogal
* [Craig’s Favorite Laser Pointer](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FH82ZJ9?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Aguilera ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/563standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 526: Just One Question, Transcript

December 15, 2021 Transcribed

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/just-one-question).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 526 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig is stuck on a mountain in Canada this week, so I’ve convinced several previous Scriptnotes guests to come on the show with the promise that I’d ask each of them a single question. First I’ll be talking with Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi about moving their show from Canada to California. Then I’ll check in with Aline who is busy directing her first movie. And I’ll chat with Stephen Follows who has never actually been a guest on the show, but we’ve mentioned a bunch of times. He’s that data scientist who helped us look at the one page per minute rule of thumb and tracking down movies you can’t find anywhere. I asked Stephen to make his best pitch for going to college and film school in particular. So obviously this episode that Craig is not around to argue with him about.

Now for premium members stick around at the end where Stephen and I will discuss how to best answer the question of whether screenplay competitions are ever worth it. Stephen challenges the premise of the question but also helps apply some scientific rigor to the investigation.

Now, before we get to any of that there’s some news to get through first. So I’m joined by the master of Google sheets, baker of delicious desserts, co-founder of #PayUpHollywood, Liz Hsiao Lan Alper. Liz, welcome.

**Liz Hsiao Lan Alper:** Hi. Thanks John. Thank you so much for having me back.

**John:** Oh, thank you for being on this first and most crucial part of the news wrap up thing, because it’s so awkward when it’s just me talking through this.

**Liz:** I completely understand. I do that just by myself where I’m just talking to myself doing news wrap ups. It’s just always awkward.

**John:** It is. Now we are going to talk about some important things but nothing can be more important than what you’re baking at this moment. Because you have brought amazing desserts to my house before. What are you looking forward to baking this holiday season?

**Liz:** So honestly I’ve been perfecting – I think you saw this on Twitter – but I’ve been perfecting Arnold Palmer pie. This is my pride and joy. So it’s a lemon pie that also has an unsweetened iced tea gelee on top. So it’s a very half and half pie. And when you take a bite it’s supposed to remind you of the summertime. I’ve been perfecting this recipe for a few months now and we’re getting very, very close. I think I might have to drop something off at your house pretty soon.

**John:** I’m excited now. I can imagine this is a big pie, but I could also imagine it as sort of single serving kind of like ramekin kind of things. Like how are you doing this?

**Liz:** So before it was going to be just a single eight-inch pie and now I’m realizing it’s almost better to do the individual pies. So, if you get a muffin tin, if you use the muffin tin you fill up each muffin tin with a little bit of the graham cracker crumb, a little bit of the condensed milk/lemon mixture, and then just a little bit of the gelee. It makes it so that you actually have something that you can hold in your hand as you’re walking. And you don’t have to worry about it falling apart. So it’s an on-the-go pie.

**John:** That sounds amazing. Now, that’s the fun part of this, but let’s get to the actual work of this episode which is that you have a new survey going out and we want to hear about this. So this is a survey for support staff?

**Liz:** Yes. So this is the #PayUpHollywood third annual support staff survey. This is the third time that we’ve been putting out a survey strictly for entertainment staff, but this is the first time that we’re actually expanding the reach to not just people in New York, Albuquerque, other American cities where entertainment support staffers are based, but we’re also looking beyond American borders into Canada, into Mexico, into the UK, and specifically trying to get a sense of what it’s like in the entertainment business outside there.

And then we’re also going to be tracking how over the last three years pay has increased, how abuses may have been eradicated in the workplace, or any other loopholes that might have come out of the pandemic. We as writers, we’ve been seeing an uptick in different problems that came out of the pandemic we hadn’t experienced before. The same is going to be the same for support staff. And so we’re trying to make sure that we’re getting a good wide group of not just writer assistants and script coordinators and desk assistants, but also that we’re reaching out to the people who work in production and work in reality television and work in commercials so we can see where the trends are happening just across the board.

**John:** Now people might be listening to this wondering am I the kind of person who needs to be filling out this form for Liz and getting her the data she needs. So we’re going to put a link in the show notes that has a link to the Google form which is sort of the introductory form that really lists these are the kinds of jobs that you’re looking for. These are the kind of people in these positions. So if you have a question about whether you’re the right person to be filling this out click the link and you’ll see whether you actually are a good fit for what we need to know.

**Liz:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** Cool. Now some of the world of assistants and support staff has changed a bit with the adoption of this new IATSE deal. So let’s talk a bit about that because one of the things we were always looking at when we looked at assistant pay in Hollywood was that there are some of these jobs which are union jobs. So script coordinators and writer’s room assistants can be union jobs. And they actually got a pay increase in this last round of negotiations.

**Liz:** Yeah. They actually received a massive pay increase. And I know that there were many members who were hoping for more simply because the wages for script coordinators and writer’s assistants has not kept in line with the cost of living for at least the last decade. So I think there was a lot of hope that there would be one massive leap that would bring all of the pay in alignment with what current times actually require.

What they’re going to be making nowadays is $23.50 an hour. That’s the absolute minimum. I know a lot of studios like to call that scale. It’s not scale. It’s just the absolute lowest that you can pay a union assistant to be on the show. And it absolutely should be going up after you factor in experience, responsibilities, the workload that that particular assistant is going to be carrying. But the nice thing is it does mean that anyone who is entering into an entry level position, anyone who maybe hasn’t been a writer’s assistant before, hasn’t been a script coordinator before, can now be assured that they’re going to be making something that’s much closer to a living wage than the $15/$16 an hour that they were making previously.

So, it’s a huge step. It’s a huge step. And it’s a great first step into making sure that three years from now when there’s another round of negotiations that those assistants are getting even closer to what a living wage would be considered, which I believe for a lot of them it was anywhere between $27 and $32 an hour. So $23.50 is much closer to $32 than $16 is, is the way that I look at it.

**John:** The point that you brought up earlier on the show is that the actual hourly rate is an important factor, but how many hours you’re guaranteed to work in a week is in some cases an even bigger factor. And so if some of these people were working under 60-hour guarantees, that’s great. But if they get cut back to 40 hours that’s not enough take home pay to be survivable in Los Angeles.

**Liz:** No, you’re absolutely right about that. If you are working for $16 for 60-hour weeks you would actually be making more than what you would be if you were working for 40 hours at $23.50. So the biggest thing that any of us, you, me, Craig, any writers or any employers who are really trying to make sure that writer’s assistants and script coordinators are taking home a living wage, it’s making sure that we can guarantee them 60 hours or as close to 60 hours a week as humanly possible, because I believe the studios now are going to try and cut everybody back down to 40. I’m sure that there’s going to be a freeze on any sort of overtime which is a little ridiculous only because we know how intensive those jobs are. I can’t imagine a script coordinator getting everything done in 40 hours a week.

But that is something that you can’t negotiate in the MBA. So they do need to make sure that for us, our part in it, is going to be making sure that they’re making the hours and IATSE is going to be sure that they’re making the hourly wage. So, between the two of us hopefully we can get people paid what they’re worth.

**John:** Now this pay increase was only the small part of a much bigger IATSE deal which was signed and approved this last week. So this was a membership vote. The membership vote was closer than we’re sort of ever used to on a WGA level. There’s a complicated Electoral College kind of system by which the IATSE approves its contracts because locals have to vote and there’s whole things. But the popular vote in some cases was against this deal. Overall when all the delegates are counted the deal passed. But tighter than you would expect, and especially for something that did seem to make significant progress but didn’t make as much progress as a lot of members hoped.

**Liz:** You have to figure that what happened on the set of Rust and the fact that there was a big uprising and acknowledgment that sets often become unsafe and are demanding so much of set members that it becomes almost deadly in certain situations. And because proposals to fix that weren’t actually on the table to begin with, that’s kind of one of the things that can’t get added later on. That doesn’t mean that they’re not wrong. And it doesn’t mean that they don’t need to be fixed. But I do understand why it became so close because I think there were a lot of people that were really hoping to make some change in the way that we approach work hours and set work hours and how we treat people not as though they’re disposable but as though they’re living, breathing human beings who need reasonable rest in order to function doing their jobs.

And so it’s hard. And John I’m interested to hear what you think, but I think for me one of the bright spots that I have been seeing is how many people are now actively trying to get more involved in the union because they’re realizing that this is a way to eradicate some of the abuses that they’ve been going through and they don’t need to accept it as just this is the way that it’s always been, they’re seeing that well now that we’re demonstrating the power that our union has we can actually use this power to further our betterment for all of the members.

**John:** Absolutely. I think it’s the recognition that the union is the members and the members are the union. And you looked at the #IAStories Instagram account that sort of really galvanized a lot of the support, particularly about working hours, and it’s the recognition that those people they’re not just a force you gin up every three years to get people excited and get some progress made on the contract. Once they’re revved up and riled up they’re going to be asking for accountability and some changes. And so I would not be surprised to see if we see some internal struggles within IA and some bigger developments happening because you have a bunch of suddenly engaged people who recognize that they did have power all this time.

**Liz:** Yeah. I think that’s great. I think hopefully for all of us, too, who aren’t IA members but who supported the IA efforts we’ll be back there in three years supporting them just like we did now. And so I think that’s going to be really important to remember come the next negotiations is that no matter what when it comes to worker safety that matters to everybody. That matters to everybody and we should show our support no matter how we can.

**John:** Now IATSE wasn’t the only big vote in Hollywood this last week. WGA members have voted to approve a new end credit for feature films, one that will show up in online databases like IMDb as well. Beginning in 2022 we’ll start seeing the credit additional literary material which will list all screenwriters who worked on a film who did not receive traditional writing credit like screenplay by or written by.

This was an actual referendum that had huge procedural things to go through and there were question and answer sessions. There were pro and con statements. It was a contentious debate, a contentious idea. Craig and I are completely vehemently disagreeing on every aspect of it, except that we both agreed that we thought this was probably pass and we were both correct. It passed by 72% of members voting yes on this.

Now, Liz, you are on the board so you got an early look at this. Was this surprising to you?

**Liz:** You know, it wasn’t surprising. I think for me especially being on the board I was very, very hopeful that this was going to help a lot of people that aren’t getting the credit that they need, especially because I am so involved in a lot of the diversity inclusion and equity efforts in the guild. And I have a lot of friends who are underrepresented groups, either writers of color, LGBTQ+ writers, who were all having their experience used to make certain films more authentic without ever receiving the credits or ever receiving any sort of help in their own careers as someone who writes these sorts of stories. So that if you were looking to tell a story about a Chinese American transplant here in the United States instead of going to let’s say the white male writer who had written a beautiful movie about that you go to the Chinese writer who used their own lived experience to make that movie more authentic.

So for me what I was really hoping for and I think what we are going to see is that we’re going to see a lot of midlevel and lower level screenwriters or people who are just breaking in who really needed that extra leg up and that acknowledgment that their work is crucial to the films that we see nowadays. I think that we’re going to see that their careers are going to start to blossom. I hope that’s what it is.

I like to speak positively because I don’t think that speaking negatively and just believing in the worst case scenario is ever truly helpful. I completely understand, I’ve heard from a lot of screenwriters who have doubts and who have questions and who aren’t sure if this is the best solution, but I also think that this is so much better than waiting around and doing nothing and letting more and more people fall through the cracks and letting their work go unacknowledged. So I’m thrilled.

**John:** Yeah. So I was on the committee that put up this whole proposal and wrote the explainer documents, so I’m obviously in favor of it. But I think you bring up two really crucial points here. One is that this is the difference between a writing credit and an employment credit. And right now in features the only things we used to have were writing credits. And so a screenplay by or written by, story by, that was it. And if you didn’t get one of those credits as a writer on a film there was no record that you ever worked on that film at all.

And so those credits just sort of disappear. And you had no way to sort of prove that you had actually been employed in the Hollywood system. Unlike in a TV writer situation where you get a writing credit for the episodes of television that you write, but you also get an employment credit showing that you were a staff writer, a story editor, a co-producer. There’s a whole way that you could prove that you actually worked. I think a thing that has changed over the last 20 years is that we’ve become much more aware of the fact that if you don’t have any employment credits you can’t sort of show that you work it’s very hard to sustain a career.

And you’re bringing up the diversity inclusion aspect of it, a thing that has also changed is that it used to be that those last writers on a project, the ones who were just coming in to do certain surgical work on things were the big guns, the folks who coming in to do a comedy pass, and it was maybe kind of OK that they weren’t listed there because they were getting paid a lot of money. What’s changed over the last couple of years is that oftentimes that last writer is someone who is coming in to do some work on authenticity and cultural specificity and it seems especially weird that they are not being acknowledged at all. And they sort of structurally could not be acknowledged by the way that our credits work. Because they’re never going to achieve the thresholds that they would need to hit in order to see their name on that movie.

So, like you I’m hopeful that this will bring about a positive change for those writers and sort of for all writers. And I’m mindful that there’s going to be people who are worried that directors are going to start asking for this credit or other producers are going to start asking for it, or actors will. I think the safeguards and the guard rails are there to sort of protect that from happening, but also if people did write on the movie, the wrote on the movie, and having their name show up at the end crawl of things I don’t think is going to be the worst outcome.

**Liz:** No. And I think, I mean, honestly I was just at the movies last week for The Eternals. And there was a group there who I didn’t realize this at the time, but I think this is what happened, but one of their friends worked in special effects. And the moment that their name came up in the middle of that huge crawl towards the end, like this group just exploded into cheers. And it was me and my friend and we’re cheering for them, too. And it was just such a proud moment. And I just remember looking at that, being like man it’s going to be so nice – it’s going to be so nice for the writers that I know who have been working on certain films for less than $1,500 a day to basically use their own lived experience to make someone else’s project feel authentic and breathe authentic. And to be able to have that moment of pride where you’re in the theater and you see your name and you can kind of acknowledge to everybody that, yes, I was part of something great.

It’s a good feeling. It’s a really nice feeling. So I wanted to bring that up because it was kind of a beautiful moment that just made me remember why it’s magical sometimes to be working in this industry.

**John:** Aw. And Liz it’s always magical to get to chat with you about our industry and our films and delicious desserts.

**Liz:** Yes, thank you so much for having me.

**John:** And can you come back at the end of the show to talk through a One Cool Thing?

**Liz:** Yeah, I’ll hang around.

**John:** Cool. Back in Episode 505 Craig and I talked with Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi about the challenge of producing the first season of their show, The Mysterious Benedict Society, which filmed entirely in Vancouver while they were in pandemic lockdown here in Los Angeles. The show got a second season, no surprise, but what was surprising is that the show is moving from Canada to California. So my one question for Matt and Phil is how the hell did that happen?

Matt and Phil, why is your show moving? How did that work?

**Matt Manfredi:** Well there are a couple reasons. One of which is there’s this tax credit specifically for shows moving back to LA after a first season. Perhaps after a second season. But moving back to LA. So it’s always appealing for us to shoot in LA and the thing about the story of season one, the setting for season two is not in the same location necessarily. So it kind of fit what we wanted to do story wise – it gave us an ability to move.

**John:** So was it always part of the plan? Or when did the possibility of moving to California come up?

**Phil Hay:** It came up, it wasn’t always part of the plan. It came up as a possibility right when we got renewed officially. As often happens there was a big run up period where we were kind of renewed but we needed to get all the ducks in order and actually get that. So in that period it came up as an idea that the studio thought was possible because of this, and again because of this tax credit which is kind of doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. So we kind of did a parallel plan, one for Vancouver and one for Los Angeles.

It became financially feasible once we got that tax credit. And for many reasons we were excited to do it. I mean, we absolutely loved shooting in Vancouver and loved the crew there and everything about it. In this case the opportunity also for the cast who in many cases had to not be with part of their family to move up to Vancouver and things, there’s an opportunity – most of them are LA based – to kind of bring everybody home which I think was a really powerful lure, you know.

And then I think we also, I don’t know, personally Matt and I are – and we’ve talked about this before – we’re very kind of passionate about California film and about filming here. And in the case of our movies, you know, Destroyer and The Invitation, they’re about Los Angeles so that’s kind of natural. But The Mysterious Benedict Society is not. It’s different. And this is just a desire to shoot here for all the reasons of jobs and pouring kind of back into our local economy, our local thing.

**Matt:** And I’ll say that one thing that made it a little easier for us, because we loved our crew in Vancouver, and if they were all available and ready to go it would have made it a more difficult decision because the look of the show is specific and they pulled it off during the pandemic and it was incredible. They were so great. But because of our short order and the time it took to renew the season our crew, the stages, our line producer weren’t going to be available. So it kind of made the decision a little less emotionally fraught.

**John:** Now a question for the two of you, what did you personally have to do in order to get this California tax credit? Were you tracking up to Sacramento with a slide show and tap dancing? Were you writing anything? What were you doing?

**Phil Hay:** Matt and I have a PAC, it’s a very small, it’s like 15 lobbyists, and the rest of the staff. No, we didn’t personally have to do anything like that. I think, you know, us in conjunction with Todd and Darren our partners, and in conjunction with 20th, the studio, and Disney+ the network, everybody just got excited about that idea and then it becomes very fairly decided that what the rubric is for deciding who gets this credit is very directly tied to jobs and wages. And the more you can show that and also filming out of the zone, for example, like filming in unlikely places and bringing work there within California. These are all things that go into deciding who gets it. So, the studio is responsible for creating that whole application and looking at the budget and highlighting how we can do it in order to meet all their requirements.

**John:** Now while I was reading up about this tax credit I saw a statistic which I thought was good and interesting which is that Film LA announced that film and TV production is 22.1% above the pre-pandemic average in Los Angeles. So, filming really is happening a lot here and in town. There was always this worry that after the pandemic shut down stuff wouldn’t come back up to speed here in California. That it would all move to Atlanta, it would all move to New Mexico, and there’s still plenty of shooting happening here in town.

**Matt:** Yeah, definitely. I think there’s a tremendous amount of shooting happening everywhere. Vancouver is booked solid as well. But I think in LA I think there’s probably other factors. I mean, I think that also, you know, frankly the vaccine situation is one that people think a lot about, about traveling to places where the vaccines are not as widely distributed versus Los Angeles. I think that’s actually a factor for a lot of productions. And I think it’s exciting for us to see – like, you know, as people who came out here as you did a long time ago to do this, I think a lot about cinematographers we know and the production designers we know and the costume designers we know who are kind of vagabonds by necessity. That they put down roots and have families in Los Angeles but spend so much time traveling elsewhere to make films and television that I just think it’s a really positive thing to have people consistently hopefully be able to be home for long stretches of time doing shows and movies, one after the other, in California.

**John:** Do you have a sense of when you start shooting?

**Phil:** January 24.

**John:** Fantastic. Guys, can I get you to come back at the end of the show to share some One Cool Things?

**Matt:** Always.

**Phil:** Yeah.

**John:** Aline Brosh McKenna, how are you?

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** I’m great. Thank you.

**John:** Now you are currently in production on a movie titled Your Place or Mine. It stars Reese Witherspoon, Ashton Kutcher. It is produced by so many talented people included a Scriptnotes friend, Jason Bateman. So my one question for you is what is it like directing a feature after having produced a television show?

**Aline:** Well, it’s interesting because I have never directed before when I wasn’t running a show. And so I only really know how to direct while – I mean, in the past I’ve had to direct while I was still writing, still doing cuts, still going to mixes. And in the case of the Crazy Ex finale also pitching in on a live finale. So, you know, I’ve almost always been doing ten things that were not directing while directing.

So this has actually been kind of luxurious to focus on the one piece of material where the script was done. And I’ve been lucky in that the script was pretty done. I did a few rewrites kind of leading into it and then I did that budget rewrite that you always have to do to kind of dial in the budgetary restrictions. But I’ve really been able to focus on this one piece. And the thing about being a showrunner is you can peace out whenever you need to. So it’s like if you’re on set and they’re doing the thing, you go in and you check in and you’re like you guys are cool here, you got it, I’m going to go to crafty and get a Mounds bar.

But directing you’re there, so you’re physically there for every second. You’re physically on set in a chair. So, you have this more singular focus when you’re directing and showrunning is a lot more jobs that you’re doing at the same time but you’re able to be flexible with them. So showrunning was oddly a better mom job because even though I was working way, way more I think hours wise as a showrunner I put in way more hours, but I could do them like I would do the room, leave at 6, go home, see my kids, and then at night go over scripts, look at cuts, talk to Rachel, you know, do other tasks that I could as a showrunner – my main time commitment was the room, but the other work I could do, you know, go to post when it suited me, or look at cuts.

But directing is physically you are contiguous with your project every minute of every second. So I’ve enjoyed the singular focus. And then the other thing I will say that might be of interest to people is that when I started the directing process there were moments where I was approaching it as a showrunner in terms of like wanting to be dealing with logistics. And I was trying to kind of get into it on logistical things that there were lots of other people around who could help me. As you said we have several really great producers and a great line producer and a great AD. And so I kind of had to learn to keep my focus on the artistic stuff and not get into the logistical weeds as much as I would as a showrunner.

**John:** Can we talk about the sort of on the set, because watching you do Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, like watching you on the set of that show, you have to achieve a certain number of pages per day or the show just won’t get shot, it won’t get done. And features have pages per day as well, but the count is going to be lower. There’s not the expectation of going through so much. What was that adjustment like for you? And learning how, OK, we don’t have to move on so quickly. Was that a change for you?

**Aline:** Well the most luxurious things for me was all the time I got to spend with our DP, Florian Ballhaus, who I had been wanting to work with for 15 years since he did Devil Wears Prada. And on a TV show you barely, barely get time with the DP. I mean, our DPs were generous enough with me that I was able to do a little bit of prep with them on the TV show. But on the movie I spent weeks and weeks with Florian going through and figuring it out and figuring out how we were going to approach it visually and doing storyboards. And that is extremely luxurious.

And then as you said, you know, TV we went pretty much twice, I would say 2.5 to 3 times as fast. So, I’m sort of blown away by things like we have playback all the time and that seems like a real simple thing, but we didn’t really have the budget to have playback all the time on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. We only had playback on the days we were doing musical numbers.

**John:** So let’s describe that for our audience. So this is basically you can look at the take that you just shot and see like, oh, did we get everything we needed in that take, correct? That was a luxury for you.

**Aline:** Yeah. And so you can say like did the actor put his beer down here or there. And then if you don’t have playback you’re like well I think someone saw it. You know? But with playback you can just see and match a lot better. So, there are a lot of things about the movie schedule that feel luxurious to me and they’re mostly around being able to get more interesting, more diverse types of coverage of scenes and really being able to conceive the coverage in a bigger way. And as I said I’m not doing ten other things so we’re focusing on those two or three pages in a different way than TV is really.

I mean, there were moments on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend where we would show up like Miracle of Birth, which I directed that episode, we showed up, did that musical number, which is quite complicated with children dancing, people going through a vagina like opening, and it was pretty complicated. We did that for four hours and then we went and shot the rest of the day. And on a movie that would be your whole day, if not two days. And obviously if you’re making an indie or you’re making something where you have a very short schedule then it’s similar, but this is a studio feature where we just have more time and really the luxury of really spending time with your collaborators in a very long prep process where you prep this one specific piece of material as opposed to a TV show is sort of like a flowing river, a network TV show I shall say, a flowing river where you’re really just trying to make sure that your boat stays upright, your baling out water, and you’re getting everything going in this giant flow of all these other things that are going on.

So it’s a little bit more micro surgery and I love that. So, you know, I focus on sleeping, which is something I couldn’t really do when I was running the show. When I was running the show I was pretty much working and often people were shooting while I was working at night and I would have trouble sleeping until I got the text that said we wrapped. And then, you know, first thing in the morning you’re going. And the movie has been much more regularly structured because I’m not working on all these other ten – I’m not looking at cuts. I’m not going from set to a mix. I’m really just focused on this one thing.

So what I have been focused on is sleeping. So if I’m not on set or preparing, I’m asleep.

**John:** Or you’re answering my one question on Scriptnotes. So thank you for coming back to let us know. How much longer do you have in production?

**Aline:** Not too long. A couple more weeks. Yeah, I mean, it’s been an enormous privilege. You know, when you’re a writer you live in the hypothetical. As I’ve said on the show before like the document production business is not why you come to Hollywood. You come because you want to make things. And I feel tremendously privileged. Any time I’m in a car driving to a set, any kind of set that’s shooting stuff that I wrote, it’s an enormous privilege. And it’s the thing as a writer you work so hard to get to. So, I’m really trying to savor it and not take it for granted.

**John:** Aline, thanks so much.

**Aline:** You’re welcome.

**John:** All right. So I’m sitting across from Stephen Follows who is a British filmmaker and data scientist. Are those the right combination of things?

**Stephen Follows:** Yeah. I don’t think I have qualifications in anything. But I do a lot of film data research and I’m a filmmaker by trade.

**John:** Now I first found you on Twitter or online because we were talking about the movies you can’t find online anymore, so movies that you used to be able to find at Blockbuster and just for whatever reason you cannot get them anyplace. Can you remind listeners what you were able to discover about that?

**Stephen:** Yeah. I mean, I’ll be honest, I’m not going to quote numbers off the top of my head, but definitely it was really interesting when we think about the kinds of films that make it through all of the different gatekeepers to be available to the public. And, you know, there are films that are taken off the circuit I guess for political reasons. My understanding as an outsider is that Dogma was one of those films where there was a deal done to take it out of circulation.

But there are many films that just sort of fall out of circulation. They fall between whether it’s bankruptcies, or people can’t be bothered to do it, or they forget. There’s a lot of messiness in the supply chain.

**John:** Absolutely. And so in the days when we had Blockbuster or when Netflix was really shipping DVDs around DVDs still existed so you could always have a copy of that movie, but as we moved to a completely streaming world some movies you just can’t get because there could be music rights that are complicating it or just the underlying rights to who owns this film can be hard to sort out. The problem is not a supply chain thing. Really it’s a legal rights thing. Basically you need a bunch of paralegals to sort out all this stuff and it’s not profitable for anyone to do it.

**Stephen:** Well exactly. And so yeah you’ve absolutely got legal reasons. You’ve also got technical reasons in the sense that you’ve got to scan some of these films. And you’ve got to find the good master print. You’ve got to scan it. And that whether it’s profitable or not just might not be worth the effort. And then any restoration work or I mean I’ve seen a few DVDs, I won’t name any names, but you watch them and they clearly scanned from a very old print. And it’s just like this is trash. But no one is going to bother going back to the original if they can find it in the right vault. And so I think we forget that as we go through all these different formats. I think you can tell how old you are by how many formats you remember shooting on.

And I think as DVDs everyone thought well we’ll scan them at SD because that will be all we’ll need. Oh, now we need them in HD. Oh, no, we only do 4K content. And fortunately we’ve skipped the fact that we’re only in 2D. Fortunately 3D hasn’t become a requirement. But there is that. Every time we upscale and we improve we also lose a load of things that just aren’t worth taking along the journey. It’s like every time you move houses you leave a load of things you don’t really care about and then years later you look back and go where’s that award I won or whatever.

**John:** All right. I want to talk with Stephen Follows about his film education in London versus what he perceives to be film education here in Los Angeles, because you are the first I think London-educated film person we’ve had on this podcast. So talk to us about when you first started studying film.

**Stephen:** So I went to film school as a university student 20 years ago. And I did a degree in film production. To give you a sense of the timing we did some stuff on celluloid, you know, Super-16, and some stuff digitally. And I had a friend, Chris, who was on a digital film course which was called Time Based New Media. So it was that era where everyone didn’t know what film was and didn’t know what film wasn’t.

But, yeah, I did a three-year degree at an arts college. And so what it meant was that most of my friends and people who were around me in other courses were doing costume, jewelry, fine arts. It was very arts-based. Whereas I think here in the states it’s a business, isn’t it? Even if you’re an artist you’re an artist within a business. And I think being in London, being in an arts college, I mean, we didn’t have any lectures on business at all. And by design perhaps. And I may be self-selecting because I went to an arts college, so this is no criticism of them necessarily, although it wouldn’t have hurt to have a couple in three years.

**John:** What strikes me as strange at an arts college is that I think of the arts as being things that you can kind of do by yourself. Obviously there’s dramatic arts which require teamwork and everyone coming together, but things like painting is a solo art. And filmmaking though is inherently a really collaborative art. It’s about getting a big team together and sort of sharing a vision and doing all that stuff.

And so were you, the celluloid stuff you were shooting or the video stuff you were shooting, was that as teams or was it solo projects?

**Stephen:** It was a mix of it. So there would be the occasional celluloid project or essay, but the vast majority would be for a semester you were put together in a team and you’d take different roles. And you were going out and making a short film on a brief, essentially. That’s what it was. And there were other lectures around there, around editing. And you take special lessons. But fundamentally the thing you cared most about was the short that you were making each semester.

**John:** And how much of that focus on that short was on the writing versus the production of it?

**Stephen:** I mean, it’s tricky because they did care about the writing, but to be honest the production is so much more complicated. It’s bigger, it’s longer, almost so you can’t do it till you’ve done the writing. I don’t want to say they dismiss the writing, but it definitely was you need to get over that first step and you’re quite keen to get over that first step. But I mean I have been involved in other schools since then. I’m the Chairman of the Central Film School. I’ve taught a lot at the Met Film School and a few others. And what’s interesting is that they all have different approaches. But the ones that are most interesting to me, just interesting, I don’t even know if I can validate it either way, is that you have a screenwriting program and you have a filmmaking program. And sometimes they also have acting programs or sister colleges or whatever.

And that’s really interesting because it means that the writers are really spending a whole – they have a client to start with, which is a nice relationship to get used to. It’s not a nice relationship, but it’s a nice thing to get used to. But also they can actually put time into it. It’s not just the first thing you have to tick off the list of making a short. It’s their project. And so I don’t know whether that produces better films, whether it produces more arguments, whether it works. But it’s closer to the industry and probably I think as a writer doing them a better journey because they’re just writing. Writing is hard. It’s a fulltime job. It’s a full thing, as you know. You don’t need it to be one step before you then go off and shoot it. It should be its own thing.

**John:** Now Craig is notoriously anti film school. And so what is the best defense of film schools or argument for film schools for a person who is out of high school or out of the lower grades to learn about film? What is a good argument for film school?

**Stephen:** Well it’s funny. I wouldn’t even say I’m pro film school per se in the same, you know, I’m not pro Chinese food. You know, like it depends what is the right place to be, the right time, and so for some people it’s exactly the right thing to do. And for others it’s entirely the wrong thing to do.

I’d say it’s almost never the shortest path if you know where you’re going. It’s going to be more expensive. It’s going to be more time-consuming. And we all know that what you need to do is go and work in the film industry. Like that’s kind of it, right? Especially the moment we’re in right now, nobody is unemployed who wants to be employed in the production side of film. Wages are going through the roof. Streamers – I mean, I don’t know how long this will last, but certainly no one is unemployed. You know, we have the opposite problem of working too many hours or whatever.

So, if you know where you’re going the shortest path is very rarely via film school. The main argument for film school is an argument that you’ll hear a lot within general education which is that you don’t know what you want to do. It’s that magic quasi period between being an adult and a child. It’s by having a purpose but not a job. And you’ve got restrictions but you’re safe. And so discovering yourself in [postural] care. Like I learned a lot about who I am at university and who I shouldn’t be. I learned a lot about what it was to be an artist and to bumble around and have no purpose in what you’re up to but still the opportunity to do things.

The idea of jumping out of high school into being a runner sounds pretty harsh and I wouldn’t be surprised if they went very well through the industry but then got to 30 and went who am I, what do I want to do, how I have ended up in visual effects. You know, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but you end up specializing incredibly hard. Whereas at film school you hold the boom one day, you write the script the next, and then you’re doing music. There’s a lot to be said for the discovery of personhood and identity and you as an artist. I don’t know what else compares to that.

**John:** Yeah. I think my best argument for film school is that it puts you in a cohort of people who are trying to learn about the same thing you’re trying to learn about and you graduate from that film school with a bunch of people who are at your same level. And that people always assume that they need to meet people who are further up the ladder, who are going to help them out, but really it’s your peers that are your biggest resource that you get out of film school. And those are the folks who are going to be crewing on your films. You’re going to be reading their scripts. And you’re all going to kind of grow in the industry together, especially if you’re in a growth period which this feels like.

**Stephen:** Yeah. I mean, I still remember the very first day of film school and I still have a strong emotional positive connection to it, because no one knew anyone else. Everyone was super awkward. It’s the first day. But I went from being one of two guys in my high school that were the film guys to everyone being the film guys. Everyone saw the same films as me. Everyone saw the same references. It normalized my thing. But it also then instantly said well what are you going to do with it. Because, OK, you don’t get points for saying you’ve seen that film. Are you going to go make one? Well actually we’ll come and make one with you. Oh, OK.

It bumped everything up a level like you said with peers who were in the same place as you. And those people I met, I mean, so as an anecdote when I was a kid growing up I’m really into comedy and I’d see all of these BBC comedians all working with each other and I kept thinking how do you break into that circle. And then after film school I realized you don’t break into that circle. You build your own circle. And you build a circle when no one cares. And you work hard and you see who works hard. Who steals money from you, who doesn’t? Who has got good ideas, who doesn’t? Who is a nice human being? And then as you all start to progress you’ve got a circle that’s stronger and stronger and then when you’re actually in the industry and you’re looking for someone to rely on that you understand, that you respect, of course it’s that person. It’s not someone you haven’t seen before.

So those circles are very hard to break into, but they’re very easy to form because they just take time. And you’re in the trenches before it matters. So I would say that the biggest argument for film school is about space. And time and focus. And arguably in the world today, especially now, but also generally when do you get to try something and fail? Who is going to give you the chance to be a boom operator? I’ve worked a Nagra machine. I’m never going to do it again. But I have a huge amount of respect for sound because I’ve had to do it once and I remember how bad I did it. And I’d never do that in the industry. And I think if everyone in the industry has gone down a single department track their entire life that can’t be as good as if everyone has had a go at everything else early on and failed and succeeded and found their joy.

So, yeah, I would say it’s never shortest the path but it might be the one you need to let things grow.

**John:** Great. Stephen Follows, do you have a One Cool Thing?

**Stephen:** I do. This is something I read a while ago and when I’ve subsequently looked for it I’ve had to dig around a bit because I think it was originally on the Village Voice and the original link isn’t there. But I’m absolutely certain that we can find it and link to it in the podcast. There is an article entitled No I Will Not Read Your Script. And it is fantastic. It is everything you’ve been thinking when someone says, “Oh, can you just read my script.” And then two days later they go, “I’ve rewritten it. Can you have a read of it again?” And you start to boil. And you know you want to help people but you get to a point where you’re like, no, I will not read your script. And it’s explaining the process of reading, but also about people ask quite glibly for people to read their script and actually it’s quite a big ask. And it’s OK to do and it’s OK to read scripts, but it’s sort of, I don’t know, it’s a good articulation of all of that pain and blood boiling you get if you just open yourself up to read everyone’s script.

So, let me ask you, John. How much time do you read people’s scripts when they say will you read my script?

**John:** I will read a script if it is truly of a friend who is doing it for the first time and I feel like might have a shot at it. I’ll always read a script for somebody who I think actually I suspect has a good, funny voice. And so there have been people who I see on Twitter and they seem to actually have a good sense of how words fit together in ways that work well. Or if I’ve read them in another way I will do so.

I’m not rushing out there to read my dry cleaner’s script because it’s just exhausting. And we all know why it’s exhausting because they’re generally bad. And you’re asking a huge time commitment. You’re asking for a good hour/90 minutes at a time and the painful possible discussion afterwards about sort of what you actually thought of this.

**Stephen:** Yeah. I mean, I always ask people a couple of questions when they say can you read my script. I’m always like OK what stage are you at? What do you at need? You can ask them quite directly do they need validation or are they actually wanting notes. Mostly they want validation. But also you say, look, I tend to be quite brutal with notes. It tends to not work out well. You know, you try and put them off. And the ones that actually really say, “No, I need that. I need that. Please be honest,” you kind of go, OK, well you know.

I had a friend Ben Aston recently who is writing a film for Netflix. And he took notes so well it was so impressive that it sort of restored my faith in giving notes. Because he was just – it was painful for him because notes always are, but he was so open to them. He cherished them and he basically cherished me giving the notes to him. And I was so inspired by that I wanted to go and read four more other scripts, which I’m sure would then put me back on the loop elsewhere.

**John:** Cool. Liz Alper, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

**Liz:** I do. I am really into shrubs right now. I’ve been getting more and more into shrubs. And it’s not the shrubbery.

**John:** Not topiary?

**Liz:** Not a topiary. So shrub is a vinegar based drink that you usually mix with soda water or you can use it for the basis of a non-alcoholic cocktail. And as someone who is actually physically incapable of consuming alcohol because I don’t possess the enzyme that can break alcohol down, for me it’s been a really, really fun drink to have and feel like I’m having something special at the end of the day.

So right now I actually went to a little sale for a restaurant that I love called Phenakite. It’s the chef who does a wonderful restaurant called Porridge and Puffs. And she’s really into pickling and she’s really into vinegars. And she made a yuzu pear shrub and a hibiscus rose shrub that I’m a little obsessed with right now. And it’s a great alternative to soda because I drink Diet Coke like it’s water, like I’m in the middle of the desert and I haven’t seen an oasis for nigh two months. And so having this kind of different drink that’s a little healthier for me, it’s cleaner, it’s got those good gut bacteria that’s going to help you digest things well. It’s something that I can’t recommend highly enough. And especially if you’re a little bit more adventurous and you’re looking for something that really is very low in sugar but has so much flavor to it, try it out.

You can make your own. You can look some up. There are lots of recipes out there now. It’s a great alternative to an alcoholic beverage. It’s a great alternative to soda. It’s just a really great way to keep hydrated while also having a good time.

**John:** I also fully hear you about the need for a nighttime beverage versus a daytime beverage. Because I think your body and your brain want somebody say like, OK, the day is over and now we’re just going to watch TV and not think about things.

**Liz:** Exactly.

**John:** And so that traditionally has been a glass of wine for me, but increasingly I’ve been going to herbal teas that I wouldn’t drink during the day but I will drink at night. It creates that nice split of like, you know, this is a nighttime thing. I can start winding down.

**Liz:** You would actually really enjoy this then. IKEA of all places has an amazing pine needle lemon tea. And that is my go to right before bed, have a cup. And my brain immediately is like, OK, it’s sleepy time now. We’ve had our pine needles. It’s time to go to bed.

**John:** Liz, thank you so much for this. This is perfect. Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi, do you have One Cool Things to share with us?

**Phil:** I sure do, John. I, and this is a little bit of home cooking, but I think you’ll all figure me. There’s a television show called Yellowjackets that Karyn Kusama, my wife, and Matt and my partner in our company directed the pilot of. It’s created by Ashley and Bart Nickerson. And it’s just fantastic. I can say that freely as someone who is only a fan and did not work in any way on the show. So, check it out. It’s on Showtime. It is wild and weird and crazy and really glad that it is on television.

**John:** So Yellowjackets on Showtime. And Matt are you plus one on that? Do you have your own recommendation?

**Matt:** I’m going to plus one that hard. Because I am a big supporter of Karyn Kusama, obviously. So I’m going to plug that. But I will say I was holed up awaiting the results of a PCR test before flying home. And so I was by myself unexpectedly for a few days, just watching a lot of TV. And I will say that the first sketch of the new season of I Think You Should Leave got me laughing like nothing in a while. So I highly recommend just taking three minutes out of your life and getting a big laugh.

**John:** Now I’m trying to remember, the first sketch of this new season, is that the hot dog and the sleeve?

**Matt:** That is.

**John:** It’s just terrific. It’s brilliant.

**Matt:** The whole show is good. But that particularly was just a highlight of mine.

**Phil:** I will plus one that sight unseen. Because it sounds great.

**John:** Gentlemen, thank you both very, very much.

**Phil:** Thank you.

**Matt:** Thank you.

**John:** Aline Brosh McKenna, do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

**Aline:** I do. Do you know about Goldbelly?

**John:** I don’t. Tell me about Goldbelly.

**Aline:** Oh my god. So Goldbelly is a website and you go and you can order delicious things from all over the country. So, pizza, biscuits, pies, and cakes, and bagels. And they source it from mostly small businesses all over the country. It gets to you super-fast. It’s stored in a way – they give you really clear instructions on how to store it, freeze it, thaw it, whatever. And I started using it during the pandemic because we couldn’t travel and it just was like fun to get, you know, pizza from Chicago and biscuits from a soul food place, and whatever. So BBQ we ordered.

So I started getting stuff from all over the country just so we could feel like we were getting some adventure at home. And now for Thanksgiving I don’t have a lot of time to prepare for Thanksgiving so I hit it hard with pies, the cakes, the sides. You know, you can really order from some great places and support some small businesses. Goldbelly.com. And there’s an app also. But it’s a good service.

**John:** Excellent. Thank you.

**Aline:** Yummy.

**John:** All right. And finally my One Cool Thing is a website called Series Heat, it’s sort of web app, by Jim Vallandingham. What you can do is you enter in the title of a TV series you like, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and it shows you the IMDb ratings for each episode of that show. And what’s kind of fun about it is it organizes it into a grid so you can see like, oh, this is when people liked the show, this is when people did not like certain episodes, or there might be an arc of the show. Around the office we’ve been playing it as a game where we will do it for a show and then take a screenshot without the title of the show and have people try to figure out what show we’re talking about.

So useful to the degree that any ratings are useful. Also it shows you the shape of a show in terms of like when there were short seasons, when there were long seasons. You can tell when the writers’ strikes happened. So it’s called Series Heat and there will be a link for that in the show notes.

And that was our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, as always, and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Henry Adler. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes @clmazin. I am always @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. And don’t forget to order your Scriptnotes sweatshirt, your hoodie, your t-shirts. Most of them can still probably ship by Christmas but there’s no guarantee at this point. But still you want something for the holidays. Thanks and I’ll talk to you soon.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** So back here with Stephen Follows. Now having you hear in 2021, a question we put out to our listeners on the podcast is are screenplay competitions ever worth it. And so there are the big name competitions like Nicholls Fellowship and Austin is a bigger one. And then there’s a bunch of scammy ones that we’ve always sort of railed against that are sort of we kind of know are worth very, very little.

But you as a data scientist, the person who sort of would look into this question normally, how would you approach the question of whether screenplay competitions are ever worthwhile for the entrants?

**Stephen:** Well, I’d start by objecting to the question, but that’s usually just for fun. Is it ever worth it implies that, you know, there is an implication there. And it might well be the result of all these kind of areas. There are a bunch of scammers and there will be a bunch of great examples that can help people. And our job is to disentangle which are which. But also overall what’s the average. You know, these outliers skew everything in the film industry.

**John:** So let’s pretend your Nate Silver. Maybe the phrase, the question of like what value do screenplay competitions provide, if there is a value.

**Stephen:** Well let’s start by saying who we are. You know, if we’re somebody who is already established in the industry then the benefit might be quite marginal. If we’re somebody who lives very, very far, this is not for the actual competition, it’s just the concept of a competition. So if we’re someone who lives in a very far distant place geographically, or just from the center of the industry, then the theory of a competition is great, in theory, because you have a level playing field. People are only reading your text on the script. And so any disability, anything that you have that’s holding you back from barriers in the industry won’t come to the fore.

So we have to move to, OK, so in theory they could work, but in practice do they? Well, we have to think about who is picking up these films that the other end. Are the people who actually are important gatekeepers who can pick up new films or spec scripts, are they looking to these competitions? And so there is a little bit of fashion. If everyone thinks something is cool it is cool. If everyone stops thinking it’s cool it’s not cool. But it was.

And so part of the question for this if you were starting to do the data analysis you’d start saying, OK, well what’s the goal of the people entering, which is to get purchased or optioned. Who is optioning them? OK, go and talk to them and do the analysis of what do you think of competitions, what do you think of these competitions.

And if everyone thought that they’re a waste of time, well then by definition they are if they’re the only people purchasing. But I think we have to think about with all these things there are multiple benefits in theory. So for example a lottery ticket. If you only do the math on the lottery ticket apparently if a lottery draw is on the Saturday night you should buy the ticket on Saturday afternoon, because before that you’re more likely to die than to win the lottery. And so it’s utility theory.

But I’d argue that actually you should buy it Sunday first thing in the morning because then you get a whole week of believing you might win, right? The utility there is not the million dollars, it’s the dreaming of being a millionaire. So with these competitions you could argue that there’s a soft benefit in the sense that it gives you a deadline, it gives you a structure, it gives you a support base, it gives you a dream. And it might give you feedback and it might give you a journey. So those things are hold to quantify. But if we thought that they were worth it to the screenwriter’s journey we’d have to find ways of quantifying them.

But I guess all of this stuff is talking around the edges of the core question which is is it worth the money. Can they deliver on the promise? And I’d say without having run hard data on all of them, no, the vast majority of them are not delivering value for the vast, vast majority of people entering. Because they can’t possibly. You look at the numbers. That’s the thing about these. They’re not multi-level marketing. They’re not pyramid schemes. But when you look at multi-level marketing you only have to look at the math to know that they can’t deliver. And with these competitions look at the number of people entering and the number of people who could meaningfully get an outcome that would change their lives. You have to argue that – I mean, you could argue that will somebody benefit from this competition? Yes. Will I benefit in this competition? Almost certainly not.

You know, I have looked in the past. I’ve done research on quite a few scripts and quite a few competitions and I’ve never been able to directly address the benefit or not of these competitions because what you have to start from is a quite complicated place. You have to say what would the journey have otherwise been. Because in theory if these competitions are perfect they’re won by incredible writers. And the industry is actually quite good at discovering – it’s messy but it’s actually quite good at discovering talent, I think. It’s not efficient but it’s good.

So therefore the competition is just a way of getting there quicker and also you have to think about well what are they actually getting? They get the award, they get the pleasure, they get the attention. But I don’t know how many of them are doing deals.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s try to distinguish between the hard benefits and the soft benefits. So the soft benefits shouldn’t be overlooked, so I’m glad you brought them up. Because that sense of like giving you a deadline, giving you a purpose, giving you a sense of some hope, those can all be soft benefits. I’d argue they can also be sort of soft detriments where you’re putting too much faith and too much hope into this one thing which will probably not pay off. And it may be distracting you from the actual real achievable things you could do which is to write another script, to like actually find ways to put it in the hands of someone who could do something with it. And that false hope can I think be its own detriment which I think these often can sell false hopes.

**Stephen:** Oh, absolutely, and there’s no doubt that they do, even if they’re intending not to. Even if you have the best competition in the world, by definition people are going to think they have a chance when they don’t, some people.

I think what’s really tricky about this is that when you look at the, I don’t know what it is, hundreds of thousands of people coming into the industry every year. The vast majority of them will fail if your metric is purely whether they get to the end goal or not. But whether that makes you wrong to encourage them to carry on, you know, I talk a lot with drama teachers in the UK and the ethics of them telling every actor they have a chance when the odds are absolutely saying they won’t, you know, is false hope false hope or is it hope and then it turns out not to have been what you wanted but it’s still part of your journey? That’s almost philosophical.

So if it’s not a scam, as in like there is a competition. They have got industry people involved. And if the people entering know the odds, then I’m very agnostic about it. I don’t really care, as in I don’t mind. But the question is always are they actually describing what it is. Do the people entering have a clear sense of their chances and what’s going to happen?

**John:** All right. So let’s try to narrow the question down to the hard benefits of what you get out of this and the value proposition for we’ll just say the Nicholl Fellowship is the premier screenplay competition because it’s the one most people have heard of and it’s the one I can think of working writers who have won that who seem to have benefited from it, or at least they won it and now they’re still having careers.

So what would be the criteria we’re looking at here? So would we be looking at who were the winners for the past ten years, or quarterfinalists for the past ten years and then tracking to see whether they are WGA members? Whether they are continuing to work? Because you’re the person who is often finding ways to pull data out of IMDb or do some hard rigorous analysis. So what would you do to see whether somebody is successful? What are the things you would look for as markers of success?

**Stephen:** That’s a great question. And I think that it’s the first step of all research that I do. It’s usually quite a disappointing first step which is to what level am I going to give up. What level am I going to have an easy answer? Because the real answer is you need to have a different universe where the only difference is they didn’t enter the competition. And we can’t have that. And we also need to make shortcuts like WGA membership is success. And of course it is correlated, but it’s not one to one. And so you’re right. We have to decide the level to which that we can accurately get the data and that it reflects our true question.

So we have to first by saying what is our true question. Is our question about them as a writer, the act of writing and crafting? Is it about the utility of them earning money, getting an agent, getting out there in the world? What is the promise of a competition? So I guess I’d ask you, John. What do you think is the meta promise of these competitions? Is it about writing or is it about being a writer?

**John:** I think it’s about being a writer. And so I think it’s about you win one of these competitions or you place high in one of these competitions and it gets you started in the process of being a professional screenwriter who is employed and employable as a writer, not just on this one project that you sold, but on future projects. And that it should never be about sort of this one script that won the award. It should be about sort of all the work that you’re doing and hopefully decades of a career.

**Stephen:** OK. That’s good. That’s a good focus and an easier one for us to tell. It reminds me of a study that, you know, there’s long been a conversation about whether certain schools that are selective whether they actually just find good students or whether they make good students. And there was a study I remember around Stuyvesant High School in New York which is public but filtered. And they tried to work out to what degrees are they finding good students or making good students. And they looked at the students who just made it in and the ones that just didn’t. So in theory they’re a very close cohort.

And my understanding, apologies if I’m wrong from remembering it from a few years ago, was that they found that there was very little life difference between those two people, meaning the school didn’t have a meaningful difference in the things we’re measuring. There still might have been quality of life or whatever.

So, perhaps one of the things to do would be to think about how did the outcomes differ from people who make it through to the quarters, the semis, the finals. That might be interesting and see whether there’s a big drop off. We might be measuring talent, again, but I’m making up the numbers, but if you have 5,000 people entering the competition, the final 16 and the final 1 should be very, very similar in quality on a curve, right? So you’d hope that if you’re saying winning the competition is everything, then you’d hope to see those people having disproportionately large outcomes compared to the people just below them.

But I think because this industry is all about people. It’s all about the stories you tell and the stories that people believe, I think it’s not really going to come down purely to quantitative data. It will come down to qualitative data. And I think you need to find a really good subset of people who are exactly the people who would buy scripts, would try and pick up a writer. Right at that inflection point and they use competitions and then start talking to them about what they think of the competitions.

**John:** That’s definitely been one of our plans is to really talk to the people who would theoretically be using these competitions as a gatekeeping function to see whether they are actually reaching out to the winners and quarterfinalists and semifinalists and see whether that is a metric that is helpful and useful for them and as a filtering process. Because unlike a sports competition or even an academic program where you can see what the grades were and that stuff, there’s not objective quality on like this is a great script, this is a poorly written script.

And even the fact that these screenplays are going through readers who probably have some rubric for how they’re doing things, it’s not the same readers reading all of these things. I know I was a reader for a year at Tri-Star and I liked some things and I didn’t like some things. And some of that was just taste. It’s hard to figure out whether there could be any real objective measure of success in this one script and then success going down the road.

So, I do think talking to both the agents, managers, producers who would be looking at this stuff and meeting with these writers, but also talking with the folks who placed well in the Nicholls and comparing them with a sampling of the folks who didn’t place well in the Nicholls and sort of what the outcomes are.

**Stephen:** And also you can talk to people who are finalists and winners and say how did your life change. Because I think the analogy that I can connect to is when you have a short film that does very well at awards, or you have a golden year where you’re doing quite well, what’s really interesting is that that year very clearly starts at the first awards and very, very clearly ends when someone else wins that award 12 months later. And I’ve warned about it and I went through that journey with a few shorts. And it’s so interesting because it is like hot and cold. It’s just on and off. And that actually proves that there is an effect. Any writer that you speak to who has done very well in awards you kind of want to know how steep that inflection point was. How much do they suddenly get calls when they go through to a certain stage? And to what degree did it actually cool down afterwards? Because the flatter the curve, the less the competition made a difference, the steeper, the more it was like well Monday it was announced, Monday afternoon my phone kept ringing. That’s a good sign. Correlation right?

I think also there is a separate piece of work you can do where if you look at, this might be more sociology than data science, but try and look at all the promises, all of the claims that are being made by each of the competitions and then boil them down to the underlying human desire there. What is this? Is this validation? Is this improvement of your writing talent? Is this connections? And then the onus is on the competitions to prove that they do this.

I mean, it’s a free market. They don’t have to prove anything. But if they want to say that this works you should be able to say, well, it seems to me that the main sell, the main thing that you put out there and that people talk about is that you do X, Y, Z. Say you get me an agent or whatever. OK, well show me the data for that. And they don’t have to. But I would have thought they’d want to. And you’ll find very quickly some of them will be incredibly open, very happy to talk to you. They’re very proud of their record. Others won’t talk to you. And I kind of think well that’s not data-data. That’s data we use in the same way if you’re meeting someone new and you ask them about their personal life or what they’re up to and they’re incredibly closed and sketchy, you draw conclusions right?

So, I wouldn’t expect any of these guys to be pleading the fifth. And I would be worried if they were. It’s kind of on them, I think. I don’t think it’s on you to take them down or prove them. I think it’s on them to back up what they’re directly or indirectly claiming. And I think the best ones would be delighted to do that and have that for them. And I think many of them would love to be sitting in this chair talking to you about it. And the ones that won’t, I mean, maybe there’s your answer. You just release blank podcast where you just give them the questions and wait a minute or so and then carry on with the next question like in a police interview.

**John:** Let’s wrap this up by bringing it back to the first case that you made which is that for many aspiring screenwriters competitions are a means of access. A means of access to someone who doesn’t live in this town, doesn’t have any other connections to this industry or might have disability or something else in their life that prevents them from doing the traditional ways into this industry. And I get that screenplay competitions feel like a point of access. I think what we’re trying to measure in this study is really whether equity of access leads to sort of equity of outcome. And basically it’s one thing to say this provides access to all these people, but if it’s access that doesn’t actually lead anywhere then it’s actually not truly access.

**Stephen:** Yeah. I mean, certainly we all know in all sectors of the film industry it’s very easy to sell a dream. It’s very easy to go to someone who doesn’t know about film investment and say look at the Blair Witch Project. Look at Paranormal Activity. Look at how much my film is costing. You do the math. And whilst that may not be in any way a lie, it’s definitely a lie through omission, it’s definitely amoral. And that’s an extreme case that we both know happens quite a lot. But that’s an extreme case.

It’s the same thing here. It’s the stuff between the lines that we need to sort of codify. We need to say, OK, you’re saying agents will read this, but what you’re really saying is people will sign you. And what you’re really saying is when they sign you you’ll get hired. And what we’re really saying is you’ll get hired to make real things. OK, so that’s your eventual promise. Let’s take away all the interim stamps and get to the final why and then measure that. And I think that we can do that with a lot of decoding.

I mean, it might be an interesting exercise to sit there, maybe even on the podcast, and read through the press releases or the statements from these kind of thing and then just start putting them in a small number of boxes. And doing it openly and honestly. Because the claims are not wrong. You can make any claim you want. It’s only if you back it up that it becomes stupid or not. So start by just assessing the claims, putting them in to different categories, seeing how they differ. Because I think the other thing you might be doing subconsciously is grouping them all together. And I’m sure if I grouped all screenwriters together you wouldn’t come out well. We are not the average of the people we’re around.

But also I think then if you did say, look, it turns out that 95% of them just aren’t delivering, or making false promises, then it would be a much stronger credible claim. And I suspect it would be closer to that then you’d be pleasantly surprised. But, you know, and then you have to think about what harm you’re doing. Like you said, false hope is horrific. But hope is essential. And the outcome at the end can’t really – maybe – I mean, what’s the difference between hope and false hope? I don’t know.

**John:** I think what we’re both talking about, making sure people have the information about what they’re really getting into and that they’re not receiving hope for false hope. And that that’s important.

**Stephen:** They’re not being misled.

**John:** Misled.

**Stephen:** And through omission or outwardly, I don’t care. I couldn’t care less. It’s the same thing. You know what you’re doing. And if you’re doing it ethically, as in you’re saying, no, this is the competition. If you believe in yourself so much that you think you’re bound to win, well that’s OK. But if I’m telling you you’re so good that you’re going to win, whatever, then it’s a problem.

**John:** Stephen, thank you for this.

**Stephen:** My pleasure.

Links:

* [PayUpHollywood Survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeJwPx8-eACD3b2-GMfkue6kGKdSiudlFa3wAX4oRMTaTg-fA/viewform)
* [WGA Members Approve Change In Movie Credits To Better Reflect All Writers’ Contributions](https://deadline.com/2021/11/wga-members-approve-change-movie-credits-1234874148/)
* [Hollywood crew union narrowly ratifies its contracts with studios.](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/business/media/iatse-contract-ratification.html)
* [‘Promised Land’ & ‘Mysterious Benedict Society’ Score Tax Credits For Moving To California](https://deadline.com/2021/10/promised-land-mysterious-benedict-society-california-tax-credits-move-1234861736/)
* [I Will Not Read Your F*%!ing Script](https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/09/i-will-not-read-your-fucking-script/)
* [Shrubs Drink Recipe](https://www.foodnetwork.com/videos/altons-cocktail-time-shrubs-0186744) and Liz’s favorite [Ikea Pine Needle Tea](https://www.ikea.com/es/en/p/egentid-green-tea-lemon-pine-utz-certified-organic-60415544/)
* [Yellow Jackets](https://www.sho.com/yellowjackets)
* [I Think You Should Leave](https://www.netflix.com/title/80986854)
* [Goldbelly](https://www.goldbelly.com/) Food Delivery
* [Series Heat](https://vallandingham.me/seriesheat/?utm_source=densediscovery&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-issue-164#/?color=3&id=tt0411008)
* [Liz Hsiao Lan Alper](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3225554/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/LizAlps)
* [Matt Manfredi](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0542062/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/MattRManfredi)
* [Phil Hay](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006534/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/PhilHay_)
* [Aline Brosh McKenna]() on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/alinebmckenna)
* [Stephen Follows](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1637486/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/stephenfollows) and his [website](https://stephenfollows.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Henry Adler ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/526standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 520: You Can’t Even Imagine, Transcript

October 22, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/you-cant-even-imagine).

**John August:** Hey, so on today’s show Craig says the F-word a couple times because he gets angry about a writer who is taking advantage of people. So that’s a warning if you’re in the car with your kids or someplace where you could just put in headphones, do that.

**Craig Mazin:** The kids need to know, too.

**John:** The kids need to be warned about Svengalis.

**Craig:** That’s right.

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 520 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show the screenplay is often described as the blueprint for a movie, but how do the artists and craftspeople who actually make movies use these blueprints. We’ll look at some of the most important people to read a script and how they do their jobs. We’ll also talk about predatory writers, getting in over your head, and what it’s like to have no visual imagination.

And in our bonus segment for premium members, fine, let’s get into that whole bad art friend situation. The thing that was all over my Twitter that Craig sent to me as an – ugh, now I had to read this.

**Craig:** I mean, kinda.

**John:** Kinda. You sort of kinda had to read it. You missed out on the episode where I think Liz Hannah was on the show and she and I talked through the Cat Person discourse. And so it’s another round of that. And Cat Person is actually referenced in it, so it’s all nesting dolls of appropriation.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s pretty screwed up. Yeah. I enjoyed reading about. And I enjoyed not being a part of it more than anything.

**John:** Yes. I really enjoyed not being involved in any of those text chains.

**Craig:** My new sort of joy is not being involved in things.

**John:** Yes. Love it. I love that for you. It’s a good look. But first some follow up. Last week we discussed the upcoming IATSE strike authorization vote. Craig, what was the result of the strike authorization vote?

**Craig:** A resounding yes. Not only did 98% of the vote come back in as a yes, which is not uncommon for these things, but the really fascinating number was that 90% of IATSE actually showed up to vote. If 90% of the Writers Guild shows up to vote that’s a pretty great number, but it represents a few thousand people. If 90% of IATSE shows up to vote we’re talking tens of thousands of people.

**John:** Yeah. Good sized towns of people.

**Craig:** Yes. So there is no question about IATSE’s willingness to go on strike. And this was not kind of even a show vote. They weren’t even doing the thing that the Writers Guild annoyingly does where it’s like you have to vote yes. They were like, no, no, no, everyone was like, please, give me the ballot. I insist on voting yes right now because there is a pent up demand for action. And it is justified.

So, what happens is they go back and they sit down with the AMPTP who at this point would be beyond foolish if they didn’t arrive at a place that thwarted a strike in my opinion.

**John:** Absolutely. Because we recorded this show on a Saturday and it comes out on a Tuesday maybe it will all be resolved by then and we’ll again be living in the past. So, for our listeners who are living in the future, hey, tell us what happened because we don’t know yet.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, my gut tells me there will not be a strike. I still keep thinking that because I feel like the impact of an IATSE strike is so dramatic. And because it would open that can of worms permanently. I just feel, I feel like the companies are going to have to give on a number of issues. If they don’t it is almost tantamount to them declaring that the era of unionization of labor in the entertainment business is over and that the Amazonian era has begun. And we don’t want that.

**John:** No, we don’t.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** In last week’s episode we wondered aloud why Netflix was choosing two minutes as the threshold for viewing a program. Craig was mocking them and asking, hey, why are you doing that. Several writers wrote in with possible answers. So, the first one really comes down to intentionality. Doug writes, “Viewing something for two minutes is long enough to say ‘that person was interested in this’ and that is a valuable metric for Netflix because the constant release of curiosity-worthy material is enough to keep people subscribing, even if they don’t finish everything they start.”

So if you clicked that and you’re watching it for two minutes you meant to click it and it wasn’t accidental. This was something that you thought was going to be interesting to you. And so that’s really kind of what they’re most concerned about. Because remember they kind of don’t care whether you watch the whole thing. They’d be delighted if you did watch the whole thing. They basically don’t want you to stop subscribing to Netflix. That’s really their goal.

**Craig:** Yeah. I get that completely. But I think Doug is stating something as fact in which I don’t really know if it is. If everybody constantly watched just two minutes of stuff on Netflix and went “garbage, moving on,” and then never found stuff that they really, really loved at some point people would turn it off. The two minutes is not a threshold – I mean, we’re acknowledging there is a threshold that implies interested in. But at that point why is it two minutes? Why isn’t it one minute? Why isn’t it 40 seconds?

It seems to me that there has to be a number that implies interested in and appreciated to some small amount. And two minutes ain’t it. At all. So I would suggest that Netflix has picked two minutes because more than anything it makes their numbers look amazing. That’s why.

**John:** That’s very, very possible. I would also be certain that if people are actually watching two minutes, if there’s that kind of churn from program to program to program to program Netflix has a whole team that’s studying that, too, to make sure that that’s not going to be a person that we’re going to lose. So, they certainly have their data scientists there. Another listener wrote in to point out that when you buy a ticket to see a movie in a theater no one kind of cares whether you actually sat through the whole movie. So it’s like buying the ticket is sort of the intentionality. That’s the money coming into the thing so that’s kind of all you care about. And so it’s not about did this person watch the whole thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s also a weird point.

**John:** It’s a weird point.

**Craig:** Because we don’t pay per view on Netflix, we pay for months. It’s really more akin to you got a MoviePass, remember those John?

**John:** Oh, I remember MoviePass. Yeah. Why didn’t that work? I was rooting for MoviePass.

**Craig:** It seemed like a great idea. The fundamentals were sound.

So if you got a MoviePass and then you hopped into a movie and then walked out after two minutes should Universal declare a victory? I don’t think so.

**John:** Well, I think Universal got paid, though. They got the money from MoviePass for it, so.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** MoviePass was not happy.

**Craig:** In general I don’t think they can suggest that this is a victory for them or a hit. I mean, the whole point is you want more, don’t you want another, you want a second one, you want a third movie. I don’t know. Anyway, at some point this is what happens. The Internet tries to gaslight you into believing that people watching something for two minutes and then turning it off is a good thing. It is not. Stop it.

**John:** It’s not an artistic triumph.

**Craig:** No. You’re writing into a podcast for writers. And you’re suggesting that we should be happy that people watched our thing for two minutes and then went, “Nope.” I don’t think so. It’s just not great. It’s not great for them either. They don’t – by the way you know they adjusted it. It used to be a much longer number. And then they adjusted it. Because now they can say four billion people watched a show.

**John:** Yeah. I think I probably referenced this obliquely in the past, saying like there’s a Broadway producer who is notorious for showing up for like ten minutes of a show and then walking out. And I probably didn’t give his name because I didn’t want to anger him, but now it’s Scott Rudin, because we can just say his name. Scott Rudin was notorious for just first-acting, second-acting things, or having people buy a ticket and just watch ten minutes of it and then walk out. And so frustrating as a person who is making theater, but that’s what you got with Scott Rudin.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s a bad person. There was a wonderful little story out last week. Elijah Wood, who is an excellent person. We ought to have him on the show. He’s a lovely guy. Have you met Elijah Wood by the way?

**John:** I’ve never met him.

**Craig:** He’s fantastic. He was saying that originally Bob and Harvey Weinstein – so Miramax had the rights to Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson wanted to make three movies. And Harvey said he only wanted to make two. And eventually New Line got the rights. And Peter Jackson really did not like Harvey. No one did. And so there’s an orc. Somewhere in those movies there’s an orc that is modeled after Harvey. And I’m like I’ve seen those movies so many times and I’m like I’ve got to watch again just to find the Harvey orc now.

**John:** Yeah. I’m sure Elijah could point you to him, maybe.

**Craig:** I’m going to ask him to do that. That’s fair.

**John:** Wrapping up our Netflix talk here, Quinn my friend pointed me to this Twitter thread by Trung Phan who looks at how the thumbnail artwork for a show on Netflix is generated and how it is tested. And I know they were procedurally done. I knew there was some A/B Testing. But it’s actually much more complicated than you would ever think or believe. And there’s a reason why those things are designed in the rule of thirds. They know based on what you’ve done before, what you’ve looked at before, this is what’s going to appeal to you about this particular show. So even though this actress is only in like two out of ten episodes, she might be the marquee face that they’re going to show you for that program because they know that you like her face.

So it’s a fascinating sort of dystopian look at how they make their decisions.

**Craig:** Yeah. Market research is a barren wasteland where no soul can thrive. It’s effective. There’s no question about it. We’ve always known that. It’s nothing you. You see a trailer for a movie and it makes a big deal about an actor being in it and they’re in it for two seconds. This is pretty standard stuff. But it’s a bummer.

**John:** Yeah. Normal real marketing, like when you have a movie coming out, it’s not like it’s some artistic we’re making this poster for all the right reasons. It is such a workplace of committees and random opinions and that executive hates the color blue. It’s a mess that way, too.

**Craig:** It’s a mess. And they do test everything and eventually I think if you’ve been around enough testing you start to come to the inevitable conclusion that you can use the testing to justify any answer you want.

**John:** Mm-hmm. Yeah.

**Craig:** And that pretty much is what happens.

**John:** Yup. All right, so this past week I was listening to the Slate Working podcast which I highly recommend and they had a guest on, she was a costume designer named Dana Covarrubias. And she was talking about how they came up with the wardrobe for Only Murders in the Building. And Craig you don’t watch a lot of TV, so you probably have not seen Only Murders in the Building.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I think you would genuinely love it. It is a Steve Martin, Martin Short, Selena Gomez. It is like a Serial true crime thing, but also a comedy. It’s all in this upscale Upper West Side apartment building. It’s really, really well done. And the costumes are fantastic and they’re so smart and so specific. What I loved about the conversation on the podcast though is they were really talking about what is the process of getting started to think about costumes. You would think that, oh, she must talk to the director or the showrunner or the actors. And it really starts with she reads the script. And she talked about her process of sitting down, reading the script. Reading it once just for pleasure. And really just getting a sense of the tone before she then approaches like, OK, now let me think about days and nights and where is this character coming from, where they’re going to, and building out full threads on who this person really is and why they’re making the choices they are doing.

And you and I have talked so much about hair and makeup and looks and all the other things that a writer may be thinking about for characters and for their scripts. But I don’t think we’ve talked about all the other people who are getting handed that script and having to make choices based on what they’re reading there even independently of the other folks they’re talking with. So I really want to take a look at the script as a blueprint and then look at all these incredibly talented people who have to take this blueprint and figure out how to build the thing.

**Craig:** I’ve always struggled with the word blueprints because blueprints are rather bloodless and they’re incredibly thorough in that they tell you exactly what to do. This goes here. This goes here. This goes here. And it is absolutely true that every head of every department working on a television show or a movie if they’re good, and one would hope that they are, they do read to understand. They are trying to get inside of the heart of it and they’re trying to see how it functions from a character point of view. At some point they’re going to have to put other hats on.

It is remarkable to see how essential it is to everybody that works in our business creatively to also be organized. Because each department has to feel it with their soul and understand why and how they should be dressing people a certain way, putting hair on a certain way, stunts in a certain tone, but also they need to figure out how to actually pull it off with the money they have, the time they have. And people who can do both at the same time are worth their weight in gold and that’s what makes the good ones great.

**John:** Yeah. So as you approach doing your TV shows, or as you’ve been involved in movies too, it always is striking to me that in order to get these people signed on they’re generally reading the script. And so they have known who else was involved, but they have to read the script and they have to really respond to the script. And they have to say, OK, this is a project I want to work on because I think the project will be good on the whole. I think it will turn out well. I think I will be proud of the work I can do here. And I think it will present interesting challenges to me. These people may not be taking the easiest jobs, or the jobs that they’re used to, but OK this offers some cool challenges for me. Because I know sometimes the projects I want to take as a writer are also the ones that are like, wow, I’ve never gotten a chance to do this before and this is exciting to me.

And so whether it’s a costume designer who has never gotten to do this period before, or a cinematographer who has never gotten to shoot in these environments, that’s really compelling. And the first experience about what that’s going to look like, feel like, be like is going to be in that script. And that’s why it’s all so important. It’s not just these are the scenes, these are the characters, this is what’s happening. It’s what the script feels like because that’s their first vision of what the final movie hopefully is going to be.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know one of the things they’ve been saying in terms of the IATSE action right now is that for those of us who are below the line we tend to think of production as something that comes along every now and again, for people who do these kinds of jobs they’re in production all the time. They’re either in prep or they’re in production. And so you’re absolutely right, the notion of being able to show off a different muscle, a different kind of vibe, that would be incredibly attractive to them. But that means they need to understand what makes it special. So, there are situations also where just the size may be attractive to them.

But size and novelty will wear off. And also size and novelty only maybe inspires you to say yes to the gig. It’s not going to help you design it.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Ultimately you do need to get inside the tone and that means you need to also have a relationship with the one or two people that holds that knowledge inside. And you need to get in their heads and you need to share it.

**John:** Realistically on most features the person who is going to be making a lot of those decisions is going to be the director. But on something like a television pilot that showrunner/creator and the pilot director will have a lot of very direct connection about this is what the vision for how we’re going to shoot this is going to look like. This is what we’re going for. This is tonally what we’re going for. And that will radiate from all the departments. And so ideally early on in the process you’ll hire on a production designer who is responsible for like, OK, here is the very big swatches of color kind of look for things. This is the time. This is the general look. And then those decisions will then radiate through to the other costume departments and art departments and props and everybody else.

But if that vision doesn’t actually match what’s on the page in the script it’s going to be a real challenge to sort of be going back and forth between like this is what we’re seeing on the art boards versus this is what’s on the page. How do we actually marry that? If there’s a grand vision for sort of these giant 1930s cityscapes but it’s all taking place on interior sound stages that’s not going to actually work.

**Craig:** Does sound like the person who wrote the script should be involved, doesn’t it?

**John:** Doesn’t it sound like it?

**Craig:** Yeah, which is why I do find working in television now so satisfying, because that’s what I do now. And it is nice to be able to say, ah, here’s what I think. And here’s why I think it. And wonderful early discussions that bore a lot of fruit while we were in prep on The Last of Us, we’re going through the choices we could make. I mean, there have been a lot of shows that occurred after the apocalypse. So, you know, in talking with our costume designer, Cynthia Summers, about how we wanted to do this. Neil and I, we obviously had things from the game that informed us, but we also had general philosophical notions and ideas that are a bit different. It’s a very similar thing that we did with [Unintelligible] and Johan Renck and I. And it’s a wonderful thing to talk about that stuff. I love talking about that. Entirely within the framework of tone.

Costumes will blow up or preserve or reinforce tone. So will hair. All of it. It’s all essential. And the more you dig into the details the more you appreciate the people who do read the script and care about the script. And it’s the ones who don’t who can be tricky sometimes. Sometimes they’re brilliant, too, but they need more attention.

**John:** Yeah. And we should say that there’s a certain point in sort of the hierarchy on the set where like maybe it’s not essential that this person knows the overall vision for the movie or for the series because they are there to sort of get this day’s work done. And literally moving the lights and getting this lit they may not need to know the grander scheme of things.

But I also had the experience of on movies, big movies, where I really kind of felt like, oh, they only looked at the scene in a vacuum and didn’t really notice what was happening before and after and so they lit it as sort of the wrong kind of dawn. And like, oh, that actually doesn’t track with the shot that’s going to come directly beforehand. And that’s something that an editor in reading through the script would have noticed like, oh, it’s going to be really important–

**Craig:** Sorry, I have to interrupt you. An editor read through the script? [laughs] Where is this magical editor? I would like to meet this person.

**John:** So I want to have a whole discussion on postproduction because editors are notorious for not reading through scripts. And just like, oh, I found the movie as it came in. It was like documentary footage that sort of came across the transom and I decided to cut something together.

**Craig:** They do exist. I’m joking. They exist. But a lot of them really are sort of infamous for not reading the script.

**John:** But I would say that editor would notice like, oh shit, this could have been an amazing transition if you’d actually lit it the way it was sort of written on the page and you didn’t notice that. And so that can be a problem because it can become very atomic when it gets down to production where they’re just looking this scene, this scene, this scene, this scene, and not seeing the overall flow. And one of the things I so appreciate this costume designer Dana talking about her plan for things is they really are looking – costume designers are really good at this – looking for like where was this person earlier in the day. How did they get to this place? Because they are always worried about continuity and making sure that they had a scarf there. They would still have that scarf.

**Craig:** Ah, yes.

**John:** That stuff is remarkable. And they are building out these boards and notebooks that actually detail all of this.

**Craig:** I’m just laughing because Cynthia Summers is our costume designer, but on the day-to-day work on the set we have two gentlemen, the two Steves, and the two Steves are in charge of both handling the application of wardrobe to our actors on the day, but also preserving and maintaining continuity. Considering continuity and the attention to detail there is startling. And they will occasionally walk up to me and say, “Quick question for you. Seven months from now we’re going to be somewhere,” and then I’m like oh my god, oh my god you guys. But it’s essential. And it doesn’t matter what you do. If somebody is wearing the wrong shirt from one cut to the next it’s over. It’s done.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s funny actually. I looked over the shoulder. They watch the video feed. And they don’t have contacts, our little portable, they don’t care what anyone is watching at all. They’re watching moving clothes. And I said to you this shows just clothing moving around and they’re like, “Yeah.” And it’s awesome. And they’re really great at it. It’s remarkable to watch.

**John:** Now back in the day they would all be taking Polaroids. Now I’m sure they’re using their iPhones or they’re screenshotting what they’re seeing there so they can have references for this. But another reason why this is so important, like you can have a plan going in, but then a pandemic can stop production for a year and then you have to pick up scenes that you started shooting before you shut down. And they can just do it because they can. Because they’re remarkably organized and talented. It’s that creative brain which you absolutely need to do these jobs, and also this meticulous detail brain which is so essential. And I think many screenwriters don’t appreciate the importance.

**Craig:** I mean, nothing gets shot in chronological order. Inside of an episode things are being shot out of order. And then even episodes themselves may not be shot in order. We had to shoot slightly out of order episodically because of weather. Just accounting for how the weather would impact the episodes we were shooting. So, sometimes you’re shooting things and then you realize, ah, stuff happened in between. What needs to happen to the clothing, the hair, the makeup?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** The scars? The bruises? Whatever it is. All of that math has to be done and it’s constantly being figured out and thank god these brilliant people that we have are so dedicated and committed to getting it right. And they really are. And we would be utterly lost without them.

But I will say this machine that processes details – that’s what it is, a detail machine, and it’s like details is its fuel and it’s just churning and churning. It needs detail fuel. If you don’t write the detail people are just going to fill it in for you. And this is my constant refrain. If I taught a class at the University of [Gibberish] it would just be called Details. That’s what it is. It’s how to write details. Because if you don’t then you’ve failed before you started.

**John:** Yeah. And again one of the biggest challenges of screenwriting is kind of knowing all these details and recognizing how many details you can put in before you sort of choke the life out of scenes. Where like those details get in the way and people stop reading. And that’s challenging. And that’s the craft.

**Craig:** It is. And there is a certain amount of detail that the viewer can’t take in. So there’s an amount and then there’s a kind of way to inform detail without spelling it all out. You know, if you say this room is full of blank-blank era stuff, most of which was heavily used but has been brought back to life, that guides everyone. Props. Art direction. All of it.

**John:** Just like a fight sequence does not label every punch. You’re not labeling everything on the shelf. You’re just making sure that you’re creating a space where there would be shelves full of things.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Now, before we get to editors, because we should talk a little bit about editors and scripts, the person who is staring at the script the entire time is the script supervisor who I know we’ve talked about scripties before on the show, but I do want to sort of call them out again because the same way that hair and makeup and wardrobe is keeping track of all these continuity things, the scripty is keeping track of every line that is said, every take, making sure that as you cut from angle to angle it’s actually making sense, that things aren’t drifting.

They can be an absolute godsend. So I just want to speak up for the script supervisors on set.

**Craig:** Have we talked about how crazy that job is, even that it exists. It should not be one job. I just want to run down the things the script supervisor has to do. First, they need to make sure that the actors are saying the lines as written, or that somebody signs off on a change. Second, they need to record what lines are being said on camera and what lines are being said off-camera while it’s happening. Third, they need to handle all continuity. That means what things have moved, drinks and glasses, did you pick it up with your right hand or your left hand. All of it. When did you turn? On what line did you open the door? All of it needs to be recorded. Every single take.

Then they also need to record what time the first shot of the day was. They need to record what the lens. They need to record what camera roll you’re on. They need to tell the camera assistants if we’re going up a letter in takes or if we’re staying on take six. They have to do all of that, plus they have to time the whole script out ahead of time to see what the timing would be. It’s crazy. And eye lines. And that’s the other thing. They need to know on a scene where you’re shooting 12 people sitting around a table, when you get to a particular line should they be looking to the left of the camera or the right of camera. This should be 12 different jobs and it’s a job for one person. They are essential.

**John:** And they’re heroic. And we should say when we say recording all this is happening they’re literally taking notes in pencil on a script page. And so there’s a whole coding system they use and squiggly lines for like this take, this take, this take. This is where we moved to 6A and this is 6B. They can do all this stuff. And so a script supervisor can look back at those notes and say like, OK, this is how we did this thing and the reason why you’re keeping track of lens sizes and such is so like OK we need to go back and reshoot something or fix something you know exactly how you did it.

**Craig:** Even later in the day when you’re like, OK, we’ve turned around. It was hours ago. What lens we’re we on because we have to match it on this side? It is I would say probably rare to find a script supervisor that is still doing it with pencil and paper. There are some excellent programs that people have been using for a long time. And now I think a lot of it is done on iPad. Our script supervisor works on an iPad and sometimes I just sort of peek over and watch what he’s doing and it’s crazy. I was talking to him, I’m like how does anybody survive doing this job for the first year as you’re learning? And you know he said, “You kind of just make it up.” He said early on there’s no way, there’s no way you can do it. So you’re sort of like, yeah, they were holding it in their left. And then you’re like, oh boy, I hope they were holding it in the left hand. Because it just takes time for your brain to expand, to firehose that much information constantly all the time.

But, yeah, I mean, look, there’s a reason why it’s practically in my contract that our script supervisor on Chernobyl is the same one on The Last of Us. And I intend to have him by my side always. Because he is too good. He’s just too good.

**John:** Absolutely. And of course in modern productions it is theoretically possible to sort of go back and say, OK, we can actually check the tape and see – when I say pencil notes, I’m thinking back to like Go and it’s literally shot on film. So there’s no record, there’s no way to actually look at sort of what hand someone was holding it in. So we would just have to look to our script supervisor and ask her what was it. And she knows. Because she’s always right by the camera lens, even if you’re on a dolly truck going down a street in Downtown LA. She’s there because she has to see everything with her own two eyes. So, it’s a remarkable job.

**Craig:** It’s pretty amazing.

**John:** Now in theory all of those notes go to the editors who obviously they have to take the footage and then break it into the proper bins and start assembling the movie. And in theory you’d think like, oh, they can just look at the script pages and see what the scene is supposed to be. In practice a lot of times they sort of look at all the footage and then start cutting scenes their own way.

**Craig:** Yeah. Which is understandable to an extent. You don’t necessarily want to deprive yourself of their instincts. And when they look at footage they may feel something and they may drift toward it and that makes total sense. However, I do always appreciate and ask of my editors that they do read the scene carefully before they start cutting it because there are as I like to call it clues buried all over this thing. It’s like a little clue book.

**John:** It’s almost like someone wanted you to find your way out of this [unintelligible] box.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Sometimes you’ll sit there and they’re like “I just didn’t quite know what to do in this moment.” And I’m like did you check the clue book? And then they look and they’re like, “Oh, that’s what that is.” Yes. It’s in the clue book.

The other big clue book is in fact the notes generated by the script supervisor. So a lot of times what will happen is I’ll be sitting there and I’ll go why don’t we have that shot where he turns and looks at her in the wide? And they’re like we didn’t do it. And I’m like we did. No, it’s not there. Yes it is, I know it. And then we look in the script – oh, there it is. We found it.

**John:** There it is. It’s right there. One of the things we also notice that the script supervisor is doing is marking which of the takes are, we used to say “print the takes,” because now everything is basically printed. But circling the takes is like these are the ones we think have the performance that we’re actually going after. So if you shot five takes, takes two and take five may be the ones that have the stuff that you want.

**Craig:** Yeah. And that was something we used to do when it actually cost money to print takes. So you would say, OK, well that obviously was a garbage take. But now what I’ve discovered along the way, and I’m thinking probably everybody sort of figured out early on, too, is even the takes, you sometimes have to go into that bin of the castoffs because what you needed was somebody just looking up and then looking to the left.

**John:** 100%.

**Craig:** Yeah. One of the best bits of directorial advice I can give anybody is wait longer than you think you have to before you say cut. Because stuff happens back there that could just be gold.

**John:** All right. So some takeaways from thinking about how other people are using the script is just to remember that I think so often as writers like, OK, I’m going to write this script and then I’ll hand it into the studio and the producer will read it and we’ll get a director on board. And then I guess the actors will learn their lines. But that’s not even the beginning of the process really.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Everyone else has to take this thing and actually make it a thing. And blueprint may be the wrong term for it, but I guess you can have a blueprint for how you’re actually going to physically build the building, but that’s not furnishing the building. That’s not doing all the other stuff that sort of makes a place you can actually live inside. And that’s what all these other amazing artisans and craftspeople are doing is really making this thing be a place you can live inside.

**Craig:** Yeah. A long time ago when I used to have a blog, do you remember back then?

**John:** I do remember that.

**Craig:** I wrote a thing called You Can’t Just Walk Into a Building. Because if you say somebody walks into a building, which I think a lot of writers do, somebody has to figure out what building. Where? What does it look like? How does it function? And if you haven’t designed it, meaning you haven’t described what the function and nature and feeling of the building is then as I said other people are going to do it for you. And so the more you can participate in the direction, and when I say direction I don’t mean film direction. I mean creative direction.

**John:** The design.

**Craig:** The overall direction of the film or television show the better off that film and television show is going to be. They need the benefit of all the things you know and you will always know more than you can fit on the page.

**John:** Now Craig you are making my segue way too easily here. Because back in Episode 519 Craig said, “I am a huge believer in the visual imagination of the space. I need to know what it looks like, how close they are together, whether the lights are on or off, if there’s a fire in the fireplace, if it’s warm or hot.” And we got a couple of responses back on this and a whole new branch of things to talk through. Megana, could you read us what Dave wrote for us?

**Megana Rao:** So Dave wrote in, “A year or so ago at age 51 I discovered I have aphantasia. This means I’m unable to visualize, or put another way I have no mind’s eye. It was a surprise to me as I have a strong sense of imagination, work in creative fields, and write screenplays for pleasure. The latter being the reason I discovered Scriptnotes. For me imagination is narrative and conceptual, but not visual. When I read a book and the character description says she was tall and had blonde hair I know what this means but don’t form a picture in my head. It’s the same when my yoga instructor asks me to imagine a balloon inflating and deflating as I breathe.

“This revelation has led me to realize many things about my life. For example I now know it takes me longer to learn new things, especially physical ones because I’m reading through a set of instructions rather than playing back a video clip or looking at pictures of the activity. And when it comes to my writing I see now that I tend to over-describe because I want to make sure people see the character or place as I see, or in fact don’t see them. It’s suggested that perhaps 3 to 5% of people are aphantasiac. So perhaps as many as 2,000 listeners to Scriptnotes could be. I wonder how this affects their personal and professional lives. For me it’s not at all.

“There are some notable examples of aphantasiacs working in Hollywood, such as Ed Catmull, formerly at Pixar, which might suggest this to be true for others. Anyhow, keep up the good work. I’m always inspired by your weekly discussions, even if I can’t picture any of the things you touch upon, which in the case of Sexy Craig might not be a bad thing.”

**Craig:** Oh, you don’t have to see anything. You just have to listen. That’s all. Dave, you just got to listen.

**John:** Let Sexy Craig wash all over you. I really thank Dave for writing in with this because I’ve seen this term a little bit popping up on Twitter and I didn’t really know what it meant. And it’s not a disorder, it’s the range of how people imagine information and how the visual system works for people. But it is really interesting because I think I just have bias to assume well everyone’s brain works the way my brain works. And my brain, I can absolutely picture things in my head. I can imagine smells and textures, and tastes. I can sort of completely put myself in a place pretty easily and I set myself there and I write what I see. And that’s writing for me. And that’s not going to be the same experience Dave is having.

**Craig:** No. And I want to call out the most important word I suppose in the quote that Dave brings up here, and that’s the word “eye.” I believe in it. It certainly works for me. It’s important part of my process. But here’s another thing I know. Dave, I cannot draw at all. I can’t illustrate. I mean, my hands work. But a cube is barely within my reach. And only because I practiced it. So I can imagine things very vividly and very accurately, but I cannot reproduce them through drawing at all. And then there are people I think who may be able to produce things by drawing perfectly but perhaps don’t see them in the mind’s eye.

So, this is not a prison sentence by any stretch as you yourself have noted. However, I will say because it is a visual medium, and we know we’re telling a visual story, you need to have some method to create specificity and completion of visual work. Whether it is happening in your mind or whether you are sketching it out in a series of storyboards, your illustrations, or whether you have a really specific connection to words and the words connect to images as you write them. Whatever it is you need something because ultimately it’s film.

**John:** Yeah. I do wonder if someone who is writing strictly a stage play, with characters on a stage talking, it would impact their process less if they didn’t have to see the whole thing, but it was literally just about the words and the talking and sort of how this all goes. But there’s also, and we can look up what the actual term is, but the same way that some people don’t have a mind’s eye, there’s people who don’t have a mind’s voice, or they don’t have a voice in their head. They don’t have the ability to imagine conversations. And that would probably be a greater hindrance to doing the kinds of things that we’re doing because so much of what we do as screenwriters is think, OK, if they say this then that’s the answer – it’s putting yourself in the middle of imaginary conversations. And that’s a sort of crucial skill. And I think it’s also a source of anxiety and sort of negative repetition.

I do find that so often I will have arguments in my head with people and it’s like well that’s just really stupid because they’re actually not here to hear the other side of this argument.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s crazy. You should stop doing that.

**John:** Because Craig you never do that. You never actually–

**Craig:** I don’t really.

**John:** Have imaginary arguments?

**Craig:** I don’t. No. You’ve said this before. In fact I believe, because I remember it making quite an impression on me, it was one of your New Year’s resolutions to stop having arguments with people who weren’t there. I mean, I’ve definitely had the thing, there’s a German word for it, where you walk away from a conversation and then you think, oh, I should have said this or this.

**John:** The staircase thing, yeah.

**Craig:** The staircase logic. But it’s rare that I will sit and have a debate with somebody who is not there because they’re not there. It seems like a total waste of good fighting.

**John:** Yeah. But again it’s a range of experiences. And so I think, you know, there’s people who are going to be, I think there’s a term hyperphantasia, people who have extremely visual internal lives and that can be great, but it can also be challenging because apparently it ties into PTSD and other things. They kind of keep re-seeing these things. And it’s not just a reported phenomenon. Like one of the things I liked in this New York Times piece that we’ll link to, they actually can do scientific studies where they say, OK, we want you to visualize a bright white triangle and while they’re doing this they’re measuring your pupil dilation and people who have a situation where they don’t have a mind’s eye, their pupils will not contract where other people’s pupils will contract. And so it really is a thing – it’s a deeper brain thing and not just how people report the experience.

**Craig:** It’s a good reminder that what we do is brain work.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And everybody’s brain is different and I don’t necessarily think, unless we’re talking about specific injury, or clear malfunction, or dysfunction, some of these things are just a question of how the imperfect system is balanced.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, you can only say that you are hyperphantasic if we have a number that is a normal amount of phantasic.

**John:** And we don’t.

**Craig:** We don’t. It’s a spectrum, like you say. There’s a range of brain function and, you know.

**John:** Here’s I think what might be useful for listeners though is if you feel – if you listen to our conversation and say like, OK, they describe as seeing yourself in a place and imagining all these things around you and that doesn’t even make sense to me. I don’t even know how a person does that. That could be a sign like, oh, maybe you actually are on this edge of this experience. Maybe it’s good to know, because if it is your situation then look for ways to address that. You may not be doing something wrong. It may just be how your brain works.

**Craig:** Yeah. Like I don’t understand why anyone believes in god. My brain doesn’t work that way. And wouldn’t it be amazing if I got to judgment day and stood before god and went, oh, whoa.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You’re real. And he said, or she said, “Yes.” And I said but I just – even now I really don’t quite believe. And then he or she said, “Yeah, that’s because you had a brain problem.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then I would say, OK, so does that get me out of burning in a lake of fire for eternity? And I suspect that’s where they would say, “No.” [laughs]

**John:** But then again the question is well then who designed your bad, broken brain? It all sort of snaps back. As you were describing that were you visualizing?

**Craig:** Of course I was.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** Of course I was. I can see everything. I could see all of it. I think I might be hyperphantasic.

**John:** I think I might be as well. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a common trait among screenwriters and writers in general.

**Craig:** Makes sense.

**John:** When I was doing the Arlo Finch books because as a screenwriter we’re only looking at what we can see and what we can hear, like texture, and taste, and smell, like those are not things that we’re actively describing in our scene description, but suddenly in a book I was doing all of those things and I did feel like my world had gotten a little bit more full. It was nice to be able to look at those senses that I normally can’t describe on the page and everything did just feel a little bit brighter for it.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** Nice. Let’s get to some more listener questions. Megana, what have you got for us?

**Megana:** Great. So Stupid Luck asks, “I found myself in the most wonderful but terrifying situation. A pilot that I helped to develop and write was sold earlier this year and despite my having zero experience working on a TV show beyond assistant gigs nearly 20 years ago I have been given a higher title than I surely deserve, leapfrogging several low and midlevel positions. Am I doomed to fail? Will my complete and total ignorance of how this all works make me seem irrelevant? I’ve already been included on a ton of conference calls but besides weighing in on the development and my take on writer’s samples I pretty much stay silent. I’m trying to learn and absorb as much as I can, as quickly as I can, but the learning curve is steep. Any advice on how to approach this situation? How to balance my inexperience with the desire to contribute in a meaningful way? How to show appropriate deference to those who have been doing this a lot longer than I have while still taking my shot?”

**Craig:** Wow. Stupid Luck, you are kind of a dream. You seem to have missed the memo that in order to succeed in Hollywood you have to be a total psychopath with no shame and who has no problem talking when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You know, I think this is actually really good news, the fact that you’re even thinking this way is really good news. No, you’re not doomed to fail at all. Don’t be fooled by the militarization and rankifization of the television business. There are people whose value, experience level has nothing to do with their title, both for good and for bad. You are where you are, now forget about it. It doesn’t matter.

In any meeting the best idea is the best idea. And the person who is the most impressive is the person who impresses the most. So it makes total sense to listen and to learn, but you shouldn’t be afraid to weigh in. You should not worry that people are going to judge you. And if you make a mistake you make a mistake. You have a natural humility about you. As long as you don’t take things personally and you keep moving forward and you show other people respect and you don’t trample on them in an effort to get somewhere they will be OK with that. They will be perfectly fine. It’s the only way you can learn. So I think you’re doing great.

**John:** Well let’s imagine another scenario in which Stupid Luck developed and wrote this thing, it was sold, and then comes in as a staff writer on it. That also would not make sense because you are the person who co-created this project. You are naturally going to be up a few ranks there because you are going to have some decision-making capability. You helped create this world. You know things about this world that no one else does. So you’re not going to enter in at the bottom.

When I sold my first TV show I was brought in and my first title was Co-EP, but I was really the showrunner but I really didn’t know what I was doing. I had the disaster that I think you’re fearing that you may have. But it sounds like you have people around you who really do know what they’re doing and can actually support you and sort of make all the stuff happen. I wouldn’t worry so much about it.

Or my first movie, Craig you probably had a similar experience, the first time being on set for a movie, you kind of don’t know a lot.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** And you’re scared like am I allowed to eat at crafts service. It’s all kind of new. But you do have a place there. You do belong there. It’s finding out how you can be useful and how to get out of the way when literally they just need to turn the set around.

**Craig:** And people actually want to help. They want to teach. Nobody walks onto a production and knows what’s going on just naturally. No one. It’s very weird. A lot of it is strange and there are things still to this day I get confused by. I’ve been doing this forever. I run my own show. And I repeatedly confuse who is in charge of beards.

**John:** Oh yes.

**Craig:** It’s hair or makeup depending whether it’s this kind of beard or that kind of beard. All the time these things happen and then you just go, OK, right, sorry, let me…

And it’s perfectly fine as long as you don’t bluster about and take it out on people when they gently correct you. And you’re going to be fine. And, by the way, don’t say Stupid Luck. I would say there is no such thing.

**John:** Good Fortune, sure. But you also worked hard to get there.

**Craig:** You worked hard. And you did something. And it is something that is now employing lots of people. So, I wouldn’t say Stupid Luck. I wouldn’t say it was inevitability either. I would say you achieved something. You should be proud of it, while staying humble, and move forward.

**John:** Agreed. Megana, can you give us another question here?

**Megana:** Casey writes in, “I’m a screenwriter based in LA who has yet to break in but I have had a pilot in development for the past couple of years. I wrote it on spec for producers and we have an older, more established writer attached to showrunner who has guided me through the development process. I wrote the pilot but we worked together to create the pitch. It’s been years now and I’m beginning to feel emotionally detached from and frustrated with the project. In working with the producers I have less and less confidence in their ability to get this thing across the finish line. And I have also come to discover that the showrunner and I have very different world views with regards to race, social justice, and gender.

“I also keep being asked to do free work on a project that hasn’t gone anywhere in two years. My question is am I shackled to this project until it’s officially dead or until it gets bought? How do I navigate this strange situation?”

**Craig:** Hmmm.

**John:** Casey, I wish I could tell you this was a strange situation. There are sort of like zombie projects that aren’t really alive and aren’t really dead that are just kind of always out there and you have to decide, you know what, I’m done. I don’t believe this thing is going to move forward. I don’t believe it’s going to move forward with these people on board.

You wrote this script, this other showrunner person helped you, or helped guide you through the pitch. Maybe contractually they’re involved. You can see. My hunch is that you have a good writing sample that you should be using to get you other jobs. But this project is dead is my guess.

**Craig:** Dead or alive, it’s your decision. That’s the good news. You’re not shackled to it. It’s yours. You own the copyright. You haven’t sold it. You’ve written it on spec. No one has bought it. So, you could just do whatever you want with it. And, you know, as far as the showrunner, the showrunner is not the showrunner because there’s no show. That’s just a person. And if you don’t like the person and you don’t feel connected with them then you make a change. Because it’s your material. They can’t go on without you.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because they haven’t sold it yet. And when you say being asked to do free work, you’re not being asked to do free work. There is no work, meaning employment. You are choosing – this is what it comes down to, and this is a hard one to hear Casey, but you’re choosing to continue to work on something that you own. It is your property. The day you sell it is the day everything changes and the work is about employment and then it is a question of being taken advantage of by people who should be paying you because you’re not a copyright owner but you’re an employee. Until that day you have to act like the person you are in this situation, which is believe it or not, the boss.

**John:** Yeah. I will say that emotionally you may have moved on from this project as well. And so I want to give you permission to say like I learned some things from that and now I’m going to step aside and Craig and I both have things that we’ve wrote that’s just like I like this script, there’s things I like about this script, but it is not going to be worth my time to pay any more attention to it. It’s on the shelf now and I’m moving forward with new things. Just give yourself permission to say this is not what I’m interested in working on right now. And that’s great. Don’t feel like you have to finish everything.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just make sure that your lack of interest is not a lack of interest in people as opposed to material. If you’re still interested in the material but the people are wrong it’s time to find different people. And, of course, the other ones may say, well, if you sell it then we get a title and we get money. OK, well we’ll figure that out down the road. But in the meantime it sounds like this marriage has come to an end.

**John:** I think so. I have a thing that’s actually not a question, but I want to point to this Twitter thread by Ariel Rutherford about this white male writer with credits who puts out a call for a diverse female writer to help him on a project and then he tries to swing this kind of Svengali mentor situation where he’s like I’m creating a writer’s room and stuff. I’m not going to go in depth on the Twitter thread, but there’s a link in the show notes, so click through this link. Be warned that this kind of behavior exists out there. Especially because it turns out another writer @awkwardgirlla had the exact same situation with the exact same writer. So it’s a guy who is just doing this repeatedly.

This is just shitty behavior. And I don’t know who this writer is, but this writer should not be doing this. And it was just a new spin on sort of like a person with some credits taking advantage of writers with no credits. And so it drove me crazy. I just wanted to shine a little spotlight on it here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Anybody that suggests that you should join their mentor group you should view as a cult leader. There are no mentor groups. That’s not a thing. The mentor groups that exist are not generated by individuals like that. There may be something like the kind of thing that you and I have done where there have been organizations that have put together established writers with up and coming writers. And they have a discussion and it’s formalized and then they move on. There is not sort of you join my little mini church and then you also do all of my work for me and you clean my clothes and then eventually I have 12 babies with four of you. This is not good. You don’t want this. You don’t want to go down that road.

You don’t need it. That’s the other thing. Anybody that’s offering you that, it ain’t real. Real mentors are desperate to not mentor people. That’s the god’s honest truth. You or I, we’re not looking for extra people to do this stuff with. We have to be asked. We have to forced and shamed into it.

**John:** And so here I think is this guy’s clever trick, it’s almost like it’s a negging kind of thing he’s doing, those pickup artist books. Basically he’s saying like, “Hey, I need help. Would someone out there want to help me?” It’s almost like a white guy in a van saying hey would you help me find my lost dog. He’s asking for help and so then someone will say, “I can help you.” And he’s like, “Oh, you’re actually not good enough, but I think you could get better if you just come join my writers group.” That’s what drives me crazy. Because it’s not even the normal scam which is that like, oh, we’re going to help you polish up your script. It has that first level of I need help because I’m a white male writer who needs a diverse female voice on this thing.

**Craig:** Also, if you’re a white male writer and you’re on the Internet asking randos to help you be less white, fuck off. Go do your own work. Do your work. Research. Figure it out. Study. Interview people. Don’t make them do your work for you. Don’t ask that. What is that? That is something you pay people for. It’s called writing or producing or consulting. It’s a job. It’s not free.

Geez, fucking guy.

**John:** I should say also that he was offering pay at the start. So basically the hook was like oh I will pay you to be a consultant on this thing.

**Craig:** Yeah, but like what? When I say pay I mean like you work for Fox or Disney and you get paid, like a real salary. Not like some guy is like, “Here you go. I guarantee you $100.”

**John:** All right. Now it’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a thing I did last year which I highly recommend for people in LA. It’s called the LA County Adopt a Family for the Holidays program. It’s done through the county and you go to a really boring website, a poorly designed form, but you put in your information and they match you up with a family in LA County who receives Medicaid or basically needs some help because they would not be otherwise able to buy Christmas presents for their kids. And so you get matched up with a family. You exchange text messages to find out who they are and what their kids are like and what their situation is. You buy some presents. You wrap presents. Everyone knows I love wrapping presents.

**Craig:** Oh my god. You’re so good at it.

**John:** I love wrapping presents. And then you drop off the presents and then you go and it’s lovely and it’s nice and it’s such a good thing. A friend tipped me off to it and I’m sending out the word to other friends. It’s just a really good, smart program. So if you are a person in Los Angeles who feels like you know what I’d love to buy some Christmas presents for people who could really stand have a better holiday, really recommend the LA County Adopt a Family for the Holidays program. And we’ll put a link in the show notes to it.

**Craig:** That does sound pretty good.

**John:** It’s pretty good.

**Craig:** I can probably steal that. You know, I don’t know how to wrap gifts. Did you know that?

**John:** Oh.

**Craig:** I don’t even know how to do it. Melissa does it.

**John:** I love, I genuinely love doing it. I didn’t realize people didn’t know how to do it until Rawson Thurber, who was my assistant at one point, just literally could not do it and so I would wrap all of his presents.

**Craig:** So basically I start to wrap something and then everything goes wrong. It’s sort of like me and drawing. I can wrap it in a square and then there’s the extra part sticking out and I know there’s some folding involved, but the folds don’t work right. And inevitably it ends up looking like a large Tootsie Roll inevitably. I just start twisting the ends. Megana, do you know how to wrap gifts.

**Megana:** I’m really bad at it. And it’s so embarrassing to bring something that I’ve tried to wrap in front of John because I can just feel his judgment so heavily.

**Craig:** He’s pretty judgy.

**John:** But Craig I don’t know if you know that Megana actually draws really well. She’s actually, give her a pen and some time and she can draw you up something lovely.

**Megana:** I do like to doodle.

**Craig:** I know that because Megana got me one of the nicest things ever. She made a painting of my dog.

**John:** She made a painting of my dog, too. That’s your thing.

**Megana:** It actually really wasn’t. You guys are the only two that – I’m like what do these guys care about? And the answer is consistently your dogs.

**Craig:** I have another dog now, Megana. I’m just saying.

My One Cool Thing is Megana’s ability to draw my dog.

**John:** That’s a very cool thing indeed. And that’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Layn Pieratt. Really good outro. Thank you, Layn.

If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter Craig is sometimes @clmazin. And I am always @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing. This last week’s was about naming characters and I just went through this big project where I had to name, I can’t even tell you how many characters, but so many characters and it was just fun to go back through this newsletter and look at how other people name their characters.

We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. And you can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on a Bad Art Friend, or maybe two bad art friends. We’ll discuss. But only for our premium members. Thank you Craig. Thank you Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks guys.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Oh, Craig. Oh Craig. All right, so welcome all our premium members. You are true friends. You are true art friends. And we would never turn on you in our text channel, our text thread about you. Craig, can you give us the briefest recap of the situation between these two women and this writer community?

**Craig:** Yeah. So this has been zinging around and there’s a big article in the New York Times Magazine. Long and short of it is there was a woman who was more of an up and coming writer. And she decided to donate a kidney to a person that she didn’t know. A little bit like the way you just adopted a family. But this was a rather extreme thing. She was like I decided just to be a really good person. I’m going to offer my kidney to somebody in need of a kidney. And just somebody. And in fact there was somebody in need and she did in fact have the surgery. She donated her kidney. And she talked a lot about it. She talked a lot about it on a Facebook group. Facebook, of course, root of all evil.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And while she was talking about it she had an acquaintance, or she thought was a friend, was another writer who is a little bit more of an established writer who wrote a story that included something about a woman who donates a kidney to somebody. And the kidney donor was a bit irked because initially she just didn’t feel like this other woman was paying enough attention to her kidney donation.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Which is where I got stuck. Cause I think it’s sort of like that’s not why you donate a kidney. Anyway, and that writer, Sonya Larson, said, “Yeah, no, no, I saw that you donated a kidney. Good for you.” And then later she released this story and Dawn Dorland, the woman who donated a kidney, was aghast and believed and accused Sonya Larson of essentially lifting her story because she included this element of a person donating a kidney. But what was really weird and where this story actually got kind of confusing and muddled is indeed Sonya Larson did lift a sentence or two from an email that Dawn Dorland had written, or a Facebook post, one of those two. I can’t remember.

So actually there was sort of like a little bit of technical plagiarism there. But not much. And this story has lit up everyone. I guess you either are Team Dawn or you’re Team Sonya, or as somebody on Facebook [unintelligible] what this story really shows more than anything is that writers are annoying. [laughs] And that is absolutely true. So, OK, John, Megana, what do we make of this?

**John:** So I’ve only read the Robert Kolker New York Times story, so my only point into it. I know there’s a discourse that goes well beyond the edged the edges of this because it’s 2021 and the discourse has to spill everywhere. And like these people themselves are probably also involved in the conversation.

God, it made me – as you start to read the story and you start to see Dawn saying like why aren’t people commending me enough for donating a kidney. That is a great character. That is a great moment.

**Craig:** Nuts.

**John:** And at the same time I think oh my god you want to use that character in a story. And then it seems like Sonya Larson did that and then also – which was probably defensible as using that idea of that character. But then to actually use those words seems so dumb. And that’s a thing I couldn’t get past.

**Craig:** Yeah. So everybody fucked up to some extent. Although my sympathies will always be with the person who does the work. And in this case the person who did the work was Sonya Larson. The fact that she was inspired by someone’s story of donating a kidney is normal. People are inspired by real life stuff all the time. Nobody owns that. If you donate a kidney to somebody you don’t own everybody’s short story from now until the end of time about somebody donating a kidney.

Yes, she clearly screwed up by cribbing that line from an email and that was wrong. Also, it didn’t really cause any damage because as far as I could tell Sonya Larson’s short story has not led to any kind of real financial success. It was just out there, but it wasn’t some huge thing. Now it’s a huge thing.

And also Sonya Larson appears to be a legitimate writer who is doing work. And so I feel like if you do the work you do the work. So she made a mistake and she has owned that mistake. The other thing that was going on in a very kind of typical Internet way there are a bunch of people who are on this Facebook page–

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** –where they see Dawn Dorland going on about her kidney donation ad nauseam and wondering why people aren’t telling her more about how wonderful she is for her donation. And they start back-channeling and gossiping about how much they hate her. And I totally understand that because I think I probably would have done the same thing. Totally. I’m like Megana I have to at this point – you seem like the nicest person in the world. Every interaction I’ve ever had with you you seem quite pure. Like you were delivered on angel wings to the world to save us all.

But, have you never just sort of seen somebody acting like this super thirsty annoying person and then kind of back-channeled some catty commentary?

**Megana:** Yeah. I mean, I so sympathize for Dawn because I think we’ve all had that experience of thinking that people are our friends, or that people are saying – you know, just that infuriating feeling of not getting the joke or not being in on the thing is so devastating. Nobody is talking about the violation of privacy here and I would never want my personal private group chats with my girlfriends to be public.

**John:** That is absolutely crucial. So we should say those became public because of discovery. Because there were lawsuits going back and forth between the two of them. And so once it got to that point I’m just like oh my god everything has gone off the rails because there are so many conversations I’ve had with people that I would not want to show up on discovery. And I’ve been through discovery. Discovery sucks. So I don’t want that done. Yes.

**Megana:** But also the context, because sometimes my friends are like really in the wrong, but when you have your friend’s back and you know. I don’t need everyone reading the New York Times how I’m trying to support my friend in that way. I don’t know, it’s just so–

**Craig:** Totally.

**Megana:** Ugh.

**Craig:** It’s a real mess. I do love just how this all started. And the way it started was that she was posting on Facebook celebrating herself and what she did. And then what’s so great is she just looked to see that some of the people she invited into her self-congratulatory look-at-what-I-did group hadn’t reacted to any of her posts. Now, at that point it’s getting stalky. What does she do? She writes an email to Sonya Larson and the email basically is why haven’t you said anything? Mother-fucker, nobody owes you a comment. We’re reading it. And what was kind of shocking was the message to her was, “I think you’re aware I donated my kidney this summer, right?” [laughs] Like what the hell is that? What kind of crazy world is that?

**John:** I want that printed on a t-shirt, please.

**Craig:** I think you’re aware that I donated my kidney this summer. Yeah? Mm-hmm. Like I would have been like, “Mm-hmm.” But Sonya Larson said, “Ah, yes, I did see on Facebook that you donated your kidney. What a tremendous thing,” which is pretty much the polite thing to say to somebody when what you really want to say is, “Yeah, what do you want? What do you want? You want a cookie?”

And then in response to that Dawn Dorland wondered if Sonya really thought it was great why did she need reminding that it happened. Which reminded me of that thing in Airplane. Hmm, he never has more than one cup of coffee at home. So stupid. Like what narcissism. Anyway, it’s kind of like I guess the person who has her kidney is like I don’t care about any of that. I’m alive. So, good on you, Dawn Dorland. But this got crazy. And, look, underneath all of it the reason I suggested it, John, is because I think there is this – as we were talking about parasocial relationships last time, this thing happening with the Internet now where people overshare their lives and then are shocked to find that other humans who hoover up information about humans for their vocation and then recreate them into art are doing so. They can’t believe it. And they feel as though they’ve been violated. And to the extent that a story like this leads some people to think that writers shouldn’t be doing things like this, other than ripping that one line off from the email which shouldn’t have happened, writers should be doing things like this.

I’m very pro-writer in this regard.

**John:** One thing I did want to actually discuss is that idea of iteration. I thought it was interesting point of the Sonya Larson side of it all is that like they were going back to earlier versions of the story. Basically she kept working on the story and revising the story. And earlier versions of the stories might have been closer to this, but when is that story finished? Because it was going to be published this one time, and then she changed it more, and it got changed again. What is the draft that is actually the problem? And at what point in the process can you really say like that was infringement or she just hadn’t done the necessary editing to not make it infringe-y. And that’s an interesting ethical question as well.

**Craig:** What do you think, Megana?

**Megana:** The thing that I was going to say is that in our Cat Person discussion we talked about how easy it would have been for the person to change key details about where this worked, just completely lifting those directly. I think in the same way here, John I think said in Episode 500 like I like to use characters from real life because it proves that those people can exist in reality and that’s a believable thing. But I think you can take the spirit of that without taking the exact details. Like what I also find really troubling is that whether or not Sonya Larson liked Dawn Dorland, like they were a part of the same community. And Dawn was very vocal about this kidney donation. So presumably everyone in Dawn’s life who reads this short story is going to know that. And I just don’t understand why you couldn’t take the extra effort to obscure some of those details. I don’t think it would have changed the feeling of the story, but it would have protected this person whether or not you like them.

**Craig:** It sounds to me like that aspect of the story was fairly minor. That the story was not about kidney donation. It included somebody who had done so. But that the value of the story was in the writing and in the execution as is so often the case. That the concept – didn’t matter what the concept was. So, yes, she could have certainly done that, but I think it’s also reasonable to expect that if Sonya Larson doesn’t know Dawn Dorland and reads somebody’s repost of that and writes a story about it that she doesn’t owe Dawn anything. So what’s the difference?

I mean, basically it sounds like Dawn thought that they were a lot closer than they were and Sonya’s point of view was, yeah, I don’t know you. You know? I don’t know you like that as the memes say.

**John:** Now, Megana, you’re actually in writers groups and Craig and I are not. So has there been a discussion in your writers group about this situation and like what is your feeling about this kind of appropriation or even just we’re writing about the same area or space? Is that a thing that comes up in your group?

**Megana:** I don’t know that I have a great response. Because it is an icky situation and I think that sometimes you see people using similar plot devices or things creep up in multiple people’s works because they’re inspired or they’ve just been talking about it in the group. So, I don’t know. It’s really tricky and I wish that I had a better way of figuring that out. But so far we haven’t really had any conversations about that.

I think we’re also aware that in the process of iterating, yeah, maybe you are using something similar to someone else’s project to figure out a solution, but maybe in your next draft that’s going to be different, so it’s not worth litigating as a group.

**Craig:** Years and years ago I had a drum kit. It wasn’t a very good drum kit but I was learning on it. It didn’t sound great. And I knew a drummer, like a proper professional drummer who came by and I showed it to him and I was like it doesn’t sound that great, but it’s good enough to learn on. And he sat down and he played some and it sounded amazing. It was like the best drum kit ever because it’s not the drum kit. And it’s not the idea. It’s not the concept. It’s not the premise. None of that is what it’s about. That stuff is just the drum kit. It’s the drumming that matters. And in this case it’s the execution that matters. It’s the writing that matters. Anybody in any writing group, everybody could get the exact same prompt and 12 of those same details and you’ll get eight different stories, and you might even get eight stories that are really similar, but only one of them is good.

**John:** Yeah. Like the four gospels in the Bible. Only one of them is good?

**Craig:** Which one is that?

**John:** I’ll tell you off-mic.

**Craig:** Oh, is it John? Because your name is John? Is it John?

**John:** That’s what it is.

**Craig:** Oh, is John the crazy one that talked about the beast and the mark of the devil?

**John:** That’s Book of Revelation. Wow. No. That’s not a gospel.

**Craig:** OK, that’s a different god.

**Megana:** Can I say one other thing about the writing group though? I’m so shocked that no one in this group was like you should definitely change that text. You can’t just lift.

**John:** For all we know someone did. We’re not seeing the whole thread. Or maybe you have gone through all of the documents. Megana has been doing nothing else for the last three weeks. Just going through all this. She found the Zodiac Killer and now she’s figuring out who was the real bad friend in the bad friend group.

People throw this at us like How Would This Be a Movie. I’m going to say that I don’t think this is a movie because so much of what it really comes down to is appropriation of words on a page and plagiarism is not great movie material. If you look at the Melissa McCarthy movie, Can You Ever Forgive Me, was fantastic, but it’s not really plagiarism. It ends up being a very physical, visual thing she’s doing. She’s faking letters. Versus this I feel is just not going to work, to me.

**Craig:** John, question for you.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** You’re aware that I donated my kidney this summer, right?

**John:** You know, I think it’s such a remarkable, selfless act. I have not been talking to any of my other friends about how much you bring that up.

**Craig:** If you really thought it was that great of an act I’m wondering why you needed reminding that it happened. Curious.

**John:** All right, well thanks. It’s been fun.

**Craig:** See you guys.

**John:** You can log off the Zoom now. Bye.

**Craig:** See you next week.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [Netflix 2-minute Viewership](https://screenrant.com/netflix-2-minutes-veiwership-numbers-why/) on ScreenRant
* [Twitter Thread on Netflix Thumbnails](https://twitter.com/trungtphan/status/1445768087832182796?s=21)
* [Harvey Weinstein Orc in Lord of the Rings](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/05/elijah-wood-lord-of-the-rings-orc-modeled-harvey-weinstein)
* [Dana Covarrubias explains “What the Clothes in Only Murders in the Building Say About the Show’s Characters”](https://slate.com/podcasts/working/2021/10/only-murders-building-costume-designer-dana-covarrubias-creative-process) in Slate Working Podcast
* [Aphantasia](https://aphantasia.com/what-is-aphantasia/)
* [Many People Have a Vivid Mind’s Eye While Others Have None at All](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/science/minds-eye-mental-pictures-psychology.html?smid=url-share) on the NYT
* [LA County Adopt A Family](https://dpss.lacounty.gov/en/community/volunteer.html)
* [Bad Art Friend](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/magazine/dorland-v-larson.html) by Robert Kolker
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Layn Pieratt ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

Scriptnotes, Episode 498: Small Plates, Transcript

May 3, 2021 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/small-plates).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 498 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show my name is John and I’ll be helping you out today. Have you dined with us before? Great. OK, we serve tapas style, which means on our menu you’ll see small plates that are designed for sharing. So, you might want to start with a few topics on the industry section, like open writing assignments, secure screenplays, or pitching animation. Here in the follow up section you’ll see genre, Hanlon’s Razor, and of course Oops.

And our larger plates include a special look at copyright termination.

Now, for premium members you’ll definitely want to save room for our discussion of reboots versus remakes.

So, anything you want to get started on or do you need a few minutes?

**Craig:** I’m leaving this restaurant. I’m angry. I’m full of umbrage at what you’ve just done.

**John:** Yes. So, Craig, small plates restaurants, go.

**Craig:** I’m totally down with small plates. I love that style of eating. I love all of it. What I’m exasperated by is the odd questioning as if I just had – have you eaten here before? Unless you fire food out of a cannon into my face don’t ask me that question. Because there’s nothing you can say that will surprise me. Nothing.

**John:** My friends Tim and Jeff went to a well-known sushi restaurant on Sunset Boulevard and they had a waiter who was obviously new to Hollywood and he came up to the table and was like, “Hey, so have you eaten with us before?” And they’re like, “No, it’s our first time.” It’s like, “OK, well sushi is raw fish.”

**Craig:** Oh no!

**John:** [laughs] Love it. Love it.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** We have so much on the menu today, so let’s start with a little amuse bouche. This first thing is a billboard that went up in Los Angeles this week calling on Marvel to bring back Tony Stark. Craig, what’s your take on fans putting up a billboard to bring back Tony Stark?

**Craig:** Well, prior to the Snyder cut phenomenon I would have said what a waste of money. And in this case it’s 99.4% a waste of money. Although you never know, right, f it starts some big movement. I think that if you put up a billboard asking for something you are doing something smart for 1988. I don’t think there’s any billboard action anymore. I mean, that was like The Room, Tommy Wiseau’s The Room, famously kind of became a cult thing because Tommy Wiseau bought a billboard and left it up there for years on Highland I think.

But, I mean, if people want to bring back Tony Stark just get on Twitter and start doing #BringBackTonyStark. There’s no need to buy a silly billboard. And also that’s not going to be why they bring back Tony. They’re not going to do it for you. No.

**John:** Kevin Feige has a plan.

**Craig:** I think he’s got a plan. And you know what? If I were a Marvel fan I would prefer to just trust the plan. Because the plan got you the thing you want more of. Why don’t you just wait, calm down, and see what else the plan comes up with.

**John:** So two years ago we bought a billboard for Highland. We were advertising Highland 2.0. And billboard are actually really fun to make and they’re surprisingly cheap. So, I sort of applaud them for like, ah, you spent two grand and you got a billboard for a month. Great. But whatever. I do think a hashtag campaign will work better.

But we’ll see whether that happens or if the Vin Diesel in Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots happens first. That’s a little bit of IP news from this past week. So Vin Diesel to star in a Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots movie from Mattel.

**Craig:** Yeah. There was a movie called Real Steel.

**John:** Our friend John Gatins wrote.

**Craig:** Penned by John Gatins. And including a surprising acting turn from John Gatins as well. Which this sounds somewhat similar. Father/son fighting robots. Other than Transformers, which is a huge other than, have any of these toy or game-based movies worked?

**John:** Well, G.I. Joe.

**Craig:** OK. Kinda? Right? I mean, they made two of them. But G.I. Joe never quite caught on like the way I think anyone would have hoped.

**John:** Well we have lots of opportunities to see. So the other Mattel movies in the pipeline include American Girl. Sure, great. There’s lots of stories there. Barbie. She actually has a face. I support it. Barney has a face. OK. Rated G. Hot Wheels. They’ve been trying to make a Hot Wheels movie forever.

**Craig:** Forever.

**John:** Magic 8-Ball we’ve talked about before. Major Matt Mason.

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** Don’t know who that is, but he’s a character with a name, so that’s a plus.

**Craig:** But he’s like one of those people that like Boomers played with when they were a kid. OK. Never going to happen.

**John:** Masters of the Universe. Sure. Absolutely.

**Craig:** They’ve tried it before. Let’s try it again.

**John:** Try it again. Thomas and Friends, feels very young but great. Uno we’ve discussed. And View-Master.

**Craig:** View-Master.

**John:** So Craig I sent you some artwork for the sort of horror versions of Uno.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And that feels like that sort of torture porn version of Uno makes sense. I don’t think that’s what they’re going to do.

**Craig:** They’re not going to do that. They are not going to do that. But it was fun to look at for sure. You kind of want something like that, don’t you? Isn’t the whole point is if you just give people the thing then, oh god, anything but just the thing.

**John:** We don’t want just the thing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Let’s start with a small plate of follow up. Last episode we talked about why comedy is not taken seriously. Craig from Sidney wrote in to say, “I think it works along the same lines as market economics. Comedy has flavors. Those flavors appeal to different segments of the market. My 25-year-old daughter shows me something on TikTok and roars laughing. I have no idea why it’s funny and feel concerned for her health. Drama, on the other hand, is universal. There is no fragmentation of opinion. Everyone except for the truly disturbed finds the death of a child traumatic.

“So if there are five styles of comedy, [unintelligible] logic, there’s 20% of the audience for each of those. A drama which appeals to 50% of the audience will still have a wider base of acceptance.”

Craig, what do you think of this flavors of comedy being the reason why comedy is not as respected?

**Craig:** Craig from Sidney. Sidney. Any Craig I feel an affinity for. We’re a dying breed. So this hurts me to say, Craig. But no. Because your premise is incorrect. Yes, comedy has flavors. So true does drama. When you say drama on the other hand is universal that is incorrect. There are elements of drama that are universal in the sense that, sure, everybody finds the death of a child traumatic. However, not everybody wants to watch something with the death of a child in it. In fact, very few people do.

If you ask my 16-year-old daughter what she finds interesting in terms of drama she will not tell you what a 60-year-old man is going to say. Because the differences are wild and disparate. There are so many different kinds of drama. There’s thriller, and there is romance, and there is sadness, and there’s disaster, and there’s tension. There’s action. There are so many different kinds of drama. So many, so many flavors. Just as many if not more than comedy.

There is, of course, fragmentation of opinion on drama. That’s why all sorts of dramas have niche audiences. I dispute your premise, but I do salute your name, Craig.

**John:** So, I like this question because it actually involves two fallacies that I think are actually interesting to describe.

**Craig:** Poor Craig.

**John:** No, and I think Craig has an interesting premise, but I think it’s based on some faulty logic. First off, he is actually begging the question in terms of saying that drama on the other hand is universal.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** It’s like well that’s not supported by the premise at all. You’re actually just stating that and you’re building your argument that it makes a difference here.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** The second thing is I think there’s a tautology of like drama is taken seriously, well sort of by definition drama is serious. And so why comedy isn’t taken seriously, well because comedy is not serious in that same way. So I think you sort of answer your own question by asking the question why aren’t we taking these non-serious things seriously.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, certainly when you are making a comedy it is deadly serious. Even though you laugh a lot more, the tension and the sweat and difficulty and effort to make in particular a broad comedy is far more intense than it is when you’re making a drama. I can say that from personal experience with total assurance.

**John:** Do you want to take this question, 483, animation?

**Craig:** Yeah. So here’s a question, another small plate if you would. This small plate comes to us all the way from Belgium. Eddie asks John, I already like this question, John, I’m putting a little stink on it. It’s not like he wrote it that way. “John, in Episode 483 you talked about pitching an animation project. You had a little animatic with sound to support your pitch. My question is how did you put this all together? Did you use storyboard software? Or did you have someone do it for you?”

**John:** So, the actual project I was pitching at that point had directors on it. So this was a foreign team who had done something kind of like it and so we had their original short but also this animatic we did just sort of described what this thing was going to be. So I was pitching to set up the project, but also to set up the project with these directors. So we needed to show that these guys could actually deliver on the thing. So I actually had a team that could do it and do an amazing job.

You would not normally do that as a writer going in to pitch an animated project because you’re not going to be the person literally making the animation. So it was sort of a special case where we were able to do the animatic because we were trying to set up the project and show that these people can literally make it.

Normally if I were just pitching animation I would come in with visuals and boards and if not sort of the sketches to show what these characters are going to look like, a sense of what the world looks like, so the style that we’re going for. Because especially in animation you really need to show what this is going to feel like and look like and what you’re putting on a screen.

**Craig:** It sometimes feels discouraging when you hear about professionals and the tools that they have at their avail and you don’t. And so you think well how am I supposed to compete. And what I would say to anybody worried about that is don’t worry. That in fact the extra bit of spit and polish is ultimately not particularly important.

So John and I play Dungeons & Dragons weekly with Tom Morello, the Hall of Fame guitarist for Rage Against the Machine. And Tom posted something on Twitter the other day that I thought was really – it contained a certain truth about creation and art. So, way, way back in the early days of Rage, and I can’t remember what song it was, but they recorded a song that is the album version of the song and for whatever reason he recorded it on a guitar that I think he said he got for $70. And a practice amp. And a solid state practice amp. And, John, I don’t know if you know much about amps, guitar amps, but the world of audiophiles will shriek in horror when they hear that you’re using an amp with a transistor. Because what they want are those old amps with the tubes. Tube amps cost way more money and they are supposedly, legendarily they have warmer, richer sound.

**John:** Yeah. Just like vinyl.

**Craig:** Exactly. And transistor amps are just the devil’s poop. And not only was he doing it with a transistor amp, but it was a practice amp. So it was a real piece of crap. So it was a crap guitar, crap amp, awesome performance. Why? Because Tom Morello is an amazing musician. That’s why. And amazing musicians can make everything sound good. Because they’re awesome. It’s the idea. It’s the creativity.

Great writer. Great pitch. If the tools that you have are a little crude, no problem. The magic will shine through. So, do not despair when you hear about these things. You will win the day regardless. You are all Tom Morello.

**John:** All right. Sarah writes in to ask, “I’m currently listening to Episode 77 where Craig talks about the critics reviews for Identity Thief. It’s such a great episode. Really refreshing to hear both Craig and John delve into the complex nature of dealing with rejection even while simultaneously finding success. Because this episode was recorded in 2013 I’d love to hear update and reaction to it now, especially with Craig’s recent career milestone, Chernobyl.

“Craig makes a comment in Episode 77 about how he believes critics may never like what he does. And I’m wondering if/how that view has changed now. Specifically did Craig imagine at that time that a drama like Chernobyl would be in his wheelhouse? Or was this a new discovery as he continued to grow and expand as a writer? I’d be curious to hear if he and John feel the sensitivity they described to critique and rejection.”

**Craig:** Well thank you for bringing that up, Sarah. Not at all curling up into a ball again. Don’t worry about me. I’m fine. [laughs]

So, yes, I did in fact believe that critics may never like what I do. And that has changed because they did like something I did. So, I guess I can’t say anymore that I don’t believe they will never. Because I now have proof that they will once. I don’t know if they ever will again. But I’m a little cynical about criticism in the sense that I feel like criticism has its own self-propelling nature. The people that do things that critics like, well critics have a certain vested interest in protecting their assessment, right?

If you make four things in a row – I know when I make Identity Thief that they look at who has done it, they look back at what I did, and they go, “Well, I didn’t like those things so I don’t like this.” That’s how that goes. It’s the same kind of thing, right?

I’m not saying they all do that. And I’m not saying that they’re not capable of changing their minds. Because occasionally they would. But there is a certain critical momentum people have. It would be insane to deny it. So maybe there’s some positive critical momentum I have. Note that that momentum I am arguing has not much to do with the actual quality of the work itself.

I don’t know if I thought at the time that doing something like Chernobyl would be in my wheelhouse. I didn’t think it wouldn’t be. I just knew what I was doing then. And it wasn’t long after that I started thinking about Chernobyl actually. It was probably a year or two later.

I continue to grow and expand as a writer right now. I will never stop trying to evolve. Doesn’t necessarily mean better, but change. Just keep changing as I go. Do I still feel sensitivity to rejection and critique? Yes. Of course. It’s very upsetting to me. It’s upsetting to everybody. I refuse to believe that there’s some perfect beast out there who reads these things and goes, “I don’t care.” I don’t know how that could possibly be.

I try to not read them. And I held true with that on Chernobyl. Like HBO would send these packets. Here’s a summary. I’m like, OK, great. But I’m not going to read them. I just don’t want to. I don’t. I don’t want to know. And in fact the only one I think really, really read closely was the one really bad one. And it made me so annoyed.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh, god, it bothers me so much. It bothers me because it was stupid. It was just a dumb review. I want to review that review and just say like, look, I can list a number of poor choices you made here in my review of your review. But that guy knows what he did. He’s going to have to deal with that for the rest of his life, too.

**John:** I look back at sort of my response to criticism and reviews and it has changed over time, but also I think mostly because I’ve changed and my relationship to my work has changed a bit. So I remember when Go came out I literally printed all the reviews and had a big, thick binder of all those reviews.

**Craig:** Oh my.

**John:** Because it was also early Internet, and so reviews would just disappear. And so the only way you could guarantee that things would exist would be to actually print them out. And the reviews were mostly really good. Mixed in with those were sort of like “Oh, it’s Pulp Fiction lite.” And that just drove me crazy. But they were mostly really good reviews.

And then moving onto Charlie’s Angels, which was a surprise success. Everyone was rooting against it and then it turned out really well. And then Big Fish got mostly really good reviews and some also really bad reviews in there, too. But we had to do the award season stuff. You start to sometimes look at your own value in terms of how people are receiving your work, which is not good or not healthy.

And so I’ve just paid much less attention to reviews from that point forward. And going to the Big Fish musical and Arlo Finch, it’s nice to see those good reviews, but I don’t sort of hang everything on what the response is to my work.

I’m reading a good book now and one section is talking about imposter syndrome. And it’s making the argument which I think is potentially compelling that imposter syndrome can be helpful to some degree because if you have some degree of imposter syndrome it inspires you to work extra hard because you figure like, well, I’ve got to try extra hard because I don’t know what I’m doing. And it urges you to question your assumptions because you’re not locked into a belief and that you can do this thing, so you’re going to always look for like what are some alternatives or what are some different ways to do things.

And I think even though I have confidence now in my writing ability I think you always hold onto a little bit of imposter syndrome to make sure that you are actually working really hard and doing the work that can actually succeed.

**Craig:** Yeah. The problem with imposter syndrome mostly is that it’s of a binary nature. That you’re evaluating yourself as no good or good. Invalid/valid. And of course we are on a progressive scale. We start as rookies and like all things you do get better with time. You grow with time. Experience helps. You don’t want to be the person that jumps out of the gate with some brilliant bolt of lightning and then that’s it. It’s just you kind of got lucky there and the rest of it is just a sad, slow float to the ground.

So it would be nice if people could cast things in terms of a long progression, a sense of growth, an arc. When you look at some of the movies that people make after huge successes a lot of times there’s a perceived step back.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And then later in the longer sense of the evaluation those maybe become the things that people like the most because they were a little braver. You know, when you have done something that everybody loves you feel safe. When you’re safe you are able to be a little more creatively ambitious and risky. And so you get these things like what sometimes might be viewed as sophomore slumps. But they aren’t. They’re really interesting.

**John:** Craig, a thing we’ve never talked about, so coming off of Chernobyl which was an acclaimed drama you chose to do another drama adaptation – a dark, dramatic adaptation – as opposed to doing a comedy. And did you feel like would you be nervous about following up Chernobyl with a comedy?

**Craig:** Well, no, I wouldn’t be. It was more that I’d been playing pop music for a really long time and then suddenly I put out an album of standards and I loved making the album of standards. And I want to make another album of similar things. It’s not about them, it’s about me. Because I’ve done, I don’t know, 10 comedies and one drama. So I feel like I want to give myself an opportunity to play in that area.

Also, honestly bigger than the comedy/drama split is the fact that it was television. The experience of making television as a writer is so dramatically different than it is making a feature film. And I want to have more of that. I had 25 years of making features and being a feature screenwriter with all of the attendant highs and lows, but also inherent stupidities, inefficiencies, an unfairnesses. And those are not there in television the way they were in features.

And so I wanted to kind of play in that zone, too. But definitely went a very different way. I mean, so Chernobyl was an historical retelling of a disaster and The Last of Us is, A, an adaptation of a preexisting literary work. And, B, is fiction. It does not look backwards. It looks forward. And it’s very much about wildly different themes. And so for a bit I was looking at other possible historical things and I just decided I don’t want to go back to back history. I don’t want to feel like I’m chasing something that works. I’d rather just try something that feels very different to me. And then return to history. Because I’m going to and I know what it’s going to be.

Oh, I know what it’s going to be.

**John:** So, three years from now when people listen to this episode they’re like, oh, he was talking about this.

**Craig:** It will be longer than three years I think because it’s going to take a while to make The Last of Us. And if The Last of Us is going well then I think we’ll probably immediately get beaten into doing a second season of The Last of Us. But I mean we want to be beaten into doing another season of The Last of Us. But we’ll see how that goes.

**John:** Cool. Last bit of follow up here. Timothy writes in, “In Episode 150 Craig refers to the notion that ‘we shouldn’t attribute to malice what is better explained by stupidity.’ This psychological principle is known as Hanlon’s Razor, though it has since been adopted by academics across the social sciences, some believe it originated with Robert Hanlon’s submission to a joke book.” And so I’ll put a link to the Wikipedia article for this. And I fell down a little rabbit hole looking at it and it’s really odd.

It’s a useful quote, but it’s not clear sort of where the quote really came from. It’s also very similar to something that Heinlein, the sci-fi writer, wrote. And so it could just be the name sort of morphed together. But there’s versions of this that go back into like ancient Greece. And so it’s weird – it’s a useful framing of an idea that’s been there for a long time.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m looking at the Wikipedia article that you linked to here and it looks like at least we’ve got back in the 18th Century Goethe wrote, “Misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong in the world than deceit and malice do. At least the latter two are certainly rarer.” So there’s all versions of the same thing.

And what happens is that when somebody makes an interesting observation that connects with people other people then compete to make it terser and terser. So eventually you get something very, very tight and–

**John:** Eventually Dorothy Parker gets her hands on it and it just becomes the perfect version.

**Craig:** Correct. And they turn it into a rule or a law. But it’s true. It’s true. We do this all the time. The conspiracies that people assign to the government are hysterical to me. The same government that is seemingly incapable of doing anything particularly well.

**John:** Yeah. The Heinlein quote is, “You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.”

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** The same idea in slightly different words.

**Craig:** And you get a lot – often there is a villain. But that villain is only able to achieve their nefarious aims because of the stupidity of dumb-dumbs. And, you know, talking about Chernobyl, there was some evil involved in Chernobyl, but mostly not. Mostly just laziness, stupidity, fear, a kind of rigid way of thinking. We don’t need to deny that there is malice. But it is definitely rarer than stupidity.

**John:** Yeah. But as people looking for thematic ideas, that idea that incompetence is its own form of evil is worthy to explore. So that idea of did you mean to do wrong or did you just do wrong because you’re useless? And to some degree that’s a worthy idea to explore.

**Craig:** Completely. I love that.

**John:** All right. So now for what everyone has been waiting for. We have another update on Oops.

**Craig:** The Days of Our Oops.

**John:** Phil wrote in to ask, “Can asking John and Craig for dating advice be a thing? That was a blast.” And so here’s where we’re officially announcing that we are transitioning this podcast from being – it’s a pivot. So, it’s now a relationship advice podcast that occasionally touches on issues of screenwriting.

**Craig:** Are we going to have live call-ins?

**John:** We should have more live call-ins. Because I love live call-ins.

**Craig:** I think they’re great.

**John:** So, we’re not going to be focusing much more on Oops and the drama around this, the romantic comedy around this. But I felt like our discussion with Aline last week brought up some interesting issues that some folks wrote in about in terms of it’s not just a love story. It’s also about work-life priorities and power and patriarchy. So I thought we’d go through some of the email we got in.

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

**John:** People writing for this. Do you want to start with Sarah down there?

**Craig:** Yeah. So Sarah writes, “Work crushes are great. They put spice in your day. They make your heart beat faster. I agree with Megana that letting those feelings simmer is very sexy and Bridgerton. But only you know how hard you fall when you fall. If you know yourself well enough to know you’re the sort of person who can use a little production time romance, much like a needed pressure release, fine. But if your crushes are all-consuming don’t pursue it if it’s going to get in your head at a time when everything should be you, you, you, not us, us, us. Or the worst: him, him, him.

“I want Oops to suck the marrow from this experience.” Oh, Sarah. “Without having to share her energy with a new relationship. Energy spent wondering what to wear for a date or what a text meant should go right into your film.”

Well that’s an interesting perspective. Sarah is implying a little bit of a zero sum energy kind of model here.

**John:** Well, actually in the first paragraph Sarah is implying that it can be a little flavor on your day. She worries that it could become all-consuming.

**Craig:** Well that is a thing. Right? My guess is, well, I don’t want to guess. I will say that for me I’ve always been the kind of person that is sort of in the middle of those things. I have never been the kind of person who can just like casually have a crush on somebody. Because I’m too emotional. When it happens definitely things are happens. But I’m also because I have certain interests in the things I’m doing I’ve also never been the kind of person that loses myself in the other person. So it’s never been – I can’t say that when a crush would happen that I would be able to me, me, me. I would never been just her, her, her.

But I could turn into an us-us. I could see that. Yeah, I could see that. I mean, these are good warnings.

**John:** Yeah. They are.

**Craig:** It’s important. Like we have to be able to warn and also cheerlead at the same time.

**John:** So let’s get into more warning here. This is Courtney in Los Angeles and she agrees with most of Aline’s advice. “As a youngish female screenwriter who met and began dating a much more established though not older writer in a writer’s room I can absolutely speak to being patronized/looked down upon once we openly started dating. Everyone assumed that my ideas ‘came from him’ or that he had helped shape form any project that I was working on.

“People at parties asked if I ever ‘worked on anything on my own.’ No one of course ever assumed that I influenced him in any way, or that his ideas weren’t original to him. I want to point out this guy was great and we had a great connection, but looking back I needed to have been much more aware of what people would now assume about my writing and my abilities once I got together with such a well-known writer while still largely unknown myself.

“I don’t regret the experience, but I wish I’d had Aline to give me some guidance at the time. I began the relationship pretty naïve about how it would be perceived.”

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. That’s really interesting. And what I like about what Courtney is saying is that when she says “but looking back” she doesn’t say “I should have never done it.” Right? So there’s not a regret of having a relationship with somebody, or having feelings for another person and enjoying all the things that come out of that as Sarah says “suck the marrow from the experience.”

But on the other hand she’s saying it would have really been good to have been more aware. Be prepared for the pitfalls so that you can – I think if you’re ready for these things when they come at you you will be ready to respond and overcome them and sort of kill them in their cradle rather than have them wash over you over and over. And then sometimes spoil you on the relationship that wasn’t to blame, right?

The relationship you were having with somebody didn’t say that dumb crap. Other people did. So this is a very interesting notion of kind of getting – I like getting warnings from people who have been through it about the things that will be headed your way that are not disqualifying. They don’t mean don’t do it. They mean just understand what you’re in for.

**John:** Yup. For sure. All right. Now we have an update from Oops and so by podcast rules Megana needs to come on the show because Megana is the voice of Oops as far as we have to have narrative continuity. So, Megana, if you could please give us the latest scoop from Oops.

**Megana Rao:** OK, so Oops wrote in. “So had drinks on the weekend and it was just kind of brilliant and affirmed all the dumb feelings I’ve been having.”

**Craig:** Ooohhh.

**Megana:** “It was all going so well that I just absolutely failed at biting the Mazin bullet and ‘talking about it.’ I was sitting there just realizing, wow, this is going to really suck if I kill this whole evening talking about feelings. So I totally chickened out, but lucky for me/us/the Scriptnotes listeners he did not chicken out.

“Long story short he basically laid it out on the table. He likes me a lot. And I like him a lot. We talked that through and about my concerns getting through this production, set gossip, et cetera, and he shared a lot of them. So it’s good to know I haven’t been thinking of all this stuff in a vacuum. So we landed at just taking things super easy. Get through the shoot first and foremost and then in four months’ time see if this is something we could do ‘for real.’ His words, not mine.

“For the record it was very, very difficult not going straight back to his hotel. But a couple days away from it I’m glad I didn’t. Apparently we’re still allowed to take our time in 2021. Who knew? So that’s where we’re at. I’m excited and nervous, but feeling good about it. The film comes first and that’s the real joy in all of this. And for us and the future, well, we’ll just wait and see. I promise to come through with an update when, well, we get to a worthy update.”

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** All right. Wow, so this such a relief I’m feeling. Just the tightness in my chest has dissipated because he reverse [unintelligible] by stepping forward and explaining his feelings first. Great. That he has the same concerns. He seems like a grownup. You’ve been a tremendous grown through all of this, Oops. So I’m excited for them and this film that they’re making. I’m excited to see what happens in four months.

Craig, how are you feeling?

**Craig:** I love this. I think, first of all, it speaks very well of him. And it speaks very well of you. There’s no, listen, you never fail at biting the Mazin bullet. You probably shouldn’t bite anything called the blank bullet anyway, right? I mean, that just sounds bad.

But I think you did what you needed to do which was just have an experience and not make it about that. And then he did what he needed to do which was to help you. Because I think he saw this. And he decided I want to help by just popping the balloon and letting this out, which he did, and apparently he did it perfectly.

So, this is going really, really well. And this I will tell you, Oops, is actually more important than the massive hormone cloud that hit your brain on the way to not go back to the hotel, which is like – it is like a version of psychosis when it hits you. It’s pretty heady stuff. That stuff will not last.

Here’s what will last is somebody who is thoughtful and kind of read your mind and helped you. And sounds like a very sober, thoughtful person. That’s real. So, this is very exciting.

**John:** I want to push back a little bit on that idea that he helped her, because I think one of the things I’m recognizing over the last two weeks of talking about this we really haven’t thought about this from his point of view. And in Oops’s update is the first time that like, oh that’s right, he has perspective on all of this, too. And he has his own concerns going into this. And so I think I was always ascribing sort of like man wants woman motivation to him when actually he has agency in this as well. And he’s really thinking about himself in addition to thinking about her.

**Craig:** Well sure.

**John:** It’s important to remember that there’s two people in a relationship.

**Craig:** Yeah, no, it’s not – when I say helped her I mean just helped–

**John:** The situation.

**Craig:** Helped get it on the table.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** What he chose was good for him, and also I think she is saying it was good for her, too, because they agreed. The help was just to sort of say, OK, one of us is going to have to say something. There’s no way this is going to go four months. And it’s dangerous actually if no one says something. After a while suddenly what’s going to happen is the two of you are going to find yourself in an elevator and then ka-boosh. Because no one ever talked. And so it was good that he kind of picked that moment and gave you both the opportunity to talk about it.

So I’m tipping my hat to him for that.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** This is good.

**John:** This update came before Oops had listened to the episode with Aline. And so Megana if you can update us on her post-Aline reaction.

**Megana:** OK, great. I’m still laughing at ka-boosh.

**Craig:** Ka-boosh. What floor sir? Ka-boosh.

**Megana:** So Oops responded to Episode 497 and she said, “I just listened to this week’s podcast and the very sage advice from Queen of Queens, Aline. Everything she spoke about was 100 percent on point and is honestly all the stuff I’ve been wrestling with these past few weeks. For the record, I’m in my early 30s and have been doing this for six years now.

“I’ve dealt with all the gross male behavior under the sun. Whereas before I could in theory shut down any overt interest with the old ‘I’m in a relationship’ card, now that I’m single it’s a different single. I guess I just share this to say that her advice is spot in, and I wouldn’t have landed on this attraction if I didn’t think it might be something worth actually exploring. And it’s not something I landed on easily.”

**Craig:** You know, Oops, I love Oops. You know what’s so great about Oops is that she is capable of doing something that so few people are, which is holding two thoughts in her head at the same time. It’s great. Exactly. Yes, you can do both things. You can be wary and prudent and smart and cognizant of your own experience, and also you can aspire to love.

**John:** Now, Craig, I don’t want to make any offers that you’re not willing to sort of back up, but you and I have both officiated weddings.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And if Oops at some point in the future did want a joint officiated wedding–

**Craig:** Yes. Yes.

**John:** I would be up for it. I don’t know if you would be.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** I am a member of the clergy.

**John:** The offer is on the table if this gets down to–

**Craig:** I totally would do it. I would totally do that. And I think even though I think technically I’m a member of like whatever it is the Church of the Internet Universe, whatever it’s called.

**John:** We’re in the same congregation.

**Craig:** I feel like, correct. What I would like to do, and this isn’t anything – Oops, this isn’t anything I would bring up at the wedding.

**John:** No pressure.

**Craig:** But just between us I would probably want to actually be a cleric like a D&D cleric. So, I’d want like a domain. And I’m just saying Oops if for instance there was some sort of zombie insurrection at your wedding I could turn the undead. Send them away. And then we resume the – I’ve probably disqualified myself. I just got fired, didn’t I?

**John:** The undead or the patriarchy, whatever it is you have to keep at a distance.

**Craig:** I turn the patriarchy. Yes. Oh, of course I would. Here’s the problem. Now these two are going to get engaged and then it’s going to be like, ah-ha-ha, John and Craig are going to do it. And then one day Oops’s fiancé is going to be like I don’t want that at all. And she’s going to be like but it will be fun. And then they break up.

**John:** Yeah. We don’t want to see that.

**Megana:** I also did clarify with Oops, I was like does your producer crush listen to this podcast, because I am very concerned. And she said he does not. And she made that clear.

**Craig:** Well then he’s a cool guy. He just shot way up.

**John:** He’s like Craig. He doesn’t listen to podcasts.

**Craig:** This guy sounds amazing. Oops, Oops. If you like it, put a ring on it.

**John:** Craig and this producer have a lot in common in that neither of them listen to Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** Wait. Is this me? Is she talking about me this whole time?

**Megana:** But also just based off of the way Oops spells certain things I don’t think that she’s an American, so you guys are committing to travel.

**John:** I agree. I noticed that extra U in the “behaviour.”

**Craig:** Oh, I have no problem traveling for a wedding. I love a wedding. I love a wedding.

**John:** I do too.

**Craig:** Plus I also love England. So, now, look, if she’s in Australia like Craig from Sidney then that’s going to be really annoying. But if she’s in London, I mean, yeah. Or Ireland. Ooh. Yeah.

**John:** Wow. So it feels like we had already a five-course-meal, but that was just really the first wave of small plates.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** There’s a bigger thing being put down on the table now which is we’ve talked a lot about copyright before on the podcast, but we haven’t talked about termination. And there were a couple of stories in the news this past week about copyright termination. So I thought we’d dig into this and sort of what this is about. And why some classic movies are facing this, but why modern screenwriters probably don’t need to worry so much about it.

So, some of the stories you see in the news are about Friday the 13th, Terminator, This is Spinal Tap, Predator. And what’s happening is the screenwriters behind these projects are trying to basically claw back their copyright on the scripts they wrote, which is becoming lawsuits galore.

**Craig:** Yeah. So most of the work that we do starts immediately as work-for-hire. And when it starts immediately as work-for-hire this does not come into play. There are circumstances where companies have made mistakes in the past where they didn’t quite wrap it up as work-for-hire. And then suddenly the copyright transfer, like OK I’m the copyright owner, I’m going to transfer this to you, is terminate-able. At which point the writer attempts to do that and then the company is like, “What? No.”

There are also quite a few circumstances where companies bought literary material that had been out on the spec market, therefore it preexisted work-for-hire, so they had to get a copyright transfer. And then they immediately have the writer do the next revision which is a work-for-hire, so they own everything that follows that first draft.

Some people are making the argument, hey, that spec script that you got as that copyright transfer, we want it back. And then the studio is like, well fine, but you cannot do anything that touches on any of the stuff that happened after that first draft. Anything. So it becomes harder to see how you make something, but it is possible.

The other thing that complicates a little bit of this is the way that the Writers Guild works with these things where oftentimes under copyright transfers there is this strange fiction that occurs where they kind of reverse engineer a work-for-hire. All of which is to say there are areas where writers may be able to claw back some of this stuff. Even if they can it will be of limited value. Not no value, but in many cases limited value. And for almost everyone involved in this business this is not an option at all.

**John:** Yeah. So anything you’re going to sell now they will contract this up in a way that you will not be able to claw this back in 35 years.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** But let’s talk about sort of what the purpose was behind this ability to rescind the transfer of copyright. So in 1978 there was a new law passed, 1978 Copyright Act, and this termination right was put in there to let authors basically take back successful work that they could not have initially anticipated they were giving up when they convey the rights. So basically something was undervalued and they basically sort of pull it back and reuse it, or something that sort of got stuck someplace and they can finally take it back.

It applies to not just movies, and movies are sort of the exception. It’s more other literary works. It’s complicated around music. I’m going to put a link in the show notes to Lawyer Mark Jaffe talks through a lot of these issues and has links from there to a bunch of the lawsuits that are sort of digging into these situations, these cases.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Useful for looking at historical things and sort of these big name titles, but these are because they were from the ‘70s and ‘80s and weren’t contracted in the same way that modern things were. If I were to sell a spec script tomorrow this would not be available to me.

**Craig:** No. It’s really clear for us. What the ambiguity is around that 1978 Copyright Act is that it specifically refers to audio visual works. It doesn’t specifically refer to music, or songs, audio-only works. So, they were talking about television, film, things like that. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t cover songs and things like that, but that’s been the argument.

Regardless, the year 1978 is relevant here. That was just two years away from the last time that our government was largely run by the left in our country. And this is a left kind of thing to want. To advocate for individual artists against corporations that are in the intellectual property industry. And since the sort of change of things in 1980 we have seen nothing but a continual erosion of individual artist rights in the context of copyright power. And a continual extension and strengthening of corporate ownership of copyright work-for-hire, et cetera.

**John:** Yeah. And so what my prediction and sort of what will happen with these lawsuits is I think some of them will prevail and the original screenwriters will get their copyright back. That won’t mean that they can sort of go off and make their own new movie. But it will stop the other rights holder, the person who actually owns the rights to the movie-movie from doing a reboot or sequel or other things like that. And so they will have to negotiate with that rights holder in order to be able to make new things, which they probably will want to make new things.

That’s what’s likely going to happen here in some of these cases.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s the end game. If you’re actually involved in one of these things you’re trying to get the company that owns the movie built around your spec script to pay you more money.

**John:** Yeah. All right. Let’s get to our questions, which is sort of the – I don’t know where this sort of falls in the meal. It’s when they sort of keep bringing plates and you’re like I don’t remember ordering this. But–

**Craig:** Right. Why did we do this?

**John:** Oh my god.

**Craig:** Exactly. And you know what? Maybe I did need you to explain how this restaurant worked. Because what’s happening?

**John:** Megana, can you talk us through some of these questions that are coming up at us fast and furious?

**Megana:** All right. So Elias from New Hampshire asks, “I came across this article by Jessica Mason arguing ‘let’s just replace every terrible man in the movies with Tig Notaro.’ Basically what happened was an actor was Me Too’d after filming wrapped for Army of the Dead and then replaced. What are the legal, social, and financial implications for replacing an actor at a late stage like that?”

**John:** I love Tig Notaro. I love her in this trailer. I’m excited to see it. I’m so happy that she’s in this. And this article by Jessica Mason she’s looking at some of the other movies that have problematic people starring in them, like Johnny Depp, or Armie Hammer. It’s like, yeah, it would be kind of fascinating to stick Tig Notaro in there.

It’s really difficult and expensive to do it in most cases. I think this was a special case in that it was already a visual effects heavy movie. It was comparatively easy to stick Tig in those places. But to replace Armie Hammer in Death on the Nile is a much bigger lift and ask. You’re not going to be able to sort of swap someone else in there.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, you did have the strange case of Kevin Spacey and–

**John:** Oh that’s right.

**Craig:** And Christopher Plummer.

**John:** All the Money in the World.

**Craig:** All the Money in the World. Where they, yeah, that was Sir Ridley Scott I believe who just said let’s just remake half this movie. And you can depending on what the movie is. Now, in this particular case the person in question was Chris D’Elia, the comedian Chris D’Elia who has been accused of sexual misconduct, including with girls, with people who are underage. And he is in a big budget movie. Army of the Dead is a big, huge movie. It’s not a little movie.

But his part I guess wasn’t super huge. So, replacing him digitally with Tig Notaro was not I guess a game-breaker. But I have to say that Zack Snyder is on a roll right now. I mean, so that’s maybe the smartest goddamn choice in history.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because Tig Notaro has a certain built in awesomeness. I love Tig Notaro. She’s a really great comedian. But also there is a – let me just speak cynically for a second. She has an unexploited amount of awesomeness. Like some people everyone is just like we want to love you. Why won’t people let us love you? Give us more of you to love you. And Tig Notaro I think is one of those people. He very smartly was like there is a pent up demand for Tig Notaro that has not been met. And he met it. It’s very smart.

**John:** And I think part of the quality to her is that a Tig Notaro would not see this movie, would not know about this movie.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right.

**John:** She has no idea this movie exists, and yet she’s in it.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Which is a great thing.

**Craig:** She probably still is not really aware of the movie. She’s been in it. She’s like – I want to see her stand up about being in this because it would be amazing.

**John:** So Elias asks what are the legal, social, financial implications. So what are the legal implications? You as an actor are not guaranteed to be in that final movie, so you can be replaced. I don’t think there’s any real huge concern there.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Social. I think, you know, you’re making these choices because a person is dragging your movie down and the movie is going to be centered around that person who is dragging it down rather than about the movie itself, so that does make sense.

Financial, listen, is it a lot of money to reshoot and redo stuff? Yes. But if you’re looking at sort of like what is most likely to succeed on the marketplace it may be worth the money to reshoot that stuff. You look at Back to the Future. They stuck Michael J. Fox in there after they shot a whole bunch of stuff with Eric Stolz. It was probably the right choice. They saw what they had and said like, listen, the A version of this is worth so much more than the B version that we think we have right now.

**Craig:** Yeah. In almost no situation will you have a legal problem unless when you make the switch you announce we’re doing this because, you know, and you make an allegation. Because Chris D’Elia is a blank. Well, he has not been put on trial. You know, you can get sued for that. But assuming that you don’t do that, it’s your movie, you can cut somebody out and you can replace them. They may have things in their contract. There may be penalties. You may have to pay them completely. But you make that decision.

Financially there are absolutely costs. And those costs are weighed against the expected loss of income. Here’s the only thing you’ve got to be worried about. Every time somebody does something in Hollywood that is smart, well thought out, and then succeeds, they will be followed by copycats.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And what we don’t want to see are things like this being done for cynical reasons. It will be a bummer if suddenly a bunch of movies are like “we did it.” And everyone is like, OK, but that you see wasn’t authentic. You didn’t really want to do that. And we know you’re doing – now you’re begging. The great thing about a moment like this where that trailer comes out is that the world said you didn’t tell us to feel anything. We’re telling you how we feel. And how we feel is awesome. And that’s what you’re going for. Eventually somebody is going to be like “and also you should probably feel that we’re awesome because look what we did.” And then everyone is going to go, boo, you suck.

That’s how it goes.

**John:** Yeah. I think the best versions of this are when we never even hear that someone was replaced. If Zack Snyder had just cast Tig Notaro in that role I would be cheering. I’m not cheering because she replaced somebody else. I’m cheering because she’s in this movie. And so the best of these situations are when you don’t even hear about it. And honestly it happens a lot and we never hear about it. An actor will be a couple days into shooting and they’re like, nope that’s not working.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And you replace them and no one ever knows.

**Craig:** Correct. And that’s why I have an immediate affinity for anything that Jessica Mason is writing because my daughter’s name is Jessica. So she’s Jessica Mazin. It feels very similar. So it seems like my daughter wrote something and I’m rooting for her 100 percent.

**John:** Maybe this is your daughter.

**Craig:** However, let’s just replace every terrible man in the movies with Tig Notaro, it’s a great way to get clicks. It’s provocative. It does have that Mary Sue kind of vibe to it. Marysue.com kind of vibe. But it’s also basically saying, hey, let’s have a fight. That is a fight spoiling headline that you’re like, go ahead, say dumb crap about this on Twitter so that we can get into a fight. And I don’t know if we necessarily have to frame everything as a fight.

I mean, maybe we should just like celebrate it. It just seems like what that is asking for is assholes with dumb-dumb opinions to come out and start saying their dumb-dumb opinions. But I suppose they’re going to anyway, aren’t they?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Megana, I see you approaching with one more plate.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** It looks like you’ve got an Alan question there. So maybe Alain we’ll stop there and basically say no mas.

**Craig:** We have waffle thin Alain. Monsieur it’s just waffle thin.

**Megana:** The final plate. Alain asks, “So often with big budget projects you hear wild rumors and stories about protected screenplays, blackened out text, and actors who are locked in a room with the script. Christopher Nolan films and Marvel movies come to mind. Obviously the secret nature of the screenplay helps create a lot of buzz, but I was wondering how you felt about the impact on screenwriters. Have either of you ever written a highly guarded screenplay? Do you receive guidance for saving files or using digital clouds? Does the psychological weight of each page increase knowing how coveted this screenplay is?

“Do you think writers feel more pressure to complete drafts with these scripts? I can imagine that writing habits like sharing pages with friends for feedback drastically changes. And how do you think being assigned a secret project impacts a person’s ego?”

**John:** These are great questions. So I asked a lot of these questions of my friends Lisa Joy and Jonathan Nolan off-mic, but also we talked a little bit about it on-mic when they came on the Scriptnotes Live show. Because with Westworld and some of the other things they’ve worked on they’ve had to do these sort of secret things where they have locked down iPads or they’ll send pages to an actor and then if another deal closes those pages can be dissolved over the Internet. Basically the actor could be half trying to flip a page and there’s no more page because that actor did not get the role.

I personally have not had to do anything like that. But Craig I’m curious whether on The Last of Us are you doing that kind of locked down stuff?

**Craig:** Not to that extent. You know, the only time I’ve experienced that is just when like Rian asked me to read his Star Wars movie. So I had to go to Disney, sit in a room, get the iPad, read it on the iPad. Give them my phone while I was reading the iPad. You know, all that stuff.

Look, we certainly, you know, leaks are things. And you know when you’re working on something that people have an interest in. And so you want to protect it as best you can. And you follow certain rules. I don’t sit there killing myself over fear. Leaks happen. But when you look at the aftermath of the leaks I think that’s where you find a little bit of comfort.

Quentin Tarantino famously announced that he was no longer going to be making any movies after the script for The Hateful Eight leaked. He was down. He was out. Screw everybody, I’m going home. And then everybody went to go to see The Hateful Eight anyway and it was nominated for a bunch of things. People forgot – most people, I would say 99 percent of people did not read the leaked screenplay because reading screenplays is super annoying. Nobody likes it. And even if you had, it doesn’t matter. You wanted to go see the movie and you saw the movie and he’s going to continue to make movies.

Neil Druckmann who I’m working with on The Last of Us famously had to deal with a leak around The Last of Us 2. The Last of Us Part 2 was leaked or large chunks of it were leaked by a hacker. And it created a massive amount of distress for him and for Naughty Dog, the company that makes The Last of Us, and for Sony, which owns Naughty Dog. And it created a lot of sturm and drang on the Internet. And you had a revolt of what I would call some backwards thinking folks. And all of it was happening like a month or two before the game was released.

So there was this pent up stuff going on. And it almost seemed like after all these years and all this work that they were going to crash at the very last moment in their car because of this leak. And what happened? It sold a kabillion copies. It won every award. It got reviewed through the roof. It’s one of the top ten Metacritic game reviewed blah-blah-blah of all time, for whatever the reviews are worth. And more importantly none of the leaks mattered because facts are not the same as experience.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We know when we write things that if you want to write at the end of the script, “Oh my god, he’s been dead the whole time,” fine, great. Clever. The reason we don’t sell screenplays but rather watch television and movies is because feeling those things is a vastly different experience. Even if you know. So, I understand the stuff around it. I would hate for the stuff that we’re doing to leak. I would hate it. Because I want people to go into it knowing nothing. It’s the best way. It was a luxury we had on Chernobyl because nobody cared enough to leak Chernobyl.

But, you know, just trust that people will find that experience.

**John:** Yeah. I think this desire to lock down screenplays is in some ways misguided and I think it’s frustrating. Because I can understand locking down edits of things. I can understand locking down twists in Game of Thrones and stuff like that. But at some point you have to just open up enough so you can get some work done.

My experience with locked down stuff, we’ll talk about sort of in the superhero genre because that’s sort of where spoilers tend to be bigger. I worked very, very, very early on on a Marvel project and it was not really locked down at all. I sent in files. It was all over email and it was all fine, and normal, and good. But as we talk to friends who work on Marvel stuff now it is really locked down. And so two people within Marvel will actually have a file they can look at. And you can’t send stuff in. There are real restrictions because they’re trying to control these kind of things.

That said, I worked on a DC thing a couple years ago and it was in production and files were just being schlepped around. I got the whole script. I got everything. Got all of it. And there were not the kind of protections on that I would have guessed. Back when we were first starting out, Craig, remember red scripts?

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** So annoying. So the way you–

**Craig:** They would defeat a Xerox machine.

**John:** Essentially so they would print scripts on red paper that was difficult to Xerox. And it was a hassle. It was a hassle to read. They were terrible.

So, watermarks are a less burdensome thing and they’re relatively common because you can see who has the script and sort of make sure that only people who have the script are supposed to have the script. These locked iPads are another way to do it. But for most movies I don’t think it makes sense. I think you’re actually just creating barriers where you don’t need barriers.

**Craig:** And it really is an enormous amount of friction in the gears of the machinery. We have to cast all of these parts. We also have to – and for The Last of Us we’re not just casting actors, we’re also casting directors, because we have multiple directors. Which by the way we just announced happily that – I’m able to tell people now – that in addition to Kantemir Balagov we also have Ali Abbasi, who is going to be working as a director on our series. He did the incredible movie Border. And Jasmila Žbanić who is nominated – I don’t know what’s going to happen. We’re recording this on Friday, April 23. The Oscars are this weekend. She is nominated for Best Foreign Film for her movie Quo Vadis, Aida which if you have not seen you should absolutely see. It’s incredible.

So Jasmila Žbanić and Ali Abbasi joining us on The Last of Us. That’s a little plug.

**John:** Nice.

**Craig:** A little plug. And you know what? It’s super annoying to try and get actors and directors to do things when you’re like but you have to enter 15 passwords and then read this thing that is colored different colors.

**John:** So for a person who is like a day player and you’re auditioning those people, are you sending them a scene with fake names on it? What are you doing?

**Craig:** I don’t do fake names because currently we don’t need to do fake names. If we were in season seven of some sort of ongoing thing and somebody came back to life then I would do the fake name. But almost everybody we’re dealing with is getting sides. So, in our business sides just means the pages of your scene that you’re auditioning with.

**John:** You’re not getting the whole script. You’re just getting the part that pertains to you.

**Craig:** Right. Now there are some actors because of my relationship with them or because of their stature you want them to have the whole script because this isn’t a situation where they’re going to go and necessarily audition. It’s really more we’re going to have a discussion and then if we all agree you will play this part. So we’re not going to just give them sides. That’s not enough information for them.

**John:** Megana, thank you for bringing these delicious plates to us.

**Craig:** Oh, Megana, you should have told us how this restaurant works.

**John:** If only someone had explained it at the start.

**Craig:** I know. I’ve never been to a restaurant. I always want to say like I’ve actually never been to any restaurant. I don’t know how any restaurant works. What’s happening? Where am I? Why are all these people eating?

**John:** Thanks Megana.

**Megana:** Thank you guys.

**Craig:** Thanks Megana.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. The first is a really great thing you should try to bake this weekend or whenever you have a chance if you live in the US and you have a Trader Joe’s handy. Next time you’re at Trader Joe’s pick up the Bake at Home Chocolate Croissants, which are not actually chocolate croissants. They are pain au chocolat or if you’re in some parts of French speaking world chocolatine. They are a delicious pastry with chocolate in the middle of them. They are so good and since I’ve moved back from France a couple years ago these are the best I’ve had in the US, even at fancy LA pastry chops. They’re really good.

So you set them out overnight and they rise over night and then you bake them in the morning. They are terrific. So I encourage you to try those.

Have you had those, Craig?

**Craig:** I have not. This sounds great.

**John:** They’re incredible. And you just literally take them out of the box, you leave them on the sheet to rise. They’re delightful.

**Craig:** Spectacular. What else you got?

**John:** My One Cool Thing. I got an email this last week from this kid, I think it was actually his parent writing in, but the kid’s voice saying like hey would you consider writing a fourth Arlo Finch book. And so I tweeted about that this week. And people said lovely things about my book series Arlo Finch. But Michael Strode wrote to say, “Hey, I listen to Scriptnotes religiously but I haven’t heard you mention Arlo Finch. Did I miss it? Self-promotion encouraged.”

And it’s a thing I’m sort of trying to figure out is the degree to which self-promotion makes sense on this podcast. Because I don’t want to run through my credits every week. But I have a book series called Arlo Finch that you should read, or you should have your kids read. I made a movie called The Nines which you should watch. I did Big Fish.

It’s weird on a podcast because I can’t just point to a list of things. I actually have to say it aloud. So, this is just going to be my self-promotional moment. If listeners have suggestions for how we can do the bits of self-promotion that make sense without being annoying we’d love to hear it.

**Craig:** Fantastic. I’ve done nothing. I’m useless. I’ve got nothing to say. I have nothing to promote.

**John:** Well, Craig, but I feel like we do talk about Chernobyl a lot on the show. And so like–

**Craig:** Well we have to. You have to talk about what you’ve done, and I have to talk about what I’ve done because that’s our touch point for the craft that we’re describing. But there’s not a lot of backwards promotion.

**John:** No. There’s not.

**Craig:** Yeah, you can go see things that came out already. The areas where it’s interesting is the stuff that’s upcoming. And I think we – hopefully we don’t bother people by talking. Obviously we don’t bother people by talking about it too much because people are saying talk about it more, I guess. I don’t know.

You know, just read an article or whatever. Just watch the show. There you go.

**John:** What do you got for One Cool Things?

**Craig:** OK, I have two One Cool Things. Both are interesting non-profit organizations that are doing good work. The first is an interesting effort coming out of the MLK Community Health Foundation. They are running a program where you can help support mobile vaccination groups that are working in South Central and underserved communities to help improve and increase the amount of vaccines that are spreading out there.

This is something that Chris Miller and his wife Robin, mostly Robin, have been working on. And so there’s this mobile clinic team that MLK Hospital is putting together. They’re converting sprinter vans into mobile vaccination units.

**John:** Neat.

**Craig:** And they’re still taking lots of donations in. They are attempting to raise $200,000. They currently have $80,000. So they’re on their way. But with a week to go I think they could use your help. So we’ll put a link in the show notes for this MLK Community Health Foundation effort to bring vaccines to South LA. Super important. Even if you hate people, you should do this anyway.

**John:** Because vaccination helps everyone.

**Craig:** It will help you.

**John:** It helps you. Selfishly, yes.

**Craig:** It helps you. Right. If you’re The Grinch you should still do this if you have some money to donate. So we’ll put a link in the show notes for that.

OK, second interesting thing that is burbling out there. There is a manager named Erin Brown who I have worked with a couple of times. She represents different people that I’ve worked with. I don’t have a manager but she represents some fine writers and some excellent directors, including the aforementioned Ali Abbasi.

And she is working on a new advocacy organization called One in Four. And the idea of One in Four is that it is an intersectional advocacy organization led by disabled creatives working in Hollywood. They are determined to reframe the cultural narrative of disability through storytelling and the authentic representation of disabled people. And that starts with the jobs.

So this is very much a focused effort to improve the presence of disabled people in front of the camera and behind the camera. This overlaps a little bit with the discussion we had with Nick Novicki who is doing similar with an offshoot of Easter Seals. But it’s a really cool program. And so maybe we will have Erin on at some point to dig in a little bit deeper. Because I think we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this and for all sorts of good reasons.

So seems like a great thing to support. Right now I don’t know if there’s a fundraising effort or anything like that, but if there is we’ll let you know. But it’s good to see that that organization exists and we’ll dig up some more information about that for you. But wanted to let people know what Erin Brown was up to. A very positive thing.

It is One Cool Thing.

**John:** Indeed. Awesome. Well that is our show for this week. And, man, that was a full meal.

**Craig:** I’m going to vomit.

**John:** Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Nora Beyer. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions I’m on Twitter @johnaugust.

You can find t-shirts. They’re great. You can get them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of interesting links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on remakes and reboots. Craig, thanks for a good meal.

**Craig:** Oh, thank you John. I’m stuffed.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right, so Craig, this last week I was on a podcast called Galaxy Brain. It’s the launch of a podcast. And they were talking about the Mighty Ducks reboot series thing happening on Disney+. And really the question what is the boundary between a reboot and a new installment a thing, versus a remake. And sort of as a person who I’ve done a lot of reboots and remakes they wanted to ask me questions about it. But I want to ask you questions about. Can you define the difference between a remake and a reboot?

**Craig:** Well, in terms of art, but I guess in my mind a remake is something that is being done again and isn’t particularly reinventing the tone. It’s just representing it. It’s giving it a little bit of update, new polish, resetting it in the modern world. So if you want to remake some wonderful old movie like It Happened One Night and you’re basically following the same plot and the same kind of screwball comedy tone, it’s a remake.

Reboot is when you’re taking something and you are remaking it but you’re remaking it with a complete flip on the tone, or the setting. Maybe you’re swapping genders for roles. You’re doing something to basically say we’re doing the equivalent when they take Mary Poppins and make a horror movie trailer out of it. That’s the reboot vibe.

**John:** Yeah. I agree with you there. So this Mighty Ducks is apparently more in the reboot model in that the Mighty Ducks are the villains of the series. They’re the evil team that you’re sort of rooting against which changes the framing. So the hero/villain swap there is important.

But one important question which is implied in both reboots and remakes is is there continuity to the original property. And basically does it exist in the same universe as the original thing. So like Charlie’s Angels, my version existed in the same universe as the Charlie’s Angels TV series versus other versions which did not acknowledge that Sabrina wasn’t one of the original Angels. You have to make decisions as a creator like how does our reboot or remake fit in with the initial continuity of all the things that have come before.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s hard. It’s really hard. You want to have the freedom to make all the decisions that are correct internally for the work of art you’re making. And you do not when you are making a sequel, or a remake, or a reboot. There are things in place that will always be there. Even reboots. Sometimes reboots are more annoying because there are pillars that cannot be moved that are potentially incompatible or not perfectly compatible with the new tone.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** And so then you can – the thing with reboots is when they first started happening everyone was like oh that is so cool, like I never thought of it that way. But now we live in a world – we live in world–

**John:** In a world where…

**Craig:** We live in a society where every trailer seemingly has some song that has been rebooted. Let’s just take Smells Like Teen Spirit and slow it down and play with one piano and have a lady sing it. And it’s like a different song. We’ve rebooted it. Except you keep doing that same thing over and over. So it’s like oh yeah you’re doing the thing again.

So after a lot, a lot of reboots everyone is like, yeah, you’re doing the thing. So it’s like I get it. It’s a real serious version of Sponge Bob.

**John:** Sponge Bob is a killer.

**Craig:** Yeah, like gritty Sponge Bob and it’s like, OK.

**John:** It’s Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer but with Sponge Bob Square Pants.

**Craig:** Right. But also what’s so stupid is you still have Patrick and there’s still the crusty crab, so like what?

**John:** Got to have all those things.

**Craig:** You’ve got to have those things. And so it’s like what are you doing? And then you can start to smell the cynicism coming off of it.

**John:** We should clarify from a legal perspective and from a guild perspective we can say reboot, remake, whatever, it doesn’t matter. Basically if you’re working off of previously existing material you’re framing up – what you want to call it doesn’t actually matter. It’s whether it’s an original screenplay or not an original screenplay. So that’s where it comes down to.

I’m involved right now in Toto which is – it’s not really a remake. It’s not really a reboot. But it springboards off of the MGM film Wizard of Oz. And so therefore it has all those things. And because it has those things it has expectations about how characters are supposed to behave. And that can be really frustrating at times. I think back to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which is based on Roald Dahl’s book and it’s only based on Roald Dahl’s book. It’s not based on the Gene Wilder movie at all. And yet I would still get notes from the executives who kind of thought they needed to respond to the Gene Wilder version. And they were reacting to things that were not present in material at all.

Those are those pillars you’re talking about.

**Craig:** Yeah. And, you know, there is an attraction as a puzzle solver to say, ooh, I think I can solve this. A lot of times with reboots and remakes, especially now, one of the things you’re solving for is how to handle the presentation of race, gender, sexuality, which has changed. Gender which has changed dramatically. It’s even changed dramatically over the last six years, much less something that’s 50 years old.

So when they say like here’s a toy. It’s Jim Johnson action figure from 1973. And you’re like, but?

**John:** No, no, it’s Major Matt Mason.

**Craig:** There we go. Major Matt Mason. I don’t know anything about Major Matt Mason. But if Major Matt Mason had a sidekick who was like a young Bengali child who would lead him through the jungle you’re like I ain’t doing that shit anymore. That’s over. No. No, no, no.

**John:** Let’s think about that.

**Craig:** We’re not making colonial hero. So, part of it is that puzzle solving. The problem is that just because you solve the puzzle doesn’t mean it’s good. It just means it’s solved. And solved is not necessarily the end goal.

**John:** I think the first question you have to ask is why are we approaching this remake or reboot. Is it because there’s a fundamentally fantastic idea there that deserves a new version of the movie? Or it’s because we can make money off the nostalgia. And so if there’s a foreign film that you’re remaking in English, it’s probably because it’s a really good idea for a movie. Fantastic. If it’s this is a piece of intellectual property that we own and therefore we need to make a new movie that’s based on this, you have to be honest about why you’re doing the thing that you’re doing. And as a screenwriter you have to be aware of what’s really driving the decisions. It’s not necessarily to make the best movie. It’s to make the movie that best capitalizes on what’s possible.

**Craig:** Correct. I couldn’t agree more.

**John:** Thanks Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you John and thank you Megana for a sumptuous feast.

**John:** Yes.

Links:

* [Bring Back Tony Stark Billboard](https://twitter.com/culturecrave/status/1385306093799165953?s=21)
* [Vin Diesel in Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Movie](https://deadline.com/2021/04/vin-diesel-rock-em-sock-em-robots-movie-mattel-universal-1234739487/)
* [Scriptnotes, Episode 77: We’d Like to Make an Offer](https://johnaugust.com/2013/wed-like-to-make-an-offer)
* [Hanlon’s Razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)
* [Real-Life ‘Terminator’: Major Studios Face Sweeping Loss of Iconic ‘80s Film Franchise Rights](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/real-life-terminator-major-studios-face-sweeping-loss-iconic-80s-film-franchise-rights-1244737) by Eriq Gardner for THR
* [Lawyer Mark Jaffe on Twitter](https://twitter.com/markjkings/status/1384521865641685000?s=21)
* [Cornell Law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203)
* [Friday the 13th Copyright](https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1442-73)
* [Trader Joe’s Bake at Home Croissants](https://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/1383458980450627600?s=20)
* [Covid Vaccine Mobile Clinics](https://www.mlk-chf.org/mobile-clinics)
* [John on Galaxy Brains Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mighty-ducks-game-changers-a-roast-of-reboots/id1562785021?i=1000518173979)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Nora Beyer ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/498standard.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (74)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.