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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: stressing structure

Scriptnotes, Ep 166: Critics, Characters and Business Affairs — Transcript

October 20, 2014 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2014/critics-characters-and-business-affairs).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. So today’s episode has the F word in it like four times because we read this letter aloud. So if you have your kids in the car, maybe don’t listen to this episode with the kids in the car because it’s kind of not safe for kids or for work. But it’s safe for almost everywhere else. Thanks.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** And this is episode 166 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, this was a really busy week. I saw you a lot.

**Craig:** You did. We first delved into a cavern together that contained a Nothic.

**John:** Indeed. We did some virtual spelunking and did some D&D. It was fun.

**Craig:** Yeah, it was fun.

**John:** We kind of made a mistake with the Nothic.

**Craig:** We made a huge mistake.

**John:** I’m not sure we —

**Craig:** We made a huge mistake.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We have a tendency as a group. Not my character. My character is [laughs] to a fault wants to love everyone.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** But as a group we seem to want to just kill everything we see. And I don’t think we should have attacked that thing.

**John:** Perhaps we shouldn’t have. I mean, it looked gruesome and so therefore we killed it. But that may not have been the best choice.

**Craig:** Yeah, it was kind of racist.

**John:** Yeah, it could have been a little bit racist.

**Craig:** Yeah, it was racist because he had one eye.

**John:** Speciesist, yeah.

**Craig:** Speciesist, yeah. So we did that but then we also saw each other at the Live Slate Culture Gabfest event —

**John:** In downtown Los Angeles.

**Craig:** In downtown Los Angeles. And that podcast has already aired. They turned it around right quick.

**John:** They did. So that was a tremendously fun evening. It was at The Belasco Theatre. We had a good crowd. It was us. It was Jenny Slate. It was Natasha Lyonne.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** There were the hosts. So thank you, Slate, for having us there. Thank you, Andy Bowers and Julia Turner and Dana Stevens, Stephen Metcalf. It was fun to be a guest on someone else’s show.

**Craig:** It was fun. They ask good questions and we had a lively discussion.

**John:** Mm-hmm. It was fun for me not to have to segue all the time so that somebody else could be the person responsible for “And now let’s move on to the next topic.”

**Craig:** Yeah, he wasn’t necessarily better at segues than you.

**John:** Well, I think it’s one of my true callings is the ability to get from this place to that place.

**Craig:** The Segue-ist?

**John:** I am The Transitioner.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But that transition is a good way for me to get into talking about today’s show which will feature our little package from the Slate Culture —

**Craig:** [laughs] You just did it, you did it.

**John:** I can’t stop transitioning.

**Craig:** The Transitioner.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** That’s like Marvel’s worst movie in 40 years and they’re really just out of everything. They’re like, um, The Transitioner.

**John:** He’s really good at the cocktail conversation.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Or it can also be like, you know, it’s the next thing after Transparent which is apparently a really good Amazon show. It’s like they could make The Transitioner who’s like constantly moving from one thing to the next thing.

**Craig:** Oh, I like that.

**John:** So today, we are going to have the audio from our section. So in case you didn’t hear it in Slate, you can listen to it on our thing and then we’ll talk a little about what we talked about after that. But we have some new topics as well including something you and I talked about after our segment on the show which was that I was writing something this week and I realized that the problem I was having is I had sort of one character too many.

It’s a recurring theme that I’ve seen again and again, it’s like sometimes you have too many characters and rarely too few characters and figuring out what that problem is can be a real solution for many screen emergencies.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And then we’re going to talk about business affairs.

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** And that’s going to be a happy conversation.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Hmm.

**Craig:** Argh.

**John:** But first, some follow-up. Tonight, October 14th, if you’re listening to this the day the podcast comes out, Tuesday, October 14th at 7:30 PM, I’m going to be talking with Simon Kinberg at the WGA as a benefit for the Writers Guild Foundation.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** And we’re going to be talking about X-Men: Days of Future Past, Sherlock Holmes, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the upcoming Fantastic Four movie, Star Wars Rebels and producing movies and writing things and it will be a great conversation. So join us if you’d want to join us. There’s still like maybe 10 tickets left?

**Craig:** Well, you should grab those tickets. Simon Kinberg is a rarity, I believe, in our business in that he is a very good writer, he’s a very good producer, he’s extraordinarily successful, and he’s really nice.

**John:** He’s a really nice guy.

**Craig:** How about that? Just a good egg. I really like Simon a lot. You know he’s English?

**John:** I do know that he’s English.

**Craig:** Yeah, but you wouldn’t know it because he has no English accent.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’m very —

**John:** Just like you, you had a New York accent growing up —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But you completely lost it.

**Craig:** Just completely lost it.

**John:** He shed his —

**Craig:** He shed it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** He shed it, but that’s an extreme shedding.

**John:** It’s an extreme shedding. Well, you can’t talk about British accents without bringing up the Nolan Brothers because one of them is British and one of them is not British and it’s so odd.

**Craig:** I know. It’s weird. And I always think to myself, well, if somebody’s lost a truly foreign accent, that’s verging on sociopathic behavior. [laughs] They have the potential to be a villain.

**John:** They do or they are a Canadian actress because we actually had a Canadian babysitter this last week and I detected something like — something is — you’re really, really nice in a way that you’re probably not American. And she was in fact Canadian. But she was an actress and so she had very — I asked her like, you deliberately got rid of your accent? She’s like, yes, I worked really hard for a year to get rid of all my Canadianisms so that people can’t tell I’m Canadian.

**Craig:** Losing a Canadian accent is a bit like losing a New York accent. In fact, a strong New York accent is probably more violently different than standard American English than a Canadian accent.

**John:** A strong New York accent is pretty much an assault.

**Craig:** It’s an assault and I had one and then I lost it. So I guess I’m one of those sociopaths, too [laughs].But I’m fascinated by people… — We were talking about this, people who can and can’t lose accents. You know, there are people who have lived in, like Dr. Ruth Westheimer is a good example. Brilliant woman, speaks many languages, has lived in New York for decades, has the strongest German accent.

**John:** Another great example is Arianna Huffington.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Who, you know, incredibly successful in the US and yet, she’s thoroughly Greek in sort of how she talks and presents herself. And it’s become sort of her signature. You can’t imagine her without that accent.

**Craig:** Right. And then you have Madonna who spends four days in England and suddenly she’s like, [British accent] hello mate.

**John:** Yeah, there’s that middle of the Atlantic situation that happens sometimes when Americans cross over and it doesn’t all together work.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So last bit of follow-up is if you ordered one of the Scriptnotes t-shirts, they’re in and they’re actually out. Stuart and Ryan are packaging them up as we speak and so they’re going to be leaving the Quote-Unquote offices because that’s where — they really are offices but our company is called Quote-Unquote Films.

They’ll be leaving the offices today, so you should be getting them this week, the week that you’re hearing this podcast if you’re in the US, maybe a little bit longer if you’re overseas, but thank you so much for all the people who bought those because those help keep the podcast going.

**Craig:** And, of course, reduce the amount of money that we lose but not to zero [laughs].

**John:** Never to zero.

**Craig:** Never to zero.

**John:** All right, first segment. Let’s talk about the Slate Culture Gabfest. So let’s just set it up for listeners so they know what it is they’re going to listen to. Craig, could you set the scene for us, like let us know where it is that this event is taking place and what it feels like?

**Craig:** Sure. So The Belasco Theater is downtown, it’s a small theater but it’s very typical for Los Angeles downtown. You don’t know it’s there until you arrive. You walk inside and you think, oh my god, what a great space. It’s old, it’s obviously been around since I would guess the ’20s, gorgeous space, very dark and cavernous. There was a green room downstairs which, in fact, was illuminated entirely with red light bulbs, so it was a bit like, I don’t know, what I imagined No Exit to look like or something.

Large stage, very nice audience with a bar in back to keep people liquored up. And so we sat up there on stage with the hosts of the show. It was a little hard for me to hear. They didn’t have monitors. So when you’re on stage, usually you want a couple of speakers that are facing back towards the people talking so they could hear themselves.

All I could really hear was the echoey sound that was traveling above my head and out. So in a way it kept you on your toes and you had to really pay attention. But it was terrific. Jenny Slate was very, very funny and we did our thing and Natasha Lyonne was very, very interesting. So we had a nice chat and you can hear the audience, you know, fairly, they were —

**John:** Yeah, Craig got laughs and it was good that you got laughs. I liked that.

**Craig:** I got laughs, yeah [laughs]. Well, I was trying to, well look, I was trying to be on my best behavior. And I really did think I was on my best behavior. I got a couple of little shots in but they weren’t really shots as much as just —

**John:** Yeah, they were playful taps.

**Craig:** They were playful jabs. Playful jabs.

**John:** And so the other thing I should set up for our listeners so they understand is that each guest was up sort of in their own segment but not the other segments, so you’re going to hear me and Craig but you’ll also hear Stephen Metcalf, Julia Turner and Dana Stevens. So let’s go to that and then when we come back we’ll have a little recap and wrap up.

Julia Turner: I’m such a fan of your podcast.

**John:** Thank you.

Julia: It’s so fun to have you guys on the same stage. I’m sorry Stephen.

Stephen Metcalf: Please, dig right in. Actually, I want to start by saying I had my very — this is actually a true story. I had my very first Hollywood pitch yesterday.

**John:** So how did it go?

Stephen: Do you know the phrase, “Bought it in the room?” That didn’t happen. [laughs] You know what, I’ll give you, and I had another one today. I’ll give you a very honest response was, there was — I kind of loved it for the reason that it was like nothing I’ve ever seen depicted in all the silly movies that depict Hollywood. And in fact, they were just professionals who knew their business and it was no drama Obama.

**Craig:** No Weimaraners, no crack, no OxyContin.

Stephen: Exactly right. And no Jaws meets this or whatever. It was like very, very, very intricately smart people who understand the relationship between narratives that work and people who will pay money to go see them. I mean, right —

**Craig:** And so they rejected you? [laughs]

Stephen: Mazin. I just want to say, Craig, I love the movie Go.

**Craig:** Oh yes, I heard that.

Stephen: That movie is —

**Craig:** I heard, yes.

Stephen: Perfect, it’s like Swiss watch work.

**Craig:** It’s the most adorable thing you’ve seen ever.

Stephen: It’s Swiss clockwork lubricated by butter.

**Craig:** Yes.

Stephen: Just gorgeous.

**Craig:** John’s films are gorgeously lubricated.

Stephen: It went by like that.

**Craig:** No question.

Stephen: Anyway, we want to get into the subject of who authors the film which is a rabbit hole we can kind of go down, half down, or ignore completely but it’s an interesting one to me. But I want you to just, if it’s okay, really quickly to describe your careers and how you got where you are. You’re having a dream career. How did that come about? John, why don’t we start with you?

**John:** I was a journalism major. I went to journalism school at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. I realized halfway through that I didn’t really want that major but I loved the writing I was doing. I loved that sort of structured writing that journalism is. And I found out there was such a thing as a screenplay, that there was such a thing as film school and I applied and got into USC, moved out here with my rusted Honda and started, you know, reading scripts for people and I started writing. And I started writing Go, the screenplay that first got made, while I was still in film school. And so it was very much that experience of being 26 years old and seemingly immortal. And that became my first movie.

Stephen: That is fantastic. And the Weimaraner was suddenly seated next to you in the car.

**John:** [laughs]

Stephen: Craig, what about you?

**Craig:** I was a pre-med student in college and around my senior year, it became very clear that I just did not want to spend — I was going to be a neurologist and I just… — I still am fascinated by the brain and by neurology but not by people with neurological disorders.

It’s a bummer, I don’t know how else to put it. They do die on you a lot. And I was fascinated by the entertainment business. I was fascinated by entertaining people. I loved movies and I loved television shows. And so, and you had a rusted Honda, I had a rusted Toyota. I drove out here, I didn’t know anybody and I got a job because I could type and sort of worked my way into a position where I could pitch movies and write movies. And I’ve been doing it since 1996, now, 1995/1996.

Stephen: That’s amazing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

Stephen: Okay, so you’ve just watched a movie, let’s say the credits come at the end, you admire it, you think it was, you know, in some ways, narratively elegant, the characters were very alive, you got lost in the world, no fat to be trimmed, and the name comes up and it says, Screenplay by, you know, and it’s a single credit, a credit to a single person. How confident are you that what you just saw was authored by that person?

**John:** You don’t necessarily know whether that screenplay credit reflects what actually made it on to the screen or not. Credits for films are determined by the Writers Guild and there’s a whole process you go through. It’s as good as we can make that process but it’s still not perfect. That you’re competing, there’s two competing forces. You want the credits to accurately reflect who wrote the movie but you also want to not dilute the credit by sharing it among a bunch of people who, if 12 writers did little bits on it, you don’t want to sort of necessarily make it seem like 12 people did little bits on it.

So what I will say is different is when we see that credit going by, we already know. We sort of, actually everybody really does know who did the work on the movie. And so there’s lots of movies that will not have a certain writer’s credit on them but everyone in town knows they’ve worked on it and that’s very helpful for their career.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think it’s actually gotten better. We have changed. I’m one of three co-chairs of the credits committee that reviews the rules and then puts rules changes to the membership. And we’ve had about two or three rounds of rules changes that have been successful. And they’ve been good changes and I think that they have made the credits more accurate. It’s a difficult situation. There have been miscarriages, no question. But John’s point is absolutely true. We know who wrote the movie. We, who are in the business, we know.

Stephen: And what do you — I’m curious what you especially admire about a screenplay, what makes you wish you had written one when you get to the end of the film or you read it on the page? What elements of story or character or shape or —

**Craig:** Well, you know, when I think of movies where I’ve really zeroed in on what I thought was fundamental to the screenplay, it was a question of harmony of elements. That there were scenes that internally were using plot to reveal character, character revealing plot, plot and character revealing theme, conflict revealing potential resolution. And then taken as a sum, those scenes all work together to create some sort of thematic whole out of that. That often is what I admire, but sometimes I just am entertained.

And more than anything when I go to the movies it’s to be entertained.

**John:** When you read a screenplay, you recognize that it’s a form of incredible efficiency. You have to be able to convey with just a few words in 12-point Courier what this whole world feels like and what these characters are like and so every word counts in ways that doesn’t necessarily in a novel. A novel can spend three pages talking about how soft the sheets were. The movie doesn’t actually have those senses, you can’t describe things you touch or feel. It’s only what you can see and what you can hear. So you’re finding ways to describe and set up this whole world with just these very limited windows into it.

And so, the best screenplays I’ve read, they have these characters that take these amazing journeys through amazing worlds and you can’t believe that they did it all just on the page there.

Stephen: Give me a couple of names of movies that you wish you had written or that you especially admire?

**John:** You know, it’s one thing to see a movie on the screen because that’s the finished product and you have to remember that a screenplay is really the blueprint for this building that’s not built yet. And so one of luxuries, we sometimes get to read screenplays well before they’re filmed, or things that never got filmed. And so I remember in film school reading Quentin Tarantino’s original script for Natural Born Killers. And it’s just brilliant. And I got to the end and I flipped back to page one and started reading it all over again. It was incredibly important.

People, you know, these guys might not recognize that like Aliens is an incredibly important script for people in our business. We read that script and it actually transforms sort of like how you describe action on the page.

Stephen: And this is the second in that —

**John:** This was James Cameron’s Aliens.

Stephen: And James Cameron did the screenplay as well as directed it?

**John:** Yeah and so the way he described action was incredibly important and so all action movies from that point forward probably owe some debt to sort of what he was doing on the page.

Female Voice: Wait, so what was the innovation? What did he do differently?

**John:** There was innovation, there’s a way of talking about the camera, talking about like how we’re moving through things. Cameron wrote both a scriptment which is like a 70-page document of the movie without the dialogue, sort of. And then he wrote the full version of the script and sort of everyone of my and Craig’s generation who read movies at that time, read action movies, that was the one we sort of kept going back to.

**Craig:** Yeah. And, you know, John is making a really interesting point that the question that you’re asking is a little impossible because the truth is I never see a movie and think I wish I could have written that movie. You can’t write that movie. That movie is not just written, it was written and it was then rewritten and it was performed and captured and edited and scored, so it’s not possible.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But what we can do is we read screenplays. Jerry Maguire is one of the best screenplays I’ve ever read. Absolutely just perfect for me. Not objectively perfect, but for me, it was perfect. I saw Ocean’s Eleven, I saw Out of Sight, and I thought I would love to meet the guys that wrote this movie, you know, and I did, that was great. But I understand that it’s not possible to say, well, I wish I could have written that experiences.

Stephen: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Dana Stevens: That brings me to something that’s seems like, it’s key to your podcast which is really great for somebody on the critical end to read which is, I mean, to hear on your podcast, which is that, you’re sort of anti-auteurist, right? I mean, you are really not so focused on a movie as the production of one director and you really know from the inside out that it’s a collaboration and that vast numbers of people have to be on the same page in order to make a good movie.

**John:** There was a podcast that you guys did about two weeks ago with Jeff Koons, the artist and the visual artist, and you guys saw Balloon Dog and all that stuff. And it was amazing as you’re walking through with this curator and he was talking about sort of the intention and sort of how things came to be. It was a great episode. But it struck me that you can talk about a virtual artist that way because even though he has a team of people doing stuff, it’s really all his vision, like that thing is one person’s thing. And I think there’s this instinct sometimes for press and for critics to think about works as having a single creator. You guys are almost creationists sometimes.

And really the process of getting movies made is almost like this Darwinian survival thing. There’s all these movies competing to get made, and you’re only seeing the ones that sort of got made. And it doesn’t mean they were the best ones. It doesn’t mean it was like clean or pretty how they happened, but they are the ones that made it to the theater.

**Craig:** And even the product itself is the function of an internal evolution among a lot of people fighting. I mean, for instance, you guys just had a discussion about Gone Girl and you disagreed about some things. You really thought one passage was cool, you thought that was weak. You liked the parents, you thought they were not so great. These fights happen constantly on every movie except that one of you is the boss.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Okay. This is a problem obviously but some decision has to be made. The movie is — anybody who thinks that movies are authored by one person is higher than the highest crack can take —

Stephen: Has never gone anywhere near the moving-making process.

**Craig:** Yeah, they’re just so divorced from the process of what it means to make a movie.

Stephen: Okay, but I have a question for you. Sorry, I’m stepping on you, boss, lady.

Julia: Go for it.

Stephen: Because I’ll forget it if I don’t ask it right now. Okay, so we are all post-modernist Darwinian evolutionists, anti-authorship, you know, post-auteur, cognoscenti.

**Craig:** Stipulated.

Stephen: And yet, it begins with a room of one’s own. It begins with you doing the paradigmatic writer thing. You’re alone with the blinking cursor and your own conscience and the Internet and email and on and on and on. I mean, you have all the, you know, classic struggles of self-battling that a writer has. How is it to then also be in a medium that’s utterly collaborative and evolutionary and your darlings are going to get killed, but not even by you?

**Craig:** Well, it’s an endless struggle. And this is why screenwriters are stereotypically whiny. I mean, watch Adaptation, you know. It’s very difficult and it’s incredibly difficult because it’s emotionally painful. We are required to create something that we believe in that is entirely within our control and is in fact authored.

And then we are required by the nature of film making to cede control of it and to see it re-authored because unlike any other form of writing, screenwriting is not meant to be read, it is not meant to be consumed by anyone, it is meant to in fact be transformed into something else entirely. So we are always on the razor’s edge of this emotional pain. And then of course somewhere down the line after we’ve survived the many, many —

Stephen: You get paid $900,000.

**Craig:** I get to Dana’s review. That’s my reward.

**John:** [laughs] That’s the reward, yes.

Stephen: You made me laugh so hard that my gap flashed the whole room. That was good. Okay, well let’s end it on a positive note. I could talk to you guys all night but unfortunately we’ve got to move on. But Craig Mazin and John August, thank you very much for coming.

**John:** Thank you very much.

**Craig:** Thank you for having us. Thanks guys.

**John:** Great. So that was lovely and there were applause which is always a fun thing. I really enjoyed being a guest. It’s so nice to be able to have the chance to like make my own points and not have to elicit points from other people.

**Craig:** Yeah, for sure. I thought it was very valuable. It was a good conversation to have. I think frankly the more that critics can personally interface with the people writing and directing movies, the better they will be at their jobs.

**Craig:** I agree with you.

**John:** I don’t think it’s going to make our jobs any better or worse but it’s going to make their jobs better. Frankly, one thing that kind of surprised me was the discussion was predicated on this question, what is it that we critics don’t know but should know about the way movies are made? And I found the question fascinating because, mostly because I thought why are you asking this now? I mean wouldn’t you have thought to ask it a decade ago or 20 years ago or whenever you started doing this?

There is such a gulf, I mean, even in the beginning of the show before we came on, Stephen and Julia Dana were talking about their, what they called LA alter egos and it was essentially their spin on what they thought Los Angeles is all about. And it was very cartoony, but you could tell really that they are quite proud of the fact that they’re out there and we’re out here and the gulf is cultural.

There is a cultural gulf. It’s interesting. It’s very interesting and worth studying.

**John:** I think it comes back to the question of intentionality is that you’re looking at this work as it’s finished and then you’re trying to ascribe intentionality for like this is what they meant, this is what they were doing, this is what the artist was attempting to voice or achieve. And ultimately I think that’s sometimes unknowable, or if it’s knowable, the only way you’re going to actually find that out is by asking the person who made the thing.

So instead what you’re really doing is you’re looking at your own reaction and saying, well, this is my reaction to this thing and that’s completely a valid experience but it doesn’t necessarily give you any insight into what the intention was behind something. It goes back to what we talked about before, the difference between journalistic writing and academic writing. In academic writing, you often find yourself trying to ascribe intention and motivation to things that are not really part of the text because you’re just desperately searching for something.

And so you find reasons to believe that the plot of this book is really about this other thing that you wouldn’t necessarily notice. And it’s like you’re trying to ascribe, trying to create logic after the fact.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right and what was driven home for me more than anything by interacting with them is how academic they are. And I imagine that for many film critics, I’m not even talking about reviewers but people who are doing film analysis, that their background is academic. And in academics, you’re precisely correct that the whole name of the game is to take some arena and find some angle on it that you can make your thesis and support it. So it’s rhetorical.

However, it’s a very poor instrument in my opinion, academic analysis. It’s a very poor instrument for something like movies which defy the meaning of which is really not in that kind of literary analysis or academic analysis, for me at least. And certainly the process of it makes many of the literary analyses absurd.
And even, you know, I mean, you could see they’re trying, like… — By the way, it’s partly our fault in the business because when there’s a success, somebody will attempt to take credit for it and say, me, me, me, I am the author of this, it all comes down to me. But that’s not ever true.

**John:** The other thing I definitely noticed is you’re talking about cultural criticism, but culture is a thing that is constantly moving. So I sometimes get frustrated when I read a film review and they’re talking about current events in relation to this movie and seemingly unaware that this movie was green lit two years before those events came to be.

So there’s, you know, if there’s a school shooting and this movie comes out, it’s in reference to this school shooting or, you know, Gone Girl in the reference of like this domestic violence case. I understand that it’s cultural criticism because you’re looking at sort of how does this movie fit in to the current cultural conversation. But you can’t therefore take a time machine back and say like, well, that is the reason why this movie exists. The movie is coming out at a certain place and time but it doesn’t mean that this movie is reacting to those events or this place and time.

**Craig:** Yeah, I’ve, because I’m going to see Gone Girl this weekend and they have a big discussion about Gone Girl and I’ve been seeing essentially headlines of gobs of critical essays about Gone Girl and what it means about, or what its implications are for marriage, for misogyny, for the relationship between men and women, domestic violence. And all I keep thinking is these people are talking to each other. I don’t know who else cares.

The people that got to see, the people that read the book, appreciated the book for what it did for them, it’s a personal experience, it is not an academic experience. No one goes to a movie in order to contextualize the world around them. They go to a movie for the opposite, I believe, which is to contextualize something within them. It is a personal experience.

This is why movies are made the way they are. You can go see Argo and what you are taking away is something about what’s inside of you. It is a personal story set against the backdrop of the world. But a lot of times I think critics and film analysts ignore all that to talk really about what they’ve been trained to talk about. In the end, I think they are talking to each other. I think they are engaging in a kind of a cross debate.

**John:** Well, oftentimes, I think they’re talking about the conversation rather than the thing itself. And so in the case of Gone Girl, you’re talking about misogyny or what it means, or the feminist meanings or anti-meetings in the film. The degree to which it’s worthy to talk about in a culture context isn’t necessarily the film itself, but why we are talking about it.

So, the degree that Gone Girl being the incredibly successful popular movie out there in the world right now is sparking a cultural conversation, yes, sometimes by just the people who are writing these articles. But I also think just actual audiences are coming out of the movie thinking like, wow, I’m not sure how I feel about the characters I just saw and particularly that movie which has, you know, again no spoilers, but an unsettling ending and sort of a resolution that is unexpected does provoke things. And so the degree to which a movie can provoke a conversation, well, that’s a thing that’s happening in culture, so if your job is to write about culture, then it’s great to write about that movie. But you have to be mindful: are you really writing about the movie or are you’re writing about people talking about the movie which are sort of different things.

**Craig:** And the movie exists specifically to inspire people to examine their relationship with it. Individual relationship, how did that movie make me feel? Did I feel anything and if I did, what did I feel? Do I agree with it? Do I not agree with it? A good movie isn’t supposed to be like a good historical explanation of why things happen.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not supposed to be, whatever, a Doris Kearns Goodwin book explaining how Lincoln’s cabinet worked. It’s entirely about individuals.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I don’t think that’s the way they approach it sometimes. And they can’t because what does that come down to? It’s sort of exposes the fatal flaw here which is, well, so you have your opinion? Good. I do too, you know.

**John:** I guess, it’s a chance for people to listen in on what someone else’s opinion is and sometimes a very well-articulated opinion can get somebody thinking about what their own opinion is. So that is, I would say, as a defense of the kind of work that they’re doing both in writing and in the podcast is they’re having a conversation about their reactions to things and sometimes that may trigger a person to have their own reactions or give new thought to something else. And if that happens, then that’s a good thing.

**Craig:** I agree. It’s fun listening to smart people talk about stuff.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I tend to like to listen to smart people talking about things that are not cultural because I do experience culture in a very personal individual way. I like listening to smart people talk about politics, economics. But, and I was very struck by how their conversation between the three of them was no different than any other kind of conversation people have about movies.

I mean, essentially, regardless of the level of their vocabulary, they talked about the movie and then one person said, I really like this and then another person said, really? That was the part I didn’t like at all. Well, these are exactly the kinds of conversations we all have.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And ultimately, that’s all there is. There is nothing more to it. It’s supposed to be individual and personal, which, again, I think is the fatal flaw sometimes of the — it’s not of criticism, but rather it’s the fatal flaw of the critical style which is to say, this, let me illuminate you as to what is happening here. That is a fatal flaw because in fact, you can’t. Because what at least on our side, what we are intending to happen is for an individual to have an individual relationship with the movie. We know some of those are going to be bad and we know some of those are going to be good. But we also know there is not one illuminated correct response.

**John:** Absolutely. So, again, I want to thank Slate for having us on. It was just tremendously fun to be there and it was a really great event. And thank you for people who showed up for it because it was really neat to have some of our fans in our t-shirts out there in the audience.

**Craig:** For sure. Always good to see. And, boy, a very lovely woman came up to us afterwards and she — I won’t go into her story, but she said some very nice things. So she’s gone through some hardships and happily she’s better now. But it was very, very sweet. It’s nice to hear, and look, honestly, endlessly surprising to me that anyone listens to the show at all [laughs] but that for a lot of people who do, they really get something out of it. It’s very, very uplifting for me and I’m sure it is for you.

**John:** It is. Now just to cut into that tender emotion, I thought this might be a great opportunity for us to read a letter we got from one of our listeners.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s the best letter ever.

**John:** It really is the best letter ever. So people sometimes will write in, sometimes on Twitter — I’m @johnaugust, Craig is @clmazin. Or they’ll write longer emails that they’ll send to ask@johnaugust.com. And this is one that we got this week which I thought was great. So I shared it with you and you said in all caps MUST READ ON AIR IN TOTALITY.

**Craig:** [laughs] I know. So it’s a little long, so bear with us. The subject essentially is we talked a couple of weeks ago on the podcast about a video that somebody put on the Internet. It’s very funny. All they did was they stripped out John Williams’ score from the final scene of Star Wars: A New Hope where Luke, Han and Chewie are getting their medals.

And it’s a very long scene and there’s no dialogue. And so when you take away the score, it actually becomes this beautiful opera of awkwardness. [laughs] It’s fantastic. It’s very funny. And I thought frankly the spirit, I mean, we had a whole discussion about why it was interesting. And my whole takeaway was, hey, directors don’t panic when you see your footage that’s intended for score because it’s going to really look weird. But then look how great it will look when it’s done.

**John:** Yes. And so perhaps we didn’t stipulate as clearly that we thought the scene as it shows up in the movie is fantastic. And I would not change a thing. But Patrick from London, England did not take it that way.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** And in fact, well, why don’t you start, Craig?

**Craig:** Sure. “Subject: Star Wars Umbrage.

“Dear John and Craig, I have to take extreme umbrage at your mocking the final scene in Star Wars in your last podcast. I get that it’s mildly amusing someone took the music off the final scene and it seems strange because it’s so iconic. You could do that with any number of famous films and achieve the same effect.

“What is distressing is your assertion the final scene in Star Wars is somehow strange/weird/bad because it has no dialogue. That scene is one of the things that makes the film iconic for fuck’s sake!” Exclamation point. “Sometimes when I think about that scene it baffles the brain. What major blockbuster film would end on a scene driven entirely by visuals and score? None.

“We’re always told film is a visual medium, show don’t tell, blah, blah, blah, yet when a film achieves a satisfying conclusion through moving images and music alone like a silent movie, you mock it as strange/weird/bad. What more did the film need to do? They blew up the Death Star. Obi-Wan said the force will be with you always. Han came back and displayed some honor and loyalty. I emphasize displayed. He didn’t say it. The end. What more did you want?

“Did you want a speech like the end of Independence Day? We will not lie down. Today’s our independence day against the empire. God bless America, blah, blah, blah. Would that have approved the ending of Star Wars?” [laughs] You want to read the second half?

**John:** “I think the problem is you work in Hollywood where everything is decided by committee. So anything idiosyncratic or unusual is viewed with suspicion or derided as strange/weird/bad. I noticed on your Raiders podcast when you pointed out that today the opening five-minute exposition scene wouldn’t fly and would be watered down by committee. And that this was perfectly acceptable.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** I don’t think we said that at all.

**Craig:** No, I think the point was that it was not… it was unacceptable. [laughs] Oh man, this is great. Keep going. It’s awesome.

**John:** “When the final scene in Star Wars was produced, maybe someone said, err, is it strange/weird/bad?”I love the strange/weird/bad.

**Craig:** I know. So he —

**John:** I’m omitting the slashes —

**Craig:** I know. It’s this thing that he does when he goes strange/weird/bad all as one thing. And it’s like his mantra.

**John:** “That there’s no big speech at the end. And maybe George Lucas said, ‘It’s my film and that’s how I want to end it. So fuck you.’ Or George and Spielberg said, ‘We want there to be a really long exposition scene at the beginning of Raiders and if you don’t like it, money men, you can go fuck yourselves.'”

Well, so now we have to have this — I have to record a little warning at the start of the podcast —

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** Because he said fuck three times.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** “Depressingly on your podcast, you seem to advocate conformity — ”

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** “And do not encourage idiosyncrasies’ originality. It’s kind of like don’t rock the boat. This is what is expected of you by the committee, so this is what you should do? The final scene in Star Wars should be something you celebrate, not mock. Star Wars is one of the most exciting and amazing films ever made and definitely the top 10 most influential. So it doesn’t need my or anyone’s sympathy or support. But it’s sad that one of its fun quirks is derided on your podcast because it doesn’t fit the present day studio formula you bow to.”

**Craig:** We bow to.

**John:** We bow to. “However, the controversy over why Chewie didn’t also receive a medal has not gone away and is a troubling aspect to the film’s conclusion up for debate.” Well, good. I’m glad we got to the Chewie of it all because that’s really what I’ve been focusing on.

**Craig:** [laughs] I like that this guy’s like, well, let me let you off the hook on the Chewie thing, great point.

**John:** “Anyway, end umbrage. I’d like to echo your other listener who praised the podcast for informing and inspiring people. It’s a great thing you do and an essential resource for anyone who’s interested in writing films. Cheers.”

**Craig:** Cheers. [laughs]. Okay. Well, Patrick —

**John:** Patrick is great. So, I genuinely thank you for writing this letter.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** We’re really kind of not mocking you but just one of those things we’re like, oh, I can’t believe you thought we were —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** You know, slamming on that scene because we weren’t at all.

**Craig:** No, I think, Patrick, the reason I wanted to read this entire thing is because I think unwittingly you managed to satire an unhinged Star Wars fan. [laughs] Look, to be clear and I think it was clear because, frankly, out of all the people that listened to the show, you were the only person that had this issue or at least spoke about it.

No, we love the ending of the movie. All we were saying was that it was funny to watch it without the music because it is funny. And I remember specifically saying, in fact, I said — I sent that video to Rian Johnson. And I said, Rian, when you see your first dailies, don’t freak out, right?

Because a lot of times, science fiction, epics, when they don’t have all of the post-production trappings laid over it, can look ridiculous. I mean, for instance, there’s footage of Darth Vader when he first enters the diplomatic ship and he interrogates Princess Leia. And it’s the actual dailies. And so I think it was David Prowse I guess is the guy who was in the actual, so it’s his voice.

And it just sounds like a bunch of English guys and it seems ridiculous. And the point is, but okay, as filmmakers, we deserve to have faith that the full process will make it come to light. That was our point. I don’t think it’s weird/strange/bad. I don’t want everything to be decided by committee. [laughs] I don’t want there to be a speech at the end about God bless America. I do love —

**John:** I think it would be kind of great if there were a speech about God bless America —

**Craig:** God bless America.

**John:** At the end of Star Wars.

**Craig:** It actually would be cool.

**John:** I think Star Wars is not American enough.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I want to start a whole campaign about that.

**Craig:** Like there should have been —

**John:** No one is wearing a flag pin.

**Craig:** Like if they had unfurled a big American flag behind them as they got their medals, it would have been awesome.

**John:** Visual effects, we can do it.

**Craig:** Visual effects, we can — he can get back in there, you know, if Greedo shot second then we could do that. No, I love the, I wouldn’t change a frame of Raiders and I wish modern movies would take more time in their opening exposition. No, I don’t believe that John and I advocate conformity or discourage idiosyncrasies’ originality. Quite the opposite.

We don’t really like the committee. We do celebrate the [laughs] last scene of Star Wars. It’s amazing how wrong you are, Patrick. I mean you really are, I got to give you credit. You’re batting a thousand so far. [laughs] But really, why I wanted to read it out loud was this bit about Chewbacca because that was just — you’re like, okay, you got through your umbrage but then you’re like, well, now, granted there is a serious [laughs] debate about why Chewie didn’t get a medal. Dude, no one cares why Chewie didn’t get a medal, whatever.

**John:** Once again, racism.

**Craig:** Yeah, nobody cares. No one cares.

**John:** Chewie is the Nothic of the whole Star Wars saga.

**Craig:** You know why Chewie didn’t get a medal? Chewie don’t need no medals.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Chewie doesn’t care about medals. Maybe that’s why he’s yelling. Anyway, fantastic. Thank you for the kind words at the very end. Patrick, I’m sorry, you just got it all wrong here. But we love you anyway and we thank you for listening and please come on back and just know that the people that you want us to be, we already are.

**John:** Awww. So our next topic, so after we did our segment at the Slate Gabfest, we found this little outdoor terracey patio thing which is really nice at the theatre.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so you and I were just sitting and chatting for a bit. And I brought up that the thing I’m writing right now — we’re both in our first drafts. And the thing I was writing, I was sort of stuck because I was trying to — I realized it was because I was trying to service a bunch of characters and things just weren’t fitting right.

And so there’s an exercise I do every once in a while which I’d recommend to anybody is basically, what happens if I killed the hero? Like right now, what if the hero died? And I would go through it like, I thought through like what would actually happen if the hero were to die right now. And that didn’t help the situation so I just go sort of one by one and I kill off all the characters and sort of mentally run through what would happen.

And I realized if I killed off this supporting character, life would be so much easier and happier because it would force the other characters in the rest of these sequences to do more of the work. So I didn’t end up killing her but I ended up just getting rid of her because she could do her function that she needed to do and we kind of just didn’t care anymore. She had recurred, she was done, she’s gone.

And it was incredibly helpful and useful. And I thought in a general sense it would be great to talk about sort of how many characters you need because — so I read scripts that aren’t working. A lot of times I find they’re trying to service characters, too many characters too long in the script and they just sort of get muddled.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, have you found this to be the case?

**Craig:** I have. And this is another reason that I do like to outline beforehand because every character — I think that there’s times when we get a little, our appetites get a little big. You know, we have this idea of all these wonderful characters. And the problem is that every character has to be there very, very intentionally. They each need to serve some very important purpose.

Some characters are single-use K-Cup characters. They show up and then they’re gone. We talked about the Ghost —

**John:** I like, Craig, I have to single out the K-Cup metaphor.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Terrific.

**Craig:** K-Cup.

**John:** One shot and they’re gone, throw them away.

**Craig:** One shot. Throw them away. So they show up, they do their thing and they’re gone. Movies are full of great characters that show up like that. But for the characters that you’re going to be traveling with, they need each of them to have their story. They need to fill a place. They need to provide you with a tool to tell your story.

There are all sorts of tricks. I mean, some people will tell you, well, every character is just an aspect of the protagonist, which is, you know, it’s interesting. Sometimes I suppose in some kinds of movies that might be true. But for the most part, it’s not. So the questions you have to ask yourself are this. What does, for every character, what do they want? What’s their problem? Who are they really into? Who do they have a big problem with? How are they going to end?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then if I understand those things and on top of that I know what they do for the plot, they must do something for the plot, then, well, I’m not going to have a problem writing them am I?

**John:** No, you’re not. And in my case, you know, I had outlined up to a certain point. But I sort of knew who the characters were going to the last section, but I hadn’t thoroughly figured out sort of who was responsible for what things. And it was as I was trying to write the outline for this section that I realized like, argh, something’s not working right here.

And I wouldn’t have singled out that this character was the one who needed to go away because she served an important function and I thought I would need to bring her through to the end of the movie. What should have been my tipoff is that I didn’t really have any specific place I wanted her to end.

**Craig:** Ah.

**John:** There was no sort of great way to send her out of this movie. And that was a good sign that maybe she didn’t need to make it to the end of the movie, that maybe she could leave. And the functions that she would have been doing in this last section of the film, someone else could do them. And probably someone more important could do them and would have more reason to be in those moments because it’s a challenge for her to be performing these actions.

So a lot of times I’ll avoid having too many characters in a scene, but a lot of times if a scene isn’t working it’s because you have too many people in them because you’re trying to service these characters who don’t have enough time to speak. This was a case where I had too many characters in this whole sequence and one of them had to go away.

**Craig:** And sometimes in a circumstance like that you can fold some characters together.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** You can reassign a duty to another character which can help a lot. One of the danger signs that you’ve triggered here is the too many people within a scene because there’s too many people in general. But then there’s the other problem with too many people in one scene. And you can feel it when suddenly you realize a bunch of people aren’t saying anything.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And on set, I’ve seen this happen and it’s a very scary thing. When you’re writing a scene, you may say the five of them sit down, you know, at the table. The person that they’re talking to begins talking and then the leader of the group begins talking back to them. And it reads fine because what these two people are saying to each other is fascinating and moving the story forward and all the rest.

And everybody is like, cool, great. There is a, you know, a second AD who’s going through the script and going, okay, let’s see, who’s in each scene because I need to make sure they’re there that day. Okay, they’re in that scene, they’re there that day. And there they are. And then everybody looks and goes, why are all these people here? And why are these actors sitting around? How do I shoot the scene so it’s not the most awkward thing in the world while a bunch of people are sitting there quietly?

Naturally, as an audience, if we see you, we want you to do something.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not like real life [laughs] where we sit around do nothing all the time. If the camera is on you, it needs to be on you.

**John:** Yeah. There has to be an intention.

**Craig:** Right. So that’s a warning sign that you’ve got too many people in your scene.

**John:** Yeah. And you’ll see that happen a lot. And there’s cases where you want all those people around that dinner table because that’s part of the stakes and the drama of that scene is people’s reactions to those things. Wedding Crashers has a great, really complicated dinner party scene where a bunch of people are around the table and each of those reactions is important.

And, by the way, if you’re trying to ever shoot one of those things, you will go insane because you’re having to shoot angles for everybody looking at each other and trying to match eye lines and you’ll go mental. But sometimes that’s really, really important.

Other times, it’s not and you need to look for ways to sort of get those people out of the room so you can have moments between two characters be between two characters or three characters. I think one of the reasons why we have this instinct to now add a lot of characters to things is we’re used to great TV dramas. We’re used to things like Game of Thrones where you have these giant casts.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Well, you couldn’t have that giant cast in the feature version of Game of Thrones. It wouldn’t make any sense at all. The feature version Game of Thrones would focus on like three guys and like Daenerys and John Snow and somebody else. It wouldn’t be all those people. It’s because you have 20 hours to explore all these characters that you can do that in a one-hour show. You can’t do it in a movie.

**Craig:** That’s absolutely correct. I mean, you’ve called out an interesting thing about the dining room scene because we’ve all done those. And for those of you, if you’re going to write one of those, obviously everybody needs to be there. And John’s right. Not everybody needs to say something, but everybody needs to have a reaction.

So if someone’s there and they say nothing, they’re there because they’re the person who’s going to deliver a key reaction and you should write those reactions. It’s a big thing with me. That’s how the actors even go, okay, I understand, I’m participating in this, I’m there for a reason, the camera will be on me and I have a job. Actors understand that their job goes beyond mouth moving, sound coming out. Reactions, I mean look, comedy-wise, people tend to laugh at the reactions to lines, not the lines themselves.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** So write those. Then what you’re talking about with Game of Thrones is interesting to me because in television, since you have essentially endless episodes — they’re not endless, but as many as you want — you get to carve your space up and then drill down. So Game of Thrones does have a hundred characters, but really it has four characters. And the four characters are the characters within that segment.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So if there’s a story going on with Tyrion, that has to do with Jaime and his father and his sister. Those are the four characters.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So they’re only, they’re reducing down as well. In movies, when you have large casts, inevitably what happens, because there’s no other way to keep people’s attention, is you have a protagonist, like at the top of a pyramid, right? And they have the most focus, the most depth, the most richness. Then underneath them are two people that have a little less. And then underneath them are some other people that are little less. And eventually you get to people that are one note.

So eventually, like for instance if you think about Police Academy [laughs], you know.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, so at the top you’ve got Steve Guttenberg and he’s, you know, for a broad comedy, he’s a typical broad comedy protagonist, a man-child who doesn’t want to grow up. He wants to crap out of this thing, but he’s kind of into a girl and lo and behold, he starts to find that he is going to grow up and he is going to live up to the expectations of all the people that believe he’s something special and he’s going to win the day.

At the bottom of the pyramid, you have somebody whose entire character is making funny noises. That’s it. Because that’s all you can bear after, you know, you’ve placed your 15 people in the script.

**John:** The story could not have withstood that guy having a whole plot line and whole thing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** If it were a TV series, yes, give them business, give them ongoing things that, you know, let us know who he is as a person. But for the feature version, he’s the guy who makes funny noises and that’s all you kind of need to know.

**Craig:** Like in the TV version, he goes home —

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** We actually see that he’s got this like really tough life. He’s got a girlfriend, but she’s been, like she’s actually been sick and he’s taking care of her.

**John:** And she’s deaf.

**Craig:** Right, so —

**John:** So she has no sense of what noises he makes.

**Craig:** Which is really troubling. He tells her that he’s doing great there and everybody really is impressed with his intelligence, but he knows that’s not true. And then he sits there at night alone and learns new sounds because that’s what the guys kind of like.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But he’s so sad and morose because he really doesn’t feel like he’s good at anything except that.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That would be, that’s a cool, that’s the —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Let’s watch it.

**John:** The saddest Police Academy movie ever.

**Craig:** I like sad Police Academy, so I should make that movie. [laughs]

**John:** And just to circle around again to the movie you haven’t seen, in Gone Girl, I’d read the book and I saw the movie, I like them both very, very much. Gone Girl, the author, Gillian Flynn, she removes one character, Ben Affleck’s best friend, from the movie entirely. And I didn’t even know he was missing until someone pointed it out. And that’s a great example of like that character was important for the book because it gave Ben Affleck’s character some grounding and lets you know sort of what was going on there. But he would have gotten in the way in the movie. He would have just been standing around for too much of the movie. So getting rid of him made a lot more sense.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly. And so you can see there is a case of an author. It’s her book.

**John:** It’s her book. And she’s smart enough to know.

**Craig:** Yeah. She meant that character to exist, but she also understands that a movie is different. Now, there’s the opposite syndrome which is the not enough character syndrome.

**John:** We talked about that with Ghost.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Ghost feels a little light.

**Craig:** Well, yeah. So what happens is the movie begins to feel a little small. You’ll hear this from executives sometimes. And they’ll say, the movie feels small. They sometimes say this if the movie is, it’s very located in interiors. They’ll start to say it’s smaller, claustrophobic or if there aren’t enough characters, the movie feels small. And what happens is, if you’re telling the story of a movie and you’re shooting in the great wide world of planet Earth and you only have three characters that are really noticeable as human beings at all —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It starts to feel a little bit more like a play.

**John:** Mm-hmm, it does.

**Craig:** And that’s a little rough. I mean look, Ghost wasn’t off by much. I think it was really off by one, you know, one other character to make that red herring work and all that stuff. It would have been great. But if you start to feel like your movie is just three people and no one else feels real or fleshed out or purposeful to the story, you know, you have to sort of stop and ask yourself, are there enough obstacles here? Is this is world well-fleshed out? Who am I one-noting that really should have some life in this because a movie can bear more than that?

**John:** Yeah. These are challenges I think you find when you have too few characters in your story is that the audience just gets away too far ahead of you because we start to be able to figure out everything that those characters could do. And so then when they do them, it’s like, well, well yeah, we sort of knew that was going to happen. It becomes harder to surprise your audience because we kind of know who all these people are and what they’re capable of doing.

**Craig:** John, that is a genius point. That’s a genius point.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right, because when we only have three people to look at, we are studying them so carefully, yeah, of course we’re not going to miss anything. Part of misdirection is shifting our focus, just like magicians are constantly misdirecting you, they’re waving their hand around or yapping while they’re stuffing a bird in a vegetable or something. [laughs] I don’t know whatever they’re doing, cutting up cards behind their backs. Your ability to misdirect people is vastly reduced. Excellent point.

**John:** Thank you. So our last topic of the podcast of this episode is business affairs. And this is something that you and I both talked about. So let me explain what business affairs is. If you are hired to write a movie for somebody, so it could be a first draft, it could be rewrite, it could be sort of anytime that you are employed as a writer for a studio, business affairs is the lawyers who make your deal.

So your agent and your lawyers are talking to business affairs at Sony or Fox or some place and trying to come to a deal for your writing services. And that may just be scale. You may not be getting sort of above the normal rates. But you have to get that all figured out, basically how long you have to write, what they’re going to pay for each step along the way, other sort of deal points. There’s boilerplate, but it’s not all one standard deal.

So these business affairs people are important. And they are vanishing. I’ve become increasingly frustrated. I think over the last few years, that it feels like takes longer and longer and longer to make deals. And it’s not because we’re being difficult or they’re being difficult. They’re just not there. They’re overworked. And it feels like there’s not enough business affairs people.

**Craig:** Yeah, this is the general squeeze down on the business. We know that there are fewer and fewer movies made, fewer and fewer executives. And yes, I’ve felt it too. I don’t have numbers obviously. We’re not privy to the payroll of the companies. But it does seem that business affairs has been narrowed through fewer and fewer attorneys. And it is frustrating. Look, it’s a frustrating thing to deal with business. The phrase business affairs is unique in our business because other than the fact that it sounds almost sexy and yet so it’s the opposite of sexy.

**John:** Ooh affairs.

**Craig:** Ooh, business affairs. It’s a great title for like a Skinemax movie, but in fact it’s not sexy at all.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But it has this incredible binary emotional impact. When you are trying to get a job or trying to sell something, when you finally hear okay, business affairs will be calling, you go hooray.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s happening. I’m getting paid. I’m being hired. I got a job. And then business affairs makes you hate them. [laughs] Because, you know, you have, and this is by design. Just as we separate creative from business by hiring agents, the studios separate creative in business. So the creative people say, we love you, we love your idea, love, love, love. Artists come here and let us kiss you all over your face. And the business affairs people are like, uh-huh, according to my spreadsheet you get half of what you think you deserve or so on and so forth.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then you start to grind your teeth.

**John:** But that’s how it, I would say that’s how it’s supposed to work in a weird way.

**Craig:** Yeah, yeah.

**John:** And it’s supposed to be that horrible, uncomfortable, like it’s negotiation. And no negotiations are fun. That’s just the nature of it. What is frustrating is that I feel like the negotiation it just doesn’t even start because there’s just no one to actually even begin the negotiation or you end up waiting a really long time because those poor guys are just overworked.

Now why does this matter? Well, it matters because as a writer, you’re not getting paid. Well, that’s obviously a huge headline concern because you can’t get paid until the contract is figured out. They’re not going to cut you a check until there’s a contract to sign.

But more importantly, I think this is actually the bigger crisis in the industry right now is, you know, projects will just stagnate for a long time while these deals get done. And so you could go in and just like kill them with a pitch and it’s just fantastic and everyone is so excited to have you start writing this thing. And then it’s six months before they actually get these contracts figured out.

And in that six months, you haven’t been able to start because you’re not sure the deal is going to be possible to make. And that is awful because by the time you actually get to start writing the thing, it’s done, like your motivation has —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Has left.

**Craig:** I haven’t experienced that kind of lag, but I certainly have experienced more of a lag than has been there before. There are some tricks you can do. If all the major deal points have been agreed on then you can sign a certificate of authorship, get paid and then everybody works out all the inky-dinky details in the long form contract. But the wheel does seem to turn much slower than it used to.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, I do sympathize. Business affairs people are in a tough spot. They know that they have to be the heavy. They also know that sometimes they’re being used. So creative people will give everybody a big hug and tell them that they love and then turn around, call business affairs and say, we do love them but we can’t really, we don’t want to pay more than this. So can you please just be the heavy?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because the deal is, if we do end up making a deal, I have to work with these people and I don’t want them to be angry at me the whole time. I just want them to angry at you. [laughs] So —

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** A little of that goes on. But yeah, it’s gotten slow.

**John:** Absolutely. I completely sympathize with business affairs people. I know they have to be heavies. I kind of in a way just want there are going to be more heavies. And I wish studios would hire more people to do that job because I think they’d be able to move faster and more nimbly if they actually could make deals for the things they want more quickly and get their scripts back faster.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So often, studios will say like, oh takes us forever to get this, we’ll make a deal and it takes, you know, eight months for us to get the script from the writer. It’s like, well you know what, it took six months for you to make a deal. So maybe you could speed up a little on your side.

**Craig:** And to give folks out there context who are maybe attorneys, these are not complicated deals.

**John:** They really aren’t.

**Craig:** They are nearly boilerplate contracts by the time you’ve been — either you’re a new writer and it’s fairly boilerplate or you’ve been around for a while and your deals have a ton of precedents and they’re fairly boilerplate. And what it really comes down to is how much are we paying you? The rest is baloney, you know, like how many tickets you get to the premiere and do you fly first class or business? I mean whatever.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not hard.

**John:** And ultimately, you and I both had the experience where deals are dragging on for a long time then finally in one afternoon, there’ll be a bunch of phone calls back and forth and it will be done. And that afternoon of phone calls could have happened several weeks ahead of time. And it didn’t.

**Craig:** Yeah, which also makes me feel bad for business affairs because then I feel like they’re living their lives in a constant state of crisis because they’re understaffed. So the deal that they’re doing today is the one that’s about to literally blow up because they couldn’t get to it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So every day is a crisis. It’s no way, but this is what these companies have done. They’ve just cut, cut, cut everywhere. And, you know, the other thing that’s rough is like, it’s hard when you’re negotiating deals because, you know, if you’re like a new business affairs lawyer, you know, I don’t know what you’re getting paid. I don’t know what the starting rate is for a brand new business affairs attorney, but my guess is it’s, you know, I don’t know, a couple 100 grand or something? And, you know, some writer is like, “What, $300,000, screw you, you’re a jerk.” And they’re like, “Ugh, am I, am I the jerk?”

You know, it’s a tough gig. And I feel bad for them.

**John:** And do too.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right. We won’t solve this problem, but I just wanted to bring it up and shine a spotlight on it. Craig, and it’s time for One Cool Things, do you have a One Cool Thing this week.

**Craig:** No. [laughs]

**John:** Oh you forgot about it.

**Craig:** I totally forgot.

**John:** Yeah. I’ll stall for you and I’ll tell you what my One Cool Thing is.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** Mine is this movie that I’ve meant to watch for a long time that I finally watched on the plane. I’m in Montreal as we’re recording this. I’m asked to give a speech at Çingleton which is a great conference. But on the plane, I watched Indie Game: The Movie which everyone had recommended and they were right. It’s a really good documentary about these guys making indie games, indie games for, in this case, Xbox.

And it follows the ups and downs and the travails. And even if you’re not a gamer or a person who would make video games, it’s a great look at sort of that part of the creative process where, you know, you’re living that delusion of like, okay, there’ s a game out there that I can make, that I can deliver and it’s going to happen and then you have a launch day and then you just see.

And that’s what the experience is of making movies and the experience of making Broadway shows and all sorts of creative endeavors is that you are so internally focused for so long and you’re killing yourself to make this thing and you’re exhausted and then finally that day comes and you can’t believe it’s finally here. But you have sort of both excitement and post partum depression and it’s all out of your hands. And the variables are unforeseen.

So it’s a really well-made documentary. If you watch it, then you can look up about the people involved. You’ll see there’s other controversy about sort of the nature of the documentary, but I thought it was just a terrifically a well-made thing. It’s on Netflix right now, so if you have Netflix streaming it is free for you to watch.

**Craig:** Awesome. Well, I guess my One Cool Thing, it’s, you know, we try to make One Cool Things accessible to people. This is not, but it is so so cool. So did you see that Tesla came out with the Tesla P85D model?

**John:** I have no idea what it is. So tell me all about it.

**Craig:** They took a Tesla. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They took the model S. They added a second motor to it. So it’s now all wheel drive, two motors. They added a ton of driver assistance features that essentially make the car able to drive itself.

**John:** Great, love it.

**Craig:** It reads speed limit signs. It sees the lane markers. It keeps distance from the car — basically, I think Elon Musk said, “If you punch in your address and fall asleep in the car, it will get you there,” which is pretty amazing.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** But more importantly, it goes from 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds. It is as fast as a McLaren F1. It is in fact a supercar.

**John:** Well.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So Craig, how does it feel to have a shitty Tesla now?

**Craig:** Well, the thing is I just already, [laughs] begun the process of seeing how it might work on a trade-in because —

**John:** Oh, that’s good. Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So we’re a very accessible podcast here. I talked about free movies on Netflix. And you’re talking about supercars.

**Craig:** I’m so sorry.

**John:** It’s fine. If you would like to ask Craig more questions about his supercar, you can tweet at him.

**Craig:** I don’t have it yet. I don’t have it yet.

**John:** He’s @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust on Twitter. Longer questions like the one we got today, well it wasn’t really a question? It was just a venting of umbrage.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s so great.

**John:** You can send those vents to ask@johnaugust.com. We’re on iTunes. So if you’re subscribing to us through iTunes, that’s awesome. If you’re not subscribing to us in iTunes, like maybe you’re just listening to us at the johnaugust.com site, go over to iTunes and click subscribe and leave us a comment while you’re there because those are lovely.

You can find show notes for the things we talked about on this episode and almost every episode at johnaugust.com/scriptnotes. We have a premium app on iTunes and for Android. There’s a premium site at scriptnotes.net. If you sign up for that, you’ll hear all the back episodes and little bonus things that we do every once in a while. That’s also where you’re going to hear the dirty episode when we hit 1,000 premium subscribers which we’re getting pretty close. We are going to do a dirty episode. So people sent some really good suggestions for who we should have as a guest on the dirty episode.

**Craig:** I thought the funniest one was Mike Birbiglia because he’s so not dirty.

**John:** He’s not. He’s the sweetest, nicest, not dirtiest man.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** But we’ll find somebody. I have some hunches about some really great people we can have on the show.

**Craig:** All right, good.

**John:** All right. And I think that is our show for this week.

**Craig:** Awesome. Good show.

**John:** Craig, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** All right. Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [A few tickets remain](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/writers-writing-simon-kinberg/) for tonight’s Writers on Writing event with John interviewing Simon Kinberg
* [The Belasco Theater](http://thebelascotheater.com/) is gorgeous
* John and Craig [on the Slate Culture Gabfest](http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/culturegabfest/2014/10/slate_s_culture_gabfest_is_live_from_l_a_the_critics_talk_to_jenny_slate.html)
* [Star Wars Minus Williams – The Throne Room](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-GZJhfBmI) by Auralnauts
* [Çingleton](http://cingleton.com/)
* [Indie Game: The Movie](http://buy.indiegamethemovie.com/)
* Jalopnik [on the Tesla Model S P85D](http://carbuying.jalopnik.com/will-the-tesla-model-s-p85d-be-the-best-overall-car-you-1644727868)
* Get premium Scriptnotes access at [scriptnotes.net](http://scriptnotes.net/) and hear our 1,000th subscriber special
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Scriptnotes listener Jonas Bech ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Scriptnotes, Ep 92: The Little Mermaid — Transcript

June 10, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/the-little-mermaid).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 92 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Now, Craig, way back in Episode 73 we did a special episode where we talked about nothing except for Raiders of the Lost Ark.

**Craig:** Perhaps our finest episode.

**John:** That was a great episode. It was a very fun time. And so we’ve been looking for another film that could get that same kind of treatment. And today we have found that movie I believe.

**Craig:** Well, we have. And today we’re going to be talking about a film that not only was a big hit but also changed the business; brought a slumbering business back to life. And that movie is The Little Mermaid.

**John:** Yes. Disney’s 1989 film, written and directed by Ron Clements and John Musker, with songs — important songs — by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, a couple reasons why I thought this was a good movie for us to be talking about. What you said in terms of it changing the industry I think is really crucial and important. This was the first of the modern Disney films. The first of the musical films that really succeeded. And if we didn’t have The Little Mermaid we wouldn’t Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, Pocahontas, Mulan. We wouldn’t have Brave.

This sort of set the template for this idea of the follow your protagonist in a musical adventure.

**Craig:** That’s right. And, also, you wouldn’t have Pixar either, frankly, because a lot of those guys came — Joe Ranft, for instance — worked on this movie.

**John:** And I would argue that Pixar with Toy Story changed the game again.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** I mean, if you look at 1995’s Toy Story, that was one of the first huge successes that wasn’t a musical, that wasn’t sort of following this template. But this was a template that was very important and I think it still is a very clear template.

And what’s useful about The Little Mermaid is the template is really clear. I think a lot of time when we talk about certain ideas in screenwriting — like the hero’s quest, want vs. need, two worlds, irrevocable choices — we’re trying to look at those in complicated live action movies where things are sort of buried underneath and you have to argue about, okay, it’s at that point, or that point.

Because The Little Mermaid is really simple, it’s actually very easy to see what those points are. And I think it’s going to be good to be able to talk through and really see very clearly what those notes are.

**Craig:** Yes. And as we talk through this movie today, let’s also note how it is old fashioned. And Toy Story has, the Toy Story, the Pixar model that was established in Toy Story has essentially subsumed this one. It’s a very different kind of story than the modern, what we call modern animated movies, that is to say post-Pixar.

**John:** Yeah. And the other reason why I thought this was a good movie for us to pick is that it’s an adaptation.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** The Little Mermaid is an adaption of the Hans Christian Andersen story, The Little Mermaid, from 1837. And I wasn’t familiar with what the original story was, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s horrifying.

**John:** Did you do that, too?

**Craig:** I actually was familiar with it. Well, Hans Christian Andersen in and of himself, he was beloved. And yet for whatever reason… — Why he was beloved? He’s a great writer. His stories are horrifying. They are terrible, terrible stories. They’re scary.

For instance, The Little Red Shoes is a girl who puts on red shoes because she wants to dance well and she keeps dancing because the shoes won’t let her stop. And she dances herself to death. The Matchstick Girl who sells matchsticks and is freezing outside looking into a window at a happy family. And she begins lighting matches to keep herself warm and she just ends up freezing to death in the cold surrounded by burnt out matches.

And, of course, then you have The Little Mermaid, a story that is perhaps his most frightening, horrifying, unrelenting bleak tale. And, I don’t know, do you want to tell the story?

**John:** Yeah, I do. So, actually I looked it up on Wikipedia and I’m going to do a shortened summary of the Wikipedia story because I was actually surprised how closely a lot of it does mirror our film in terms of actual plot.

**Craig:** Some of it.

**John:** If you actually look at the plot.

**Craig:** Some of it, yes. Some of it.

**John:** Yeah. If you look at the plot synopsis versus plot synopsis, it’s like, oh, those are really similar.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And then it’s all the ways that they’re different which I think is important for us to be discussing here today. So, bear with me while I sort of read the Wikipedia summary of Hans Christian Andersen’s version of The Little Mermaid:

So, The Little Mermaid dwells in an underwater kingdom with her father (the sea king or mer-king), her grandmother, and her five sisters. Her five sisters are each born one year apart. When a mermaid turns 15, she is permitted to swim to the surface to watch the world above, and when the sisters become old enough, each of them visits the upper world every year. As each of them returns, the Little Mermaid listens longingly to their various descriptions of the surface and of human beings.

When the Little Mermaid’s turn comes, she rises up to the surface, sees a ship with a handsome prince, and falls in love with him from a distance. A great storm hits, and the Little Mermaid saves the prince from nearly drowning. She delivers him unconscious to the shore near a temple. Here she waits until a young girl from the temple finds him. The prince never sees the Little Mermaid.

The Little Mermaid asks her grandmother if humans can live forever if they breathe under water. The grandmother explains that humans have a much shorter lifespan than merfolks’ 300 years, but that when mermaids die they turn to sea foam and cease to exist, while humans have an eternal soul that lives on in Heaven.

**Craig:** Sea foam.

**John:** Sea foam.

**Craig:** They turn into sea foam and they cease to exist.

**John:** The Little Mermaid, longing for the prince and an eternal soul, eventually visits the Sea Witch, who sells her a potion that gives her legs in exchange for her tongue (as the Little Mermaid has the most enchanting voice in the world). The Sea Witch warns, however, that once she becomes a human, she will never be able to return to the sea. She will only obtain a soul if she finds true love’s kiss and the prince loves her and marries her, for then a part of his soul will flow into her. Otherwise, at dawn on the first day after he marries another woman, the Little Mermaid will die brokenhearted and disintegrate into sea foam.

The Little Mermaid drinks the potion and meets the prince, who is mesmerized by her beauty and grace even though she is mute. The prince’s father orders his son to marry the neighboring king’s daughter, the prince tells the Little Mermaid he will not because he does not love the princess. He goes on to say he can only love the young woman from the temple, who he believes rescued him. It turns out that the princess that he’s supposed to marry is actually the temple girl, who had been sent to the temple to be educated. So, the prince loves her, and the wedding is announced.

**Craig:** Now, hold on a second. Before you finish this story, I think everybody at home surely is thinking, “Well, that wedding is going to be interrupted because the Little Mermaid is going to end up marrying the prince, right?”

**John:** Absolutely. Because it’s a fairy tale. It’s going to have a happy ending.

**Craig:** It’s a fairy tale. It’s going to have a happy ending.

**John:** The prince and princess marry, and the Little Mermaid’s heart breaks.

**Craig:** Wait, what?! [laughs]

**John:** She despairs, thinking of the death that awaits her, but before dawn, her sisters bring her a knife that the Sea Witch has given them in exchange for their long hair. So, the sisters sold their long hair for this knife.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** If the Little Mermaid slays the prince with the knife and lets his blood drip on her feet, she will become a mermaid again, all her suffering will end, and she will live out her full life.

**Craig:** Okay, now hold on. Before you go any further, surely what’s going to happen is she’s going to think about killing him and then decide not to. And because she does that super nice thing the prince realizes that and ends up marrying her, right?

**John:** Let’s keep reading.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** However the Little Mermaid cannot bring herself to kill the sleeping prince lying with his bride, and she throws herself into the sea as dawn breaks.

**Craig:** Wait, what?! [laugh]

**John:** Her body dissolves into foam…

**Craig:** Wait, what?!

**John:** …but instead of ceasing to exist, she feels the sun; she has turned into a spirit, a daughter of the air. The other daughters tell her she has become like them because she strove with all her heart to obtain an immortal soul. She will earn her own soul by doing good deeds and she will eventually rise up into the kingdom of God.

Now, note that this is actually a rewrite by Hans Christian Andersen. That was not the original ending he first penned. It was actually bleaker than that.

**Craig:** [laughs] I believe the original ending was such that she turns into sea foam. Period. The end.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** But, wait, I think you left out something.

**John:** Wikipedia might have left out something. I read what I had.

**Craig:** I had a memory that when she becomes human her legs are…

**John:** Oh, I did summarize that out. So, summarize for us. It was so gruesome I couldn’t even read it.

**Craig:** As I recall, the sea witch says, “You can have legs and you’ll be a really good dancer, so that’s how you’re going to attract him. Not because you can’t speak. But you can dance. But, your legs will essentially be excruciatingly painful for you and even more so when you dance. So, she has to dance with this guy, and he loves it, but it’s literally killing her.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** That’s Hans Christian Andersen.

**John:** And she will bleed when she does it, which is, of course, a menstrual kind of thing, too.

**Craig:** Oh, grody. I didn’t know about that part. All right. I mean, it’s the worst story ever.

**John:** Well, it’s the worst story but it’s also the best story.

**Craig:** It is.

**John:** It’s about forbidden love. It’s very much a Romeo and Juliet kind of story at its heart. And there’s terrific elements in it. And, honestly, reading back on the history of the film The Little Mermaid, all the way back to Walt Disney, they had drafts of The Little Mermaid. They had talked about making The Little Mermaid as a movie way back in Disney’s time.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So, fast-forward to sometime in the ’80s and they decide, “Well, let’s make this movie.” And this is the Jeffrey Katzenberg era. And they said, “Well, let’s make this a big animated movie.” And god bless them, they did. But they made some significant changes and choices.

And so what I thought we’d do today is talk through the movie as it actually happens, it exists in real time. Because if you look at the synopsis of the story, it’s going to read a lot like what we just read because things get moved around in a synopsis because it’s easy to sort of understand that way.

But, I’m going to talk through sort of the movie as it actually happens on screen so we can see how they did what they did and what the choices were they made.

**Craig:** And remind me how we did it the last time. Are we stopping and starting, or are you just going to summarize?

**John:** We will start and stop a lot.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So, the movie The Little Mermaid begins with, actually on top of the ocean, begins with the ship. And so we see Eric and his crew, the sailors, and a bit of the kingdom. And the first song we hear, not very much of, it’s called Mysterious Fathoms Below. It’s very classically kind of like setting up the world. It’s surprising that we’re setting up the surface world before the undersea world, but I actually did it because it’s establishing that there is a normal world up above.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that it’s important. And then we’re going to go to see the world below. And how we’re actually getting there is there’s one of the fish that they catch and they haul up in the nets slips off and goes into the water. And once were in the water then we establish our real title sequence and then we know like, okay, we’re in this ocean world and this is where we’re going to spend most of our movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. And they do such a good job. I happen to know Ron and John. They’re amazing guys. Great directors. They did a spectacular job writing and directing this film.

And, if you want to talk about tight writing, you begin with this ship. You see the front of the ship is that classic carved woman who is essentially a mermaid. And here’s what we learn in about three or four lines of dialogue: We learn that Eric is kind of romantic about the sea and even mentions mermaids in this song; we learn…

**John:** Specially they mention King Triton, the ruler of the mer people, which is like, wow, that’s a lot to wedge in there at the start.

**Craig:** So, boom, right. So, right away we know that there is a King Triton and that there are mermaids. He is romantic about the sea. We meet this kind of fuss-budgety guy, Grimsby I believe his name is. Is that right, Grimsby?

**John:** Yeah. Grimsby who is sort of an advisor, like it sort of takes the role of his father. He’s like the counselor, I guess.

**Craig:** Correct. The prince’s counselor. And we learn that he is, unlike our hero, he’s puking because he’s seasick. And he doesn’t believe in any of this nonsense about the ocean. But the crew member says, “No, no, it’s true. King Triton is real and mermaids are real.” And he’s slapping Grimsby in the face with this fish that gets away. And then the fish takes us down into the depth.

So, going back to our discussion about transitions. You will find no genre that is more transition-dependent than animation because you can make any transition you want.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They do such a good job here. But in that short amount of time you get so much information. Pretty great.

**John:** Yeah. So, the fish carries us down underneath the sea where we see the sea kingdom, and specifically we meet Triton who is the ruler of the sea and who’s like the big sort of grumbly king guy who is Triton.

His conductor is this little crab named Sebastian who is sort of his advisor/consigliore, but also leads his orchestra, his choir. And we’re at this concert where the five daughters are supposed to perform and it’s supposed to be the debut performance of Ariel, the youngest daughter. But Ariel is missing.

So, we’ve established all these characters. We still have not yet met Ariel.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** We get to a little kind of throwaway song called the Daughters of Triton. And when we get to the last verse that she’s supposed to sing, she’s not there. It’s like, “Where’s Ariel?” Classically cut to: there’s Ariel.

We’re five minutes into the movie but we have not met our named character, the Little Mermaid character.

**Craig:** Which I like, actually. I kind of like the notion that we’re going to meet our surrounding cast of characters very, very quickly, get them completely out of the way, on their own separate from the hero, and then we meet the hero. Because the whole point of this movie is that the hero feels apart from everybody around her. So, it makes sense that she’s not there with them. She’s there in spirit. I mean, there’s this little line where Sebastian says, “She’s got the most beautiful voice, if only she would show up to rehearsals.” We get it. She’s rebellious, you know. She doesn’t fit in.

So, I like that. She shouldn’t have been there in that opening scene.

**John:** Yes. And the song itself, like “She’s got a voice just like a bell.” It’s all about her even though she’s not there.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, therefore when we cut to her, the next thing we should see is Ariel. If we were to cut to anything other than Ariel we would throw something at the screen. We need to see her at this point.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** We see Ariel and Flounder, her best friend the fish, exploring a shipwreck. And so this is establishing who she is and who he is. She is very curious. She will go and explore things and she’ll go places where she’s not supposed to go. Flounder is more classically the wet blanket. He says, “No, we shouldn’t go in there. This isn’t safe.”

He’s the comic relief but also sort of the voice of reason to some degree.

**Craig:** Yeah. I have to say that one of my… — There are things that I look at in this movie and I think, okay, there is a mistake here. And you could see that Ron and John got better at this. Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast are better movies than this movie…

**John:** I agree.

**Craig:** But, so, not to pick on them because they’re amazing and this was kind of a ground-breaking film, so you have to give them a few mulligans here. Flounder is a bad character. Flounder has no personality really. He is vaguely cowardice. Sort of vaguely amusing. He’s her friend. Maybe he talks a little bit too much. But, the truth is everything about him is duplicated by Sebastian. So, he tends to blab and get her in trouble. He’s over-cautious. He kind of doesn’t need to — he’s not distinct.

**John:** Yeah. He’s basically there so Ariel has someone to talk to.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And here’s the secret about Flounder and Sebastian. Flounder is a fish, so Flounder can’t get out of the water. Sebastian is a crab, so crabs can go up on land. And so when we get to the second half of the movie where we’re up on land, Sebastian can do things and Flounder is stuck in the water and has to swim along in a canal. It’s not useful to us.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know, and they kind of got jammed there by the water thing. You can see that, because Sebastian is just a much funnier, more interesting character. Granted, I think today you would struggle to get away with that Jamaican accent. You know, we live in a different time now. It’s not racist, it’s just I think that there’s a sensitivity to that now that didn’t exist back then. People had no problem laughing along with something like that and nowadays it seems like they do.

**John:** I don’t think actually Sebastian is all that minstrelsy, if that’s the concern. I mean, it’s nothing compared to sort of what you see in the Transformers movies.

**Craig:** No, but for instance that thing that happened in the Transformers movies with the weird ghetto robots, that was kind of racist and people did not like that. This isn’t, it’s just that — I guess the way I would put it is this: I feel like anything that puts something between you and the audience, whether it’s justified or not, is to be avoided.

And when I’m watching it now, it’s funny. I remember seeing this movie in theaters and not blinking twice at this. And now when I watch it I blink a little bit like, huh.

**John:** See, Sebastian is the C-3PO of our story.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** He’s like the cautious, “Oh, we can’t go there, we can’t go there.” But Flounder isn’t really even R2D2. He’s just like this little immature fish who swims around with her. And I have no idea what Flounder actually wants. And you should want him to want something.

**Craig:** Yeah, Sebastian — awesome and interesting, albeit a little minstrelsy. Flounder — kind of a zero. But, that leads us to…

**John:** Well, let’s talk about sort of what happens in the shipwreck. So, in the shipwreck they find some things and you see that she’s always trying to pick up stuff and explore and gather stuff. And she finds a fork and a pipe and she doesn’t know what they are. And she sort of misassumes what they are. And that becomes a recurring gag.

And so it’s not just that she found any human things, she’s found those specific things, and those things are going to — in a very classic comedy way — pay off three times.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, inside that ship there’s also a shark attack. We see that there is danger in the world. She out-swims it. It’s not an amazing sequence…

**Craig:** No.

**John:** …but it establishes there is some action and danger in the world.

**Craig:** It’s actually a bad sequence because it is establishing danger that is irrelevant. It felt like they just jammed in some action to jam it in, because the truth is the danger that the movie establishes in a much better way later on when Sebastian sings Under the Sea is the danger of humans to mer people. We shouldn’t perceive danger from sharks in this movie because the shark will never appear again, nor will sharks appear again in general. Nor will predation really appear in any specific way.

So, it felt, frankly, unnecessary.

**John:** Tacked in a bit. The next character we meet is Scuttle who is this idiot seagull who lives up on the rocks. He’s our first character we sort of talk to who’s above ground. And we establish at this point that Ariel can talk to every animal in this world. And that’s sort of — actually, that’s not true. She can talk to all the sea animals in the world, I guess, is the rule.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Scuttle takes a look at the things she brings up and says like, “Oh, that fork is a dingle hopper. It’s for combing your hair and the pipe is an instrument they use to blow.” And he has no idea what’s going on.

It’s as she’s talking with Scuttle that she realizes, “Oh no, I forgot the concert!” and so she races back to get to the kingdom. It’s also here that we first establish the idea of Flotsam and Jetsam, who are these two eels, these who evil eels who swim around and will cause havoc for our heroine.

**Craig:** Well, and I think we immediately then go to — we establish that as they watch her, each one of them has one orange or yellow eye, and those become the sort of psychic vision of Ursula, our villain, and I think we go right to her at that point.

**John:** We do.

**Craig:** She does a little quick thing. And so it’s great because in any kind of story like this you’re getting an enormous amount of information very quickly. We’ve established the two separate worlds, the separation of the worlds, the existence of a king, and Sebastian, and a daughter who is the fifth of five daughters who is young, who is rebellious, who hasn’t shown up, who in fact is obsessed with the human world and her friend Flounder. And there’s a seagull up top who’s trying to explain the human world to her but he doesn’t know how it works. And oh my god, I’m late for this, I’ve got to get back. And what are we, like probably minute six, and now, oh my gosh, here’s a villain. And she’s great.

And when movies pile this much in and somehow avoid overstressing your brain, you start to feel like you’re listening to a really good song with lots of themes and lots of changes and not something that’s just going to be a repetitive beat.

And Ursula is, in my estimation, the best thing about this movie. She may be the best Disney villain ever.

**John:** She’s a fantastic villain.

**Craig:** Spectacular. And when we get to her song, we should also talk about the existence — there’s a song that they did for the Broadway version which is — I wish were in this movie, because it’s an incredible song.

**John:** Let’s talk about what we learn about Ursula at this point. So, we learn from Ursula that she used to live in the palace and she’s somehow banished from there. She uses the word banished. And that she has some vague kind of plan. She wants to get back in. And after seeing Ariel and Ariel going up to the surface, she says, “She may be the key to Triton’s undoing.” So, she has a vengeance against Triton and she wants to use our Little Mermaid heroine to do that.

**Craig:** And actually I should say this is — in the musical, in the stage musical she sings a song, I believe the title is let’s bring the good times back, where she sings about the good times that are gone and past when she did live in the palace. And she describes what life was like when she was in charge. And now she’s saying, “Let’s bring those good times back.”

And it’s such a great explanation of her motivation. You can take jealousy or power hunger. That’s a very flat sort of thing, you know, hunger for power. But this lady doesn’t just hunger for power. She’s wickedly passionate. She believes that those were the good times and she wants them back. So, I love that.

**John:** Yeah. So, she doesn’t get to sing her “I want” song here, but she does communicate what her ambitions are.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Ariel goes back to the palace. Triton, her dad, finds out that she was up at the surface where the humans can see her. He’s pissed off at her. “Not another word,” he says to her.

At this point we’ve musically introduced the idea, the musical theme of Part of Your World many, many times. We have not actually sung it. It’s not until we get to — so, Triton assigns Sebastian, like, “Keep an eye on Ariel. I want to make sure she stays away from those humans.

We follow Ariel to the secret cave which is where she keeps all of the human stuff that she finds. It’s in that cave where we sing maybe one of the great “I want” songs, which is Part of Your World.

**Craig:** Yes, including the lyric “I wanna.”

**John:** “I wanna.” Yes. So, this is a thing to talk about sort of in musicals overall, and this is being one of the sort of seminal animated musicals, is that idea of first song establishes the world. So, Fathoms Below, even though we don’t use a lot of it.

Second song, or quite early on song needs to be the lead character singing “I want.” And let us know clearly what it is the character is trying to achieve in the course of the story. So, she sings, “I want to be part of that world.” And interesting she says, the song is called Part of Your World, but it’s actually “part of that world” is what she sings most of the time.

**Craig:** Right. “That world.”

**John:** So, she’s around all this human stuff and she wants to be up there where people can dance and she doesn’t even understand what that world is but she knows she wants to be a part of it.

**Craig:** Mm-hmmm. Yeah. She does. And it is, first of all, let’s hang our heads for the late, great Howard Ashman who was simply the best at this. I don’t think we’ll ever see anyone come close to his ability to not only lyrically be clever, but also lyrically to express things like these simple desires in a way that was so fresh and captivating and honest. Her passion here is the passion of an innocent person, which is the best kind of passion, so we find her ignorance adorable.

There are little animated touches that Ron and John do. While she’s singing she gracefully plants the fork in a candelabra because she thinks that maybe that’s where it goes. And they just do that sort of back-grounded as she’s singing the song. But there’s a yearning to it that is gorgeous because it’s not, “I want something that I suppose I can have with effort.”

It’s, “I want something I can’t have at all. I’m a fish. That’s there, I’m here.” And it’s sort of heartbreaking but it also sets up why she would be willing to go through terrible lengths to achieve what she wants.

**John:** Yes. And as the song is mostly concluded, a boat sails overhead, a shadow of a boat sails overhead, and that is Prince Eric’s boat. She swims up to see Prince Eric’s boat. So, we reestablish Eric, the guy who we started at the head of the movie. We see more about his dog, Max, who is like a big sheepdog who is very classically a Disney dog.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Just like a great dog who doesn’t talk, has no magical powers, just is a great dog. He starts to sniff out that, like, oh, there’s a mermaid there. But, of course, he can’t say anything.

**Craig:** No. It’s like a classic Disney dog that barks happily and licks the faces of people with good intentions and growls at people with bad intentions. [laughs] It’s just perfect.

**John:** And so Max’s function is largely to let us know that Eric is a great guy, because what’s going to happen is really the inciting incident of our film which is the storm. This giant storm suddenly rears up, destroys the ship. The ship catches fire. Eric goes back to the ship to rescue his dog Max. Talk about a hero.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** He goes back to rescue his dog.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Goes back to rescue his dog. The ship blows up because of the cannons. Eric is knocked overboard. Ariel saves him.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Ariel pulls him to shore. Rescues him/saves him. She sings the reprise of Part of Your World, which actually she says Part of YOUR world now, and she wants to be with HIM. So, it’s gone from a general sense of like I want to be up on the surface to like I want to be wherever he is is where I want to be.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And then swims off as Max and Grimsby find Eric there on the beach.

**Craig:** Right. So, a couple of things. First off, we’ve got, of all the stuff that we sort of laid out there, including songs and action set pieces and meeting all these characters, that lightning storm happens at 22 minutes. So, it’s incredible how much they’ve jammed in to 22 minutes without feeling like it’s overstuffed or too rushed.

When she’s looking at him on the boat, the movie changes permanently to a romance. So, for the first 22 minutes it really is a story about a young woman who is struggling with her father’s inability to let her kind of wander off and experience life the way she wants to experience it. In that regard it’s very similar to Finding Nemo.

We can see parallels between this movie and Finding Nemo. Obviously they both take place under the water. And they are both about parents struggling with children who want to be free. Those parallels end pretty quickly right here on the 22nd minute when she just gets all googly-eyed for Eric.

And this is one of the lines in the sand where we can look at the Pixar era and this early Disney era… – Early Disney era? You and I were already grown men! — [laughs] But these Disney movies of the revitalization of the Disney era that started with The Little Mermaid was a fairytale princess and prince-oriented romantic era.

And so the stories are both buoyed and dragged down by the emphasis on straight ahead googly-eyed romance. It’s love at first sight which is a very simple, frankly not true, thing. And, also, the story then takes on a very adolescent nature. It is very much about a young woman who just wants to get a guy and has to figure out how to do it. And this is not a particularly feminist movie. We’ll see that as we go along.

But, anyway, this is the big change. I’ll say one other thing. When he washes up on shore and she’s cradling him and he’s kind of passed out, it is a very iconic representation of an adolescent fantasy. It is the fantasy of being found and being taken care of by a woman. It is the fantasy of finding and taking care of a helpless man. There is something about that, that kind of patient/nurse thing that is very ingrained in us in a sort of Jungian way.

And, also, I have to say one of the great comic takes in film history is when she’s holding him like this and you cut to Sebastian and his jaw drops and hits the rock with a clang.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** It is just a great example of how funny animation can be. And now it seems just a little corny, I suppose, but in its time it was spectacular. I mean, I remember the audience losing their minds.

**John:** Now, it’s important to note that this inciting incident, it changed the course of the story. It’s like that Passover Principle of like why today is like no other day, that everything is different. But unlike Finding Nemo, where Nemo gets pulled off and gets pulled away from his situation, she doesn’t get pulled away. It’s just that her ambition changes. Her ambition and her focus changes.

And she’s not going to be willing to live under the sea anymore. But it’s not like the storm pulled her away from her family or anything like that. It’s that her goals have changed. And because of that she is going to change the story, which is notable.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, if we had introduced the story, if we’d established the romance from the very start, like if she had seen Prince Eric on page 5, this would be a different thing because it would have been about just her wanting to be with this cute boy. Because we’ve established that she overall wants to get up to the surface and wants to live that life, it has a — I don’t know — I feel better we’re out in the movie, that it’s not just this teenage romance.

**Craig:** I agree. And all that stuff has kind of led to her conundrum. What we’ve established with the pre-romantic moment movie is that she can’t be part of their world regardless of love, because she’s a mermaid, she’s a fish, she doesn’t have legs.

I mean, she makes a big deal about legs and feet and walking in the sun. Really, it’s interesting how Ron and John really smartly specified her problem down to legs. Because she can breathe above water just fine. We see that. It’s just she doesn’t have legs. So, when she runs away from him, she’s aware that she can’t be with him if she has a fish bottom. She needs legs.

And in her mind, at this point in the movie all she knows is I can’t be with him because I don’t have legs. I really wish I could be with him. But they haven’t gone any further than that.

**John:** Specifically she sings, “What would I pay to stay here beside you?”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** Which is what she will do. She’ll pay with her soul.

**Craig:** Right. She hasn’t imagined that it’s even a possibility. It’s funny; she’s not depressed at all. When she goes back down under the ocean, she’s the opposite of depressed. The next thing we see is she’s like super duper in love girl, like la-da-da-da, swimming around, singing. Her sisters tell the dad, “Oh boy, she’s in love.”

**John:** Before we get under water, though, Ursula sees her up on the shore. And that, I think, is an important point to make. So, Flotsam and Jetsam have watched this, too. And we cut to Ursula who is forming a plan. And this is also a moment where we introduce what Ursula actually does. And she has this garden of souls, which is really disturbing.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And it was even disturbing watching it again as a grownup, because essentially these mer folk who have come to her — we’ll learn the specifics in the song in a little bit — but these mer-folk who have come to her asking for favors have invariably gotten their souls caught by her. And they are these little wretched newt things that are sort of stuck in the sand and are pathetic. And that’s the danger that we’ve established at this moment.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And that’s the danger that we’ve established at this moment.

**Craig:** Yes. And it was great to bring her back, again. You almost forget that she’s there and then there she is again. So, we just think, “Boy, there’s a lot going on dramatically in this story.”

It’s one of the reasons why Star Wars, I think, captivates kids even now today. Ariel and Luke Skywalker are essentially the same person. They’re both saying, I want to be part of that world up there, with the two suns, or up there by the beach. And then you get into that character drama and then you go, “Oh, wait, but also there’s Darth Vader.”

Same thing with Titanic. Watching these two people fall in love, I want to be part of his world. Oh, wait, there’s also an iceberg. Exciting.

**John:** Exciting. So, under the sea we see that the sisters have recognized that, oh, that girl is in love. Triton is like, “Oh, she’s in love? Well, Sebastian should know about this.” So he asks Sebastian. Sebastian is like, “Ah, la, la, la.” He’s sort of yada-yada-ing, like trying not to spill the beans.

And Sebastian is trying to convince Ariel like, “I know you like that boy up here, but everything is much better under the sea, which becomes Under the Sea, which is a very classic, iconic number from the show, which is again trying to establish why our world underneath here is better than the world above.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And this is the one I think actually got the Grammy nominations and sort of the acclaim at the time.

**Craig:** And they did an amazing job. It is an amazing song. Remarkably clever lyrics. There is, when you first start to listen to it you think this doesn’t need to be in the movie because we know that we’re under the sea and obviously they’ve been saying over and over that you shouldn’t go up there. So, why are we singing another song about how it’s better down here?

And then if you listen to the lyrics, they take a shift, and Sebastian starts singing about what it’s like up there. Up there they eat you. They fry you. They put you in fricassee. They chop you to bits. It’s a violent world up there to people like them.

So, even though the song is called Under the Sea, “come down here where it’s hotter and it’s more fun,” it’s not a song about home is great. What it really is a song about is stay away from the dangerous world up there. It’s a song of warning disguised as a calypso romp.

**John:** Yeah. Ariel and Flounder take off in the middle of this giant production number and Sebastian finishes the production number and realizes that, oh crap, they’re gone.

Triton summons him to say, like, “So tell me the specifics of who it is that she’s in love with.” Sebastian says, “Ah, la, la, la,” and finally gets the word out of it.

We’re in Ariel’s cave and Flounder has rescued this — somehow rescued sort of magically — this giant statue of Eric…

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah, I’m not quite sure how he did that.

**John:** Flounder had the help of a bunch of octopuses I guess? They sort of rescued the statue and brought it down.

**Craig:** He used a system of pulleys.

**John:** And this is a moment that I honestly felt went on too long and could have been trimmed down a bit. But, anyway, Triton comes and finds the cave and says, “You cannot go up with those humans anymore. I’m furious.” And he uses his trident to zap and fry all of the stuff that she’s gathered from places.

Now, I think it’s important that the father freak out, because when your father abandons you, the one man who you’re supposed to be safe with, when he gets scary and violent, it’s understandable that she’s going to run away.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It just went on a little long for me here.

**Craig:** I personally thought, it’s one of my favorite parts of the movie, only because there is something legitimate about his anger. And I always think about these movies, particularly these coming of age stories… — Well, if you look at Nemo, Nemo is the story about a parent. Nemo is a movie for parents about parenting. Kids enjoy it. They don’t realize that they’re watching a story about parenting, but they are.

This movie is a story about growing up. It is from the kid’s perspective. And when your father yells at you and you are smaller, that’s what it seems like to me. You know, that suddenly your dad gets big and orangey reddish and starts shooting fire. And she’s afraid of him. She is legitimately afraid of him.

And, of course, he’s blowing up the stuff that she’s gathered and she’s very upset because they mean something to her and they mean nothing to him. But, it all leads up to the final, you know, the crescendo that builds to the climax of him destroying the statue of Eric, which will then payback in this fascinating way.

This little moment where after he leaves, and he leaves, and Ron and John do a great job of showing that he’s remorseful. Every time he yells at her he walks away like, “Oh, maybe I overdid it.”

So, she’s upset and then along come Flotsam and Jetsam. And they’re there to say to her…

**John:** “There may be a way that you can get up there.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** “Have you heard of Ursula, like the sea witch?”

“Well, I couldn’t possibly.”

And it’s like, “Well, you possibly could. What’s the harm? You could at least talk with her.”

**Craig:** Right. And she’s sort of, you know, because everybody knows you don’t talk to Ursula the Sea Witch. She’s scary and she’s bad. And so Ariel properly is resisting this. So, okay, she’s not a dummy. But, as they’re kind of saying, “Oh, you know, she’s not that bad. And she could really help you out,” The face, Eric’s face from the statue, floats down and lands in the sand right next to her.

And she goes, “Okay, yeah, I think I’m going to go.” Because then it really is like, I love him, and I’m angry at daddy. And screw it. Let’s go talk to the sea witch and see how that goes.

And what’s interesting is we have a movie where the hero and the villain don’t meet eye to eye until minute 37, which is probably about halfway through this thing.

**John:** Yeah, it is. And so I would say overall as I was keeping track of time in this, it was like, “Ooh, things are happening a little bit later than I would have expected them to happen.” I don’t necessarily know that I wanted to rush through anything faster than this.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** But it’s strange though that in a movie that is actually pretty short because it’s an animated movie, it’s a very, very long first act. This movie is essentially a first act and a second act.

**Craig:** It is musical structure, no question. No question. It’s a musical structure movie. It’s a two-act movie. You can see where the curtain comes down for intermission. We’re about to get there.

**John:** So, Ariel goes to see the sea witch, Ursula. This is where we have Poor Unfortunate Souls which is a song that Ursula sings that explains sort of what she does, which is that people come to her with problems, this one wants to be thin, and this one wants to get the girl. Do I help them, yes indeed.

And, of course, sometimes they can’t pay the price and therefore they become these wretched — this wretched soul garden that she has. But this won’t happen to Ariel because, you know, because it won’t. And so this is where Ursula sets up the rules that in exchange for her voice she will have legs and she can go up to the surface. And she has three days in which to get true love’s kiss from the prince. And if she can do that then she’s fine; if not, then, well, she’s risking her soul.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. So, first, let’s talk about the song. Amazing. I mean, it’s so campy and wonderful. And this is, it’s just, I don’t know how you do better than this.

The first time we meet her actually, going way back to the beginning, Ursula is complaining about how she’s starving, and she’s just obese, like super big boozy old lady. It’s just great.

**John:** Modeled on Divine, the drag queen.

**Craig:** Big time. And the whole thing is just a very gay, campy presentation of this bigger than life woman. And the song title itself is spectacular. Poor Unfortunate Souls. You come to me and I help you because of your poor unfortunate souls. But what ends up happening to all of you. You all end up basically getting hoisted by your own petard. I get you. And now you are my own Poor Unfortunate Souls. And I literally have your souls now and they are poor and unfortunate. It’s a great little double entendre.

The song itself is kind of a masterpiece of seduction. This old woman, you know, here’s this young girl who is uncertain about her sexuality. She’s met a boy for the first time but he’s not a fish boy. He’s a human boy. And I don’t know what to do and my daddy is angry at me. It’s just classic sort of stuff.

And what does Ursula do? She slithers out of her big shell. She immediately puts on some makeup. She’s a woman. You know what I mean? As she sings this song she’s very enticing, like baby this is who it is to be a woman. These are the things we do. I understand that this is love and the things we do for love, but you’ll get your man. You know, she’s this big thing.

And then she tells Ariel she has to take her voice, she’s like, well then, “How am I going to get a man without a voice?” And she says, “Oh, you use that pretty face.”

**John:** “Body language.”

**Craig:** “Body language.” I mean, this big… — It’s just all about sort of the bad, bad mommy. And it’s about kind of taking advantage of this youthful girl. And so it’s this perfect little presentation of how to be a villain and how to be a seductive villain. And it’s so important that you be a seductive villain here so that we believe that Ariel is doing this because she’s been convinced, you know.

**John:** Well, the other important lesson here for screenwriting, though, is Ariel is making an irrevocable choice. I mean, what Ursula says is, “Life’s full of touch choices, innit?”

**Craig:** She goes, “Innit?”

**John:** “Innit.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Either you do this or you don’t get it at all. And if you do this there’s no going back. And so you’re going to lose your fins and you’re going to swim to the surface and that’s it. And that’s an important lesson to learn, because so often you’ll see stories in which characters are allowed to take these little sort of half steps. And you always feel like could go back home at any point. But, no, Ariel is essentially burning down her house.

She is changing her body permanently so she can go on to this next part of the story. And that’s an important lesson to learn.

**Craig:** Yes. And we’ll come back to this, sort of the ending. It always reminds me of the end of Grease where it turns out if you just put on the stretch pants and get a perm you can get a guy. That appears the lesson of that movie. The lesson of this movie is legs definitely help you get a dude.

But, for those of you who are looking for lessons here on how to apply any of this stuff to your own writing, there’s a little moment in this song that is a great example of how to both compress what you’re doing and layer it and enhance it by doing that.

We know that Ursula is a sea witch and she’s saying I can whip up a potion to do this. She starts making the potion while she’s convincing Ariel to still do it. She’s making the potion while Ariel is saying, “I’m not sure.” So, she is both convincing her and making the potion, which is very visual. And by making the potion almost like this is happening, kiddo. [laughs] You know? Get on board. It becomes a very smart confluence of lyric, seduction, character intention, and visuals.

**John:** Agreed. It’s a question of thinking about not then the character doe this. It’s like while the character is doing this. So, if you have characters, I mean, most movies you’re not going to have characters singing, but characters are going to be talking and doing other stuff. Well, don’t have them stand there and talk to the person straight on. They can be doing the thing that they’re talking about doing and present them with a finished choice rather than having to stop and make the potion.

**Craig:** Right-o.

**John:** So, we’re 43 minutes into the movie.

**Craig:** Let’s drop the curtain. It’s time for Act Two. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. Ariel becomes a human. And that really is very much a classic act break.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And what I had forgotten about the movie is that Ariel becomes human and suddenly she cannot be underwater. And so it’s only with the help of Flounder and Sebastian that she’s able to get up to the surface in time so she doesn’t drown. That was just a lovely, nice choice.

**Craig:** Correct. And for those of us who are into mermaids, and I am, I mean, she’s hot. Ariel is hot. I mean, okay, fine, whatever, she’s 16. But she’s not real, so I don’t feel like I’m really being gross about it. She was a hot mermaid. And she wears this little shell bra, but then her body, she doesn’t have to wear pants because she’s got a fish bottom. But when she gets out of the water…

**John:** But now she’s naked.

**Craig:** …she’s naked. And they do a really good job of cutting around her pelvis. It’s very frustrating. And then they eventually put clothes on her.

**John:** So, she gets up to the surface. Up at the surface we see Eric. He’s playing the melody of Part of Your World, I think.

**Craig:** I believe he’s actually… [hums]

**John:** [hums] Oh, he’s playing the same version. [hums]

**Craig:** Which is derived from Part of Your World.

**John:** Sebastian, while up at the surface, Sebastian is trying to, again, convince Ariel to go back. Maybe your father can save this, stop this somehow. But finally he agrees to help her.

This is, again, sort of Sebastian being C-3PO. Like, “No, no, no, we shouldn’t do this, we shouldn’t do this. Okay, fine, well then I’m going to help you because you’re helpless.”

Max finds her. Max the dog finds her. We have established that she can’t speak. That she’s really pretty but she can’t speak.

**Craig:** And therefore she can’t be the girl that he remembered, because the girl who rescued him had this wonderful voice.

**John:** Exactly. Yes. So, she’s lovely and all, but she can’t be that girl.

We dress her in some sail cloth and we send her off to the palace. She takes a bubble bath. We have dinner and the advisor, Grimsby. We re-payoff the fork and the pipe.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** She tries to use the fork at dinner and she tries to use the pipe and doesn’t know what it is. So, she seems really kooky and wacky because she doesn’t know what these things are.

I would honestly say that my least favorite part of this movie is Ariel on the surface.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** The fish out of water. Because she comes off as very much the manic pixie dream girl. And this is a girl who worked really hard underneath the sea and on the land she just doesn’t sort of put the pieces together. We don’t see her being smart on the land.

**Craig:** Yeah. A bunch of things happen to really make this the saggiest part of the movie. It’s hard to trump “I’ve just turned you into a human.” You know, that’s a big deal.

We’ve taken away her voice. It is necessary for the story, but it also then naturally turns her character into kind of a silent movie goofball. And the fact that Eric takes her in and she has the wishful foam and bubble bath and the fancy dress gets put on. And, you know, she’s at dinner with this guy she’s in love with. It’s getting very super rom-com-y. It’s played for goofs. And then, unfortunately, we get the song Les Poissons.

Now, I love Les Poissons…

**John:** But it’s just a song.

**Craig:** It’s just a song.

**John:** It’s just a musical number.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, this is just a song in which the cook is talking about all the fish that he’s going to put into the stew and he tries to kill Sebastian. And it’s a payoff I guess to the idea of how dangerous the world is up above. It’s what Sebastian said before. But it’s not all that useful.

**Craig:** It’s not, because the truth is that danger for her is gone. She has legs now. So, no one is going to cook her. Sebastian is there because he’s watching her. The song, Les Poissons, is incredibly clever. I mean, really smart wordplay. And the sequence is entirely for laughs, although it gets a little gory and creepy in it. But the biggest issue with it is it could just be lifted from the movie entirely and the story wouldn’t change.

**John:** Nothing would change one bit.

**Craig:** But, you know, I guarantee you that it was one of the top rated songs and a crowd favorite and that’s why they’re keeping it.

**John:** Yeah. But, again, it’s pointing out the fact that she doesn’t have anything to do and she’s not actually trying to do anything.

**Craig:** Precisely.

**John:** We’ve established this rule that she has three days to do it, but — I’m not spoiling anything to the movie we’re about to talk through — she doesn’t do anything. She’s not trying to do anything. And it’s a weird case where like you don’t want her to try too hard because then it’s not really true love. At the same time, you want to see her sort of making more of an effort. Instead, everyone around her is trying to make an effort to make this happen, including this next song, Kiss the Girl, which is a better number. At least it’s on story point, which is a number led by Sebastian where he’s trying to get all the other animals to sing the song and make the most romantic moment possible so that Eric will actually kiss her.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so it’s this boat ride and it’s lovely. To me, this also went on a little bit long.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a romantic thing and they almost kiss and all the rest of it. What you’re starting to feel the burden of is her lack of choices. And, yes, she doesn’t have a voice, but she also isn’t making a choice either. She makes one huge choice, “Turn me into a human.” Once she does that, she makes no choice again for the rest of the movie.

And this where you can see Ron and John getting much, much better with Aladdin and with Beauty and the Beast. And Disney movies to follow as well, Pocahontas and so forth. And certainly the Pixar movies take it to another level. But we are now firmly in fairy tale-ville, where we started with this really kind of self-directed aspirational female character who is now curiously sort of as she physically evolved, emotionally devolved into passive and moony faced.

She will not choose anything again. She will not learn anything for the rest of the movie. And this is my, you know, when we get to the end we’ll sort of talk like who is the hero of this movie? It’s actually kind of hard to figure out because thematically it’s quite thin. And in terms of choices it becomes very, very thin. It becomes a very plot-oriented movie in the second act.

**John:** So, spit-balling, but I would say if you were to rebuild this in a way so that this second act could actually have something for her to do, if on the surface there was something that they were planning on doing that was going to hurt the kingdom or it would have some greater impact on the world that she discovers while she’s up there and needs to involve herself to stop it. That she needs to be selfless to stop it. That would be showing her making some choices. And complicated by the fact that she can’t speak and therefore can’t do these things.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But instead it’s just, you know, be pretty so that he’ll kiss you. And that’s not a playable action.

**Craig:** It’s not. And it gets papered over by this beautiful song — it’s actually a beautiful song — and again, Menken and Ashman, just an incredible job. You know, now that I think about it, it becomes evident and I’m just sort of racing ahead here to the end, but it becomes evident that really King Triton is the protagonist of the movie. And he’s the person who sort of articulates an anti-theme and a theme and makes the biggest choices. He makes a choice of sacrifice. And he makes a choice of ultimate sacrifice at the end.

Which is interesting, because I’m sure when I watched the movie I thought it was her, but I don’t think it is.

**John:** Yeah, not every father is going to have to give up his soul, but every father is going to have to give up his daughter.

**Craig:** Right. And he chooses to do both, right.

**John:** Yeah, that’s thematic choice.

So, specifically what’s happening here, so we have this Kiss the Girl sequence. They almost kiss. They don’t quite kiss. Flotsam and Jetsam sort of rock the boat at the last moment. Ursula realizes, oh no, this is getting too close, she’s actually going to get the kiss, so she’s going to have to get more involved. And we see Ursula casting this great spell. And she’s going to use the voice that she has from Ariel to win over this guy.

**Craig:** Right. She transforms herself into this beautiful girl and because she has the voice, and this is also one of the things I wasn’t quite thrilled with — Eric sees this beautiful girl who has this voice that he remembered, but that’s not what convinces him to marry her. What convinces him is she basically puts a spell on him to marry her.

**John:** Yeah. It’s like a hat on a hat. So, is it because she has the voice and is beautiful, or is it because he’s charmed. And they sort of do both. Like you see his eyes change colors and such.

**Craig:** Right. And he talks robot language.

**John:** Robotically. Not the strongest moment here. So, I think you’ve got to pick one or pick the other.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s also, frankly, it’s a little annoying that she’s cheating, Ursula is cheating. And by cheating, you start to feel like, well, okay, I bought into all these roles. It’s not fair that you’re cheating. And our hero, or our presumable hero, still isn’t making any choices. In fact, she just sort of gets cast aside.

**John:** So, an option here, which I’m not sure is a better option, but would have been an option. If we established that there was another princess, like the girl who he’s supposed to love, he’s supposed to marry, and then Ursula went to that girl and gave her this thing, or appeared as that girl, and it’s someone who’s established in this world. And it’s like, “Oh, I thought you actually were this girl the whole time,” then that would be more reasonable. So, there’s already a rival romantic interest.

But instead it’s just like a girl who shows up from nowhere who suddenly he’s going to get married to. And the news that he’s going to get married to, it’s kind of interesting, but it’s kind of — again, points out sort of how disconnected Ariel is from her own story at this point.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Scuttle, the seagull, shows up in her bedroom one morning and says, “Great news, kid. There’s going to be a royal wedding.” And it’s like, “Oh, that’s great, that’s fantastic. He’s going to marry me.” No, no, he’s going to marry this other girl. It’s like, really? You are that disconnected from the whole story that you didn’t realize that he’d met this other girl and this other thing was going to happen? Frustrating.

**Craig:** I know. It is. And you’re just starting to feel the burden of the fact that she’s so passive here. And there’s this attempt at a wedding. The sea creatures rally together to disrupt it. She fights her way back on board. In the melee the little shell with Ariel’s voice gets knocked off of Hot Ursula’s neck, lands by Ariel’s feet.

Ariel gets her voice back. Eric runs over. “Oh my god, it was you the whole time.” They’re about to kiss and the sun goes down. And she turns back into a mermaid. Which, you know, I have to say, okay, great, because I’m sure at some point somebody said, “They kiss and she lives happily ever after.” And that would have been boring.

And then Ursula goes nuts.

**John:** Let’s talk about that, because we do split into three action threads here as we get into the royal wedding sequence, which are worth discussing. And none of them worked brilliantly, but they were definitely the right ideas.

First off, Flounder and Ariel are going to go towards the boat. So, the wedding is going to happen on this boat. And Ariel and Flounder are going to be on the boat. Well, she can’t swim, which I think is such an interesting idea. So, she’s this mermaid who can’t swim, so she’s on this barrel and Flounder has to pull her.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It doesn’t really quite work, but it’s the right idea.

Sebastian goes to tell Triton and to get Triton involved. That’s the right idea. And Scuttle goes to lead the other birds and other animals to try to disrupt the wedding, which is a good comedy idea. So, those are all the kind of general right ideas. And Scuttle is the one who actually figured out that Vanessa was in fact the sea witch and what all was happening.

Again, the fact that this minor character has such a more important role than Ariel at this point is frustrating and is an indication that something is not working quite right.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s what’s going to try to happen. Triton, this is where we get to the point of Triton makes the ultimate sacrifice. He says like, “Instead of taking my daughter’s soul you can take my soul,” which is, of course, what Ursula wants more than anything else.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, he’s willing to take his daughter’s place in this. Ursula will get his trident and his crown. And in a surprising amount of new power becomes this giant monstrous creature who rises from the ocean.

**Craig:** Correct. She does. She rises from the ocean. She’s at first sort of just delighted that she’s back in power. But, Eric, who has decided he’s not going to let Ariel go again, so everybody’s more active than Ariel at this point, swims down and kind of jabs her in the leg.

And that makes Ursula super angry. She tries to kill him by shooting her trident and in doing so misses. I think Ariel knocks into her, she misses. And she kills Flotsam and Jetsam instead. And this gets her super angry and she turns into this big, huge, crazy octopus monster thing.

**John:** Yeah. Eric pulls the ship around and rams her with the front of the ship, the sort of mermaid front of the ship. And kills Ursula with the front of the ship. And Ursula dies.

In Ursula’s death her magic is undone. Triton returns. The poor unfortunate souls return. And order is once again restored to things. Ariel is still a mermaid until…

**Craig:** Well, wait, hold on. Let’s point out that there is an entire climax and Ariel did noting.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Nothing. She did nothing. She sat there and watched it like we did, which I have to say is the part of this that’s sort of for girls was frustrating for me. That this very promising young woman turned into sort of a helpless passerby. And, you know, I didn’t like that that much. I should point out that there’s, just aside from all this, one of the strangest moments in animation history is when Ursula is dying and gets kind of like hit by lightning, and we see her skeleton inside of her body.

And she has a fat skeleton. [laughs] It’s fascinating.

**John:** [laughs] Nothing better than a fat skeleton.

Yes, these are my concerns as well. And so this may be apocryphal, I don’t know if it’s actually true. The story is that, I mean, the ending of the movie was originally quite a bit different. And Katzenberg saw Die Hard and came back and said, “The ending must be much, much, much bigger.” And so they threw out the last reel and wrote a much bigger ending.

And I can tend to believe that in a sense of like the movie’s scale suddenly increases hugely beyond where it had been anywhere before. And it doesn’t kind of track logically how some of this all fits together. First off, like why is she so powerful?

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Why does the trident give her so much more power than Triton seems to have? Also, why did no one kill the witch before now? I mean, if she was out there and she was killable, why did no one try to kill her before now? It raised sort of strange questions for me.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And it felt out of scale. And also there’s got to be a solution in which Ariel can actually do something.

**Craig:** To me that’s the biggest one. I mean, look, you’re right. There are some logic issues there. You could sort of presuppose that because she’s a very magical person, if you combine her already powerful magic with the trident then maybe she could do all of this stuff.

She’s killed by, she creates a whirlpool and Eric rides a kind of dredged up wreck of a ship upwards through the whirlpool and then basically steers the prow into her. So, that’s a pretty big thing to kill her. But, yeah, she’s killable. But my biggest issue is just that Ariel is not doing anything.

By the way, neither is Triton. That’s the other thing. I mean, either she’s the protagonist, or Triton is the protagonist. I kind of think Triton is. Either way, one of the two of them has to do something here. Instead we have Eric doing it.

**John:** Triton at this point, he’s a soul in the garden though.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** He’s already given up. So, he’s a little worm guy.

**Craig:** He can’t do anything. She can do something.

**John:** But, by the way, who’s in our movie that’s not doing anything important. Ariel, first and foremost. Sebastian. Flounder, who’s kind of useless, but Flounder should do something. And there’s all these characters who we established could and should do something, or the sisters even had been better established.

These people should be doing something and they’re not getting a chance to do anything. And that is a frustration that comes out. And it just feels really rushed because it honestly is rushed, partly because it’s an animated movie and there’s an expectation about how long an animated movie can last.

**Craig:** Well, sure…

**John:** Kids can only go so long without having to run to the bathroom.

**Craig:** But I think that what we’re dealing with here is the climax ultimately feels a little meaningless because we’ve run out of thematic juice. When you look at the climax of Finding Nemo, Marlin sends Nemo into that big fishing net to get Dory out. And that is thematically valuable because he’s tracked his son down after all this time. He wants nothing more than to have his son back and safe. And he’s gotten him.

And he now has to let him go again on purpose, into danger on purpose. And so it’s such a pregnant act, you know; there’s so much value to that act. And the aftermath of it is so heartbreaking because we think he’s lost his son again by making that choice that he felt he finally needed to make.

Nothing like that happens here. This is really just action. It’s just sort of action and noise, because there is no thematic value to her. I mean, look, if you were to write a modern version of The Little Mermaid, I suspect it would be about a little mermaid who believes she needs to be human for some reason only to realize, no, I must be a mermaid. I want to be a mermaid. I don’t want to be a human at all.

That’s not this movie. [laughs]

**John:** I would argue that The Little Mermaid myth, that the story is really much more like the Persephone myth which is like she lives some of the time above the ground and some of the time in the underworld. And she’s meant to live in those two worlds simultaneously.

I think she should be in both places. But that’s not what we’ve got here. Instead what we end up with at the very end is Triton is like, “I was wrong.” He zaps her and gives her legs back so she can live as a human. And the last line is, “I love you, Daddy.” Oh, okay.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so the ending feels incredibly abrupt and rushed after that big production number, which is so weird because we spent such a good long time with people in the first act establishing things, to sort of race through the ending was disappointing to me.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, they have a wedding. It’s very fairytale. I mean, that’s what it is. But the truth is the most disappointing thing about the ending was that I found it unsatisfying that… — What I like, especially in animated movies, and this is where they went very quickly; you could see it happening in Aladdin for instance. I like when a character in the beginning of the movie says, “I want this.” And at the end of the movie they say, “I want the opposite of that.” I finally figured it out, okay.

Shrek wants his swamp and to be left alone. At the end: I don’t want my swamp; I want to risk rejection for love.

Here, in this movie, she wants to be somebody else and to be a human. And at the end of the movie she wants to be somebody else and to be a human. There’s no real change, or progression, or growth in this character. She is not one of my favorite Disney characters. And on top of that, there is a weird kind of “I’m a girl; I will literally leave my family and be physically altered so I can be with you.”

How about giving him fish body? Why doesn’t he come down here.

**John:** Yeah, that’s the obvious choice. Triton says, “I can’t make you a human.”

**Craig:** “But I can make him a fish.”

**John:** “Can you make me a merman?”

**Craig:** Right. That would be cool. By the way, that’s how Splash ended. And Splash is a much better mermaid story. So, in any case, this movie, I think, has more value in terms of what it began, both in terms of its music and the animation itself, and a lot of the choices that were made — tone and so forth — than its own movie.

I think what this movie led to, particularly with Musker and Clements, and with Ashman and Menken, I think. That’s where the value is. It’s what it started.

**John:** I think it’s also a valuable movie for talking about just hitting those bells really hard in terms of like this is a character, establishing what she wants and being very clear about what she wants. Characters identifying what their goals are in the movie. Not necessarily paying off those goals especially well, but establishing what they are. And that’s important.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** A few little bits of trivia that I noticed as I was watching the movie again. First, one of the opening credits is Silver Screen Partners IV. So, Silver Screen Partners was sort of, I want to say it was a Kickstarter of the day, just to anger you. So, Silver Screen Partners is this fascinating thing where Disney raised money by essentially selling shares of the profits of their upcoming movies.

And so they would put together this big financing package and ordinary investors could invest in them. And so I think my dad actually invested in one of these at some point, like $1,000 or whatever. And in success you would get paid back from these movies doing really well.

It’s fascinating that we don’t do those now. But, it was an interesting idea at the time.

**Craig:** Yeah. My guess is we don’t do them because essentially the studios would make it such that if the movie were successful they wouldn’t give much money at all, and also they wouldn’t want to give out any money, frankly. So, they just want to keep the money and success. They would much rather just own all the success, I suppose.

But, there are also some names as you look through the credits that are family. I mean, like I mentioned, Joe Ranft, who passed away unfortunately way too young in a car accident, I believe; but he was a big guy at Pixar, so you can see him here as a story artist.

Glen Keane is sort of a Disney legend. A lot of great guys.

Interesting, also, to look at the casting of the movie. And frankly, I think, this is a trend I wish we could recapture. The movie is not cast with celebrities. It’s cast with voice actors. The woman who sings the part of Ariel is also the voice of Ariel, which I think is great. That sort of started to drift away as well. And now we’ve sort of landed here, and I think this is also an area where it wasn’t so much the early Disney movies, but I’m not sure what the first animated movie was that sort of exploded that. Maybe it was Aladdin when everybody went crazy for Robin Williams?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But now we’re in an era where you have to have famous people doing your voices, or no one is going to go to it.

**John:** Yeah. Whether they’re the right people or not.

**Craig:** Right. That’s a shame. But that’s the world.

**John:** Craig, thank you for taking about The Little Mermaid.

**Craig:** Thank you. It was a great suggestion. And, you know, it was nice to talk about a movie that isn’t perfect and isn’t sort of, you know; look, I think Raiders is a very special movie and I love it. I actually think sometimes we can learn just as much from what movies don’t do right for you and me.

On the whole, even if we’re giving The Little Mermaid a little stick here, it is a really enjoyable film to watch. It was wildly successful for excellent reason. Some brilliant people involved. So, for all of the things that maybe weren’t what we look at now and say in hindsight are correct, there was so much done that was great. And the spirit of it was so pure and nice.

So, overall, I remain a fan.

**John:** I remain a huge fan, too. Craig, thank you, and I will talk to you next week.

**Craig:** Sounds good, John. All right, bye.

**John:** Bye.

LINKS:

* Scriptnotes, Episode 73: [Raiders of the Lost Ark](http://johnaugust.com/2013/raiders-of-the-lost-ark)
* Wikipedia on [Hans Christian Andersen’s The Little Mermaid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid) and [Disney’s 1989 version](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(1989_film))

Scriptnotes, Ep 66: One-step deals, and how to read a script — Transcript

December 7, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/one-step-deals-and-how-to-read-a-script).

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, Episode 66, it’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

So, Craig, are you writing right now or are you just doing work on The Hangover? What are you doing during your days?

**Craig:** Right now I’m just, yeah, right now I’m just on The Hangover. So, I am writing, but it’s sort of revising as we go, you know, so every day we start our day with the guys and we put the scene up on its feet and then we make adjustments and changes as we need.

So, I’m sort of doing on-the-set writing these days. But I don’t expect I’m going to do any writing-writing until the end of the year. How about you?

**John:** I’m good. I’m in the middle of doing my pilot for ABC. And it’s been good. It’s nice to sort of be able to buckle down and really get going on something. One thing I hadn’t anticipated, because it’s been a couple years since I’ve done television, is outlines are a lot more extensive now than they used to be.

So, for a one-hour drama they’re asking for an outline that’s like ten or 12 pages long, and it’s really pretty detailed. Like it’s really scene by scene what’s-going-on-in-each-scene, complete with suggestion of what dialogue is. And it’s kind of a pain in the ass to write those things.

But, I will say when you’re actually writing the script, it’s really, really easy, because so much of that thinking has already happened. So you know kind of what the structure of that scene is before you get to it. And so it’s just a matter of fleshing it out and making it really be a scene rather than be suggestions. So, that’s been kind of cool.

**Craig:** Yeah. I put myself through that torture on movies because I find that the feeling of not knowing where you’re going or not knowing what a scene should be is so distressing to me that I would rather the pain of a very thorough outline. So, when I’m outlining feature scripts usually I’ll get up to 25 pages of outlining, scene by scene. I just need to know it. That’s my thing.

**John:** With TV I had anticipated that there would be so much discussion and feedback on the outline stage, and I get why they do it because it’s a lot easier to talk about things as an outline. It’s a lot faster to read the outline. But ultimately on those phone calls at some point you do end up saying, “Well, this will be really good when it’s actually a scene and we’re not talking about one sentence in this paragraph.”

So, you have to balance that out. But on the whole it’s been kind of fun to try it this way.

The other new thing I’m trying this time is I’m writing the whole thing in Fountain. So rather than using Final Draft I’m using this unannounced Fountain screen editor thing that’s really good. It’s not something that we internally are developing — someone else is developing — that’s really good. And just today I was printing out pages for Stuart and I printed it out of Highland. And so it looked great. I made a PDF and printed it.

And so it’s been fun to try new tools for it and see sort of how that all works.

**Craig:** Yeah, I promised myself that the next draft that I write of something that’s on my own, that’s not collaborating with somebody else, I’m going to use Fade In, because I feel the need to branch out, shake things up a little bit.

**John:** Here’s my worry about Fade In, or some other brand new screenwriting software, is that what’s so good about this new app that I’m using is — it has been really stable so far — but if it were to crash and completely die, the file itself is just plain text. Like any text editor can open it. I can open in Highland or whatever. So, I’m less dependent.

I would worry that Fade In or any of these other applications might be using something with a format where if it just completely goes kerplunk, I can’t get the script out of there anymore.

**Craig:** Well, I feel a little safer in as much as I know the guy who created it, so I feel like I could just call up Kent and say, “You have to save this for me.” But, also I have the option of routinely exporting the file to Final Draft, it does that, or to any kind of — it’s a very importable/exportable system.

**John:** Cool.

**Craig:** I’m not too frightened. I’m a little frightened now.

**John:** I wish you good luck with it. Please report back as you get started on it.

**Craig:** I will.

**John:** Yesterday I was listening to a podcast called Systematic with Brett Terpstra and his guest on it was David Wain, the writer from The State and many movies, who also does Childrens Hospital, which is brilliant, which you should check out.

And so I’d heard this before from Rob Corddry when he was talking about Childrens Hospital is the writer/producers, they live on different coasts and they do all of their writing collaboratively in Google Docs. And so they just have a big Google Doc open and they all are typing out simultaneously. And because Google Docs can’t really handle screenplay formatted stuff it’s just sort of a rough jumble. They sort of want to use Fountain but they can’t quite use Fountain yet.

But, as each of them is typing, each of them types in a different color so they can see who is doing what revisions at a time. It’s clever.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, Final Draft and Movie Magic have this fake version of that. One is called CollaboWriter and the other is called, I don’t know, something or another, but they don’t work because basically any normal network setup sort of disallows this kind of back and forth because of firewalls and stuff like that.

Sooner or later someone, I think what will happen is ultimately Final Draft or Movie Magic will offer a cloud-based version of what they do, or you should offer a cloud-based version of what you do. That would then allow full and free collaboration in the screenplay format. That would be awesome.

**John:** Yeah. Brett Terpstra, who runs that podcast but was also a helpful person early on in the development of Fountain, promises that he’s working on something for Google Docs which I think would be fantastic.

**Craig:** Excellent.

**John:** Would be very, very helpful.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** So, today I thought we would talk about three different things, sort of a hodgepodge. We’d talk about reading scripts, because we’ve talked a lot about writing scripts, but let’s talk about how you read scripts and sort of technology but also best practices for sort of going through and reading scripts.

I thought we’d talk about one-step deals and what a one-step deal means for screenwriters, why studios love them, why screenwriters don’t like them.

And then we would talk about Skyfall and probably get stuck singing the Adele song to each other for a few…

**Craig:** [sings] Skyfall, when it crumbles.

**John:** Such an amazing song. You said it was the third best Bond song.

**Craig:** You’re saying it is the third best?

**John:** I think you said on Twitter that it’s the third best.

**Craig:** I did. I think it is the third best Bond song, yes.

**John:** Okay, well we can discuss and argue that. Let’s get started with reading scripts, because when I first started out in the industry I read a zillion scripts and the first scripts I read were at USC. And USC had a script library. You could go and you could check out two scripts at a time. And scripts at that time were literally physically printed scripts. They were 120 pages. They had card stock covers.

The USC scripts, instead of having brads in them, they had those cool sort of screw together binder things, like there were little posts that went through the thing and held them together really nicely and strong. And it was just such an amazing resource, like, “Wow, we can check out these scripts.” And so I would check out Aliens, and I would check out all of these amazing scripts of movies that I loved. And that was just remarkable.

And now anyone with a computer anywhere in the world has access to many more scripts than they do before. But, people will often tweet me and say, “Oh, what do you use to read scripts?” And I’ll answer, I’ll answer “my iPad” or whatever. But the fact is I don’t read nearly as many scripts now as I used to. And I’m curious whether you still read scripts?

**Craig:** I do. But I, [laughs] — so I read scripts when I’m sent scripts to read. You know, “Would you like to rewrite this?” I’ll read that. Or, “Would you like to work on this?” I’ll read that.

And I will occasionally also read scripts for friends. So, Scott Frank sent me his script for A Walk Among the Tombstones which he is currently prepping to shoot, I think, in the spring.

Then, beyond that, occasionally I’ll read a script from somebody that says, “Hey, can you help me out and tell me what I should do?” But, I don’t read them recreationally because I hate reading screenplays.

**John:** Why is that? Why do you think that is?

**Craig:** Because screenplays aren’t supposed to be read. They’re supposed to be shot. [laughs] So, the problem is, it’s a weird thing: the screenplay is a literary tool to make a non-literary thing. An audio visual work. And so it’s kind of a bummer to read them. And it requires more mental exercise than reading a novel because prose is designed to help paint the picture for you. There is no expectation that there is going to be a movie afterwards. So, it’s more fun to read prose.

Reading scripts is a bit of a slog. And then, of course, the other issue is because so many of the scripts I read I’m reading with a purpose, you know, “What would you do?” “How would you fix this?” that it’s work. And I guess maybe the last thing I would say is because I spend so much time writing them — you know, you spend all day long cooking steak, you don’t want to eat steak for dinner.

**John:** I would agree with you. It’s like I know editors who will spend all day staring at screens cutting a movie and they go home and watch TV. I’m like, “How can you do that? How can you keep staring at screens?”

For me it’s that I can’t turn off that part of my brain that wants to fix what I’m reading. And so if I’m reading a screenplay, unless it’s absolutely perfect, I will be noticing all the things that I would want to change in it. I’ll be making the movie in my head and rewriting the script as I’m reading it which generally isn’t that helpful, or that good.

So, even if I’m reading a script that’s on the Black List that’s really, really good, it’s very hard for me to go into that and not find all the things that I would do differently. It’s just the nature of being in here. The same way I think many professional athletes have a hard time watching sports on TV. You’re used to playing the game, not watching the game.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, when you do read scripts though, Craig, how are you reading them? Are you printing them out? Are you reading them on an iPad? How do you read scripts usually?

**Craig:** Lately I’ve been doing a lot of iPad reading. The bummer about reading the scripts on the iPad — and this is going to sound like such a lame-o complaint, you know. Louis C.K. does this great bit about people complaining that they can’t get internet on their plane. He’s like, “You’re in a chair in the sky.” And so, you know, I feel embarrassed about this, but the iPad is a little heavy, frankly, to read a script on. It starts to be annoying for me.

Now, I ordered the iPad Mini and that thing is awesome. So, maybe it will be more comfortable to read scripts there. But I’ve been doing most of the reading on the iPad. I will read a little bit on my laptop. I don’t print scripts out ever anymore.

**John:** Yeah. I do most of reading — script reading — on the iPad now. I got my mom an iPad Mini for Christmas, and so when she was here for Thanksgiving I gave her the iPad Mini. I gave her the whole tour and talked her through everything. And I hid all the apps on the third page that she would never need to touch and I sort of simplified it as much as I could.

I loaded it full of photos of my daughter so she would have a reason to turn it on, even if she never used it again. But while I had the iPad Mini in the house I did pull up some scripts as PDFs and looked at them, and it’s actually a really good size for reading screenplays. It’s sort of everything I hoped that the Kindle would be able to do, in that it’s just a right good size, except it’s fast and you can look at PDFs and everything looks really good.

And it’s the luxury of screenplays that are 12-point Courier that they’re actually big enough that you can read them nicely and naturally in their normal size. So, I think you’ll enjoy the iPad Mini.

But which application are you using to read them in? Are you just opening them up in mail? Are you going to GoodReader? What are you using for that?

**Craig:** Well, it depends on the format. If I get it in Final Draft then I read it in — I have both your app and the official Final Draft app. I’m not sure which one I’m pointing to right now. If it’s a PDF I usually read it in, usually it’s in GoodReader.

**John:** Yeah, I’ve been sticking with GoodReader. Stu Maschwitz, who also helped develop Fountain, strongly recommends PDF Expert, which I’ve also tried. And it’s been sitting on my iPad for a long time. It just had such a generic icon that I never thought to actually use it. It’s a little bit better for annotations I found.

GoodReader actually works really pretty well, it’s just that it’s really ugly. To me it’s like the Movie Magic screenwriter of PDF readers in that like there are just so many things crammed into every little nook and cranny. It’s like, “Oh, we can add this feature. Let’s put a big button here.” It’s a little bit frustrating to use. So, PDF Expert seems to be a cleaner version of that same kind of thing.

**Craig:** Yeah, I agree. It is ugly. And, in fact, sometimes I’ve sent the script PDFs over to iBooks because that’s actually a nice interface. It’s very clean.

**John:** It is. Yeah. iBooks doesn’t let you annotate the way you might want to annotate, but if you’re just reading a script it’s really good for that.

**Craig:** Yeah, I never annotate.

**John:** Yeah, I don’t really annotate either. I know people who love to do that. I’m just not a big annotator. If I do feel like I need to make changes on a script I do like to print. I like to print my own scripts once before I send something in just so that I can catch the mistakes on paper that I never catch on screen.

I’m a big fan of printing two up on a page. And so you print smaller size, so it’s two — it’s a horizontal page and you’re printing two pages side-by-side. It’s just a way of saving some paper.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s interesting. Oh, by the way, I do the same thing. The only time I print a script out is if it’s my script before I send it in, because you’re right, there’s something about visually looking at each page that you catch errors that you wouldn’t catch on your screen. But when you do the sort of side-by-side version do you also double side print?

**John:** I don’t. I don’t believe in double side print. If I get a script sent from the agency and it’s already bound that way I’m fine with it, but otherwise I won’t double side print. I’ve just never found that useful or helpful.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t do it when I’m printing for editing and corrections, but I don’t mind reading a double… — When I first saw them I was like, “Oh god,” mostly because I just get annoyed by these pointless —

Here comes the umbrage. Umbrage Alert! We should have like a signal, a siren, like drive-time DJs for umbrage.

— I get so frustrated by pointless gestures towards greenness. You know, like, “Oh, we send everything out on double-sided paper now.” Well, you know, paper isn’t really a problem anyway and you sent a guy here in a car. You had a guy drive in his un-smog-checked ’98 Tercel to drop your double-sided script off at my house. Just email it.

It just makes me… — The sanctimony of pointless gestures makes me nuts.

**John:** I agree with you

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. I think the better reason for doing the two-sided is that if you’re carrying a bunch of scripts with you they’re a lot thinner, and so it saves space when you’re shoving ten scripts in your bag. And that is a big advantage to double-sided for me.

**Craig:** True.

**John:** Now, the actual process of reading a script, because most of the scripts I end up reading tend to be for I’m going to be sitting down with this person and I need to be able to tell them what I thought. And so for instance at the Sundance Labs I’m sitting down with these filmmakers, and so I’ve read their scripts and I need to be able to talk with them about sort of the movie they’re trying to make.

And usually in that situation I’m meeting with five filmmakers over the course of a couple different days. And I’ll have read all the scripts like maybe a week ahead of time. And so I find like, well, I need to be able to remember what it is. And so as I first start reading the script, as characters are introduced I will flip back to the title page and I’ll write the character’s names down. And I’ll write the relationships to who they are just so that when I go back to the script I can actually remember “this is who is in the script.” And as I pick up the script again I can feel, “Okay, I can talk myself through this.”

If I have major notes that are about the script overall I tend to write those on the title page. If I have notes of things that come up along the way I fold down the pages and sort of scribble them on the page so I can talk to them about specific things that are happening in scenes.

So, that’s just some guidelines for reading scripts for your friends and reading scripts for people you’re going to need to give notes to.

**Craig:** I have a question for you.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** And it’s off the beaten path entirely of what you’re saying, but it’s not, it’s related. Have you ever done the Myers-Briggs personality inventory thing?

**John:** Of course I’ve done the Myers-Briggs. Come on! A test that shows me why I am the way that I am? Yes.

**Craig:** [laughs] Now, what did you come out as?

**John:** I think I was an ENTJ.

**Craig:** ENTJ?

**John:** Which at the time I wouldn’t have guessed I was an extrovert, but the last 20 years I’ve become much more extroverted.

**Craig:** Yeah, I wouldn’t, I mean, it’s a funny thing, like, introvert/extrovert. I know this is a side topic. Because I used to qualify myself as an introvert but I think that was really a pose. Frankly, I’m incredibly extroverted. You know, the definition of introvert and extrovert is like: where do you get more jazzed from, interacting with people or being alone? And while I love being along and I enjoy being alone, I definitely get more jazzed being with people.

And the only reason I ask is because you have such a very specific… — Your approach to the world is very process-oriented. You have a specificity of process that is remarkable. Because most people just don’t have, [laughs], they don’t have such a — like the fact that you’ve got literally your folds and everything. And I was just wondering, like, where does that fit into that whole matrix?

**John:** Yeah. I think there is some process in there that comes up. It’s also just a matter, though, an experience of being in the meetings where I didn’t have those kind of notes and stumbling, like, “Argh.” And then you look over and you see Susan Shilliday who has all of these pages folded down and she’s having these great conversations. It’s like, “Oh, I’m going to do what she’s doing.”

So, really it’s observation and copying more than anything else. So, I picked up the meme of how you do those kinds of things. And a lot of what we do as screenwriters, I think, is observing, figuring out how it works, why it works, and then copying it in a way that is useful.

**Craig:** Oh, absolutely. In fact, I was talking about this with Todd Phillips the other day because the two of us are so, I mean, frankly we’re OCD, I think, about screenwriting. And because when we’re making changes on the set, you know, the guys who just come in, we block the scene out, we talk through some dialogue, we want to make some changes. When we make those changes we also change the action lines.

And that’s silly on one level because the guys have already come in and done it. There’s really no point to that. It really is about the dialogue at that point because they’ve already gone through the motions. They know what the motions are. They know where to stand, when to move, when to pick things up, and when to shoot a gun.

But we still fix it because we are obsessive and I actually feel like that level of obsession is important. I feel like if you don’t have it, I don’t know if you can be a good screenwriter. It seems part of the fabric of what we do.

**John:** Yeah. I do understand your point because really once you know what you’re going to do, you’re going to shoot it on film and the script is basically irrelevant at that point.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Like, yes, the editor may see it, but no one is ever really going to notice or care about that, but you will notice and care about that and you want the script to accurately reflect what you shot.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, to the point where we’re fudging things so we don’t spill over onto an A page, because we hate that. It’s just so weird.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah, but I get that, too.

So, for people who aren’t screenwriters who’ve gone through production, when you’re shooting a script you lock the pages. And by locking the pages that means if you need to change stuff you can just print out the new pages and they will slide in. And so page 88 will always be page 88.

But if you add too much to page 88 that it would spill over to page 89, instead of going to page 89 it goes to page 88A. And Craig and Todd do not want that to happen if they can possibly help it. And I completely understand.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s annoying.

**John:** So, you will slightly cheat the margins on some dialogue blocks so that it won’t pop that next eighth of a page.

**Craig:** Oh, and see, and the funny thing is we also, [laughs], part of our obsession is that we refuse to do that. So, then we start, I mean, there have been times where the two of us have looked at each other and said, “You realize we’re now making the script worse because we don’t want an eighth of a page.”

**John:** That’s where you start removing the participle endings on verbs, so that things will shrink back down.

**Craig:** Or you start looking at your writing partner and you say things like, “Do we need this line? You know what, yeah, let’s not make the page break that makes us get rid of a line.” But, I don’t know, anyway, I’m sorry; I’ve taken us off into a crazy direction, but there’s something about the specificity of the way you were describing that just made me think — I’m loopy today, anyway. So, there you are.

**John:** Yeah, on Big Fish it really is actually important because we’re continually updating the script, and so if we do change something in staging I have to immediately change it in the script, and we have to change it in the score because it has to always match exactly because we are doing it again night, after night, after night, and with completely different people. And so theoretically we are creating these two documents, a script and a score, that anyone should be able to take and mount the musical.

And so it has been really strange where, you know, I’m like, “Well, I like the page the way it is, but I do need to change it now because it doesn’t accurately reflect what Edward is doing at that moment.” It’s been really interesting and strange to see how that works.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** And so when we were going through the workshop I was printing new pages all the time and every day we were having to put out revisions for things that were really trivial, like most people in the ensemble would have no idea why we were changing it, but we were changing it because it more accurately reflects what we’re actually doing.

**Craig:** Exactly. Yeah, OCD.

**John:** OCD.

The next thing I want to talk about is sort of an industry thing, which is one-step deals. And so, I can describe one-step deals, do you want to describe one-step deals? I mean, I feel like…

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a short — a quickie description — when we get hired by a studio to write a script they basically hire you to write a draft. And you’re commenced on the draft, you write the draft, you turn the draft in, and that’s called a step.

When I started working, when John started working, traditionally you were hired to do two steps, so that’s two guaranteed steps. You write a draft, you turn it in. They give you notes, you write another draft, you turn it in. And they must pay you for those two drafts.

Then there are optional steps where after those two drafts if they still want you to work on stuff there is pre-negotiated fees and each one of those options is essentially the studio can or cannot engage them. And they are also pending your availability.

What happened about, I would say six years ago it really started to crop up in a big way, was that the studios started doing away with the second guaranteed step. Suddenly they were doing one-step deals where you were hired and you only had one guaranteed step. So, after you turn your first draft in they can say, “Bye. And we’re not paying you for…,” and the second step became optional suddenly.

And the Writers Guild Collective Bargaining Agreement doesn’t guarantee you anything more than a minimum of one step. And so the studios went from this over-scale two-step guarantee down largely to a one-step thing. And that’s where we are today.

**John:** So, I will pretend to be the studio person who is defending or arguing for why one-step deals are a good thing, which is not my actual belief, but I will try to express it.

So, one-step deals are good because if a writer delivers a terrible draft we’re not stuck with that writer for a second draft. And we can move onto a new writer. Or, sometimes we just decide, “You know what, we don’t really want to make this movie so we’re not wasting any more of our money or our time on this project that we don’t even want anymore.” And so it’s a way for us to maximize our development budget by not spending any more for a script than we really want to spend. And maximizing our development time by focusing on projects we really want to make and not the projects that we’ve now lost interest in.

**Craig:** And, you know, that’s a perfectly good argument and I think it actually applies fairly well to writers who make a lot of money. I understand it. Where my rebuttal to you, studio executive guy, would turn on newer writers who are not making a lot of money. By limiting these newer writers to one-step, first of all, you’re not saving that much money because they don’t make that much money, and the second step is less than the first step normally. And also, I should add, that agencies typically add a little extra onto the one-step because it’s only one-step.

So, the amount of money you’re saving is trivial to you and your development budget is $100,000 for the first step and $60,000 for the second step. The $60,000 is not going to change your life. That’s about as cheap as a draft can be in this world.

The bigger problem for you when you limit everything to one-step is this, Mr. Studio Executive: You have ceded all control to your producers. The producer — knowing now that they only have one shot because there’s only one draft that’s going to be turned in and they don’t make money unless the movie gets made — will grind that writer down to a nub. They won’t just write one script. They’ll have to probably write three or four drafts for this producer who is obsessive about polishing this thing to a shine before they turn it in, because they only get one shot.

And while you may say, “Who cares? Not my problem. That’s the writer’s problem,” it is your problem. Because the producer is now overdeveloping this material, likely in a way you wouldn’t even like. So, what you’re getting is an overworked, committee-ized piece of crap. That’s problem number one for you.

Problem number two — and now Mr. Studio Executive I’m going to ask you to do something that you don’t like doing. I’m going to ask you to look into the future and I’m going to ask you to think long term now, not about today or tomorrow even though you’re worried you might not be in your job in a year, think about five or ten years from now. Part of the job of screenwriting is learning how to deal with studio notes. We write a draft, we turn it in. We get studio notes from people like you, sir, and then we engage in a dialogue and hopefully come up with a synthesis that results in a second draft that everybody likes.

If you take that away as a routine part of our job, no one is going to really learn how to do that part of the job very well. There are writers out there who are suffering because your method of employing them doesn’t let them learn how to do the job properly. Who will be the people writing your movies five or ten years from now if all you do is burn through a succession of people, giving them one step and yanking it away?

My argument to you is: stick with one-step deals on people who are making a lot of money per step. I get it. But if you’re dealing with people who are making close to scale, it’s frankly unconscionable. They end up working on so many drafts that they’re far below scale per draft when all is said and done. And they don’t even get a chance to do anything new.

Oh my gosh, I just came up with another problem for you, Mr. Studio Executive. All the writers that are doing one-step deals, because it’s only one step, you know what they’re doing while they’re writing your script? Looking for their next job. So, now you have an employee with divided attention. And you know how you guys have made it really, really hard to get jobs? So while they’re writing your one draft they’re also doing pre-writes for their next potential job.

It’s a big mess.

**John:** So, again, I’m still a studio executive guy. So, here’s what I like about one-step deals. I know that writer is going to work his ass off because he only gets the one shot. I’m sick of writers who are not delivering on the first draft. Well, you know what? They better deliver because otherwise they’re not going to get their second step. So, when I gave these writers second steps, do you know what they would do? They would sort of lollygag. They would take their time because they knew there was more money coming.

Now they don’t know there is more money coming. They know that this is their one shot and they better write a damn good draft or else, tough, hit the road.

Now, listen, there are times where I am going to, you know, we’re going to read the script and like the script may be close — it might not be exactly what we want but we can see what the movie is, and then we’ll obviously go onto the writer’s second step. We do that all the time.

So, for you to say like, “Oh, the producer is grinding him down,” well maybe that’s good, and maybe the person is learning a lot from all that experience of working on the script.

But what you’re talking about, like the writers are going to be looking for their next job? They’re doing that anyway. I get so sick of when I find out writers are reading books for other people, or going to other pitches on stuff, when I know that I have them. They should be writing my movie. So, that’s already happening, Craig.

**Craig:** That’s happening, but not quite under the compressed time scale. I mean, you can’t have it both ways, Mr. Studio Executive. I mean, either writers are working hard on your stuff in a compressed one-step manner, or they’re doing it in the same lollygagging pace as two steps. And if it’s compressed and they’re working really, really hard, then yeah, I do think then going out to find other things is going to impact their lives.

I should also point out that when you say they’re going to work really, really hard to give you a script that you like, what they’re going to do is work really, really hard to give you a script you like. They’re going to deliver the safest, most expected thing possible because they only have one shot.

What I guarantee you they won’t do is surprise you. They certainly won’t exceed your expectations because they can’t afford to. They’re going to have to deliver the safest possible thing. And if that’s what you want, that’s what you want. But I got to tell you: you look at the movies that do well, you’ll never be surprised by anything. You’ll never get that new franchise; you’ll just get the expected old same old, same old.

**John:** You know who I like to work with? I like to work with writer-producers. I like to work with the guys who, some of them came out of TV, they’re people who write but they also produce, because I can talk to them, and they have professionalism. And I can tell them what I need and they will tell me when they’re going to hand it in and it’s going to work.

Those are the people I like to work with. And I don’t know why there aren’t more people like that.

**Craig:** I don’t know why there aren’t more people like that either. I’d like to be that way myself. That’s how I view myself. It’s possible — I’m just thinking about some of the writer-producers I know, that all of them came of age in the era of two-step deals, when they learned how to deal with things. [laughs] And they learned what was real. And they were allowed to fall, and stumble a little bit and get up, because they were trusted. It’s hard to give trust when you don’t have trust.

It’s hard to work in an environment where you’re told ahead of time, “We don’t think that you’re going to make it.” So, if you want to engender trust, and you want to have people that understand how the process works, perhaps let them engage in the process past the point of one mistake, or one failure, or one trip or stumble. Certainly they won’t come back to you.

And when they do succeed other people will be knocking on their door. Why would they answer you and your call when somebody else who has trusted them is saying, “Yeah, we always trusted you. Come stay here.”

**John:** So, I’m going to resume being John August here again. My experience with one-step deals has not been great. I’ve done very, very few of them. And when I took my first one I had sort of heard all the standard warnings. And I was like, “Oh no, it will be fine because I like the people involved; it’s all going to work out great.”

And it didn’t work out great. And what ended up happening, which is I think what happens under most one-step deals, is it’s not really one step. You’re essentially writing, and you’re writing, and you’re writing, and you’re writing to please the person who you’re directly dealing with. And at a certain point you’re like, “Okay, you know, it’s done.”

And they would say, “No, no, but remember, we only get one crack to go into the studio, so let’s just keep working on it, let’s keep working on it.” Like, “Okay, I’ll do a little bit more, I’ll keep working, we’ve got this one step. I want to make you happy.” Because writers, we want to make people happy.

But eventually it comes to this point where it’s like it’s been six months and so I’m saying, and now my agent is on the phone with the producers, and we’re saying, “We have to turn this in.” It essentially becomes a situation where you just never deliver. And you’re pretty confident that the studio has actually kind of already seen it and they’re really sort of getting extra work out of you.

And what’s happened is you have poisoned this relationship that you had with these producers who you liked otherwise, but all your enthusiasm for the project has died because you’re writing to please this phantom studio who you don’t even know what they actually really want.

If I’d been able to hand in that script when I was supposed to hand in that script we could have said like, “You know what, is this the movie that we all want to make? If it’s not, let’s have a conversation and see if there’s another movie that we all want to make.” But because we never actually turn it in, it becomes this mess.

And so that’s my experience as an A-list writer. But it’s that way, I think, kind of for everyone working on these projects. You never deliver.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s the point. I mean, that’s why they do it. They’re trying to game the system. And even in your very accurate impression of a studio executive you’re cutting right to what they’re saying, “We trying to game the system. We’re figuring out a way where we can save money in the expectation of failure,” which is very corporate and classic risk management. And, you know, I don’t begrudge them their risk management, except for this: They’re in the wrong business if they think they can game risk. This is Hollywood. We’re not here to grind out 4% return on investment.

It’s show business and we’re gambling. And we’re gambling to try and find those breakout hits that cost $30 million to make $500 million. Or even we’re gambling on the big budget that’s $200 million that we think is going to make $500 million. This isn’t safe stuff where you’re, I don’t know, you’re pre-selling foreign so you cover your negative costs and the rest is gravy.

Get out of the business if you can’t handle a little bit of risk. And what they do is they try and eliminate risk by saying, “We presume you’ll fail. We don’t like writers anyway. We don’t trust any of you. You’re all lazy, so one step, and we’ll yank it from you. But we won’t really yank it from you because we know that the producer, who we may or may not even like, doesn’t get paid a dime unless this thing gets produced, so they’re going to work you. And we’ll see what we get. And if we like it we like it, and if we don’t we don’t. Really all we’re doing is trying to get a star to sign on, and then a director, and then we have a movie, and then we’ll hire a real writer to do it.”

**John:** Yup. And that rewriter…

**Craig:** It’s a recipe for disaster as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** Yeah, and that rewriter might be the writer-producer or someone else who comes in, like the finisher. And when I hear that discussion I really do think TV showrunners, that that person that the studio trusts to be able to deliver them the thing that they need to deliver. And that’s why I keep coming back, I think we’ve talked about this before: It’s frustrating that there’s not a feature equivalent of like the showrunner training program that the WGA has that teaches TV writers who are about to take over and run their own show sort of how to run your own show, which is this uniquely weird thing.

And I feel like the feature screenwriters who are getting movies into production who are doing that big giant tent pole work, that is a unique special thing, and I think we need to find a way to sort of teach people how to do that job and how to do the best version of that.

**Craig:** Well, this is where I have to kind of be guilty because, you know, Todd Amorde, who is one of our excellent Member Services people at the Writers Guild, has talked to me and to Billy Ray about creating that very thing. And I’ve been sort of after it for years.

And just the past few months I’ve been incredibly busy and I just haven’t had the time, I don’t know. And it’s been a little bit of a struggle to try and figure out how to structure it. So, maybe you and I can do this as a little side task and figure out how to structure a proper screenwriting training program, because I know it’s something the Guild wants to do.

And what I do do is every year…

**John:** You said “dodo.”

**Craig:** I said “dodo?” Yeah, I know. What I [laughs] — You know, this is one of the most human moments from you. It’s so unexpected when you’re immature. I love it. It makes me happy, it does. Because I always feel like I’m the goof, you know.

So, what I do do is once a year I do a basically two-hour seminar on surviving and thriving in development and production as a screenwriter. And it’s really about strategies. It’s not about the writing at all. It’s about dealing with people, notes, process, doing it in such a way that you actually — that your position as the writer improves through the process rather than when it normally degrades.

And that’s been very successful. I’m going to do it again, I think, in March. But you and I should talk about how to do a screenwriting training program.

**John:** It occurs to me that the different thing about the TV showrunners program is it’s really clear, like, “is this person going to be running a show?” and therefore like, “Okay, well then they’re in.” And the litmus test for sort of who-do-you-actually-pick-to-be-as-part-of-this-program is a little bit trickier.

My first thought, and I may reject this thought, is that you should actually just ask the studios, like, “Who do you want to see go through this program?” Because in a weird way they kind of know who they feel like is going to be those writers who they want to sort of go through there. And those are the people they may want — they may already have their eye on, like, “These are the young women and men who we feel are going to be the next batch of writers we’re going to be going to for this production work. And we want these people to go through it.” I don’t know.

**Craig:** It’s not a bad thought. I think that…

**John:** If you got studio buy-in I think it would be helpful.

**Craig:** The other challenge beyond the criteria for who participates is the television showrunner program has certain nuts and bolt stuff that really can be taught. How to hire a staff. How to deal with the fact that writers are now your employees. How do you fire them. How do you deal with assigning tasks to a room. How do you work as a go between. How do you deal with actor deals and casting.

There is so much going on. And for screenwriting there’s a bit less, but sometimes I feel like it’s almost trickier because we don’t have that producing title, typically. And yet I believe that if a screenwriter does her job correct she could be as powerful as, if not more powerful than, the actual producer.

**John:** Yeah. Yeah. The topics are, you know, they are different, because you’re not going through casting. You’re not going through some of the other things that you would normally be going through. But it’s very much — it tends to be more anecdotal. I think you’d have to be bringing in a bunch of other screenwriters to talk through, “These are the scenarios I’ve commonly found. This is how you deal with the situation where the big, the A-list actor has brought you in on the project but the director really doesn’t want you there, and how do you negotiate that?”

Or, “There’s a conflict between the studio and the director and you are supposed to somehow bridge this impossible divide.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s the kind of stuff that you need to know how to deal. And while it can’t be taught I think it can be shared.

**Craig:** Well, you know, that’s a great idea right off the bat for a portion of this training would be “man in the middle.” How do you deal with being — because you are so right. And frankly being able to triangulate yourself is a very powerful thing to do. You become incredibly useful beyond the work that you’re doing. And frankly, I hate to say it, but it’s important. It’s not enough to write well; you need to be indispensable beyond that.

Because a lot of times nobody really knows what good writing is. Not always, but a lot of times. A lot of times what keeps you around, and what keeps you engaged in your primary mission which is to write the best movie you can, is to be indispensable in other ways as well. So, that’s a good idea for a class.

**John:** Great. Well, let’s move on and talk about a very big movie that John Logan wrote called Skyfall, which you just recently saw, and I saw like two weeks ago.

**Craig:** [sings] Let the Skyfall, when it crumbles…

**John:** [sings] Let the Skyfall.

So, I really enjoyed the movie. Sam Mendes directed it. Sam Mendes was supposed to direct Preacher and then he left Preacher to do the Bond movie. I’m like, “Well that’s a giant mistake because the Preacher movie is going to be awesome.” But you know what? The Bond movie was really, really good. I really enjoyed it. Did you enjoy the movie, Craig?

**Craig:** I did enjoy it. I guess I should ask first before I go into it: Are you a — I’m a big Bond fan. I love Bond movies. What about you?

**John:** I’m a big Bond fan, too. And I grew up with, especially the — for whatever reason the Sunday night before school started in the fall there was always a Bond movie on ABC. And so that was really my exposure to Bond was watching the ABC cuts of them.

So, the Spy Who Loved Me is sort of my entryway to it. So, my first Bond movies were the Roger Moore’s but then I did go back through and got all my Sean Connery’s and Lazenby’s. And so I think I’ve seen all of them.

**Craig:** Yeah. As have I. And very typical for guys our age to have started with the Roger Moore and then go backwards to Sean Connery.

I thought that it was a very successful Bond movie. I’ll talk about what I didn’t like, because it’s a smaller portion, and then I’m going to talk about what I really liked.

**John:** And let’s just put a spoiler warning here.

**Craig:** Oh spoilers. Yes.

**John:** We’re going to have some general spoilers here. So, don’t — you can skip ahead if you’ve not seen the movie.

**Craig:** Yeah, I won’t give away too much. I’m just going to say I really enjoyed the character of the villain. It was a bit reminiscent of Sean Bean’s character from GoldenEye, the sort of disgraced former agent come back as a baddie. I did not like his plot. Even for Bond plots it was nonsensical.

I understood his goal. I understood his motivation. I just didn’t understand his method. It was bizarre and it existed solely to service set pieces, which were very good set pieces.

**John:** Yeah. It was the problem of, like, somebody who has a nuclear device and they’re using it to rob a bank. It just doesn’t — the scale of what he was able to do didn’t make sense with what he was actually trying to do. And, granted, that’s actually kind of a trope of the Bond movies overall, but I felt like if he had this personal vendetta he had many better ways to enact his personal vendetta. And we didn’t need — all the set pieces were kind of irrelevant for that.

That said, it was a Bond movie, so you cut it this giant bit of slack because that’s how these movies work.

**Craig:** I agree. I agree. There’s an element of camp to it and you forgive some of the Rube Goldbergian nonsense.

Here’s what I loved about this Bond movie. First, I loved — and maybe primarily — I loved the theme. And actually Bond movies typically are theme-less. This is something that I’ve got to tip my hat to Nolan, because I feel like Christopher Nolan has revived an interest in proper theme in big action movies. And the theme here is articulated by Albert Finney towards the end when he says, “Sometimes the old ways are best.”

And this movie was very much about the old ways and about the old Bond, and the notion that while we could sort of go on and chase the people that exist because of us, like say the Bourne franchise, which is sort of hyper-realistic, we’re not going to. You know what? We’re going to go be ridiculous Bond because that’s what we are. And ridiculous Bond is old school. He himself is dealing with aging issues. M is dealing with aging issues. The entire spirit of MI6 is called is called into question as being antiquated.

You have this new Q who is essentially putting down the entire thing as ridiculous and something that he could do from his bedroom. And so thematically the whole movie held together on a thematic level better than practically any Bond I’ve ever seen.

There were some great retro set pieces. The Komodo Dragon fight was like right out of the ’60s. I loved it. And the last scene where he walks into that classic office with the leather door and Ralph Fiennes now as M — boy, really into spoilers here — and Moneypenny.

And you know what I have to say, [laughs], and again I always feel like I get in trouble by being sexist, I just somehow, I was, like, how brave of them oddly to just embrace and not worry about people going, “Oh, it’s sexist.” Yes, of course, Bond is sexist. It’s a sexist franchise. It’s porn for men without boobies. Sometimes it has boobies.

But, there’s a female secretary that’s hot for him. And there’s a man in stuffy leather office who gives him assignments. And he goes and does it. And I love that. I just thought it was great and I’m very excited for the next one because of that.

**John:** I think the Christopher Nolan Batman movies is a good reference for it, because I think what it did, like the Nolan movies, is it took the irreducible elements of what James Bond is and rearranged them in a way that could make a new movie. And you’re not really aware of it through a lot of it. It just seemed like a really good, like a much better, more competent Bond movie. And then you get to that bizarre fourth act, which really is a fourth act.

The movie kind of should have stopped at London when the villain’s plot was foiled, and then we go onto Scotland and to all this new stuff, and all this back story which doesn’t really exist, in the film canon at least.

And we have this completely different movie that’s happening there and yet it feels kind of right. And we’re burning down the right things. We’ve already destroyed MI6. Now we’re destroying his history. We’re destroying his car. We’re destroying his mother, or his mother figure. We’re introducing Albert Finney who is just some other person who is sort of representing Sean Connery, I think, from the original franchise.

**Craig:** They even thought about casting Sean Connery.

**John:** Yeah, so I just really enjoyed what they were able to do. And it was one of those rare situations where you leave a movie excited for where it puts you next.

**Craig:** Exactly. Exactly. In the way that — by the way, Casino Royale excited me. Because I thought Daniel Craig did such a great job, and that movie was really good. It was a really good Bond movie and I loved the physicality of it and the way that it updated it without losing its connection to old Bond-ness.

And then because of the issues involving MGM, they just weren’t able to capitalize on that wonderful start that Casino Royale had. And I feel like with this one they’re back on track and they’re set up for a great next movie.

And by the way, one other thing I should mention about the canonical issues, there was an interesting essay — and this is total Bond nerd stuff — but there had been this kind of debate. The question is: Is James Bond actually James Bond’s name? Or is that a code name that agents use, and in part would explain why there continually are new James Bonds?

And this movie sort of says, no, no, his name is James Bond. And you just are meant to understand that there are different people playing him.

**John:** Yeah. It’s almost the “no one recognized Bruce Wayne is Batman.”

**Craig:** Right. You just go with it and that’s that.

**John:** That’s part of the premise.

**Craig:** Yeah. I really liked it. And I do think that Skyfall, the theme song, is a really good song. It’s really good. And, you know, the wonderful tradition of great Bond theme songs, and we’d lost it. You know, we had lost it for so long. Bond songs were hits. And this is the first one in forever that’s a real hit.

**John:** So, I taught myself to play it on the piano. And it’s actually very simple, and it goes through the classic sort of it’s in A-minor, it goes through the classic sort of Bond chords in a very smart way to use it. But I did find it actually mashes in really well with For Your Eyes Only. Because For Your Eyes Only goes down to a single note, and if you transpose it so that single note is the [sings] “da-da-da-da,” and you can guild it back out to this.

So, it’s a really great song and it just made me happy for Bond themes again.

**Craig:** Yeah, it was great also in that moment where they pull the Aston Martin out to go back to the classic — or actually I think it was the moment where they blew up the car where you had the classic, [sings classic Bond theme], which I love, you know. And I love the way that Skyfall worked that theme in of the [sings classic Bond theme], that little chromatic thing that they do.

And it’s a great song. And even the lyrics are terrific.

**John:** Yeah. Adele’s, sort of marbles-in-her-mouth sometimes bugs me a little bit, more so than many other songs I sort of felt that, and yet I did kind of love it all the same.

**Craig:** I don’t recognize that she has marble mouth. Give me an example of marble mouth.

**John:** Marble mouth is just so weird. There are some words where it’s like if you didn’t really kind of know what she was saying, it’s like, “What word are you making there?”

**Craig:** Eh, yeah. Well, you know, singers sometimes change vowels to make it sound prettier. But, you know, I just like that Skyfall is where it starts. “Skyfall is where we start. A thousand miles and poles apart.” And just the whole idea of the crumbling down and Skyfall is where we…

**John:** Yeah. It’s the romance of apocalypse, which is great.

So, from that exciting news, we should get to our One Cool Things. I know your One Cool Thing is not actually cool at all, but it’s…

**Craig:** Well, there’s a cool part to it.

**John:** All right, so you go first.

**Craig:** Okay. Well, it’s One Tragic Thing. Don Rhymer died this morning at 3:30am. You know, when you guys listen to the podcast it will be probably a week later.

Don was a screenwriter and television writer. He worked from pretty much the second he landed foot in Los Angeles all up until maybe two months ago when he was just too sick to go on. He’s written — everything he wrote on, sitcoms like Evening Shade; he wrote big huge hit movies like Rio. And he was my friend, he was neighbor, he was my officemate. We shared an office for awhile and then I got the office next to his.

So, even now his office is next to me. Obviously the lights are out and he’s not coming back. And he battled cancer for years. And I’m saying this in part because he was my friend and I loved him and I miss him, and you want to talk about that when somebody that you care for dies. But there’s something instructive about it, too, and something good. And that is that Don lived a great screenwriting life, and if that sounds a little odd all I can say is he took the worst this town can dole out, and it doles out some tough stuff.

I mean, he was knocked around by some of the meanest and most ridiculous in this business, and he never fell down and he kept on coming. And he was the same way when he got cancer. Just indomitable and wouldn’t back down and wouldn’t quit. Nose to the grindstone. A true professional.

And we sometimes feel as if we feel we have the right to be precious about what we do. And I guess we do have that right, but when you have a family, and when you have kids, and a wife, and you need to provide for their future, you also have an obligation to them. And Don never forgot that. And he was a professional — a professional’s professional. And I’d like to think that I could have the kind of career and continue the way he did.

Never once did Don ever say, “This job is beneath me.” Never once did he ever say, “I’m too good to work.” Never once did he question anything. You got the feeling that they couldn’t get rid of Don if they tried. And not that they ever did.

I will miss him greatly, and once I hear from his family I’m sure there will be a charity that they’re going to ask donations to go to in lieu of flowers and that sort of thing. And once I have that information I will get it to you and you can put it online.

And I know he listened to the podcast, too. So, goodbye Don. I’ll miss you.

**John:** I never had a chance to — I think the only time I really had a chance to talk with him was at Christmas parties, and sort of like other sort of social gatherings of screenwriters. And when I found he had cancer, Don started a blog about his cancer treatments called Let’s Radiate Don. And so I’ll put a link up to that because it’s really funny. And you wouldn’t think that going through lots of chemotherapy and different surgeries would be funny, but he managed to make it really funny.

And so over the time he was getting treatment we had several emails back and forth and I just talked about how much I dug what he was doing. And I kept wishing him the best.

**Craig:** Yeah. That blog is sort of an example. I mean, the guy was a writer. And when you’re a writer you will write through anything. It’s your way of processing the world and your way of understanding what’s even happening to you. And I guarantee you that there were days when Don was in pain or nauseated or in despair and he was taking his time in his OCD way, the way you and I are, to edit those posts before sending them out, just to polish them off.

**John:** To find the funny and make sure…

**Craig:** Yeah. And that to me, that’s so honorable. It’s just there’s an honor, I think, in doing this kind of work if you do the work. And he lived that way. And so my hat’s off to him.

**John:** Well, Craig, thank you very much for a good podcast. Sorry to end it on a sad but also kind of hopeful note.

**Craig:** Yeah. And hopefully no one else will die within the next week.

**John:** Yes, that would be a very good thing. So, thanks so much and I will talk to you next week. Bye.

**Craig:** See you next time. Bye.

Scriptnotes Ep. 23: The Happy Funtime Smile Hour — Transcript

February 9, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/the-happy-funtime-smile-hour).

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

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

**John:** And you are listening to Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting, and things that are interesting to screenwriters. This is episode number 23, and this episode will not be depressing.

**Craig:** No. This is going to be uplifting, exciting, enlightening, life affirming.

**John:** Because you know what? That last podcast, we talked about some serious issues; we did some good, but I think, we also did a little harm, if I take another listen to it. It is kind of suicide inducing. It was depressing. It was realistic in a way that is not necessarily always helpful.

It was like Lars von Trier snuck in to the last 20 minutes of the podcast, and just said, “Do it. I will take over from here. There’s no hope.”

**Craig:** Well, but as you point out, this is the… That is the podcast that gets us an Oscar. We don’t get —

**John:** Oh!

**Craig:** — we don’t get nominations for this podcast, or the goofy ones. That one, though, that may be the one.

**John:** Yeah. I wonder how soon there will be like genuine podcast awards? I’m sure there is some sort of podcast award happening right now, because there is an award for everything. But, I feel like podcasting is an emerging form, that cultural signifier. It is something that will eventually become better acclaimed. And once it becomes better acclaimed, how will they award it?

**Craig:** You think that there is going to be like Poddies and things like that?

**John:** Yeah. Although, what are the equivalent radio awards? There must be radio awards; I’m trying to think about that.

**Craig:** There are, but nobody cares about them. There are radio awards, but they are — yeah, nobody cares.

**John:** Nobody cares.

My week is better than it was last week, for a couple of reasons. First off, I’m no longer on heavy allergy medication. That helps.

**Craig:** Oh, nice.

**John:** I have a brand new to-do organizer thing, which I love. So, what are you using to keep track of, like, the stuff you have to actually get done? What is your system?

**Craig:** You know, you were the first person to ever even reveal to me that there was this thing out there of to-do systems. And you turned me on to that whole FTL, FTC, TBD —

**John:** GTD, yeah.

**Craig:** — GTD, yeah. It is like GTL from Jersey Shore. And I bought the book because, you know, I like to try things.

You are one of those guys, when you say, “You should try something,” I always think, “Yeah, it is worth a shot.” Like I tried the crazy Dana Fox upright typewriter for, like, two minutes. I’m like, “What is this? I can’t do this.” It’s in my garage. Oh, my kids play with it.

And that thing, the to-do thing, I tried. But the truth is: I actually don’t need a system. I just feel like I get stuff done. I don’t know, am I weird?

**John:** No. You are not weird. I mean, stuff will get done; it is a matter of sort of how stressful your life is while that stuff is getting done. That is what I found to be most useful about these systems. And I have gone back and forth between some, and have been incredibly religious and dogmatic about it sometimes; I have been much looser about it sometimes.

Where the systems tend to be best is when you have a bunch of little things you need to get done, and they just keep stacking up every day. You have piles of tasks, and it is a great way of plowing through the piles of tasks. So, for a lot of the stuff related to apps, like the stuff we are developing, and two new products we are pushing out the door in the next two weeks, there is a lot of stuff like that that I have to keep on top of that is really time sensitive. It’s great for that.

And just for getting stuff out of your head and into your systems so that you are not thinking about it and stressing out about it. Because most of what stresses you out isn’t really the work that you have to do, it is kind of remembering the work that you have to do. And so you end up spending a lot of brain cycles thinking about the stuff that you can’t forget about.

And if you just had it down on paper, or had it in some other system, you wouldn’t stress out about it so much. It’s good for that.

**Craig:** It’s weird. Of all the problems I have, and I have got a ton of them, that has just never been a problem for me. I remember the things I have to do.

And, by the way, I remember them down to tiny, little details. I have like a weird Rainman-y ability to know all of the things that need to be done. And sometimes, if it is a really tiny, little thing that I know I am going to forget, I just write it on a little slip of paper. But most of the time I don’t really need a system. And I don’t forget to do things.

On the other hand, I was late for this podcast. So, there you go.

**John:** Yeah. This has not been one of your finer days in terms of getting stuff together for this. But, that happens to everybody.

**Craig:** Hey, you know what? I will tell you what, man: someone called, and I couldn’t get off the phone. It was one of those. It was one of those conversations where I could not get off the phone. I wanted to get off the phone. It wouldn’t have been cool if I had gotten off the phone. It is one of those deals. Like, I have a friend, who we both know, a mutual friend. And he works in the same… he has an office in the same building.

**John:** We both know him. He might be your friend, but actually my mortal enemy.

**Craig:** He is no one’s mortal enemy. [laughs]

**John:** He is just the nicest guy ever, right? Yeah.

**Craig:** He really is. When you hear the story you will say, “Oh, no, that was ridiculous. He is no one’s mortal enemy.”

He and I have offices in the same building. And about two years ago, he stopped into my office, he knocked on the door, and he wanted to chat. And the thing was, I had a cold, and I was on a deadline, and I was miserable. And I just said, “Oh, I’m so sorry man, I can’t talk to you right now. I can’t. I’m just in the worst mood, and I have got to get this done. I have a cold; I’m so sorry. I have a cold.”

I felt like, you know, when you say you have a cold it really excuses a lot, because you are sick. And he was like, “Oh, no problem. No problem.” And he walks out, and then at the end of the day he sends me an email to tell me that he had just stopped by to tell me that he had been diagnosed with cancer.

That was, I mean, I was… “I have a cold. Don’t talk to me right now. I have a cold!” “Oh really? I have cancer.” Ugh. So, that is why there are times when you just, you know what? You should have the conversation. Just have the conversation. Be late for the podcast; it is probably for the best.

**John:** So someone else had to call you to tell you that they have cancer.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Okay. Good.

**Craig:** No. No. It wasn’t anything like that at all. In fact, it was frivolous, and I should have just gotten off the phone, but I couldn’t. Sorry.

**John:** I hate being on the phone. I hate phone calls now. I have come to resent every time the phone rings, because it is almost never ringing for a good purpose. It is always somebody who is, like, just going to steal some of my time.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m not, I mean, there are phone calls that are fun to do and the rest, but it is true that most of the things that actually happen in life that are good happen face to face. This phone stuff —

That is why I could never be an agent. They are on the phone all day. It never ends.

**John:** Yeah. It’s never good. So, we got on a tangent there. What I am so happy about with my new system, I switched over to OmniFocus, finally, because I used to use OmniFocus and there were some things I didn’t like about it, so I switched to Things. And then I didn’t like Things, so I kept going through various systems. I was on paper for a long time. I had a little Moleskine notebook.

OmniFocus has gotten really good, again, in the last year or whenever; since the last time I paid attention to it, it got really good. And one of the actual great things about it now is if you have an iPhone with Siri on it, you can say, “Siri, remember to call Craig Mazin.” And it will create that reminder, and it will go straight to OmniFocus, so it is just on your list.

So, like, while you are out walking the dog, that thought comes to you, you have a place to put it. And that is what I find, probably, most useful about any sort of system for getting things done is just to, like, when that stuff happens, to capture it, and get it out of your head so you can focus on other things.

**Craig:** I think maybe as you spoke about that, I started to realize why maybe the reason that I don’t do these things is because I find that I am a very impulsive person. When it comes to my mind to do something, I do it. Because, and I know that people behave in different ways; some people like to defer these things to the right time.

But, I’m that guy who is just like, “Oh, that’s right. I need to call somebody. I am calling them now.” And then I will leave a message. But I am an impulse doer. I’m an impulse purchaser/buyer. That’s my thing. So, maybe it is just a reflection of my personality.

**John:** I would say in general that is a good way to approach many things. You shouldn’t defer things if you can do it right now. And, so, a lot of times I will be in a meeting with somebody about a project, or about a movie, or a name will come up say, like, “I wonder if that person would be in our movie?” And I say, like, “Well, let me call them right now, and see if they will be in our movie.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s a very good overall system. But there are times where you can’t do that, or it is 11 o’clock at night, so you are not going to be able to do that. Or, it is really a bigger idea that is going to have many steps along the way. Well what do you do with that bigger idea?

And as writers, you need to capture that little bit of dialogue, that little bit of, “Oh, here is an idea for how to do something.”

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** And I have found it incredibly beneficial just to write that down. I always have this notebook in the bathroom so that at three in the morning I can run in there, and write down that good bit of dialogue that I thought of. And it is the same kind of thing for the stuff that I need to get done.

**Craig:** Right. It is a horrifying feeling waking up, going to bed, and as you are falling asleep going, “Oh, that’s it. I got it. I know exactly how the scene should go.” And then you wake up in the morning, and you can’t remember. It is a horrifying feeling.

**John:** Never let yourself do that. Always go to the bathroom, write it down.

**Craig:** Go to the bathroom. Write it down.

**John:** Yeah. And the other good thing I will talk about, and then I will shut up about the system, is I have added a list for Brain Dead. So, basically, you have projects which are… Projects are anything that involve more than one step. So, this thing I am writing for Fox, that is a project. And I have all the little things in there related to that, that have to get done for it.

There is also Context. And contexts are the situations that you find yourself in. So, I have a context for work. I have a context for Ryan Nelson, who is a graphic designer who I work with, so next time that I see him I need to talk to him about these things.

I created a context called Brain Dead for when I have absolutely no energy or will to do anything. It is, like, 5 o’clock at night, I have really stupid little tasks that I can burn off there that are things that actually need to get done, but I shouldn’t try to do them when I have energy to do anything real. So, it is a good way to use that time where otherwise I would be spending it clicking through websites, or doing other stuff.

**Craig:** Right. Yes.

**John:** Or playing Skyrim.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m suspicious of this —

But this is, what, you are German. This is why Germany does so well at everything they do.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Other than large-scale dual-front world wars.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Single-front wars they are awesome.

**John:** Yeah. Well, does anyone thrive on dual-front wars?

**Craig:** No one has managed to pull one off successfully except for the United States.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. We actually were able to. We did that. We pulled it off.

**John:** Yes. But, granted, my knowledge of military history is incredibly slight, but what I would say is that we came into that war so late, in a way, that we sort of got in on the tail end of that goodness, and on the European goodness, and then had to do the Asian — the Pacific War ourselves.

**Craig:** Yeah. We hit Pacific pretty hard right off the start. Definitely eased in to the European theater, no question. Yeah, because Pearl Harbor was 1941. We went right into it in the Pacific. And then D-Day was ’44, I believe. Yeah.

**John:** See, all these details are murky to me because they haven’t reached that period yet in Downton Abbey, so I don’t have the context for it.

**Craig:** [laughs] That is tragic. [laughs]

**John:** Now, one thing that you do have, you do find the time to do, which I cannot believe you find the time to do, is to respond in online forums to incredibly esoteric questions. And that is what I think we will spend the bulk of our time doing today.

**Craig:** What am I doing?! I’m so stupid.

**John:** What are you doing?

**Craig:** I don’t know.

**John:** So, I will set us up on this, because there is a forum, an online forum, called Done Deal Pro.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And, tell me what it even really is? I don’t go on, so explain it.

**Craig:** The name alone makes me laugh, because Done Deal Pro implies that there are pros there, and that deals are done, and neither of those things occur. But it is not a bad place. I think if you are an aspiring screenwriter, it is donedealpro.com, and it has got all sorts of things you can pay for. I don’t pay for any of it, personally. Maybe there is use in some of those —

**John:** You are kind of opposed to paying for things like that.

**Craig:** I mean, I don’t know what they offer, so I can’t evaluate it, because I refuse to pay for it. [laughs] So I don’t know what it is.

But, there is a free forum. And the forum is, like every Internet forum, full of interesting people, and actually a few quite talented people, I think. I have read a couple of scripts that I was impressed with. And then cranks, and idiots. But by and large, I think the tendency there is for people who mean well, who are serious about being screenwriters, and who are trying quite hard, and quite seriously, to do it, and want to learn.

And Derek Haas sort of pulled me on this one.

**John:** Derek Haas, who does somehow find extra time in the day to do all of these things.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** When he is not like, you know, recording songs on YouTube and other things.

**Craig:** Right. And writing novels. Yeah. He pulled me in, and I got frustrated pretty early on because I felt like what was going on was a lot of people – who had no experience as a professional screenwriter – giving other people – who had no experience as professional screenwriters – the kind of advice that requires experience as a professional screenwriter.

So, it was just the blind leading the blind. There is a ton of bad advice in there. And I got kind of frustrated, and said, “You guys have got to stop doing that.” But then, unfortunately, what that means is then I have to start doing it. And I’m just, not like I am the Oracle of Delphi, but we did have after —

Because a lot of the questions are the sort of inane questions that professional screenwriters roll their eyes at like, “How do you format? And should you use is it okay to use voice-over?” And all these really just grindy questions. It is like, “I don’t know, is the script good?” That’s all anybody cares about. Is the script good?

But, there was finally a very, very, very interesting thread, I thought, and it is going on right now about the central dramatic argument.

**John:** And when you say it is going on right now, literally, there are new posts from today and yesterday. It is up to 43 web pages, so that is like 430 entries probably —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** A long thread. And you are a good 30 or 40 of these entries.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m an idiot. [laughs]

**John:** This thread, and I haven’t read all of it, because I couldn’t possibly read all of this.

**Craig:** Put it on your Brain Dead list. [laughs]

**John:** We will link it in the show notes.

**Craig:** No. I think you should do it at 5 o’clock, when you are really tired. [laughs]

**John:** So there will be a link to this in the show notes. But it is the central question here. Someone asks, “What is the difference between theme and central dramatic argument?” And your response is?

**Craig:** Well, central dramatic argument is a phrase that I basically made up, although then one guy found like an example of it in a book from 1950 as if to say, “No you didn’t make it up.” Uh, this is the Internet, you know. God bless the Internet.

But the reason I made it up was because the word “theme” can be distorted when we talk about writing screenplays and theme. Some people can use the word theme the way we should probably use the world motif like brotherhood, or justice, or bravery. Those are motifs. But they are not actually useful when you are writing a movie.

What is useful when you are writing a movie is what Aristotle, going all the way back to Poetics, called “unity.” And that is, at its core, an argument, and what I call a central dramatic argument: an assertion that is the answer to a question, that you could agree or disagree with, but ultimately is at the… It is when people say, “What is this movie really about?” It’s about that.

**John:** Would you say that any argument could be rephrased as a question?

**Craig:** Any argument could be rephrased as a question. And in fact, to me, what is interesting about thinking about this when we write screenplays is that that question is the one… That question should have two answers. And ideally your hero is answering the question one way on page one, and the opposite way at the end of the movie.

That is sort of, when we talk about character arcs, and people say, “Well, your character has to change.” Well, okay. But why? And how? Is it a random change? Is it just that he got braver? Stronger? Smarter? No, it is that he is answering a question differently, a fundamental question about life differently. And, to me, at least.

And sometimes when you think about movies, like for instance last week, I think, we talked about Ferris Bueller, or two weeks ago, we talked about Ferris Bueller, and how Cameron is actually the protagonist of that movie. Because he is the one that answers the question differently at the end of the movie. Ferris Bueller doesn’t have a problem, other than that he doesn’t have a car.

**John:** The same with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Charlie really has no fundamental problem.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** He’s poor.

**Craig:** That’s right. Like you, yes, it is an interesting… Actually, it is interesting that you bring that up, because I always felt like in the original Willy Wonka movie, they are making Willy Wonka the protagonist. And his question is a very simple one, it seems: Is there someone worthy?

And maybe he starts by thinking there is no one worthy. And then in the end he changes his mind and says, “There is somebody worthy.” And you had a totally different argument.

**John:** I would also say in the original Willy Wonka movie, which I hadn’t seen until after we got started with the new one, but in the original Willy Wonka movie, I felt them desperately trying to make Charlie have hero/protagonist problems.

So that is why they had him stealing stuff, and making many choices that would seem to give him an arc, but he didn’t really need to have an arc.

**Craig:** Well, and I actually don’t even think that he does. I mean, in the Gene Wilder movie, I think that Gene Wilder starts essentially with a presumption that there is nobody pure enough to take on what he has created. He is a skeptic. He is a cynic. And at the end of the movie it is that little thing he says when he puts his hand over the Gobstopper, you know, that Charlie is behind. He says something to the effect of, you know, I can’t remember what he says, but it is quite lovely, and that is his new answer to the question.

And in your Willy Wonka it was really about, it was about a son and a father, and —

**John:** Yes. It’s letting someone in. So to me, Willy Wonka is a strange, sad shut-in who doesn’t want to let anybody in, but ultimately has to let somebody in.

**Craig:** Right. And then I would say that the central dramatic argument of your movie is you need to let people in. [laughs] So that is how I would phrase that, because what is nice about that is in the beginning of the movie, just flip that on its head, and that is where your character starts. I need to not let people in.

And, literally, by just keeping the same statement, even the fact that “I need to not let people in,” as opposed to, “I shouldn’t let people in,” or, “I don’t want to let people in. I need to.” Now, all of a sudden, I start to realize why this guy behaves the way he does, why he lives the way he does, why he acts the way he does because he needs to keep people out.

And so, I like to think about movies in terms of those questions that go from what they are in the beginning to the opposite of that at the end. And I like to let that inform how these characters should grow and change. It also helps you design the obstacles they face. It helps you design the antagonists. It helps you design their allies. You know now what their sore spot is.

**John:** Yeah. So, but let’s talk about the 43 pages of it all. [laughs]

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** So, I mean, I accept that as a thesis, and I would say that we can… I can push back to a certain degree because I feel like many of my movies, and many of my successful movies — the movies that I enjoy that I think work really well — don’t lend themselves to easy expression of the central dramatic argument, and weren’t conceived with that central dramatic argument.

So, it is a question of, you can say like, “Well, this ultimately is the central dramatic argument of Go,” but that really wasn’t in my conception as I was creating it. So, it is a question of was that the author’s intent, or is that something that you are applying ex post facto to the final product.

But looking at the 43 pages of this, looking at how it changes over the course of these pages, some of it is talking about just semantics, like “what is theme.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And growing up, going through junior high, theme was always stated as something versus something. So, it was man versus society, or man versus the wild, and it was easy for most stories to find that theme. It wasn’t especially helpful.

Deeper in this thread, as I was skipping through it, the question was like, “Well is greed a theme? Is greed a central dramatic argument?” And, the pushback was, “No, that is not enough of one because it is not saying anything about greed. It is just a thing.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** What is your philosophy on something like greed, or envy? You need more than that. Is that correct?

**Craig:** I would say so. I mean, I just don’t know how that helps me write anything. I mean, I understand that you are giving me an emotion, or a motivation. I like the fact that a character is motivated by greed, but in the end I want to know why.

To me, that is what it all comes down to. When we think about these characters, I mean you may say, “Look, I didn’t think of the ‘central dramatic argument’ in that stupid phrasey way,” because I know I sound like Robert McKee when I am saying stuff like that, and that is the last thing I want to do.

You may not have thought of that while you were writing that movie, but at the same token, I can’t imagine that you weren’t thinking about why what this guy’s problem was. What is his real issue? That has got to be there, I assume.

**John:** I would honestly say, “No.” I approach most of my movies from the perspective of, “What is this movie about, and what is this movie about to me?”

So, I look at, you know, Charlie’s Angels is one of the things that I got actually bumped up in this thread. I should say that I never actually go to DoneDealPro, I don’t really sort of, like, hang out there. But every couple of months I will just do a forum search for my name to see what people are talking about me.

**Craig:** Ha-ha.

**John:** A specialized form of Googling yourself.

**Craig:** And what are they saying?

**John:** Mostly decent things. Mostly.

**Craig:** Mostly. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. So in this forum, someone bumped up a post that is on my site, which I will also link to in the show notes, where I talk about writing from theme. And, so I bring up several of my projects, and discuss what I mean when I say writing from theme on those things.

And, so, Charlie’s Angels’ I said is, “Three princesses who have to save their father, the King.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Now that is not, by your definition, a central dramatic argument. It is not a theme. But that is what that movie is to me. Without that, I don’t have a movie at all. I can only think of that movie in terms of this is what it feels like to me.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And so once I know what the movie feels like to me, and who the people are within this kind of movie, then I can write it. But, I could have a really clear “this is what the thesis of the movie is” figured out, and still have no ability to write that movie unless I had that sort of core aspect, that core element.

**Craig:** I get it. I mean, look, I think you need all of that stuff. I don’t think you can write a movie if you don’t know what the basic attraction to it is, what the hook is, and the idea. The plot needs its own kind of archetype. You need to have a grasp of your story. And there are certain kinds of movies that are simpler in their execution. No. Let me take that back. Simpler in their construction.

You know, for instance, I wrote spoof movies. There is no central dramatic argument to those. They are a different kind of construction. If you are writing a fairy tale, or something that is larger than life, oftentimes you are right. It is really about —

If you are writing something with a little more drama to it; I mean, I don’t think of Charlie’s Angels as a drama.

**John:** Okay. Well, let’s take Big Fish. It’s hard to get more, sort of, like, that is a movie that feels like it should have a central dramatic argument.

**Craig:** And does it?

**John:** I would argue no. It is very hard to find a central dramatic argument that you are going to state that way? There are certainly key touchstone things that cycle back through, you know; what is the difference between factual truth and emotional truth? So that is a key idea. So the stories that Edward Bloom is telling, are they literally true, or are they emotionally true?

**Craig:** Well, but —

**John:** What is the difference between inspiration and sort of idealization?

**Craig:** Who is the protagonist of Big Fish?

**John:** It is a dual protagonist structure. Edward Bloom is the protagonist of the overall arc of his life, and so he is a boy who starts with humble beginnings and grows to some measure of success through these bigger-than-life stories.

The present day protagonist is his son, Will, who has to figure out who his father really is, and discover the secret that his father has been keeping.

**Craig:** And who is —

**John:** So, Will functions as the antagonist to —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** — the function as protagonist/antagonist through the present-day story.

**Craig:** And what is Will’s opinion of his father in the beginning of the movie?

**John:** His father is a liar.

**Craig:** And what is his opinion at the end?

**John:** His father… That he was asking the wrong questions. That his father was telling the emotional truth, even if it wasn’t the factual truth.

**Craig:** So, in my mind, even though you weren’t consciously doing this, there is a central dramatic argument there. And the central dramatic argument is that our parents are more complicated people than we understand them to be as children. And the concept that your father is a liar is a childlike understanding of your parent, because you view them as some sort of authority figure that has failed you because of their failings, their shortcomings.

And then you finally get to know them as a person, and you realize that they are far more complicated. And that is an argument. And that permeates the entire thing, not to mention necessitates what is so interesting about Big Fish, which is that this man is a liar.

See, to me, that is always there. And you may have not thought of it, but I think it is there.

**John:** I agree that is an element of it. But what I am saying is, that alone would not have driven, I don’t think drives the story. I don’t think it could drive the story.

**Craig:** Of course not.

**John:** And it doesn’t drive this particular story.

**Craig:** I acknowledge that. I am not suggesting that these are the things that even drive a story. What I am suggesting is that they are valuable, at least for me, and it is fine if they are not for you; but for me, they are valuable when I am trying to figure out, particularly if it is not an adaptation, if you are really just like, “Okay, I’ve got a blank page here. What is my story to tell?” What should come next?

And that is why I always, to me… — And by the way, the only reason that I started thinking about this is because it is so evident in Pixar films. And I feel like Pixar films are so gorgeously structured. And it is so clear that this is part and parcel with what they do.

And so I started thinking about it for those reasons.

**John:** Great. Let me throw out a similar but contrasting way of looking at, I don’t even really want to call it theme, but let me describe what it is, and then we will find the right name for it. This is something that actually occurred to me when I was doing D.C., which was this terrible TV show I did for the WB network that I actually had a nervous breakdown during.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** But that was the extreme version of, I think, something that happens on every project, with everything you are writing, is you are trying to figure out what fits in this movie, and what doesn’t fit in this movie. And you are basically making two boxes. And as stuff comes out you are like, “Is this the kind of thing that fits in this movie, or the kind of thing that doesn’t fit in this movie? Is it in the box, or is it outside the box?”

And the extreme version of it on D.C. was I had to write so much, and oversee so much, and I was flying on planes constantly. Basically, any song that played on the radio, within five seconds I had to decide, okay, does that fit into my world. Is that a song I need to hold onto? Yes? It goes in the box.

People would be talking and I would just be sort of recording the whole conversation and figuring out what out of that can I fit into the box. Does this fit into the box? So something that wouldn’t fit into my show, I would walk away because, like, this is not helping me write my show.

To some degree, I think that is what you are doing on every project is you are figuring out some heuristic for sorting what belongs in your movie, and what doesn’t belong in your movie. And, if theme or your central dramatic argument helps you figure out, like, is this the kind of moment that exists in my movie, or does it not exist in my movie?

And when you read bad screenplays, it is often because they are trying to wedge in things that just fundamentally don’t belong in those pages. Especially, I think, it is also a syndrome of first-time writing syndrome is that you don’t know how many things you are going to write in your life, so, like, “Well, I have always wanted to write this thing, so I am going to write this in this script, even if it doesn’t make sense in this script.”

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, that is absolutely the case. Everybody who writes a screenplay has to have that weird horse sense about whether something fits, or doesn’t fit, the world that they have built.

But, what you are describing is almost like a passive filter in a way, like something emerges and I just decide, “Does that pass through or not?” And one of the benefits, I think, about to thinking about an argument underlying your story is that it helps you actively determine what ought to go in.

**John:** Yeah. So it is like writing a regular expression. I am going to get super nerdy here. Writing a regular expression which can sort of pattern match, and figure out, like okay, out of all of this possible stuff, what actually fits into our story?

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, I always think of these things as like when you look at a movie like Groundhog Day, for instance, which is appropriate because I believe we just had it.

**John:** And a new book about Groundhog Day just came out, which I linked to on the site.

**Craig:** Excellent. Groundhog Day is sort of the… To me it is the perfect execution of this kind of thing. And when we look at movies like this, whether there is a supernatural component or not. For instance, okay, Identity Theft, the movie that I have written for Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy, coming soon to a theater near you. Starts shooting soon. That’s my big plug.

That movie does not have any supernatural elements. A man’s identify is stolen. He has to get his life back together. In both of those situations, a man keeps waking up on the same day over-and-over. A man has his identity stolen, and needs to put his life back together. My argument as a writer is that as writers we are like, we are God, and we see Job, and we go, “Boink! We are going to make your life miserable. And the reason we are making your life miserable is, look, the side effect is we are going to entertain people. But the reason as God that we are making your life miserable in this specific way is because you need it. You need it. There is something wrong with you. You needed this to happen.”

That is why, and so then I say to people, “Okay, if you have a great concept for a movie, if you had a concept, ‘I imagine a man who tells these incredibly tall tales, and his son, who things he is a liar,’ I immediately think, ‘Wow, that is interesting.'” Now, who needs that to happen? Who needs that experience, to talk to that man, and have that guy be your dad? What is wrong with you? That is the way my mind works at least.

**John:** That is a reasonable way to approach it. And what you are describing with Identity Theft very much fits, I think, our expectation of going into these kind of comedies in particular is that the premise is straightforward, relatable, and everything that flows out of it should… Every important element of the movie should flow out of that premise.

So, the fact that his identity his stolen, or the idea of identity, or the idea of who it is to be you should be the central element of every sequence.

**Craig:** But, by the same token, it is a good thing for, I think it is a good thing if the internal problem is actually somewhat unrelated to the external problem. I think it is fun for an audience to match up a strange external adventure with a far more mundane internal problem. Finding Nemo is the best example. I mean, there is this enormous external problem: my son is lost in an ocean, and I have to find him. And internally there is this other, almost opposite, competing problem: I need to learn how to let my kid go.

And you can see how they both affect each other, but they are different, you know? And I love that.

**John:** And then Pixar made Cars 2.

**Craig:** Well, listen — [laughs]

**John:** You can’t hit it out of the park every time.

**Craig:** I mean, their batting average is still startling.

**John:** It’s pretty good.

**Craig:** And you have to forgive them for Cars 2, because I know some people talk about this, but maybe others don’t know. The most profitable Pixar movie by far is Cars.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s Cars. I know! Because, look: I am a huge Pixar fan. Is Cars near the top of my list? Nope. Is Cars 2 near the top of my list? No. But, they sold more crapola, more Cars stuff, and you know, if that funds another Nemo, I’m cool. I’m down.

**John:** Yeah. We’re cool. Yeah. We are not going to be negative this podcast.

**Craig:** No!

**John:** This is a positive podcast. How dare I bring up, you know, disappointing Pixar movies, when this is a podcast of celebration and joy, and not wrist slitting. And we are not going to talk about the sad realities of things. We are going to talk about the happy possibilities of things.

**Craig:** In fact, can you make the outro music the Ewok Celebration Song?

**John:** Well, it’s done.

**Craig:** Thank you! Jub Jub. Do-do-do-do. [singing]

**John:** You don’t have to even have to sing it yourself, Craig, because right now it is already playing underneath.

**Craig:** [singing along]

**John:** Craig.

**Craig:** John.

**John:** Thank you very much for a nice podcast.

**Craig:** Jub Jub who? [singing] See you later.

« Previous Page

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (492)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.