Search Results for: youtube

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

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 534 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show we’re looking at midpoints, that murky middle of the movie, where writers and audience both ask where are we, where are we going, and how soon will we get there.

First we have a ton of follow-up from listeners about previous topics, and new questions that will no doubt prompt more follow-up. Craig, we will never escape. Caught in a loop of provoking and responding.

**Craig:** Good. I think that that’s a good sign. You’re right, the more we talk, the more follow-up and, I wouldn’t call it push-back, but people have interesting things to say. People respond and react because they are … I don’t know if I’m going to go so far as to say they’re all in a parasocial relationship with us, John, but they are in a parasocial conversation with us.

**John:** That’s absolutely true. I like that you’re working that parasocial, keeping it up. I don’t know, at graduation, did anyone launch a beach ball at your high school graduation, and the beach ball bounced over the top of it?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I feel like that’s what you’re doing with the word parasocial. You’re just keeping it up in the air a little bit longer.

**Craig:** Keeping it in the air and trying to just stay connected to the Millennials, even though the Millennials are now, I must say, old. That’s how old we are in Generation X. We think the young people are who Generation Z thinks of as the old people. Hey Megana, did you know that, that you’re old now?

**Megana Rao:** I identify with Gen Z.

**Craig:** You can do that if you want. You can identify however you want, but factually …

**Megana:** I’m old, I get it.

**Craig:** Do you? Because I don’t think you do yet. You’re going to get it. It’s actually super freeing, Megana. You should really embrace this. It’s amazing.

**Megana:** I spend most of my day complaining about neck pain, so I get it. I’m there.

**Craig:** Yeah, but when you get a little bit older, that will be totally justified. You won’t feel weak about it. You’ll be like, “Yeah, like all of us, my neck hurts.”

**John:** My gift for Megana this … As we’ve established on the show, I’m not a good gift-giver, but I did give Megana a blanket thing to keep her warm. It feels like a gift you give not to a young person, but to an older person.

**Craig:** Young people don’t want wraps to stay warm. That’s absolutely true.

**Megana:** Yeah. My cold bones.

**Craig:** You’re going to be the best old lady. Fun.

**Megana:** I already am.

**John:** In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, I want to talk about NFTs, because I always want to talk about NFTs.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** In particular, these three really great articles that really shine spotlight on what is so dumb about NFTs.

**Craig:** So dumb.

**John:** We’ll get into a little bit of that. We’re going to put it in the Bonus Segment so when people come after me, they’re going to have to actually pay for the Bonus Segment to hear about it first. Actually, we’ll profit from-

**Craig:** You should sell it as an NFT. That whole segment should be an NFT. Just for fun.

**John:** Going to be great.

**Craig:** Just to get meta.

**John:** First, Craig, we have to establish the Chekhov’s gun on this podcast, because about 100 episodes ago we started talking about COVID. It was actually in a Bonus Segment talking about COVID. Chekhov’s gun finally went off this last week for us on the show.

**Craig:** Boom, right in my face. Yes. I had COVID, or really COVID had me. I test constantly, because I am in a production. I tested positive for COVID, and my symptoms were nothing. I have to just take a moment to salute the scientists and researchers and everyone, honestly everyone who worked to create the Moderna vaccine, which is the only one I’ve taken, but I’m sure that everybody at Pfizer deserves the same, and all the other places that have worked so hard to do this, because I’m not going to bother with the anti-vax people. Basically eff off. For the rest of us who are normal and smart and understand facts, this is miraculous. It’s just an incredible thing. This was a disease that was indiscriminately killing people. Now it mostly discriminately kills people. If you are vaccinated, and particularly boosted, especially with Omicron, which I suspect is what I had, as it is incredibly-

**John:** 99% of all COVID in North America is that.

**Craig:** It really was a nothing. It was a big nothing. I’ve had mosquito bites that were more vexatious than this bout of COVID, if I can call it a bout. I just followed the rules, isolated, which was for me not a big deal, because I like staying inside. I really do. That was fine.

**John:** Craig, let’s talk about how you run a show that’s in production while you’re doing that. Let’s be a little practical here, because you actually had tools at your disposal which a couple years ago you wouldn’t have had.

**Craig:** The primary tool that we use now for remote viewing is called QTAKE. QTAKE is tied into the video playback system. On a set, all the cameras are sending a signal to the video playback system, the video playback operator. Ours is named Amanda. She is wonderful. Manages the signal from all the cameras, and also has the functionality to broadcast that signal via WiFi or network to stream it to whatever the QTAKE, that is the brand that does this, the QTAKE server, which then sends it right back out to anyone who has the username and password and has been invited, and I can watch. I can watch on my monitor at home or on a laptop or even on a phone if I wanted to, although I don’t, all three cameras. I can select one camera to zero in on if I’m really interested in A camera or B camera. I can of course hear everything. In this way, I was able to do pretty much the job I would’ve done there.

The part that makes it harder is, when you’re present you can be there for the parts that don’t include the camera, blocking rehearsals and things like that. It’s more efficient. Right now Liza Johnson is directing this episode. She’s fantastic. Liza and I were able to just text each other. Jack Lesko is there as well, so maybe we’ll text with Jack and then I can call them on a phone if I want to go over a specific thing. We absolutely managed it, no real problem. It was nice. It was nice to be able to do that and not have to put pants on.

**John:** Perfect. I’m glad it worked out. That system you’re describing reminds me of conversations I had with Dana Fox about her season of her show, which is shooting up in Canada, which she could not be there, because it’s the lockdown. Phil and Matt also came on to talk to us about the systems they were using when they had to shoot the first season of their show without being present on their set. It’s not ideal, but it’s possible now, which I think is fantastic. You were able to be safe and keep your crew safe by staying home.

**Craig:** It’s a strange thing to be like the eye in the sky. Obviously you want to be there. No major issues. It was a terrific week, honestly, of shooting. It was some really cool stuff. I’m excited for folks who have not experienced the story The Last of Us to see what we shot this week. I know that the people who have seen it will appreciate it a lot, and people who haven’t seen I think will also really, really enjoy it. It was a good one.

**John:** This past week, Craig, I got to do something that I know you enjoy almost as much as playing D&D, which is to tell writers to fire their representatives, to fire their agents.

**Craig:** Of course, that’s the rule.

**John:** That’s the rule. I was talking with an upper mid-level writer, so a guy who’d staffed on TV shows, had a good career going, but had about a year break where he just could not get staffed on a show and was having a hard time getting stuff set up. As I was having this phone call with him, he was doing all the right things. He was writing new stuff. He was finding new ways to generate his own material. He was getting stuff in development, but just couldn’t get a thing to land.

I asked him, “I think it’s probably your agents. I think there’s a real problem here.” He was already going to probably fire his agents. When you do, and you’re going to go to the next place, talk to the people you’ve been dealing with and ask them what they think of your reps. He did, and everyone hated his reps. That was actually part of the problem. Now he is staffed on a new show that he loves. He’s a co-AP. I was just very excited for that advice to pay off and for him to have done the work to actually say, “My reps were not helping me. They were actually hurting me,” which I don’t think we talk about enough on the show.

**Craig:** I think we have said in the past that a bad agent is worse than no agent. They can do harm. When you have a bad agent, but you don’t know they’re bad, you are trusting that someone is taking care of something, and they’re not. There is a natural thing that can happen I think for some writers with their agents, where over time you can be taken for granted. You’re the person that they have, so they don’t have to worry about you. They’re worrying about signing the new person, or they’re worrying about getting the next thing for the person that makes more money than you do. When you have a new agent, it’s new, and romance is in the air, and everyone’s trying hard. The new agent has never gotten you a job before. They really want to get you a job. That’s embarrassing if they don’t.

I don’t think you should ever feel like it’s a massive, major career thing to fire your agent. It’s really not. It’s not. Getting a great agent is a massive career thing for you. Getting the right agent, that’s the big career change. Firing a mediocre or bad one is meh. As long as you have a new port to steer into, you should be fine.

**John:** Agreed. Also this last week, there was a tweet by Bo-Yeon Kim. She’s reading Bong Joon-Ho’s Mother script and marveling how different Korean formatting is from the US. We’ve talked a lot about script formatting on the show and had a special episode about it. It’s fascinating looking at this. Craig, as you open up this tweet, you’re seeing two pages, probably essentially the first two pages of the script. What do you see when you look at these pages?

**Craig:** It’s in Korean, so even if we spoke Korean, but didn’t read Korean text, we would still not know what’s going on. It looks really similar. It’s not wildly different. When they number their scenes, they put the number there, and it’s a very short scene header. Incredibly short. Then there’s a bunch of action, which doesn’t look too far off from ours. The character and dialog blocks are combined. Instead of a character, and then underneath, dialog, they do, in the dialog, what we would call the dialog block, character colon, I’m assuming, dialog, including a parenthetical. Occasionally there are two exclamation points, which may have a meaning in Korean that is different than one. I do not know.

**John:** We shared this with Bo Shim, who works with you, who verified, yes, this is just a thing you would see in a Korean script. I think it looks beautiful. It looks like our Western format, just in Korean. A lot of white space. A lot of white space on the right-hand edge. They look beautiful. It’s fun to see stuff that you can’t read, so you’re just appreciating it as the form of it. I was surprised it was actually as recognizable as a script.

**Craig:** I’m not super surprised, because the modern film business was invented here in the United States. The modern screenplay format was invented here in the United States. It does stand to reason that other nations, as they begin their own industries, will probably look to the very successful original one as at least inspiration, if nothing else. This script format, for all of our gripes, has functioned extraordinarily well for over a century, so makes sense.

**John:** Makes sense. That’s a perfect segue into an email we got from Richard. Megana, do you want to share this Richard email about Casablanca and early screenplays?

**Megana:** Richard wrote in, “Like you two, I enjoy giving back and sharing as I try to be the teacher I never had. Honest, Craig, all film schools aren’t the same, as I’ve actually taught in the John August Room in the Writing Department at USC. Plus, I would never advise my students not to use we see in their action lines.

I’m writing in regards to Episode 531 that dropped January 4th. In it you discuss the history of screenwriting and screenplay format and mention that Casablanca was one of the first scripts to use a format that’s close to what scripts look like today. Actually, that format had been in use in Hollywood for much longer, at least a decade. As a movie lover and film nerd, I’ve read quite a bit about writers of the Golden Age, and have read their screenplays. Those screenwriters, such as Samson Raphaelson and Oscar winners Robert Riskin, Ben Hecht, and Frances Marion, all wrote in a style we’d recognize today. I recommend checking out classic screenplays at the WGA Library. There’s also a terrific book, Six Screenplays by Robert Riskin, for an example of how the Capra Touch started on the page.”

**John:** I love when someone writes in to say, “Actually,” but then actually provides the details. Yes, there were scripts like this before Casablanca. I just didn’t know about them.

**Craig:** I didn’t even know what Casablanca looked like. I didn’t even know what that script looked like. Thank you, Richard. Yes, all film schools aren’t the same. Certainly NYU and USC are the ones that people aspire to the most. In theory, if there’s going to be good film school experiences, it will likely happen at one of those two places, or certainly at least in the John August Room. I can’t imagine anything untoward happens in the John August Room, the worst room at the strip club.

**John:** Don’t get champagne in the John August Room.

**Craig:** No one ever goes into the John August Room in the strip club. That’s always a good idea to check out classic screenplays if you’re interested in how things have evolved over time. Robert Riskin’s certainly one of our greats. I note that Richard put Capra Touch in quotes, no doubt because he is implying, as I will state overtly, that directors have been credited with things that screenwriters have been doing for decades. The Capra Touch is the thing where Frank Capra shot the script that Robert Riskin wrote. That’s the Capra Touch.

**John:** What we talk about with a modern screenplay is that sense of there are scene headers and you move into scene description that’s actually very full, very full compared to what you find in a play, that the dialog is important, but it’s not the only thing you’re seeing in this. When people read plays and they read screenplays, they’re like, “Oh, there actually is a big difference here.” That difference is how full the scene description is, how important it is that we are moving from location to location, just because film is a different medium than a play. You’re not just in one space and you’re not going to have these 20-minute scenes in general in film. You’re going to be moving from place to place. You have to have a vocabulary for what that looks like on the page.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** All right, let’s get back to more follow-up here. Matt wrote in about QR codes. He says, “While listening to John and Craig’s discussion of updating the screenplay format, I was reminded of this tweet I saw earlier in the week about a writer who included a QR code in their script. How do you guys feel about the inclusion of a QR code that links you out to additional material?” I guess like songs or images. “I only fear that the reader would go into their phone, would disrupt the flow of the read, and potentially end it with distractions from the phone entirely.” Craig, a QR code in your script?

**Craig:** That is an odd-looking thing. My concern wouldn’t be that the QR code would disrupt their flow of the read. If it led to something really cool, then I think it’s fine. It only takes a second or two to grab your camera, see it, click on the link, and look. My problem about the inclusion of a QR code is that the QR code itself aesthetically is such a downer and it’s ugly. It’s just this big ugly blob on the page. I would so much rather that there was something where people could read and just simply tap on something and understood that it would take them to a little image, then they could tap it away. It’s ugly, ugly thing.

**John:** Here’s where we need to introduce Megana’s innovation, because she’s working on a musical and she’s including the songs in the script. Megana, talk to us about how you’re doing that.

**Megana:** I just included them as a link, which is something that’s very easy to do in Highland. I reference these songs that are on YouTube, because the song’s told in the same style, and so it’s like, click here if you want to listen. Then it just takes you to Safari and opens the link in YouTube.

**John:** I think what’s smart about this is it’s recognizing that most people are not going to be reading this screenplay printed out, the way that screenplays used to be. They’re going to read it as a pdf, and pdfs can include links. Just make that clickable and it’s a good stopgap. It doesn’t give you all the way what Craig wants, where it’s actually embedded within the document itself, but it’s pretty good.

**Craig:** That sounds like a perfectly good solution. I think that that’s a really smart way to go.

**John:** Craig, you use Fade In. Does Fade In allow you to put active links in your documents?

**Craig:** It does. Fade In, actually at my urging, there’s quite a few things that you can do in Fade In that are really cool. You can embed alts, which is a really interesting thing. You can create links. Because I’m working on something that’s proprietary, I don’t do that, but yes, Fade In does have the ability to do that.

**John:** Here would be my argument for maybe a QR code is, we always talk about the title page and then you can stick a dedication page or a first page before the actual screenplay starts. That might be a page where you could say, if you would like to see images related to this, or this thing, click here or scan this. I could understand why you might want to do that, because that way if someone is looking at the script in a way that didn’t have the clickable link, that QR code would be a way for them to get to it. I wouldn’t put a QR code in the middle of a script page.

**Craig:** It’d be a bummer.

**John:** That’d be bad. Hattie wrote in to say that, “I find Celtx is great for editing between multiple people. I use Celtx Educator, as I’m studying for a master’s in screenwriting. You can share your script with anyone who has Celtx and an email address, and those people can edit the doc.” We’re talking there about shared screenwriting experiences. I still have an old Celtx T-shirt from a zillion years ago, because I never throw out T-shirts. I never really dug Celtx. It was just web-based, and I found it kind of janky. The advantage of a web-based ting is it’s very easy to do that multiple user thing. If it’s working for you, great. Craig and I know nobody who actually uses Celtx in a professional way.

**Craig:** I have not heard the word Celtx in, I don’t know, a decade. WriterDuet I think does a very good job of this. There is a free version of WriterDuet, so definitely take a look at that. Celtx, it’s like Movie Magic Screenwriter.

**John:** This last week I had a run-in with Movie Magic Screenwriter.

**Craig:** A run-in?

**John:** I did have a run-in. I had a dark encounter with it. This last week when I posted the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory script, that was an old FDR, Final Draft, old format, that is able to reformat and put it on a proper pdf, so it’s up there in the John August Library. I had these other scripts that I was like, crap, these are so old. They’re Movie Magic Screenwriter things, because you used to ping-pong them back and forth between Final Draft and Movie Magic Screenwriter. There’s not an app to open these. I didn’t have Screenwriter. It wasn’t even clear that the build of Screenwriter, which works on a Monterey system, because you can open these old files. I was involving nerd friends to help me crack these things open.

What was so embarrassing is that there’s a Barbarella script that I was trying to open up, was that I spent maybe three hours wrestling with this file, only to realize that it actually was a Final Draft file, that if I just actually added dot FDR, it would just open, because you remember back before OS X that files did not have extensions on them, so you had no idea what that file was. I just assumed it was a Movie Magic file, and actually it was a Final Draft file.

**Craig:** I remember when OS X came out that there was this hullabaloo about the fact that these file extensions meant that Mac was turning into Windows, and no, it was turning into Unix is what it was turning into. There were always file extensions. They just didn’t show them to you.

**John:** All that meta data was buried into the file system.

**Craig:** You have the option now of automatically seeing file extensions or not, depending on the kinds of files. I tend to want to see the file extensions myself.

**John:** I do too. Here’s an example. It’s that if I have Barbarella first draft dot fdr versus dot pdf. It’s good to see, oh, the one that ends in dot pdf is the pdf. That’s just good to see, if I see it in a list view. I could see the icon would be different, but that’s not the point. You just want to see in the list which one is the pdf.

**Megana:** When you click in to look at your files, it would give you that information, even if it wasn’t …

**Craig:** You can always Command I, but I don’t want to Command I.

**John:** I don’t want to Command I.

**Craig:** Command I means something’s gone really wrong, as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** Megana, I hope you have some stamina in you, because this is a long email, but I think it’s actually pretty good. This is the one from Jules.

**Megana:** Jules says, “I enjoyed listening to your discussion in Episode 532: Mistakes of Yes, about the importance of suffering and seeking meaningful work, rather than signifiers or supposed hallmarks of success in the path towards happiness. Your conversation made me think about a statement written by Albert Camus, ‘One must imagine Sisyphus happy.’ When we think about mythology, Sisyphus epitomizes infinite, unrelenting torture, pushing a boulder up a hill, only to have to repeat it again once he gets to the top. Camus in this essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, posits that life is inherently absurd and filled with bizarre routines and habits. We could be distressed or discouraged by how little anything really means or not want to live as a result, but Camus says we must revolt and not let that get us down. Sisyphus is constantly completing a task that challenges him greatly, and he achieves it, all while knowing that it will not get him anywhere, but he can find meaning and purpose and joy in the struggle. He could be happy.

“Sure, life can suck sometimes, even if you aren’t Sisyphus, but we can choose what we focus on as motivation. For any of us with ambitions, that applies that any striving to achieve comes at the expense of our happiness. I think the solution is to learn to love the struggle, no matter how successful you supposedly are, or even if by all accounts you’ve achieved nothing. No one can stop you from struggling and striving. If you truly embrace and enjoy the struggle and process of creating a script, a story, a book, a podcast, etc, I think that may be the best path towards happiness for those of us cursed with ambitious goals. If you can love writing when it’s the worst, then writing can make you happy.”

**Craig:** Yes. Amen, Jules.

**John:** Yeah. It struck me because this was also the week that, I’m going to butcher his name, so I apologize in advance, Thich Nhat Hanh, who was a Buddhist monk who died this past week, but who often wrote about the struggle and being present in it, and not putting off to later to be happy, but being present in it. That’s what I think Jules is writing here, is that it’s about understanding that the work you’re doing is not about the end goal, but about the actual work itself.

**Craig:** Yes, and that the struggle, and pointless struggle, is not a problem, because it’s all you’re going to get. I’ve always identified with the existentialists, but probably more Camus than Sartre. Sartre was such a downer, because Nausea. Camus, The Plague had a huge impact on me when I read it as a young man. Boy, if you want to read a book that drives home what we’re dealing with now, read The Plague again. What is the point? Especially if you’re a doctor and you’re working so hard, and there is an inefficient or stupid government and there are people who are moronic, and there is a disease that is destroying innocent and evil alike, and all you can do is stem the tide slightly until you just inevitably fail and also everyone dies anyway. Now what?

The answer is that’s where the human experience is. That’s the point. The point is the experience. The more we can disconnect ourselves from some notion that there is an answer to all of this, that there’s a right way, and that you’ve done it and you’ve achieved something, and therefore you have arrived at the end goal of all this, then the better off we’ll be, because none of that’s real, none of that’s true.

I think our culture, particularly American culture, is so goal-oriented. Everyone’s walking around feeling rather bad about it all, because what is the goal? Is the goal to be Jeff Bezos? You couldn’t pay me to be Jeff Bezos. You couldn’t pay me what Jeff Bezos owns to be Jeff Bezos. I don’t need, what, I’d say about $14 billion, probably 80 billion. I don’t know what it is.

**John:** It’s a lot of money.

**Craig:** I don’t need any of that. Honestly, the guy, I look at him and I just think, I don’t understand you at all. At all. I don’t know what you’re doing. I know what his ex-wife is doing. She’s doing good. I don’t know what he’s doing and I don’t know why and I don’t care. People show us who we’re supposed to be, and I don’t want to be that person. I’m stuck in my meat suit. I’ll just try and do this as best I can. I think that was a great thing to write in about, Jules.

**John:** The thing I want to distinguish between though is there’s suffering and things being difficult and needless suffering, or suffering that’s pointless. I do find people who are torturing themselves for no good reason. If it’s torture for you to write and you cannot enjoy writing and you don’t enjoy the end results of writing, I think it’s okay to stop writing. I think one of the things we try to be honest about in this podcast is there’s people who it’s just not going to be their thing. I see people who struggle to do it for no good reason. There’s no joy that they find in it. If you don’t find any joy, maybe look for something else that you can find joy in the actual process of doing, because that’s going to be more rewarding for you in the long term.

I just worry sometimes that people misunderstand. It’s like, enjoy the suffering, and they’re like, “Oh, then I have to suffer. There’s some reason why I need to beat myself up.” That’s not what this is saying.

**Craig:** I think we got into the notion of satisfaction, as opposed to happiness. I brought up Professor Scott Galloway and this thing about not following your passion, but rather finding your passion inside of the thing you’re really good at, that’s what makes you passionate about it. If you feel a sense of obligation, you’ve made a promise to someone that you’re going to be a great writer, or you’re supposed to be a great writer, and you’re not enjoy it at all, then no, you are not doing what you want in any way, shape, or form. That’s not even real struggle. That’s just a general sense of pointless obligation. If there is no sense of satisfaction in what you’re doing, then yes, absolutely, move on to another thing. You will not find something truly existentially purposeful to do, because there is no such thing. You will find something, I think, that is satisfying to do. Look for that.

**John:** Agreed. On the last episode we asked our listeners to write in their suggestions for read-aloud software, so software that could read a screenplay aloud and do a good job with the screenplay format, opposed to other things. We have a couple suggestions. People mentioned an iOS app called Tableread, which I’ve played with and I didn’t love, but it may be useful to some people. VoiceDream was an often suggested app. It does a pretty good job. It doesn’t know what a screenplay is necessarily, but it does a pretty good job of reading things aloud. Obviously most of the Mac and PC software programs can do some version of reading stuff allowed. On Windows and on Mac, you can find ways for your screenwriting software to read what’s on the screen aloud to you.

The most classic things that are designed specifically for people who are blind or have vision issues are JAWS and ZoomText. JAWS is having challenges with the current version of Final Draft, which is why Ryan Knighton and other folks are looking for better solutions for screenwriting software for blind users. These are all things that are out there that are helpful for people.

I think it’s always worth remembering that when you create things that are accessible for people who have specific issues, generally it ends up helping everybody, because just the same way that closed captioning was specifically designed for people who couldn’t hear, and it being tremendously useful for everybody around, especially when you just have a TV that didn’t have the sound turned on. I think as we look for solutions that are good for specific audiences, they tend to generalize out. Let’s just keep looking for ways to read scripts aloud and also make the work we do more accessible for everyone.

**Craig:** I did hear from Guy Goldstein, who is the founder and CEO of WriterDuet, which I mentioned just a few minutes ago. They have a new app called ReadThrough. It’s free, or there’s a free version. I watched their little demo videos. Rather impressive sounding. Another thing to throw on there. It is free. At the very least, if you are interested in text-to-voice, check out ReadThrough for free and maybe write in and let us know what you think.

**John:** Great. Megana, do you want to take Nicholas’s follow-up here?

**Megana:** Nicholas wrote in and said, “I really enjoyed the script breakdown this week of the select scenes from awards contenders. I had a question as I was going through them myself. Do you think the script is manipulated after the film is completed in order to ‘match’ the final product more perfectly? The reason I ask is because back when Borat’s subsequent movie film came out, the script was released as best adapted screenplay, and the dialog matched up perfectly, despite it being an improvised film that was made without a script and with real people. What’s up with that?”

**Craig:** What’s up with that?

**John:** What’s up with that?

**Craig:** What’s up with that? I wonder, do you think that just happens magically, or maybe there are-

**John:** It’s a magic thing.

**Craig:** Maybe there are people that work really, really hard to do that.

**John:** We could tell you that we actually know people whose job it is to match the final official script with the film as it is released. Generally when you’re getting those FYC scripts, someone has gone through that process and made all the dialog match up and stuff, taken out the scenes that got cut and that kind of stuff. I think Borat would be the most extreme example of that, where they basically had to write a screenplay that could encapsulate all these things. There was a script for Borat before it was filmed, but there was so much improvised stuff in the middle of it that they were writing that stuff after it had been actually filmed.

I do think that the For Your Consideration scripts are useful to read, because you’re seeeing what the author intent was, but you should always be mindful that you’re seeing the highlight reel, you’re seeing the perfected version of it. You’re not seeing the stuff that’s changed along the way. That’s why it’s also great if you can get early scripts of things and then compare them to the final shooting script to really see what drifted and what changed. I know reading Cameron’s original script for Aliens and then seeing the final film, you really can see, oh, this is how it shifted and expanded and changed to get to where we got to. When we did Big Fish, the Big Fish For Your Consideration script was actually the script that we went out with, we started production with. Not a lot had changed, but there were scenes that were different and things like that. I liked that. I think it’s always great to see small changes between what was on the page versus what was filmed.

**Craig:** Same with when we had to send in the scripts for Chernobyl. It was the same way, just sent the scripts. They were pretty close. They were very close. They were extraordinarily close. In fact, there was a couple of moments here or there where I was like, “Oh, that’s really, really cool,” and I don’t think I put them into the script. When the soldiers are walking along and we hear that eerie Russian tune, Black Raven, that was an improvised moment by that actor, who was Russian and had remembered that song. He just sang it and Johann recorded it, and then he put it over that little moment of those guys walking. I don’t think that’s in the script, because it wasn’t in the script. I agree with you. That’s interesting to see what’s new and created and what’s not.

**John:** Yes, those scripts tend to be a little bit optimized, but even looking back at the Sorkin script, that had weird page breaks. I think that really was the script they shot, because there’s no reason why they’d leave the A and B pages. They would’ve just taken that stuff out. If you see stuff that looks like leftover things from production, if you see stars in the margins, that’s more likely to be the script that was in production.

**Craig:** A and B pages, weird page breaks, and omitteds are a sign that you’re looking at an authentic, unadulterated production script.

**John:** Last week we talked about we see and we hear. Phil wrote in to say that, “John and Craig were right. The we see rule is number 15 on this list from Screenwriters University.” Let’s look through here, Craig, because that was 15, so that’s got to be a few other rules that really are-

**Craig:** Let’s see if they got anything right. First of all, sorry, I got to know, what is Script University? What is this?

**John:** We should look and see what they are. They have testimonials. We Have Questions. Click on We Have Questions.

**Craig:** Yeah, we have questions.

**John:** First question is, what is your refund policy?

**Craig:** Oh boy.

**John:** Oh boy.

**Craig:** What is this? It’s an online screenwriting university featuring affordable instruction from well-known film industry professionals. Basically you pay for it. It is what it is. Let’s take a look at those rules.

**John:** This is just all-

**Craig:** It’s all bad.

**John:** It’s all umbrage bait.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Here’s the thing. It’s not worth going through.

**Craig:** Aw. Come on.

**John:** Slug line versus scene header. Craig, what do you call the thing that starts with INT or EXT? What do you call that?

**Craig:** I call it both, slug line and scene header.

**John:** It’s a murky, middle ground thing. A slug line can also be the thing that doesn’t have that, that is breaking up inside stuff within a scene that’s like, “Over at the corner,” and that kind of thing. Slug line, scene header, sure, they’re both the same thing. This has a lot of rules about what you can put in a scene header and what you can’t put in a scene header. I think you figure that out in context, don’t need all these rules.

**Craig:** Slug lines have no times of day. Did you know that? Because I put that in all the time. I put in afternoon, morning, mid-afternoon, evening. I put in all of it. It says, “Writers do it all the time.” You say, “Yes, we do. Before a script gets shot, someone has to change it to day/night.” No. I do that, and they don’t change it to day/night. Idiots. Script University, idiots. “Don’t put years, detailed locations in the slug line.” I do that all the time. Idiots. What is wrong with these people? Why would they dare do this?

**John:** “Dialog never follows a slug line, not ever. Action always separates the two.”

**Craig:** It’s rare, but I’ve done it.

**John:** It’s rare, but it’s done. Here’s why you do it, because if you’re ping-ponging back and forth between places, then there’s a reason why we’re shooting in a new place, then you could do it. It’s not a not ever. It’s rare.

**Craig:** “Don’t use cut to.” Normally I don’t, but sometimes I do.

**John:** Sometimes it’s really helpful.

**Craig:** Because I want to. “Don’t use we see or have strange reveals.” Screw you. Screw you, Script University? Script University, oh Lord. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. What is this nonsense?

**John:** Someone actually just put this page up to annoy us. That’s really what it is.

**Craig:** “On sound effects.” Whatever. I hate this. I couldn’t hate this more. Script University, shut it down. Shut it down. You’re bad. You’re bad and you should be ashamed of this. It’s stupid.

**John:** Craig is requesting his refund.

**Craig:** I hate it. What is wrong with these fricking people? What is wrong with them?

**John:** Hey Megana, help us out of this tailspin here. What did John write in here?

**Craig:** Yeah, help us out.

**Megana:** John says, “After I wrote my first script in 1999, I went starry-eyed and fresh-faced to the internet for help, and boy oh boy, there were a lot of those ‘never write we see because whoever’s reading it will literally throw your script across the room and furthermore it means you’re a terrible writer’ kind of people. There’s an attitude so many aspiring writers have of, you’re not allowed to write like a professional until you are a professional, but in my experience when you’re dealing with professionals, they don’t care at all about any of those things. I’ve never had a TV writer, showrunner, producer, or rep who have mentioned any of those things ever, and I do them all the time, and I’m still aspiring. Write for the job you want, not the job you have.”

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** We don’t care, and we never cared. I never cared. I never cared about whether or not I should say we see, ever in my life. I had never heard of anyone caring about it until the internet came along to explain to me that I was doing it wrong. Where? How? Why?

**Megana:** I just don’t understand who all these people are who are throwing scripts across the room.

**Craig:** Script throwers.

**Megana:** They just have to pick that back up.

**Craig:** Do you know how fast you’d get fired if you throw a script across the room and then one year later they’re like, “That script just won an Oscar.” You’d be like, “Oh, but it said we see.” “Okay, let me eject you from our life.” That’s crazy. One last thing.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** One last thing that I think people need to hear. You need to hear this, people, because there’s a lot of Script Universities out there, but there are even more people on the internet doling out advice, for whatever reason. I guess it makes them feel good. People love to deal out advice as if they have achieved something worthy of advice dealing. I see this on Twitter constantly. People that I literally have never heard of, and no one’s ever heard of, and have accomplished almost nothing, almost nothing of note in our business, are cross-legged, floating in air, like an elevated yogi, delivering the wisdom of the ages to us. They don’t know anything. Who are they? Don’t listen to any of them. You don’t even have to listen to us. If you’re going to listen to somebody, you should pretty much start with us. We at least know what we’re doing. We’ve done this before.

**John:** We do know what we’re doing.

**Craig:** Come on.

**John:** Craig, I think we’ve reached the midpoint, but also you said that perfectly, because exactly what you described there was in a midpoint tweet that actually prompted this whole conversation. We’ll link to this actual tweet. It’s not actually that important. Adeep tweeted, “For newer writers, these can happen at the hashtag #midpoint. A false victory/defeat, a story reversal, new tactics, full commitment to the journey, the stakes are raised, discovery of new key info, a major ordeal, main character switches from reaction to action, the story’s most significant emotional moment.”

If they’re talking about the midpoint, I’m sure we’ve talked about the midpoint on the podcast before, but I don’t think the midpoint is as much of a thing as this tweet might make us believe that it’s a thing, because I understand the end of a first act, I understand the change that goes at the end of the first act. I understand the worst of a worst for a third act. The midpoint is not really a thing to me. In most of the scripts that I’ve written, I couldn’t point and say, “That’s the midpoint.” It’s not a thing that I’m writing towards or even necessarily mindful of as I’m putting together a script. Are you?

**Craig:** No. I don’t agree with any of this. How about that? Or rather, I agree with all of it. This is like, “For newer chefs, the following can happen while you’re cooking: food can get hot, food can get cold, things can boil, stuff can congeal, dough happens.” All of these things can happen. Yes. Congrats. What does any of it mean? This is what I talk about when I did the how do you write a movie. So much of this stuff is from the point of view of, it already happened, let me look back at it, not it has to happen, how do I write it.

**John:** Yeah, because there’s so many movies I can think of I would have a hard time pointing to the midpoint. Here’s a movie that has a midpoint. Gone Girl. I know what the midpoint is, because we have a dramatic shift of POV in the story. That’s the midpoint of the movie. I got that.

**Craig:** There’s a wonderful midpoint in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, where they have an intermission. It’s wonderful. I talk a little bit about the midpoint in that episode, whatever it was. It doesn’t have to happen in the middle. It’s rather I think what people often point at. It’s just that at times the character begins to question how they’ve been living and start wondering maybe if they ought to change. That is a very subtle thing. It can be a line. It can be a word. It can be a look. It can be a moment. Or it doesn’t have to happen at all. That’s the thing. It doesn’t have to happen at all.

**John:** I would say main character’s journey, somewhere around a midpoint would be there’s no going back, or we’ve crossed so far that there’s no way to get back to the earlier point, which is a little bit different than having your village burn down at the end of the first act. We’ve gotten to a place, only way out is forward. Sure, but that’s not going to be for all characters and all stories.

**Craig:** No. Some of the things, like main character switches from reaction to action, if your main character’s been reactive for the first half of your movie, oy vey. “Story’s most significant emotional moment.” If the story’s most significant emotional moment happens in the middle of the movie, can we walk out after that point, because what are we waiting for? Story reversal, new tactics, all of that should’ve been happening anyway already.

**John:** This week I dusted off an old stage musical that I’d been working on 10 years ago and then took out and updated. I’m really, really happy with it. It has two acts, because it’s a stage musical. I absolutely love the midpoint. I really love the act breaks in stage musicals, because they have a very specific form in terms of closing up some things and asking really big questions that you’re going to be discussing during the intermission, and you’ve obviously been drinking your drink, and you come back in the second act with new energy. There really is truly a midpoint that’s so important in a stage musical. That just is not a thing that happens in most movies, in most normal screenplays.

**Craig:** Maybe, if I may, let’s just stop talking about the midpoint. Let’s stop talking about the midpoint the way we should honestly stop talking about first acts, second acts, third acts. Really? Everything’s integrated. Generally speaking, also, just stop making lists on Twitter. Stop. Stop making lists on Twitter.

**John:** I get it. I probably won’t give up first act and second act breaks, just because they are useful in terms of thinking how it starts and how it ends, because every movie has a beginning, every movie has an ending, so you’re talking about how does all the beginning work, how does all the ending work. You’re going to have those things, but what the middle of it is going to be, eh.

**Craig:** It’s really interesting how liberating working in the hour-long drama format is when it comes to that stuff. Now the substantive difference between one hour of drama and 90 minutes of drama is, drum roll please, 30 minutes, but for some reason those extra 30 minutes require us to have this intense structural conversation about what happens in the middle and what happens at the end of the first act and what happens at the pinch point leading to the first act and what happens halfway through the third act. When you’re writing for 60 pages instead of 90 pages, none of that is discussed, ever. Ever. There is no first, second, third act discussed in an hour-long drama. At least I don’t discuss it. Maybe other people do. Maybe commercial break folks do, but I don’t.

**John:** They do. I would say in one-hour procedurals, they really will talk about this kind of stuff, but that’s not what you’re doing.

**Craig:** At this point I think it’s become the standard in our business, a streaming style or cable style, one-hour-long, uninterrupted drama. No one ever talks about any of that, ever. They just talk about the totality of the story you tell. I think that’s a nice thing. I think that all of this crap that gets pumped out there into the world is pumped out there generally by people who are trying to charge you money for something. They’re after something. I really do. In the end you scratch slightly, and underneath is a chart showing you how much money it costs per these services offered. It bums me out, because it’s unnecessary.

**John:** We’ve been addressing some follow-up and addressing previous things from our listeners. Let’s bring in some new stuff so we can keep the cycle going.

**Craig:** Yeah, new stuff.

**John:** Let’s start with a question about omitted scenes. Megana.

**Megana:** JP asks, “At which point in a script’s life do scenes start getting marked as omitted? Is it only after it’s entered production when scenes have been numbered? Is it when conforming the script to the final product? Otherwise, why leave a bread crumb trail saying, hey, there used to be a scene here, but now there isn’t, instead of just cutting all evidence of the bastard scene and letting the story flow?”

**John:** What a great question. I love a question that actually has an answer.

**Craig:** Yeah, this one is answerable.

**John:** Here’s the answer, is that once you have a production script that has numbers in it, if you need that omitted there, just make it clear to everybody else that there was a scene here, that scene no longer exists, let’s not talk about that scene, because that scene is not there and we’re not going to shoot it. It’s gone. It’s erased. We still have some evidence in the script that we really did cut this out, we’re not forgetting to shoot it.

**Craig:** JP, you’re absolutely right. It only enters into play once production’s begun and once scenes have been numbered and a white script has been issued. The white draft is the first draft. The pages are locked. The scene numbers are locked. At that point forward, if you do delete a scene, yes, you have to say omitted. Maybe the biggest reason is because if you don’t, then at some point, a thousand people are going to email you saying, “Wait, what happened to scene 83? Because it goes from 82 to 84.” You have to say, “It was there.” Because people show up after that happens. It’s not like everybody that works on the movie or the show was there when that white draft was issued. It’s a smart thing to do.

One nice thing also, I assume they have this in Final Draft, they certainly do in Fade In, and I bet you have it in Highland, if you omit a scene, there is a special thing to say Omit Scene, which turns it into an omitted but keeps everything. If you have to un-omit it, or if you just want to peek and see what was in there, it’s easy to do.

**John:** We have a whole format for doing that, which is basically commenting it out, which is helpful. Now a thing also about omitting scenes, and also sometimes the meat of what happened in that scene is still there. The story point is there, but the scene has changed so much. There’s a different location. There’s different characters in it. There could be a discussion about, are we just going to change the scene or are we going to omit that scene and put a new A scene in there to replace it? That’s a discussion writers and directors and first ADs might have. Craig, where do you come down on that? If the scene changes so radically that it’s really a different scene, will you keep the scene number for it, or will you omit it, put a new scene in there?

**Craig:** I just talk about it with the first AD, script supervisor. Because scene numbers are really there for everyone else, I just will do whatever they ask me to do in that regard. I’ll ask them, “Would you want this to be a new scene or do you want me to just change it around inside of the scene?” It seems like the general rule of thumb is if we’re changing a location, absolutely it’s a different scene. If we’re staying in the same location, but we’re changing a bunch of things, or the location is sort of the same, but not the same, then I just ask them, “What do you want me to do with it?” Then they tell me.

This happens all day long, by the way, when we’re shooting and it comes to lettering up. When you’re shooting a scene, every new angle and size gets a letter. You’re shooting scene 12, okay, the first shot is shot 12-A, and so on and so forth. Sometimes if you change a lens, but you keep things exactly where they are, and the lens doesn’t change dramatically, the camera system folks will come by and ask the script supervisor, “Are we lettering up or are we just calling this take 6?” Then the script supervisor will make that call. It’s all about, just generally speaking, what’s going to help everybody else down the line.

**John:** While we’re speaking about letting up, on your show, if let’s say there was a scene 19 and a scene 20, and there’s a new scene being entered between the two of those, is that new scene A-19?

**Craig:** No, it’s 19-A.

**John:** That’s a difference of opinion between different productions, because 19-A makes a lot of sense. The problem with 19-A is it gets confusing then on the slate. It’s like, “This is scene 19-A, take A.”

**Craig:** We just call it 19 Apple Apple.

**John:** Apple Apple.

**Craig:** That generally isn’t a problem for us. They do it differently in England. I think it’s the other way. I can’t quite remember theirs. There are different methods for that sort of thing. I don’t tend to have a lot of those, to be honest with you. I don’t.

**John:** Because Craig writes everything perfectly the first time and it just happens.

**Craig:** Yeah, or at least I get my scenes generally. I have some A scenes, I have some B scenes, but there’s not that many. Honestly, because I am in control of the flow of the screenplay, when you’re getting into production on movies and 15 different writers are coming in because Frank Capra needs 15 writers to give him the Frank Capra Touch, then yeah, you can get a big ole mess. It can get really weird. There are things like what happens when you’re putting a scene between 19 and 19-A? Then that does become 19-A or whatever the hell, I don’t know what they call it, or 19-a-A I think is what it would be. They start using lowercase versus capital. You can customize all that. The only real thing that I think is important to pay attention to is to not use I or O, as those look like one and zero.

**John:** Exactly. In the memo that I put out for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, if you want to look on the pages for that, I actually call that out in the memo, because it’s a natural question for why we’re doing it, is that’s why we’re omitting those things. Another thing you should keep in mind is that it’s not unheard of to put out a new white script. If a lot has changed between the production draft and the draft we thought we were going to production with, and then a bunch of stuff changes, a production might choose to say, “This is the new white draft, basically. Throw out your current script. This is the new script and this is what we’re using for the numbers.”

**Craig:** What we don’t want is every single page to be not a full page and 5,000 colors and we’re into salmon 8 and whatever it is. Yes, at some point, if it’s changed super dramatically, everybody just … There’s a point of no return. The point of no return really is when people get married to scene numbers. Crews and production teams really do talk about scene numbers constantly. I have to remind people all the time, I don’t know any scene numbers. I don’t remember any of those. I’m like, “Can you just tell me what that is? Because I don’t know what that is.” That’s the danger point is the scene numbers.

**John:** I have found my experience, especially on more complicated productions, some story stuff does get messed up when things go through multiple rounds. It’s not just bad writing happening, but when there have been so many revisions and so many colors stacked up on top of each other that a scene is being split between four different pages of different things and it’s just not clear, it’s hard to really focus on what is the point of the scene and what is actually happening in the scene, because it’s split across so many pages. That is a real thing that happens, because of production drafts and I think sometimes just bad choices from other people. I’ve been in circumstances where trying to do arbitration on a project that we were looking at the final shooting script, and you couldn’t even parse what the scene was, because it was divided between so many different things. That really is a challenge.

**Craig:** There’s a little trick that you can use sometimes. When it gets really bad with a scene, you can just say, “Okay, I’m just going to cut all the stuff from page 20-A, page 20-A-a, page 20-B, and just re-paste it into page 20 and just get a nice 20 and 20-A, and get rid of the other ones.”

**John:** Absolutely. Especially back in a time when we were putting out physical pages to production, you will have made some decisions about what’s going to make the most sense for a person reading this thing. It’d be better off to delete some pages and combine some stuff. Often it is just so people can actually see this is a scene, rather than a couple different paragraphs on a couple different pages.

**Craig:** Yah.

**John:** Yah. Let’s end on a question that you and I will actually love to discuss. This is Lydia’s question.

**Megana:** Lydia from New York writes, “My almost-10-year-old son has a great immersive imagination. I would love to introduce him to Dungeons and Dragons. I don’t know how I never had any friends who played it growing up, but I’m thinking it would be amazing for us to do it together. Where do I start?”

**John:** Oh Lydia, you are just the best mom.

**Craig:** Best mom.

**John:** That’s mom of the year. Best mom.

**Craig:** Best mom.

**John:** It’s awesome that your son has a great imagination. He would probably dig D&D. I’ll put links in the show notes for ways to get started playing D&D with your kids, because there’s good starter adventures that build upon each other and get their feet wet, without overwhelming them with too many stuff about the character sheet all at once. I’d also say keep your sessions short, keep them fun and involved, but not overwhelming. Try to find some kids his age who could play with him also, because you as a mom is fantastic, but it’s more fun when the kids are playing with their own age.

**Craig:** Yes. Sometimes 10-year-old boys who have great immersive imaginations also don’t have a lot of friends. These can go hand in hand. If your son is challenged in that area, if he has some social issues or has just a limited amount of friends, then just know there are a lot of 10-year-old boys just like him who are also limited and don’t have a lot of friends and would love to get to know him. My guess is that there are a lot of really good resources out there for parents. Maybe his school can help. There might be some guidance counselors who can identify some other kids like that, or if there’s some local neighborhood community organizations. You’re in New York, so there’s everything everywhere. Check out some online resources and put out the word. Put out the word on, I’m not on Facebook, but if there’s something like that or if you are on Facebook, to just say, hey, if you’re interested in putting together a group.

There are also some professional dungeon masters out there. They know exactly how to pitch and tone a session to the kids who are playing, and they might be a great way to introduce a group, because they will know everything, and they’re also really good at teaching. That’s part of what they do is teach kids how to play. The goal, Lydia, is for your son and the kids that he enjoys playing with to then not need that guy and to move on and one of them DMs and they do it themselves, which they absolutely can do.

I think it’s really important, Lydia, actually that you don’t play with him. I know. I know. I know you want to. I know you want to, but I think John is absolutely right. I’m just saying, as a former 10-year-old boy, and as somebody who raised a former 10-year-old boy, that there’s something that is irreproducible and magical about four or five 10-year-old boys with great, immersive imaginations doing it themselves, without parental supervision, and being free to explore and enjoy themselves and to find their own identities in that way. It’s really important. You can host it in your apartment or your home. Like I said, there are some really cool people out there that do these things professionally. That’s probably a good place to start poking around and looking.

**John:** I started playing when I was 4th grade, 5th grade. The DM was Diego Rodriguez, who had an older brother who played, and so we had picked up how to play from him. It’s going to be one kid or someone who has a little bit more experience about how it all works who is going to DM, but eventually you’re all going to get into it and get going. I think there’s a natural tension between people who are obsessed with the stats and optimizing the characters’ numbers and the players who are really focusing on role-playing the characters. That’s fine. That’s going to be a natural tension between the two of those. Whatever gets them wanting to sit down at the table is great. Just let them have fun.

**Craig:** Let them have fun. I think it’s a really great thing. Dungeons and Dragons, and role-playing games in general have always been a terrific, I’ll say safe space. Why not? Safe and nurturing space for kids who otherwise don’t have that elsewhere, whether they’re neurodivergent or they’re just a little nerdy or shy. That’s a place where they blossom, and where a bunch of them together can blossom. It’s a beautiful thing.

**John:** Cool. It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. The first is Flee, which is an animated documentary that is up for all the award considerations this year. I watched it yesterday. It’s fantastic. It’s just really, really great. It’s the story of an Afghan refugee who’s trying to get out of Afghanistan as Afghanistan fell, and ends up on this wild expedition to try to get to safety. So well done. The reason why it’s animated is because to protect his anonymity, they animate all of his stuff. There’s live-action stuff in there as well, but he’s always an animated character, which works so well in terms of being able to move back into his childhood. It’s flawlessly done. I strongly recommend everyone check out Flee.

My other One Cool Thing is the Wikipedia history timeline game, Craig, which I sent to you earlier this week. Did you try playing it?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** It’s really good. What it’s doing is it gives you a card at the top of the screen, which is some event in history, so either a famous person’s birth or death, or a company being founded, and you have to drag it into this timeline. It just keeps putting up new things for you to drag into the timeline. At first it’s really easy. Something happened in the modern era or it happened in BC times. Then it gets really tough. It’s basically how long of a streak you can keep going of getting these things right. You can play it endlessly. It’s not like a Wordle where it’s just one thing a day. It could be a giant time suck, but if you like history and organizing things, it will be great for you.

**Craig:** I do like history. I don’t love organizing things.

**John:** I think that question of, did this happen before or after this other thing, it’s not organizing. It’s just putting stuff in order.

**Craig:** This game is a nightmare for the kids who would be like, “Do we have to know dates on the test?”

**John:** Yeah, you have to know dates. You have to know dates-

**Craig:** “Do we have to know dates?”

**John:** … for this to work.

**Craig:** My one cool thing is ancient. It’s a game called Papers Please. Have you played it, John?

**John:** I recognize the title. I’m looking through here now to see what this actually was.

**Craig:** Papers Please. It was the first game by Lucas Pope. Lucas Pope is the guy who also did Return of the Obra Dinn, which I think was a One Cool Thing as well. This was his first game. It’s been around since 2014. At least on iOS it’s been around since 2014. It is the weirdest, most addicting and depressing and interesting game.

The functionality is very simple. You are a border patrol officer for some kind of obvious Eastern Bloc, Soviet era country. Your job is to decide whether or not to let immigrants in. The mechanics are you have some rules and then they give you documents, and then you have to check their documents, make sure that the documents comport with the rules, and then you either reject them or accept them. The rules get more and more complicated as things keep happening. It functions on days. That part is fun and tricky. The more people you process through accurately, the more money you make, which means your family will live, because they keep reporting on, you have this much money for gas and for food and for medicine. Also, interesting things start happening. People start begging to be let in, and they make really good cases, but their papers aren’t right, or there’s some sneaky spy people that want to overthrow the government. It’s all set against this very pixelated, brutalist background. Very simple, very fun to play. Gets really tricky really quickly. Strongly recommend. Works excellently on an iPad.

**John:** It feels like a perfect device for it.

**Craig:** It’s a weird one. I really enjoyed it. It’s old. It’s ancient, in terms of the internet. Papers Please.

**John:** Actually it’s a very good matchup with Flee, which is all about papers and documentation and fake passports.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** Perfect. That was our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Actually this week it’s by William Phillipson. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes @clmazin. I’m always @johnaugust. We have T-shirts, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at Scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the ones we’re about to record on NFTs. Craig and Megana, thank you so much for a fun show.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** I am the person who talks about NFTs on this show. I think my first conversation about NFTs was pitching that Disney should absolutely do NFTs, and they have not done NFTs yet.

**Craig:** Good. Has a technology ever had a heel turn quicker than NFTs? They are loathed out there.

**John:** They are generally loathed. This last week Twitter announced people who have NFTs can use those as an avatar profile. They’ll have hexagons around them. Then obviously people writing scripts would block anybody who has a hexagon thing. They’re not well-loved.

**Craig:** No, they’re loathed. There’s a couple of reasons why. The first reason is I think an incredibly reasonable reason, which is that any of these things that require blockchain technology are prone to causing environmental disasters, because an enormous amount of energy can get used up by people who are trying to basically game the system. They want to mine a whole lot of Bitcoin or they want to process a whole whatever fricking NFT crap.

**John:** Ethereum.

**Craig:** China has just banned it all entirely. They just banned all that stuff, because it’s sucking up a mass amount of energy. Russia is about to get involved. Even Russia is like, “I don’t know, this feels janky as hell and also bad for the environment.” The other reason of course that NFTs are loathed is because fundamentally they’re stupid. At this point, what are they buying? They’re buying something that says, “I own a thing that everyone else can appreciate and experience in the exact same way that I, the owner, can.” That’s just stupid.

**John:** I’m going to link to three really good articles that came out in the last couple weeks that were talking about NFTs and bring up these criticisms. What I like about these articles is they point to these are the things that are more promising about them, and these are why the promises are not actually being kept.

One of the things that NFT or crypto proponents will pitch hard is that it’s decentralized, no one can shut it down, no one can stop it. The thing is, it’s actually not as decentralized as you would think it would be. Everything still is funneling through these different small deciders of OpenSea, which would say we’re going to show this piece of art or we’re not going to show this piece of art. It runs into all the libertarian issues of just, what are you going to do about child pornography, what are you going to do about actual criminal behavior that happens on here, what are you going to do about actual theft. When there have been thefts, they’re like, “Oh, we’ll cancel that thing.” Then was it really decentralized? Was there really no authority behind things? It’s trading on people who cannot be held accountable on some levels, but are very accountable on other levels.

**Craig:** All of it is nothing. No one’s even pretending it’s something. Just so I’m clear, if someone sells an NFT of a photo that is online, it’s a digital photo, and I buy that NFT, I now own that digital photo, or I own the file of that digital photo. That digital photo’s out there and everybody can look at it. The thing like that, a piece of art that Booble made, or whatever his name was. Was it Booble?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Boogle?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Is that it, Boogle?

**John:** Beeple.

**Craig:** Beeple.

**John:** Beeple.

**Craig:** I like Boogle better.

**John:** He was a previous One Cool Thing.

**Craig:** Booble, I’m just going to keep calling him Booble, because it’s funny, somebody paid, whatever, $14 trillion for his picture, but I can look at it. It’s the same thing. It’s literally the same thing. I’m looking at the same thing.

**John:** Craig, yes. I think we need to acknowledge that all art has similar kinds of issues there, because I could sell you a painting, I sell you a van Gogh, and you’re like, “Okay, I own the van Gogh,” but you can also own a picture of it.

**Craig:** That’s different. That’s different.

**John:** It is different, but then the question of, how about a photograph, if I sell you an Ansel Adams photograph. There’s a limited number of them. There’s only a limited number because Ansel Adams chose to put a limit on things. Art is always this conflict between artificial scarcity and-

**Craig:** The problem is it becomes instantly different when you’re dealing with digital stuff, because digital stuff is reproducible flawlessly. If there was a technology where I could go into the Louvre, point my ray gun at the Mona Lisa, and have a copy of the Mona Lisa, a physical copy that was exactly the same, down to the atom, then I have another Mona Lisa, without question. That is exactly what’s going on with NFTs, so I don’t get it, and I’m never going to get it, ever. I’m old.

**John:** Can we think about another system that’s been designed to deal with the problem of reproducibility and artistic worth?

**Craig:** Copyright.

**John:** Copyright, yeah. Also this past week, a thing that happened, or it’s two weeks ago, some folks bought a copy of Jodorowsky’s Dune book.

**Craig:** No, these guys. They don’t listen to our show.

**John:** They set up a DAO, which is basically a collective financial organization to purchase this copy of the book. It’s like, okay, you bought it, and then they had these plans for what they were going to do with it, including develop spin-off merchandise and a TV series and stuff like that. Craig, is there any problem with that? I think they could see there being an obstacle there.

**Craig:** There is. There is.

**John:** What’s that?

**Craig:** The problem is that what they purchased was a derivative work. That derivative work was theoretically licensed by the Frank Herbert Estate to create a derivative work of his copyrighted original work, Dune. However, purchasing a book does not give you any underlying rights to anything in that book, much less anything in the books that it was based on. What they have is a book.

**John:** Craig, I have a copy of Harry Potter on my shelf, so I should just be able to make a new series.

**Craig:** JK Rowling, she has one handwritten copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. It’s out there, and I paid a billion dollars for that handwritten copy, which in and of itself would probably be worth something, but now it means we’re going to start now creating our own new stuff based on the handwriting. Oh my god. How? You said that this was an organization of people, so more than one idiot?

**John:** Basically it’s a bunch of people who came together to form this organization called a DAO, which could then go out and make this acquisition. They’re all putting in money basically to buy this thing together, and then they all have a share in it. It’s like a corporation. It’s like the closest equivalent to what a corporation would be in a purely NFT crypto space.

**Craig:** Nobody in that organization had even the slightest understanding of how copyright works? No one?

**John:** Apparently not.

**Craig:** Oh my god. Tell me, John, surely they didn’t spend more than $100,000 on this.

**John:** We can Google this now.

**Craig:** It’s $3 million.

**John:** $3 million.

**Craig:** They spent $3 million.

**John:** Whoever owned that physical copy of it in theory made $3 million, and good on them. We should also point out that Jodorowsky also has copyright on his unique interpretation of that underlying material too. Even if you bought the one copy of the thing that he did, that’s not necessarily granting you the right to reproduce it, just to do any other things to it, so that’s all done.

I was having a good, long conversation with a guy who’s in the crypto NFT space who’s also developing original story material. I was just really curious where he saw the opportunities here and what he thought could happen. What [inaudible 01:08:32] he thinks this is basically just a form of wealth transfer from really rich people to artists and writers. It’s like, oh, okay, on that level I kind of get it. The same way that MoviePass was a wealth transfer from venture capitalists to people who wanted to see movies. That’s basically assuming that it’s going to be failure. It’s assuming that it’s going to be a MoviePass 2.0. That’s all it is.

**Craig:** It’s going to be MoviePass 2.0. What am I missing, John?

**John:** I think what you’re missing is that there is enthusiasm and exuberance from people coming together to do a thing which feels exciting. I saw this when I was doing Kickstarter stuff. It’s like you get people together like, “Let’s make this thing happen.” It’s like, yeah, that’s really cool. The thing about a Kickstarter is at the end you have the thing. You have these really cool books that you and I have, like D&D books that we’ve gotten off Kickstarters, or cool figurines. There’s a thing I wanted that I actually got at the end of it. Here it’s just not clear whether people are enthusiastic about it because they want the thing to exist or because they want to speculate that it’s going to be worthwhile at the end.

**Craig:** I think it’s pure speculation, because how could you possibly be excited about any of this, properly excited? Is there anybody really that is getting a thrill, a tingle down their spine from the availability of an NFT? All those financial things, like whatever, credit default swaps, where somebody has to take time to explain to you how it works, and really what it comes down to is people are just betting money on money to see if money happens in a money way. It’s just math. At that point really the only excitement is purely financial. It’s just purely financial. This is all nuts and weird and empty and soulless. I honestly do hope that the general anger that is fire-hosed at people who announce that they’re now involved in NFTs will work, that people will just go, “Okay, yeah, sorry, I’m not … “

**John:** Here’s my last challenge for people. If you’re going to come to me with a thing saying it’s this great, innovative thing that’s going to be using NFTs or crypto, I want you to tell me why it needs to use NFTs or crypto, because in so many cases I see, oh yeah, it’s exciting to build this community, to do this thing, but couldn’t you do this in a web 2.0 way that doesn’t involve crazy servers in Malta to do this thing? Ultimately, I can’t find those reasons. I just feel like we’ve built out a web that works. We’ve built out copyright law, which is crazy, but works. You’re trying to reinvent something for no good reason other than there’s ways to make weird money on it.

**Craig:** It’s like they said, “We’re going to recreate the tulip market of old Holland,” which as we all know, was a speculative bubble that ended up crashing and destroying people. That’ll happen, but along the way you might be one of the people that makes a lot of money off of these fake tulips, that they’re just saying it kind of. Oh god.

**John:** You were ranting about Jeff Bezos earlier. Jeff Bezos, to his credit, he built a thing. He built a thing that works really well. There’s actually a company that the world is different because of the thing he was able to build. He built something with the money that he was able to raise.

**Craig:** It exists. It employs a whole lot of people. It does a thing. It is an integral part of our economy. It has purpose. We can all debate whether or not it has changed things for the better or worse, and probably has done both, but it is not just a shell game of nonsense. I think people hear NFT and blockchain, and their minds go somewhere. I don’t know what it is. They start to just go, “Yeah, blockchain.” Blockchain’s a great phrase. It sounds great. It’s got the word block and chain.

**John:** Doesn’t it?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Both. You have two Wordle words in one combination. Perfect. Love it.

**Craig:** Block and chain. Five, five, as we say in the puzzle business.

**John:** Thanks, Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. Thank you, Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* Bo Yeon Kim’s Tweet on Bong Joon-Ho’s [MOTHER Script](https://twitter.com/extspace/status/1482482121335734273?)
* Script University’s [20 Common Sense Script Rules, in No Particular Order](https://www.screenwritersuniversity.com/pages/20-script-rules-1)
* Read Aloud Software Suggestions [Table Read](https://www.tablereadpro.com/), [ZoomText](https://www.zoomtext.com/), [JAWS](https://www.freedomscientific.com/products/software/jaws/), [VoiceDream](https://www.voicedream.com/)
* DnD for kids [Level 1 Geek](https://www.level1geek.com/dnd-for-kids-guide/) and [Being a Dungeon Master for Kids](https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/being-dungeon-master-kids)
* [Flee](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8430054/) animated film
* [Wikipedia Timeline Game](https://kottke.org/22/01/wikipedia-history-timeline-game)
* [Papers, please](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papers,_Please) by Lucas Pope
* NFT Articles [Why it’s too early to get excited about Web3](https://www.oreilly.com/radar/why-its-too-early-to-get-excited-about-web3/) by Tim O’Reilly, [My First Impressions of Web3](https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html) on the Moxie Marlinspike Blog, [Blockchain-based systems are not what they say they are](https://blog.mollywhite.net/blockchains-are-not-what-they-say/) by Molly White
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by William Phillipson ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/534standard.mp3).

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/main-character-energy).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 535 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, as screenwriters we’re constantly looking for ways to expose a character’s inner states, but what happens when real-life people start performing with main character energy?

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** We’ll look at the issue from both the perspective of writers creating characters and 21st century humans trying to function in a society.

**Craig:** We live in a society, John.

**John:** We live in a society. If everyone’s the main character, society probably doesn’t function. We’ll also have Follow Up and lots of new listener questions, and in a bonus segment for Premium Members, we will talk about population, speaking of society. Craig and I grew up in a time of Malthusian predictions of overpopulation. You remember that, Craig.

**Craig:** Oh, ’70s.

**John:** Oh, ’70s, and now there’s just not enough ’80s. We’ll talk through that.

**Craig:** Depending on where you live.

**John:** Depending where you live. It’s a very situational and very local thing, but also the trends are pretty clear. We’ll get into some of that. First, Craig, this is pretty huge news. It was hard to sit on the whole week. We almost put out a special episode, but we didn’t. Fans are suing Universal Pictures because the 2019 movie Yesterday did not include Ana de Armas. I was aware she was not in the movie, but I wasn’t aware of the controversy around this, because Ana de Armas is in one of the trailers for the movie, but she does not actually appear in the movie itself. Fans have taken it on themselves to actually sue Universal Pictures over this. Craig, you are the legal expert on the show. Medical expert, legal expert, expert in puzzles. Can you help us figure out what is the likelihood that this lawsuit will go through and that these fans will be justly compensated for the lack of Ana de Armas they got?

**Craig:** It depends on whether Universal wants to make an example of these people or just settle and give everybody a five-cent coupon for something. It’s pretty silly. Obviously the defense is simply that she was in the movie when they made that marketing material. They do put together trailers before the movie’s finalized. Then they creatively came to the conclusion that she didn’t need to be in the movie, and so they removed those scenes. This happens all the time. I remember when I was in high school, my friends and I were very excited to go see, I think it was Nightmare On Elm Street: Dream Warriors is the name of number three.

**John:** (sings)

**Craig:** (sings) Yep. Was that Tesla or Dokken? In the commercials, not just the trailer, in the television commercials, every single commercial, at some point Freddy Krueger would go, “How sweet, fresh meat.” We thought this was the funniest line, and we couldn’t wait to go to the movie and smoke the 1980s weed, which is the equivalent of nibbling one 19th of a gummy today, and then sitting in the theater, and when that line would come, we would go, “Yay! How sweet, fresh meat.” Then he never said it. What we did was we sued.

**John:** That’s how you raised the nest egg that let you become the successful screenwriter you are now.

**Craig:** We live in a society. Basically, so this is ridiculous, either Universal goes, “Yeah, we just want to make a point of never having anyone do this ever again,” which is what I will suspect, they will just fight this to the bitter end, because even the people are asking for $5 million. This is a class action, I presume. $5 million spread out over affected viewers in their home states. Even if Universal lost and had to pay every dime these people wanted, whatever. This is ridiculous. I think they’ll fight it all the way. There’s always the possibility they just settle and everybody gets, like I said, 20 cents, a 20-cent coupon for something.

**John:** We’ll put a link in the show notes that lets you see the trailer that actually has Ana de Armas in it. Apparently she plays another guest on a talk show when the guy, the hero of Yesterday, is playing a song. There’s some sort of spark between them. It’s not even clear that it’s beyond the one scene. I do just hope that the end result of this, whether it’s found in Universal’s favor or the fans’ favor, is that it’s really found in favor of Ana de Armas, who needs to be in all movies, because she is one of the most delightful things about the recent Bond movie. She’s so fantastic in Knives Out. We need more Ana de Armas. If this lawsuit is what it takes to bring this awareness to the general public, I think it’s worth it.

**Craig:** Seems like the general public is saying that she is so compelling, the only reason they went to go see a movie with Beatles music in it was to see her, and no other reason.

**John:** No other reason.

**Craig:** No other reason.

**John:** I’ll say, even the movie without Ana de Armas in it, I really enjoyed the movie. I don’t think people talk enough about Yesterday, because I thought it was actually a really well constructed movie, and took a very high-concept premise and ran with it well. I wish good things upon the movie Yesterday, even if it doesn’t star Ana de Armas. If we get the Snyder cut that has Ana de Armas back in it, maybe that’s the best of all possible worlds.

**Craig:** That sounds good.

**John:** Yeah. Now Craig, you texted me last night asking about, “Hey, can we pull this Scriptnotes podcast that you and I record off of Spotify, because,” you said, “F Spotify.”

**Craig:** Yeah. Spotify has been in headlines lately. Neil Young pulled his catalog off. I think Joni Mitchell just did the same in solidarity with him, because Spotify is the main patron and platform for Joe Rogan’s podcast. I don’t have anything against Joe Rogan the person. I don’t watch his podcast or listen to the show.

**John:** To be clear, you don’t listen to any podcast.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Including this podcast.

**Craig:** That’s right, so that’s not a judgment.

**John:** Yeah, exactly.

**Craig:** Stipulated it’s a thing that one could watch or listen to. Therefore I don’t. But I certainly have read enough transcripts and quotes from him that indicate that he’s not on what I would call the right side of the science when it comes to epidemiology and COVID-19 and public health and vaccination. I think it’s fair for these people to say, “Look, Spotify is … ” I think they made a $100 million deal with him. They don’t like the things he says. They’re not asking Spotify to kick him off Spotify. They’re not asking Spotify to censor him. They’re just saying, “I don’t want to be at that party. If that guy’s talking like that at that party, I don’t want to be there.” I think that’s reasonable. I don’t want to be there either. Now we don’t make any money off of Spotify. Did we get $100 million from Spotify?

**John:** We did not get $100 million from Spotify.

**Craig:** I just wanted to check real fast before I said no.

**John:** Here’s what’s confusing about this is that in terms of a podcast versus a song on this, like Neil Young or Joni Mitchell pulling their catalog off, that means that Spotify cannot play their things anymore. Joe Rogan’s podcast is a Spotify Exclusive, so you can only listen to his podcast through Spotify. Scriptnotes is a free and open podcast for the whole world to enjoy, so people can choose to use Spotify to listen to it, but our files are not actually ever on Spotify. People are choosing to listen to it. Scriptnotes is like a webpage that you could go to in Firefox or Opera or Safari or whatever else. We could theoretically somehow block Opera from opening our page, but that’s not really how the internet works. It’s just an RSS feed. We’re not getting any money from them. The only thing we did recently is we made it so that our Premium subscribers, if they’re using Spotify as their main app, they can now subscribe within Spotify, but it’s not Spotify paying us money. It’s just that they can go to the webpage for everyone else who wants to pay us five bucks a month to listen to all the back-episodes.

**Craig:** Does Spotify put ads on us or anything like that?

**John:** No. Just a podcast player. Just like opening a PDF in Acrobat versus Preview or-

**Craig:** I see.

**John:** Something like that. It’s just an app. It’s not actually a thing that’s paying us any money.

**Craig:** It sounds like if we said to Spotify, “You can’t do that,” they would feel nothing, and nothing would change for us either. That’s what I’m hearing.

**John:** I think if our listeners want to choose to not use Spotify, that’s their choice to not use Spotify, and should not pay Spotify their money. I’m not paying Spotify any money.

**Craig:** I don’t either.

**John:** Easy for me to stop. You know what? Last week on the show I talked through my experience of coaching a friend, like, “It’s time to leave your reps,” and his career improved. We have a Follow Up question from that from a person named Frustrated. Megana, can you help us out?

**Megana Rao:** Frustrated wrote in, “I’m a mid-level TV writer who has written/produced several episodes of television. I’ve only ever had a manager and no agent. In the last few weeks it’s become clear to me that my manager has got to go. It was on a new show, my second, when COVID hit, and we went virtual for several months, but eventually the plug got pulled and it never went into production. Since then I’ve tried everything, pitching on open writing assignments, writing new material, pitching original ideas, networking, etc. I’ve had lots of good feedback, but ultimately no paid work. It’s been a year and a half with nothing to show for it. My question is, can you talk more about actually firing your reps? Do you simply send an email? Should I try to find new ones before firing the old ones. How do you sell yourself to new reps when you’ve been out of work for a long time? Are agents or managers better for someone in my position at this point?”

**John:** All good questions.

**Craig:** Great questions.

**John:** Let’s talk about first firing your old rep before getting a new rep. My instinct is that you can start the process of looking for the new rep and get those initial conversations happening. It doesn’t really matter that much if you fire the first one before you start hiring the second one. It’s all going to work out the same.

**Craig:** I’m going to-

**John:** You disagree?

**Craig:** A little bit, because it’s a small town, for being such a big town. The one thing that managers seem to be good at and agents seem to be good at is hearing that other managers and other agents are sniffing around their clients. In fact, they seem to have way more attention paid to that than, for instance, getting their client’s work. What happens is you can find yourself in a weird middle ground where you head out there, you start talking to people, your manager finds out, yells at them about poaching. Managers and agents do poach from each other, but they’re careful about how they do it, because they don’t want to get into open warfare. The new people might back away. Your current manager is super pissed off. Now you’re stuck in a house with somebody that’s not talking to you. Other people feel like, “Okay, just come back when you fire that person,” but it’s gotten weird.

It’s better to go out clean, I think, but before you go out clean, I think the person you need to talk to, Frustrated, is your lawyer. I’m going to presume you have a lawyer, because you say you’re a mid-level TV writer, you’ve had work, you’ve got credits. Your lawyer will be able to give you a decent sense, because they’re the ones who talk to business affairs, about where you stand, and ultimately where you might be able to go. Your lawyer is also able to, in an intermediate fashion, talk to some of the agents or managers that she or he knows, and whisper, if say something was going to happen, and get a sense, a little preview of what the world is like out there. If it’s bad, if generally there’s not a lot of interest, you got to get something going and then walk, but if there is, then I think you cut it clean. I think you can send an email or you can phone call. It doesn’t matter. Maybe they have some sense of what is fair. Who cares? They’re fired. Fire them. Then go out there and start talking to new people.

As far as agents versus managers, as someone better for your position at this point, I am so old-fashioned, and I think that agents are better options, because they don’t mingle production in with representation. It is also true that often, depending on where you are on the ladder, managers may have more time to focus on you.

**John:** Craig talks about the important stuff, discussing this with your lawyer. I think the other people you should really involve in this conversation are the other execs you’ve been interacting with. Say you’re pitching writing assignments, you’re doing this stuff, there’s people that you’ve connected with. I think it’s worth asking if you have any relationship with them, like, “Hey, what is my manager like? Is my manager actually doing a good job? What do you think? Do you have any better suggestions for me?”

Same with you were on this room writing the show, those are other writers who have reps. Talk to them about your experience and what their experience has been, and they’ll give you a good sense of is this manager doing a good job for you, which it probably sounds like they’re not, and who might be the better people suited for you, because I remember as I left my first agent, went to my second agent, that was really part of the discussion is who was the right person for me to even be going to. You will find those answers by talking with folks who are working with those people all the time.

**Craig:** That’s a good point, that Frustrated has been in rooms. He or she knows other writers. They have reps. That’s a good place to start. When you’re a feature writer, you interface with executives all the time. When you’re a television staffer, you generally don’t. There may not be that person to go to, but then you have the availability of all these other writers that you’ve been with, and who knows, maybe they have a sense of things. I think you’ve identified a problem when you say, “It’s become clear to me that my manager has to go.” Trust that feeling. It’s not going to get better.

**John:** Yep. Agreed. All right, some more Follow Up here. Two episodes ago we were just talking about the 100-year-old screenplay format and how frustrating it is that some certain things are hard to include in it. Clint wrote in to point us towards Script Hop, which is a service that can package up your scripts, along with supporting material, so visuals, audio notes, music, and things like that. It feels like something that’s designed for pitching your project to places. It’s not necessarily the kind of format that would be useful for a production, for something to represent the whole project for a production, which is I think more what Craig and I are looking at, but sure, different people are trying different things.

Script Hop is owned or seems like it’s created by Script University, which makes me shudder a little bit, but it feels like the kind of thing where people are trying to do experiments around the edges of that. Great, experiment with it, but I think we are both still looking for what is that service or format that it’s going to be a great way to say, “Here is the script, the text you’re going to be shooting, but here is important stuff that goes with it,” that goes beyond just my suggestion of just like, here’s the deck that the company sent.

**Craig:** I’m looking at this, and it absolutely does seem like a pitch. They’re literally saying pitch content. That’s what they’re calling it. The Premium fee here is $8 a month. You can create as many packets as you need. This is not exactly what we’re talking about, but it looks pretty. From the demo here, it looks snazzy.

**John:** Some more Follow Up on We Hear and We See. Alex in Liverpool, England wrote, “I do see the value in avoiding we see/we hear [inaudible 00:14:24] for the sake of brevity. Why have, ‘We see a woman walk into the room,’ when you can simply have, ‘A woman walks into the room.'”

**Craig:** Oh my god, I never thought of it that way. Oh, I have. We have. We’ve talked about it literally four billion times, Alex. That said, big fan of Liverpool.

**John:** We love Liverpool. Let’s talk about we hear and we see though, and why it’s useful in situations where you can’t just literally just have the clean sentence there, because, “A woman walks into the room,” yes, that is correct. For me, we hear/we see is most often a case where the cause of something isn’t known, so it’s happening off screen. We experience it as an audience, but the characters in it aren’t there. You can describe a thing that’s happening, but there’s not a verb that goes with it, or if it’s a stand-in for the camera. Really I think the most important thing to remember is that it’s a way of not talking about cameras and shots and angles. It’s really like folks in the audience’s attention on something without calling out the camera does a thing.

**Craig:** Those are all excellent practical reasons. In addition, philosophically, brevity, this kind of extreme brevity is not the goal. We see and we hear also has a psychological impact on the reader. It is immersive. It means you are immersed. You are feeling and experiencing something in this moment, the way that a character would if they would be right next to it, or the way you would if you were right in the middle of it, which is very different than if you don’t. If the six characters, five letters and a space, gets that done, and gets it done that efficiently, why not? Just brutal, spartan brevity is a style, I suppose, but it is not the holy grail.

**John:** Two examples I was trying to come up with. Here’s the first one. We’re falling through an emerald void. All around us we hear crackling sounds, like ice shattering. You could do that without the we’s in those cases, but it’d be hard and brutal. The we’s really give you the sense that we as an audience are falling through this space, that we are hearing these things, and it’s not dependent on this character hearing the things. This is what the experience is like in the theater.

**Craig:** How else would you do it? An emerald voice. Crackling sounds like ice shattering. That doesn’t tell me much, including falling.

**John:** It doesn’t tell me the experience we’re getting. It’s like pointing at things. Here’s a second example. While Tom is digging through his pack, we see a shadow move across the headlights.

**Craig:** Tom does not see that shadow, but we do.

**John:** That’s the important thing.

**Craig:** Oh sweet, fresh meat, I assume is what the next line would be.

**John:** 100%. That is exactly what I had planned. Literally, you reached into my mind and pulled the words out before I could even say them.

**Craig:** I love that commercial. I’m going to sue. The example that Alex gives us, why have, “We see a woman walk into the room,” when you could have, “A woman walks into the room.” “A woman walks into the room,” that feels like, I don’t know, a very dull man is telling a story, “A woman walks into the room.” Wait, does everybody notice that a woman walks into the room? Are we really close to her when she walks into the room? Are we really far away when she walks in? “We see a woman walk into the room,” I already have an idea. The camera’s pointed toward the door, I’m going to say a wide shot here, because we see her walk into the room. We don’t see at the door, a woman enters frame. There’s lots of information here. That’s why I think we get so frustrated by this whole, “Don’t say we see or we hear,” not because it’s like, “Oh, it doesn’t hurt.” It helps. It’s incredibly helpful. There we go. I think at this point we should just change the name of this podcast to the We See Cast.

**John:** That’s what we do. One useful exercise for people who still are bucking up against we hear and we see is to go through some of the screenplays that we’ve mentioned, like some of these award-nominated screenplays from this past year, and look for situations where the writer was using we hear or we see, and try to rewrite those sentences without them. I think you’ll find it’s a little more difficult than you would’ve guessed.

**Craig:** Or not as good.

**John:** Or not as good. Honestly, probably just not as good. It’s not to say you have to use it. Many screenwriters do not use it, and that’s absolutely their choice, but I think it’s a useful tool, and to take it out of your belt unnecessarily is dumb, in my opinion. Aaron from New York writes, “I’m pretty certain I first read the instruction that discouraged the use of we see and we hear in David Trottier’s The Screenwriter’s Bible,” which was first published in 1994 and Aaron read back in 2004. “I’m not sure if it matters. I’m not sure if Trottier himself started it.” I think it predates that, because, Craig, I think I remember a prohibition on we hear and we see from when I first started in film school, which would’ve been ’92. Do you have a sense of when you first heard this as a quote unquote “rule?”

**Craig:** It was on the internet somewhere.

**John:** Yeah, I guess, early internet, because you were in a film school situation that would’ve discouraged that.

**Craig:** No, late ’90s or early 2000s I think maybe. Who’s Dave Trottier? Trottier?

**John:** I recognize that name. I think he’s still a person who does stuff about-

**Craig:** I’m looking him up. Tell you what, not to be a jerk about it, but go ahead and everyone out there just choose who you think you should listen to. I’ll just leave it at that. How about that? Not being a jerk. I’m just saying-

**John:** Not being a jerk.

**Craig:** You have choices in to whom you listen.

**John:** Now another thing we’ve discussed in a previous episode I think was a listener question talking about how this person’s partner, spouse was not supportive of his screenwriting, he was feeling frustrated. I think you and I actually had a good back and forth about how supportive that partner needs to be. Some Follow Up that Megana can read for us.

**Megana:** Once Felt Neglected Too wrote in and said, “I’m a recently produced screenwriter. The film has some serious household name actors in it. While the film was in production, I started dating someone. This person was lovely, with a regular, non-creative office job, who only displayed a mild, passing, supportive, light interest in this accomplishment and a general disinterest in my career choice and abilities as a whole. I would be lying if I didn’t feel some disappointment when I wanted to express something about a project and was met with a superficial support one might give a child about their 5,000th drawing. This attitude persisted even when we were exiting the movie theater after watching the first screening of my film. My head knew they were a good person and supportive in their own ‘I support you as a person’ way, but my heart felt it was death by 1,000 ambivalent cuts I tried my best to ignore. This all became very clear one day when an old college crush had seen the movie and I met them for coffee.”

**Craig:** Oh, no.

**Megana:** “They expressed such awe about the film and what I had done.”

**Craig:** Of course they did.

**Megana:** “It felt like I had touched their soul. I remember thinking if my partner had looked at me for just five minutes like this person across the table had for a couple hours that day, I might still be with them. It’s one thing to be recognized on a surface level. It’s another to be wholly and completely seen by your companion.”

**John:** Craig, this person’s having an emotional creative affair with this other person. That’s what it is. Someone is looking at you with those big eyes, you’re like, “Oh my gosh, I want to feel this desirable.”

**Craig:** It feels great, obviously. Those of us who write or create, any artist of any kind, we all are making things for others. It is a rare artist who is so self-sufficient in their motivation that they legitimately don’t give a damn what anyone thinks, good or bad. Certainly for those of us who are trying to make movies and television, which is a fairly popular artistic kind of pursuit that is entirely driven by audience, yeah, we’re looking for applause. That’s our dream. Our dream is we write something and everyone just looks at us and goes, “Oh my god, you’re incredible,” and then you win awards and you do your speeches. That’s our dream.

When your old college crush met you for coffee, which is quite a commitment on their part, and expressed such awe about the film and what you had done, which must’ve taken an enormous amount of effort on their part, yeah, it felt like you touched their soul and maybe they really liked the movie, but also here’s the thing. Not everyone loves movies that way, and yet maybe they do other things for you that this college crush couldn’t. Look, practical advice for Once Felt Neglected Too. John, you’ve read Love Languages. You’ve read Love Languages.

**John:** I’ve not read Love Languages. I’m sorry. I know the term, but I’ve not read it.

**Craig:** There’s a book, I think it’s called the Five Love Languages. It’s a staple of couples therapy, but it’s also great for anybody in any kind of relationship, friends, whatever, coworkers. It’s incredibly useful. The basic thesis is that people experience love in different ways. For some people, when someone spends a lot of quality time with them, that’s what makes them feel loved. For some people, receiving gifts from people is what makes them feel loved. For some people it’s very much a physical thing. For some people it’s words of praise. Now I think a lot of screenwriters experience love through words of praise.
I think it is useful, Once Felt Neglected Too, to say to your partner, “I’m not asking you to be a different person. I’m not asking you to care more about this than you actually do. What I’m telling you is the way I experience love most viscerally is through words of praise. If you love me and you want me to feel loved, that’s how it works. I’m not asking you to lie. I am asking you to figure it out. Then I think it might work better. I just feel so sad at the thought of someone’s solid relationship with a human being that would look after them when they were sick and back them up and defend them and stay with them and be faithful and loyal, all going to hell because they just also didn’t super love movies or know how to express love for a movie, because I got to tell you, people can say stuff like that over coffee and it means nothing. Nothing.

**John:** You don’t want a relationship with a fan. This coffee date was a fan. That’s not a strong foundation to build a relationship with. Now it’s entirely possible that your relationship, sounds like it broke up with this partner who wasn’t as supportive as you needed, maybe that was not a right relationship for you either. I’m not saying you need to go back to this person or that was the end all, be all of things, they should sacrifice what you want out of this for that relationship, but yes, there’s levels of support. It wasn’t like this person was standing in your way or telling you to give up your writing career or mocking your writing career or doing anything to hinder you. They just weren’t as rah rah, enthusiastic about it as they could be. Maybe you need rah rah enthusiasm. That’s fine. Maybe that’s why the relationship doesn’t work. To compare it to the super fan is only going to be at your detriment.

**Craig:** I couldn’t agree more. Let’s get personal for a second, shall we?

**John:** Let’s do it.

**Craig:** Has Mike ever just not really loved something you’ve done? I’m not talking about a script. I mean just the movie comes out, or the show, and he watches it and he’s just like, “Okay. Yeah, not for me, but great. Good for you.”

**John:** Yes, but I would say that in those situations it’s also been a thing where I wasn’t incredibly delighted with how it turned out either. I think there’s also recognition that there’s genres and things that I will like that he will not like. I think we know each other well enough to know that I’m not going to be expecting wild praise about those things. Same with you and Melissa?

**Craig:** Very much so. It’s always been surprising to me, the things that have grabbed her that she’s loved and the things that were like, “Meh, not so much,” because it wasn’t an easy thing to predict. Then again, that’s the least surprising thing of all, because people are unique. They like different things, even within genres. It’s never been the kind of thing where I thought, “If you don’t understand what I tried to do here, then you don’t see my heart,” because there’s an us that is beyond and separate from the work we do. That’s really important to differentiate. Megana, in your extensive life, I’m keeping you as young as I can.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Megana:** I’m very young.

**John:** The few years that you’ve been out of high school.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Megana:** Exactly.

**Craig:** In the few decades you’ve been out of high school.

**Megana:** In my youthful experiences.

**Craig:** In your youthful experience.

**Megana:** I was telling John that this … A couple of things. The dynamic that this person is setting up with wanting to feel like they’re touching their partner’s soul, that doesn’t feel like an equal partnership to me. They want someone who is going to make them feel like this really visionary auteur. I think that it goes back to something you guys have been talking about in recent weeks, that success often feels like failure. You also can’t expect to be receiving that external validation from the people closest to you. It just seems like the dynamic and the expectation is off.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s a great way of putting it. Look, if you guys are farting in front of each other, how much worship can you expect.

**Megana:** The other thing I was telling, because John and I were talking about this yesterday, was that it would be so stressful for me to be in a dynamic like this, because I feel like professionally for myself, and I have reps and all of these other people invested in my project success, to also have my partner invested in that would really freak me out. It would feel like way too much pressure. I think the creative process can be messy. None of us are always producing great work. If I felt like my partner’s support of me was contingent upon that, that would be horrible.

**Craig:** I agree. I agree.

**John:** Craig and Megana, I have some advice that could change your life, so if you just want to take a seat, because it sounds simple, but it may actually bring about some changes for you.

**Ashley Ward on TikTok:** You have to start romanticizing your life. You have to start thinking of yourself as the main character, because if you don’t, life will continue to pass you by, and all the little things that make it so beautiful will continue to go unnoticed, so take a second and look around and realize that it’s a blessing for you to be here right now.

**Craig:** What is that?

**John:** That’s main character energy, Craig. That is main character energy. That’s our marquee topic for today. I think it’s good that we have Megana on here as the Gen Z Millennial cusp person to talk us through this, because it’s not quite what you might at first expect, because we have main character on the internet, which is not this at all. Main character on the internet is the villain that Twitter chooses every day for everyone to pile onto.

**Craig:** Oh, I see.

**John:** Main character energy is that sense of life is a movie and you are the central character and you just start acting like the central character in your movie.

**Craig:** I see.

**John:** It’s different from I think a thing that I’ve advocated a lot on the show, which is treating yourself as a protagonist and recognizing the protagonist struggle. This is really almost more about an aesthetic series of choices that you’re making about how you’re going to present yourself and how you’re going to perform as the character in a movie. Looking into a little bit of the history of how this came to be, but hopefully also really look at how screenwriting invented this problem and the weird way in which we now have characters who are aware that they are characters in a drama and are living their lives this way. Emily In Paris is an example of a character who has main character energy and she’s actually the main character of a show. I want to grapple with this a bit.

**Craig:** Is that where that is from, that clip you just played?

**John:** It’s not, no. That was actually from a TikTokker from this last year. Some really good things we will put in the show notes that link to it, there’s an essay by Coco Klockner. They have a really good overview of the philosophy of main character energy. Here’s an example from Lauren Is Oversharing. “It’s drinking out of a wine glass and looking over a balcony so everyone on the beach knows I’m the main character.” You get that. You get that feeling?

**Craig:** This is crazy.

**John:** This is from Coco Klockner’s essay, “Main characters have an impeccable magnetism to them. They’re creative. They don’t play by the rules. They’re a little ugly, but in a hot way. They’re full of themselves, but humble in the right moments. They’re self-aware, but unanxious. They’re not perfect, but if they stumble, a lesson is learned. Perhaps foremost, a main character emerges as someone who can pull of the paradoxical feat of conveying interiority in a world of surfaces.”

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** “Main character energy is not a matter of being individualistic or singular, but rather a matter of being extremely legible.” What I think they’re pointing to here is that it’s projecting interiority, it’s projecting an inner life, only through these surface manifestations. What as screenwriters we’re trying to do is trying to expose an interior life through what we can see on a film and TV. In this case it’s real-life people trying to present that they’re having this interior life just through all the outward trappings and through the Instagram stories and the trips they’re taking with influencers. It’s this weird thing that’s happening that I want to grapple with a bit.

**Craig:** I’m horrified. I’m legitimately horrified by this. I guess maybe movies and television just got too clever for their own good, because what we’re supposed to be doing is creating … Drama is not meant to be life at all. In fact, that was the point. When they created drama, back in … They created Western drama in Greece. There was certainly drama predating Greece. The idea was we’re all aware this is not life, right? Get it? There’s a stage. Or you’re sitting in a room watching a fricking piece of glass on the wall. It’s obviously not real. In this unreal representation of the world, you will learn some interesting things that might actually be thought-provoking or make you think about stuff in your regular life, or maybe they’ll make some sense of things in your life, or maybe you’ll just feel like you’re not alone in your emotions and that other people have felt the things you have felt. In no way, shape, or form should anyone ever want to live their lives like a, quote unquote, “main character.” That’s insane. You’re not a character. Help.

**John:** Let’s let you stew on that for a little bit.

**Craig:** Help.

**John:** We could talk about movies, which is a easier way into it, because there are characters in movies who seem to be aware they are characters in movies and are living their life that way, so Ferris Bueller from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off seems like he’s aware that he’s a character. He’s performing with main character energy, because he’s literally stirring stuff up and creating adventure around him at all times. Emma Stone in Easy A has main character energy, and it’s not just because she’s narrating. I think narrating is an important part of this. She’s also presenting herself on video in a pre-TikTok way and communicating what her arc is and what her change is, what’s going on. Fight Club has it. Emily In Paris we talked about before. The whole series Search Party is all about I have to be the central character driving the story. Girls is about that. We had Ryan Reynolds and Phoebe Waller-Bridge on to talk about Deadpool and Fleabag. Those are both characters who are aware that they are characters and aware that they were being watched and how they’re being perceived by audiences.

**Craig:** Yes. They’re all characters. If you actually met somebody like Fleabag, you would be repulsed and go running, because that’s awful. It’s amazing when you watch it on television. The reason why, and Phoebe’s a genius, because what she’s done is create an externalization of the inner ticker tape in her mind, the hamster wheel that runs, the self-commentary that we go through, but we never go through it in the moment. Normally we go through the day, we have these encounters. Then we go home and then we get into bed and then we start thinking about them and rummaging them over and over and over in our heads and reliving them and thinking, “I should’ve said this,” or, “That was weird.” She takes it, because she can, inside of art and makes it happen all in the moment contemporaneously as it’s happening. It’s fascinating to watch. It’s a really cool way of showing the way the human mind and heart function. If you act like that actually in your life, you’re nuts and you’re awful. This just feels like a very fancy way of saying be a pointless, empty narcissist.

**John:** Narcissism is a interesting word for it, because you’re staring at yourself, but also we are all living in the Truman Show anyway, at least a generation is living in the Truman Show, because they are constantly performing and presenting themselves on YouTube, on TikTok, on social media, to present themselves as a certain kind of way. Megana was talking about people she knows who are especially, I don’t know if you want to say adept, or entrenched in this means of self-identification through self-promotion. Megana, you have one great quote, which I want to make sure you get credit for here.

**Megana:** I have some friends who are self-professed aspiring Instagram influencers. I was telling John, I was like, “Why is everyone always on a boat?”

**Craig:** Why is everyone on a boat?

**Megana:** Why are they always partying on a boat? I don’t get it.

**Craig:** What’s special about the boat?

**John:** Because the boat photographs well.

**Megana:** You can shake champagne.

**Craig:** They’re all doing the same goddamn thing in the same way. I don’t even think anybody at this point is like, “Oh, influencers, I want to be like them,” because people want to just be like influencers to influence other people. They don’t actually want to, “Oh, that influencer came up with a great way to do makeup.” They don’t even care about makeup. They just want to be the person that’s doing the makeup on the camera that other people think about the makeup for.

I do have to believe that these people who are extremely online and who are obsessed primarily with how they present to the world are experiencing some very serious issues when the camera is off, and that as time goes on, it is fascinating to see how reality simply doesn’t go away, it just waits for you and catches up. You cannot keep that up if this divorce between who you actually are and who you want to show the world, because you’re not a real person but a character, that’s a recipe for ruin.

**John:** When I was doing my Arlo Finch book tours, I was visiting a whole bunch of schools, I would give the same presentation twice a day, sometimes three times a day for groups of 6th to 7th and 8th graders mostly. One of the things I tried to stress towards the end is that … We were talking about heroes and what heroes in stories do, what protagonists do in stories. Protagonists are always struggling. They’re growing. They’re changing. They’re facing obstacles. They’re overcoming adversity, but it’s tough. They’re creating change by changing themselves.

I tried to just turn that around and say, “Listen, if you think about yourself as the hero of the story of your life, you’re going to face obstacles. Heroes also have principles, they have codes, they have things they learn to live by, they have rules they set for themselves. Most importantly, they have allies, they have people who were on their side and they are an ally to somebody else.” What I find missing in a lot of this main character energy discourse is forgetting about the other people, forgetting that we live in a society, forgetting that we live-

**Craig:** We live in a society.

**John:** That you have relationships with people. It goes back to our previous email about the guy who wasn’t getting support from his partner. It’s like, yeah, but you’re thinking about yourself as only the main character and not recognizing that your partner also has needs and stuff too. You’re not acknowledging those.

**Craig:** It’s really interesting. There are lots of different kinds of characters. It seems like this main character energy is really focusing on poorly written characters. The quote that you played about romanticizing your life, I can’t think of a better way to encapsulate the exact opposite thing that I think about everything, than that quote. You can go ahead. Go ahead, start romanticizing your life. We’ll wait, because here’s the thing. Life is not romantic. You’re a big sack of slowly decaying meat that will eventually stop functioning. Everybody that you know and meet and love will eventually die. You are going to be sick. You are going to ache. You are going to have moments that are wonderful, moments that are terrible. You also don’t deserve everyone’s attention. You almost never deserve anyone’s attention.

The best thing that you can do with your life, other than fulfilling yourself and feeling like you’ve achieved something you wanted to achieve, is helping someone else. Go ahead and make a life or help a life or nurture someone or something, teach someone something or something. You know what’s not romantic? Teaching. This romanticization is just really superficialization. That’s what it is. You don’t want to be a main character in a good thing. You want to be a main character in a soap opera that holds wine and looks out over the balcony or the boat railing. Megana, what is going on?

**Megana:** I think that example is sincere, but a lot of the other examples that I see on social media are funny and tongue-in-cheek. I think it’s because there is this awareness of constantly curating and filming your life and playing with these tropes. There is a self-aware humor to it. I’m curious also how that affects how you would write people who are grappling both with their own presentation of image versus themselves in film.

**Craig:** I’m just not interested in those people. I got to be honest. I’m not.

**John:** Here’s a great example though of a character predating social media. This is from Sleepless In Seattle, which is a great script, Nora Ephron’s script. Meg Ryan and Rosie O’Donnell are talking. Rosie O’Donnell’s line to her is, “That’s your problem. You don’t want to be in love. You want to be in love in a movie.” Nora Ephron, thank you very much for that-

**Craig:** Good quote.

**John:** Good insight. Good quote. It’s the unrealistic expectations of how life is supposed to be, that life is supposed to be like a movie, that things should be as extreme, as beautiful, as perfect as that. It’s that desire for impossible perfection. It’s like some sort of body dysmorphia disorder applied to your life, where you don’t actually see things as they truly are.

**Megana:** Have you seen Bo Burnam’s Eighth Grade? I think it’s just such a brilliant depiction of that.

**Craig:** It’s gorgeous. It’s gorgeous. It’s gorgeous because it confronts what Nora Ephron was getting at here, you want to be in a love in a movie. She’s literally saying you want main character energy. You want to be the main character. If the movie ever got this right, it was The Graduate. It’s the last shot of The Graduate. It’s brilliant. It’s the most wonderful thing. It still remains just like a little miracle to me.

**John:** He’s done this big dramatic thing that is such main character energy.

**Craig:** He stopped a wedding. He stopped a wedding by banging on glass and, “Don’t do it! Don’t do it!” and stopped a wedding and comes up to her, and she goes, “Yes,” and leaves the stupid guy that she shouldn’t be marrying. She runs off with him. They run out. All the adults are like, “What’s happening?” These crazy kids, they’re in love, and it’s the most romantic thing ever. They get on a bus and they sit down, full of just this romantic energy, and then the camera just stays with them, and you see the reality of what they’ve done slowly sink in.

**John:** As the adrenaline fades.

**Craig:** The adrenaline fades, and now, “Where are we getting lunch?” and, “I guess we need an apartment,” and, “Yeah, I don’t have a job.”

**John:** This has been on my mind, partly because the thing I’m writing right now has characters who are struggling with main character energy and presentation and public shaming and all the things that wrap up in that. It’s a thing that’s going to be there. I just want to make sure as we’re wrapping up the segment is that we don’t be afraid of having your protagonists protagonate, but those are actual actions and choices and difficult things that they are doing to achieve the thing that they want. The thing that they want is probably not to be a character in a movie. Hopefully they want something that is actually tangible and real that they need to pursue for their own inner being, and that as screenwriters, it’s our job to externalize these internal thoughts, but make sure the characters have internal thoughts and have internal drives and desires, because otherwise they’re going to just feel like empty puppets running around, which is what I think Craig and I are worried about, some of these Instagram influencers are just feeling like empty puppets running around.

**Craig:** They tell you they’re empty puppets. They just say it. It’s wild, man. It’s wild.

**John:** It’s wild.

**Craig:** You know what? The kids are all right. They’re going to be fine.

**John:** They’ll sort it out.

**Craig:** I just think that the internet has essentially become the playground of people with extreme personality disorders, that yes, main characters have an impeccable … Most main characters, if you really study them, have personality disorders.

**John:** Ferris Bueller is pathological.

**Craig:** He’s evil. The things that he does, it’s evil. He’s a terrible villain. Anyway, thank you for this. I’m stunned and horrified, but hopeful that everybody knows, like Megana says, a lot of it is obviously tongue-in-cheek. It’s like the new version of big dick energy. I get it, but also I feel like for people like the lady that said you have to start romanticizing your life, deromanticize your life, and then you might actually get a chance to live an interesting life.

**John:** Use your drones to spy on people, not to photograph yourself. That’s what they’re really made for.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** All right, we have time for two listener questions. Let’s listen to questions from Bex and Alex. Megana, can you start us off?

**Megana:** Bex asks, “I’ve taken a particular online screenwriting course from a writing instructor who teaches at UCLA, and I learned a great deal, but he said to be careful about submitting your work to agents, managers, or studios too soon, because if the writing isn’t good, your name goes on a do not read this person’s work ever list. That list is maintained and shared by all, or at least a majority of the industry. Once you’re on that list, you’re blackballed from ever having legitimate industry people look at your material, no matter how improved your work is. My question is, is this true? Does the industry share and maintain such a list of blackballed unknown writers? The writing instructor says he’s seen the actual list.”

**John:** No. The simple answer is no.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Here’s the answer with a little bit more subtlety is that within a certain agency, they will keep a database of who they’ve read, just so that if one agent has read and passed on a thing, that they won’t keep reading it, the same person again and again, if it’s not for them, but the idea that there is an industry-wide list of like, “These are all the upcoming writers, the ones we’re not going to pay attention to,” is absurd, because not only would it be collusion, no one would make that list. It’s just not actually helpful to anybody.

**Craig:** They’re not even competent enough to maintain a list like this. This falls under the Bush did 9/11 heading. Do you really think Bush was smart enough to do 9/11? No. He couldn’t even figure out how to plant weapons of mass destruction in the middle of a desert. I don’t think he did 9/11. Similarly, Hollywood is just not organized enough to even keep anything close to a list like that, nor would anybody care. Here’s the thing. Unknown, unproduced writers, who have never worked before, nobody knows who they are. Nobody’s going to sit there and make a list of names. You know how much time it takes? You know how quickly I could figure out if the script is good or not? Three pages.

**John:** Three pages.

**Craig:** Who needs to look at the list?

**John:** I do like the idea that there’s a anti-Franklin Leonard out there somewhere, who’s making a list of all the unrepped writers, all the unproduced writers who are just trash, who should never be produced. That’s great.

**Craig:** That’s great.

**John:** That’s a great James Bond character, but no.

**Craig:** You get ranked from negative one to negative 10?

**John:** Uh-huh.

**Craig:** I love it. No, that’s crazy. To the writing instructor who teaches at UCLA, stop it. That’s just not true. You think that she or he is doing it as a scare, oh he, that it’s a scare thing, like, “I’ll just motivate you by-”

**John:** I want to be generous in interpretation. I think that perhaps the writing that he’s reading right now, he knows it’s just not at a level to be getting work, and so he doesn’t want these people, writers he knows will improve over the next year or two, to go too hard too fast and try to get their stuff out there, because they’re just going to hit a meat grinder. He sees potential in them and he wants their potential to be-

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** Better.

**Craig:** It’s like parents telling their kids that Santa knows if they’ve been naughty or nice.

**John:** Yes, that’s what it is. How about Albert’s question, Megana?

**Megana:** Great. Albert writes, “I’ve been writing for about three years now, and I always have this internal battle about using ing in my screenplays. After writing my first script, I was heavily criticized for using ing words by a professional screenwriter after submitting it to a screenwriting feedback service. When I looked it up on Google, I keep coming across, quote, ‘Screenplays are written in the simple present tense.’ Is this correct? Did the dude punch me upwards or downwards? I appreciate the time and hope to hear an amazing reply soon.”

**Craig:** Amazing reply forthcoming.

**John:** Forthcoming. I’ll put a link to a blog post I did about this at some point, because what you’re really talking about is simple present tense was like, “I kicked the ball,” versus present progressive, like, “I am kicking the ball.” Screenplays are largely in the simple present tense, but Craig and I both use ing forms, the present progressive, in times where action needs to be interruptable, where you’re showing simultaneity of things. There’s reasons to use the ing version of things.

**Craig:** Absolutely. This is very similar to the let’s save a little bit of page count by removing we see. There’s something that’s happening while I’m doing something. Doing something. As John is loading the gun, Craig comes up behind him and hits him in the head with a golf club.

**John:** Jesus. Craig, what did I do to you? First off, where did I get this gun? I’m not a gun [inaudible 00:49:27].

**Craig:** We’re going to get into what happens next, because then it goes, “Three weeks earlier.” John loads a gun. Craig comes up behind him and hits him on the head with a golf club. That means the gun got loaded.

**John:** It’s finished.

**Craig:** Then I came up and I hit John in the head with the golf club. You can see that once again, I know this is crazy, the full breadth of the English language is valuable when writing in the English language. If you were, underline, heavily criticized for using ing words by, and then you put it in quotes, “pro screenwriter,” all I can say is you may have just been using them way too much.

**John:** That’s entirely possible.

**Craig:** Make sure that when you use them, you’re using them purposefully, because they are not as elegant inherently as the standard form. I’m fascinated by this final question, “Did the dude punch me upwards or downwards?” Wouldn’t that depend on who that guy is and who Albert is?

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** If Albert is royalty, then the guy punched upwards. Are you a prince?

**John:** Is he punching or did he punch? That is a simple question. Is he still punching?

**Craig:** Is he still punching?

**John:** Is the action interrupted? I agree with Craig’s generous interpretation that maybe you were using it too often. Any time you’re using one, it’s worth a look, like do you need that present progressive or could just a simple verb work? If a simple verb works, use a simple verb.

**Craig:** There is an answer to that question. There is always one form that is more accurate to what you want to show on screen than the other.

**John:** Yep. It’s come time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is The Afterparty, a new series on Apple TV. Plus created by Chris Miller, produced by our friends Lord and Miller. It’s delightful. It’s a comedy. It’s a murder mystery. Each episode follows the same crime from a different character’s point of view. Terrifically done, as you expect from these. Craig, in this workflow here I have two pieces of artwork from this. This is the movie within the show. The character who dies, this is not a spoiler, his name is Xavier. He is I think a musician and an actor. The poster I want to point to is Private Eyes: The Hall and Oates Story. As you look at this poster, so much of it is fantastic, as Channing Tatum plays Oates. Yeah, Oates. I have an issue with the credit block. Can you tell me what my issue is with the credit block?

**Craig:** Yes. In the credit block for a film, these days it would go, at the bottom, reading left to right, producer, then writer, then director. In the old days it would go writer, then producer, then director. This one, for some reason, doesn’t even … Does it have a director?

**John:** Yeah. It says A Stephanie Preston Film before Private Eyes, but no, there’s no director listed.

**Craig:** There’s no director. For some reason also, it says executive producers are listed last, when in movies the producer would be way more important than the executive producers. There doesn’t appear to be a producer. We have to talk to Lord and Miller about this. This is just a disaster. I can’t recommend the show anymore.

**John:** Hopefully there is time to go in and do the post-work on the poster that’s on the wall and put that in there. I would also point out the written by credit is Karen Tate Wallace Doe, and there needs to be something between those two, unless the person’s name is-

**Craig:** Karen Tate Wallace Doe.

**John:** Unless this one writer’s name is Karen Tate Wallace Doe, there’s either an and or an ampersand between those names.

**Craig:** That is correct. There are so many problems with this. We have to talk to them. This can’t happen again.

**John:** This is the only flaw I saw in the first episode of the show, which I think is actually just delightful. It stars a bunch of talented folks, including Ike Barinholtz. Your golden girl pal Tiffany Haddish is the central investigator there.

**Craig:** Did you say my golden girl pal?

**John:** Yeah. I’m sorry. Your Golden Globe pal.

**Craig:** Oh, my Golden Globe pal. She was my Golden Globe pal. She’s fun.

**John:** Yeah, you had that weird, awkward moment there on the stage with Tiffany Haddish.

**Craig:** It wasn’t awkward for me. Her feet were hurting. She took her shoes off and just leaned on me. It was fun. That’s what happens on those shows. “My feet hurt. Can I lean on you?” “Absolutely.”

**John:** From that moment forward, the Golden Globes really went down. It was really the highlight of the Golden Globes. From that point forward they realized, “We cannot top this. We need to stop the Golden Globes all together.”

**Craig:** They keep on rolling. I was lucky enough many years ago, so this has been in development by Chris primarily for the longest time, and many years ago I actually went and saw a staged reading of this one. I think it was a movie.

**John:** I think [inaudible 00:53:49] was originally a movie. I’m sure it was great as a movie. I think it works much better as this series, because you can just do more. You’ve got time.

**Craig:** I think almost everything does at this point. An additional fun bit, and you know what, maybe I’ll make this my One Cool Thing. I’m going to tack on to yours. I had another thing that was technical. I’ll get to that next week. In addition to The Afterparty being a delight, no surprise, and featuring posters that are visually hysterical, but in terms of credits, absolutely horrible, the show The Afterparty also includes quite a few hidden hints, clues, and puzzles that were developed by my wonderful, magical friend David Kwong, and my wonderful, magical friend Dave Shukan, who is a puzzle master and indeed was one of the primary puzzle creators of the MIT Mystery Hunt, which I think was my One Cool Thing last week.

**John:** Nice. The character that Sam Richardson plays in The Afterparty is an escape room designer, which feels exactly in your wheelhouse there, Craig.

**Craig:** Probably modeled after me. One would think.

**John:** Actually, yeah. That’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Julia Hostetler. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes, more often than not now, @clmazin.

**Craig:** I’m around.

**John:** I’m @johnaugust. You could find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. Our whole main character energy thing came from Chris Csont’s newsletter about main character energy, which was in Interesting. Thank you, Chris, for putting that together. We have T-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can also get the hoodies now. The hoodies are so comfortable. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on population. Craig and Megana, thank you so much for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** All right, Craig, can you help our younger listeners understand how we thought about population in the 1970s?

**Craig:** Sure. In the 1970s we were constantly warned about two problems that were going to come and kill all of us. Sorry, three. Three problems that were going to come kill all of us.

**John:** Let’s see if I can name them. Nuclear war.

**Craig:** Four problems that were going to come and kill us.

**John:** Oh wow. Nuclear war was not even one of them.

**Craig:** Yep, sorry. Four.

**John:** Wow. Nuclear war was my only go-to. Obviously population was going to be one of them. Population and famine, those are really related, right?

**Craig:** Population and famine, connected. Nuclear war.

**John:** What were the other things we were worried about?

**Craig:** People snatching you off the street with a van.

**John:** That’s entirely true, because that happened a lot.

**Craig:** It didn’t. It actually didn’t.

**John:** No, seriously, Craig, it happened all the time.

**Craig:** It did not.

**John:** That’s a thing.

**Craig:** It did not. Gary Gulman has an amazing bit about this in his show The Big Depresh or The Great Depresh. Basically a guy went on TV and said there are 50,000 kids being pulled off the street every year. Everyone lost their minds. Three years later he came back and he was like, “It’s 3,000 kids.”

By that point, when we grew up, Megana, so John and I would go to school and we would have milk, because you had to drink milk when you were a kid in the ’70s or you would die apparently. On the milk cartons were pictures of missing children. Gary Gulman has this amazing bit about how, “What were we supposed to do about it? We’re eight. Are we supposed to be out on the hunt? What?” “Have you seen this child?” “I’m in third grade!” It was horrifying. You would have to drink milk from a carton with this sad kid staring back at you like, “I don’t drink milk anymore.”

**John:** We have men in white vans stealing children.

**Craig:** Men in white vans, nuclear war, overpopulation and famine, and acid rain.

**John:** Oh yeah, I remember acid rain.

**Craig:** Eventually the rain was going to come down and melt the skin right off your bones.

**John:** Here’s the thing. We actually got some of the acid rain taken care of to some degree. The hole in the ozone layer was probably a little bit later than that. We actually dealt with that in a way.

**Craig:** Yeah, unfortunately, because the ozone layer is holding in all the carbon dioxide. Everything’s working out great for us.

**John:** Everything’s working out fantastic. Let’s just solve the population problem, because China took it upon itself to actually solve the population problem. This is a thing that I remember learning about in grade school was the one-child policy, which is basically a couple can only have one kid. I didn’t understand how math worked, because I was in third grade. They explained, “Okay, so when the mom and the dad die, that one kid will replace them.” That’s only half people, but then you realized they actually have grandparents too, and so it all works out. It sounded like they took care of it, but it didn’t work out so good.

**Craig:** There aren’t many examples of grand social architecting that does work out.

**John:** That’s true.

**Craig:** Particularly when you’re interfering with basic biological functions like how many children do you have and how much do you eat. What we know now is that Malthus, the father of this fear, Thomas Malthus, who was doing his best in the 18th century, and in the 18th century, there was this very rampant population growth within urban centers. You could see London transforming and these other places. People were dealing with crowding in a very specific way in the West. There’s this fear that the more people you had, you would eventually run out of food, because industrialization hadn’t occurred yet, and so our ability to feed ourselves was not as advanced as it would be even 50 years later.

**John:** We would have to turn to cannibalism at a certain point.

**Craig:** At some point we would eat ourselves.

**John:** That was always part of the stories, like, “Oh, and eventually we’ll have to start eating people, because that’s what happens.”

**Craig:** Yeah. “We’ll start with grandma, because she’s got to go.” By the time it got around to us, obviously the United States is spatially enormous, although they kept talking about overpopulation, even in the United States, which is bizarre, since no one lives in Wyoming, for instance, or Alaska. There certainly were places in the world, and there still are places in the world, that deal with overpopulation, including China at the time certainly, India, Indonesia.

There were famine issues, because in the ’70s we didn’t realize, because we were children, how close we were to the ’40s and ’50s. Kids who are growing up now don’t realize how close they are to the ’90s. The famine that was happening around the world in the ’40s, ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s was astonishing. It made sense that people were scared of this. No one talks about the Bengal famine. The Bengal famine was one of the worst famines that ever, ever happened ever, on any planet, as far as I’m concerned. Two to three million people died in 1943 in Bengal.

**John:** I agree with you. In the ’70s I associated overpopulation with famine as being the same thing, not understanding famine is actually caused by many things. It could be crop failures, but more often it’s just actually poor government. There’s a reason why democracies don’t have famines. It’s all about power and control. That was the problem. Let’s fast-forward to today.

**Craig:** By the way, just to back you up on that, ultimately the cause of the Bengal famine probably was Churchill. You’re right, it was not just as simple as too many people, not enough food.

**John:** This one-child policy in China went on for 35 years. They eventually took their foot off the brakes a little bit. It feels like they should’ve been aware of it more quickly, because you look at what happened in Japan. I remember hearing about the stories in Japan 10 or 15 years ago about, “Oh crap, we are so far below our replacement rate, we’re going to have a bunch of old people, and no young people to look after them.”

One of the findings that came out of Japan is really it comes down to once you educate women, once you give women opportunities, that they’re going to choose to have fewer children. You don’t have to have a government policy about it. You just make it so that they don’t feel the need to have large families, because if you’re not in a agricultural society anymore, they’re going to have smaller families. Depopulation is now more of a concern to most certainly Western countries, but really countries around the world.

**Craig:** Yes. Depopulation is becoming a serious problem in Europe, a very serious problem in Russia. Depopulation is one of the driving factors behind the rise of nationalism, white supremacy, because as traditionally majority white countries depopulate, there are labor needs that have to be filled, and the gap is filled by immigration. Now Russia just won’t let anyone in. Russia’s just like, “Nope! We’re white people only!” Let’s see how that goes for them.

In standard Europe, as we’ll call it, there’s been a lot of immigration. The immigration is necessary, because as traditionally white countries just cannot keep up a replacement rate of birth, then yeah, you’re going to need more people. What one would hope is that most people would understand that what it means to be English or Swedish or German is not, “Let’s start with white.” It’s not. Their culture is not skin color. Also, of course, America has, in our finest moments, has shown that there is a proper melting pot and that cultures can collide together and make something beautiful.

There’s this panic that’s going on because it’s the great replacement theory, that they’re panicked. The truth is the tenets of the great replacement theory, they’re not there yet. I think the white paranoia is extreme. You are in fact seeing issues of depopulation in non-white countries as well. What does humanity do as it no longer is I guess what a net positive human creation.

**John:** Yeah. You run into problems of how do you keep a standard of living going for a country when there aren’t enough people to actually do the work, to do all the things that need to be done, how do you take care of older people. These are all real challenges. I’m curious for Megana, who’s coming into this whole conversation 20 years later, going through school, did you hear about population being a crisis one way or another way? How does this land for you?

**Megana:** I feel like when I was in school they told us about overpopulation and some of the same fears that you guys described having, being taught in school were still in our curriculum.

**John:** When you were visiting your family in India, did you perceive that India perceived population as being a crisis, a problem? What was that experience like for you?

**Megana:** It’s interesting. It’s just so overwhelmingly crowded, as an American going back to visit. I don’t know that that came from my Indian family or Indian relatives that this place was too crowded, but I do think it came from the white people I grew up around in Joplin, Missouri, who would be like, “Oh, you’re from India. That place is overpopulated and it’s a Third World country.” That sort of mentality I think I internalized. I think that came from my experience of being an Indian immigrant in America and what older white people said to me.

**Craig:** As you were growing up, the rate of population change in India was starting to slow. There is still a net positive growth in India. There’s still a net positive growth in the United States, but it’s very tiny. India currently, population growth rate is 1% annual change. The United States it’s .4%. Now let’s take a look at Russia. This ought to be good. Russian population growth, yeah, so they’re minus. They’ve gone into minus territory. They were as low as minus .5% in 2000. They are currently at minus .2. They are losing population, and that will probably accelerate, which is bad, and they’re going to have to figure that out.

**John:** Let’s talk about what solutions governments and societies, because we live in a society-

**Craig:** We live in a society.

**John:** Let’s look for what are the things that can be done to address this. Obviously first and foremost is creating policies that actually make it easier for people to have children, because we have so stripped away a lot of the support systems that should be there for families to just begin to have families, to have a kid, but much less two or three or four kids. It’s funny that we used to think about poor families would have a bunch of kids, and now it seems families of a certain means are the only ones who can afford to have a certain number of kids, because they worried about educating them, food is cheaper than it’s ever been and clothing is cheaper than it’s ever been, but that there’s still all these expenses that come with a kid. If we’re not creating policies that make it possible, both financially and time-wise, it’s just not going to happen.

**Craig:** I agree with you. I think if a country is concerned with maintaining its population so that the functions of its structure are functioning, then it has to make this a priority. In the United States in particular, it’s like, “Screw you. You want to have a kid, fine, go, do it, but we’re not paying you. We can fire you. We’re not giving you time off. If you’re a dad, you get nothing.” Also maybe you don’t have health care. There’s no child care. We don’t have extended families here. It’s not like there’s grandmas and aunts and uncles. Basically, yeah, lol. It’s hard. It was hard when we had a kid. When we had our first kid, it was hard. Melissa wasn’t working. It was hard.

**John:** It’s challenging. The other obviously thing to address is immigration, because the other way a society can function if it’s not creating enough people of its own is to import people from other places. Certain countries can afford to import a lot of people here and bring them into the fold. America has had a tradition of being a country that can take in groups from other places and make Americans and change America’s identity to include new people. We need to remember that and ber better about it.

**Craig:** We’re terrible.

**John:** Easier said than done.

**Craig:** We suck. The celebration of immigration was part of my education in the ’70s. We used to celebrate it. The poem at the foot of the Statue of Liberty was a big deal. Now it’s just like, do you remember that idiot Pat Buchanan?

**John:** Yeah, I do.

**Craig:** Pat Buchanan used to be considered a loony, and now I think he would be actually probably not conservative enough. “America first.” There have been idiots saying, “America first,” forever.

**John:** It was always up against the Italians or the Irish or whoever the new group was coming in.

**Craig:** Yeah. The Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Jews. Boy, if they were that pissed off about white people showing up … We’ve always had this fricking problem. I’m like, isn’t it a sign that you’re doing well, that people want to come to your shop? People want to live here, on purpose. This is great. We have massive, massive stretches of land and resources. We have more than we need, way more than we need. What happened? What happened to who we … We should be celebrating immigration as much as we can.

**Megana:** I do remember that as a distinct shift, because I was in the fourth grade I think when 9/11 happened. I remember in elementary school feeling like, “Oh, I am a super-American because I am a child of immigrants.” I think after 9/11 it was no longer a thing that was necessarily celebrated in school.

**Craig:** This country lost its goddamn mind on 9/11. Lost our minds.

**John:** It did.

**Craig:** Lost our minds.

**John:** Absolutely. It did. We didn’t solve anything, but at least discussed it.

**Craig:** I think we convinced people earlier that they can use we see, so there’s that.

**John:** There’s that. If we all think of ourselves as the main character in this story, as main characters we need to solve the issues of population and immigration and really family rights.

**Megana:** Yeah. I think the other thing you guys mentioned is having more progressive policies instead of shaming and blaming young women.

**Craig:** This is the thing. We live in a society.

**John:** We do.

**Craig:** Men only understand one mode. That is control women, force them to have babies, that’s how we’ll get babies. That’s it. They don’t know any other way. They can’t think. They cannot possibly fathom any other way to encourage birth. Pregnancy and birth.

**John:** It goes straight to Handmaid’s Tale.

**Craig:** Yeah, basically.

**John:** On a future bonus segment I want to talk to you about your show and the post-apocalyptic, I guess you consider your show post-apocalyptic, and that sense of when population drops so low, just that certain functions cannot be fulfilled anymore, because I find it so fascinating. I feel like we explore that in fiction all the time, but we will actually experience some of that in real life.

**Craig:** Until next time.

**John:** All right. Thanks, guys.

**Megana:** Bye.

Links:

* [Fans Are Suing Universal Pictures Because a 2019 Movie Didn’t Include Ana de Armas](https://www.ign.com/articles/ana-de-armas-universal-lawsuit-yesterday-cut-scenes?utm_source=twitter)
* [How Sweet Fresh Meat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2I897TyglY) clip on YouTube
* [Ashley Ward’s original Main Character TikTok](https://www.tiktok.com/foryou?is_from_webapp=v1&item_id=6831269918864870661#/@ashlaward/video/6831269918864870661)
* [Main Character Energy: Interiority in a world of screens](https://reallifemag.com/main-character-energy/) by Coco Klockner for Real Life Mag
* [We All Have “Main-Character Energy” Now](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/we-all-have-main-character-energy-now) by Kyle Chayka for the New Yorker
* [Rediscovering ‘The Truman Show’ in the age of Main Character Syndrome](https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/rediscovering-the-truman-show-in-the-age-of-main-character-syndrome/) by Mischa Anouk Smith for Far Out Magazine
* Gary Gulman’s [The Great Depresh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1L08I5gjQI) Kidnapping Hoax
* [Main Character Energy and Narcissism – Inneresting Newsletter](https://mailchi.mp/johnaugust/inneresting-2556884?e=5f1449ed84) by Chris Csont
* [The Afterparty](https://tv.apple.com/us/show/the-afterparty/umc.cmc.5wg8cnigwrkfzbdruaufzb6b0) on Apple TV from Lord Miller, [First Ep](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P07_FHcRNEU) on YouTube
* Puzzle pals [David Kwong](https://www.davidkwongmagic.com/) and [Dave Shukan](https://www.geffenplayhouse.org/people/dave-shukan/)
* [Malthusianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Julia Hostetler ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/535standard.mp3).