Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. Standard warning for people who are in the car with their kids, there’s some swearing in this episode.

[music]

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

Craig Mazin: Ho, ho, ho, ho. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is Episode 734 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we welcome back a writer whose credits include The Heat, Ghostbusters, and Haunted Mansion, her incredible new show, Widow’s Bay-

[laughter]

John: -is now out on Apple TV.

Craig: What a dramatic pause.

[laughter]

Craig: Her incredible new show, Widow’s Bay.

John: Welcome back to the program after 10 years, Katie Dippold.

Katie Dippold: Very happy to be here. I’ve been trying to get back in here for the past decade, so this is-

Craig: Clawing your way back in.

Katie: Yes, anything I can do.

John: You were last on the show Episode 272.

Craig: Whoa.

Katie: Yes.

Craig: 500 episodes ago.

John: 2016.

Katie: One of my favorite memories of that episode was when– remember when Malcolm, you asked him something and he was just quiet and then he was like, “I’m out of gas.” You’re like, “That’s it? You’re just done?” He’s like, “I’m done.”

Craig: Yes.

Katie: I respected it so much.

Craig: That’s what Malcolm– Malcolm used to play D&D with us, and at some point, he would just get up and lie down and sleep.

Katie: [laughs]

John: Yes.

Craig: Yes.

Katie: He knows how to live.

Craig: We can’t have you on the show without talking about our special connection. We always need to discuss our special connection. Katie Dippold and I both lived or attended school in Freehold, New Jersey. Competing high schools. She was at the somewhat tonier Freehold Township. I was at the rough around the edges Freehold Borough.

Katie: Never heard of it.

Craig: Yes. I was from the bad side of the tracks.

John: I love it.

Katie: Also where Bruce Springsteen was from. Not a big deal.

Craig: Yes. He went to Borough.

Katie: Sorry, you have that.

Craig: That’s because he was a little rough around the edges.

Katie: Yes, yes, yes.

John: Now, Katie Dippold, for folks who don’t know who you are, they actually do know who you are because you are famous for being an incredibly talented writer, but you’re also probably more famous on the internet because of one Halloween costume you wore and the situation in which you wore it. Do you want to recap why the world knows who you are?

Katie: There is a tweet that shows a photograph that– I can’t remember the tweet. It’s like when you think you’re going to a Halloween party, but it ends up being an adult drinking wine kind of vibe. I’m dressed fully as the Babadook. Face makeup, wig, hat, coat. No one was dressed up. My friend Jessie snapped the photo. Also, what the photo doesn’t show is I sat there for an hour and a half watching a movie like that.

John: Yes.

Katie: You know?

Craig: Once you’re there, what are you going to do?

John: What are you going to do?

Katie: Someone asked me like, “Why didn’t you just take off the hat?” I’m like, “That wasn’t going to help anything.”

John: No, no. Come on.

Craig: Right. I’m still– I got the weird glasses on, or the– does he have glasses? Goggles?

Katie: No glasses, but there’s a dark room around the eyes.

Craig: Yes, that’s what it was. Something like that.

John: Yes, it’s like [crosstalk] monochrome makeup look, right?

Katie: Yes.

John: Yes, it is fantastic, and it’s a moment. It also is the intersection of horror and comedy, which is Widow’s Bay, which is exactly what we’re here to talk about.

Craig: Segue man.

John: That’s what I am.

Katie: Yes, look at that.

John: I want to talk about Widow’s Bay. Your show is genuinely fantastic. Drew and I watched it.

Craig: Wait, have you seen more than two episodes?

John: I’ve only seen the first episode. I haven’t seen the second episode yet.

Craig: Oh, okay, because you’re talking like you’ve seen the whole show.

John: Oh, no.

Craig: I’ve seen two episodes, which I loved, but I started getting jelly, but you’ve only seen one.

John: No, no, we didn’t get the links or anything. We-

Craig: I’m just watching it on Apple TV.

John: I’m just watching it on Apple TV like everyone else. Like every other American person in the world, I’m watching Widow’s Bay on Apple TV.

Craig: American person in the world. [chuckles]

John: I want to talk about your show, but I also want to talk about what you wish you knew going into this industry. Imagine that you’re sending an email to your younger self. It could be to your 15-year-old self or when you first arrived in Los Angeles. I did a panel this last week where this was the theme.

It was actually really insightful to think like, “Oh, yes, what did I know, and what if I could pass along information to your younger self?” Things we want to do. We’ll talk about that.

We’ll answer some listener questions. Including, when do you call out someone for stealing your idea or just being not cool?

Katie: Oh.

John: Our bonus segment for premium members, are there still going to be movies and TV in 10 years, 15 years? We’ll talk about that. All big topics. Most importantly, I know a movie that’s coming out next week, which is Craig’s movie, The Sheep Detectives.

Craig: The Sheep Detectives. What a silly title.

John: It is. It was once called Three Bags Full.

Craig: It was once called Three Bags Full. It’s based on a book written by a wonderful German author named Leonie Swann. Three Bags Full was the title it was released under in the United States. That’s what we called the movie up until MGM was like, “Yes, no one’s going to know what that is, but they would know what The Sheep Detectives is.” They’re correct.

John: They are correct.

Craig: I get it completely. I love this movie so much. I never self-promote. I don’t. It’s not my thing to be like, “Hey, coming up on dah, dah, dah.” It is the little movie that we hopefully could because it’s Aline Brosh McKenna’s Devil Wears Prada 2 is crushing it in theaters. Mortal Kombat’s going to be a huge movie. There’s all these big movies. Then there’s our little sweet sheep movie, it’s adorable, and I’ve watched it with an audience and people laugh and then they cry. My wife and my younger daughter watched it and they were a sobbing mess and a happy sobbing mess.

Katie: Wow. That’s good.

John: Now, Craig, many critics have liked it, but at least one didn’t because you’re not at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. How are you dealing with that grief?

Craig: It’s really hard, because I don’t have any experience not being at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. First of all, the idea of having a movie on Rotten Tomatoes that isn’t in the 20s is shocking for me. Like, “Wait, what? They make tomatoes in another color than green?” I continue my very strange, tumultuous relationship with critics. They don’t know what to make of me at all.

John: Quite understandably.

Craig: They yell at me when I’m like, “Why is this comedy guy doing drama?” Then I do this and they’re like, “Why is this drama guy doing comedy?”

Katie: I feel like you and I could talk about this for years. Now that said, you get one good review and you’re like, “You know, critics–”

Craig: Well, they do have a point.

Katie: Thank God. You know?

Craig: Yes. Well, the thing is there are movies and television shows that don’t need critics at all. It doesn’t matter. I’ve definitely worked on those. You’ve worked on those where it didn’t really matter what the critics thought. Then there are things that sort of need them for legitimacy.

I think The Sheep Detectives needed it. I could see how Widow’s Bay could need it. Meaning, it helps separate a little bit, because it’s not a built-in audience, it’s not IP, it’s something original. Also, you were sporting a 100.

John: Yes. Then someone had to ruin it.

Craig: Some ding-dongs came in. The math is bad because then what happens is you’re like, “Oh, now to get back up, I need like eight more good reviews.”

John: Yes.

Katie: Right. Oh, you can drive yourself crazy. I also, it’s so funny. I always tell myself, if a movie comes out and doesn’t do well, and it’s an experience I’ve had a couple of times, but I say, “Okay, no, it doesn’t matter. Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t matter.” Every time I put something on, I’m like, “What’s the Rotten Tomatoes score?” It’s just, you know what I mean?

Craig: Yes. I know.

Katie: It’s just, it’s all of us. It matters very much.

Craig: It is bizarre how everybody, I mean, I assume a lot of critics do put time into the reviews and things, and then it just gets mushed into a number.

Katie: The ones that are good and thoughtful and do a really good analysis, it is really-

John: It’s lovely.

Katie: It’s lovely.

John: Yes.

Craig: I think when people say nice things about us, we like it. When they say bad things about us, we don’t.

John: Hey, I think that’s true.

Katie: That’s exactly right.

Craig: We don’t like it.

Katie: You’re not good at this.

Craig: No. Then I turn to the Teddy Roosevelt quote, and I’m like-

Katie: Yes, that’s exactly-

Craig: “You don’t matter. The ones who matter are the ones who understand what I’m doing and like me.”

Katie: That’s exactly right.

John: This week, my instance of the Rotten Tomatoes was my new book, Wolf’s Belly, which comes out July 18th.

Craig: Wait, what?

John: I have a book out July 18th. I’ll give you a copy so [unintelligible 00:07:33] here.

Craig: What? Did you write a secret book?

John: Secret book.

Craig: I didn’t know about this. I’m glad I didn’t know about this because-

Katie: Whoa.

Craig: -had I known about it and not known about it, I would have been so embarrassed.

John: Yes, absolutely. We got a-

Craig: He just did it again.

John: I just did it again.

Craig: You just did it.

John: My book comes out July 18th, and I got a Publishers Weekly starred review, which is a rare thing to get, which is very lovely.

Craig: It’s a graphic novel. Congratulations.

John: Yes. It’s up for pre-order now, but there are already reviews online for Goodreads because those things come out early, because they send those galleys out. Those have been really nice, but of course, there are going to be occasionally like, “Yes, it wasn’t for me,” or the person who gives it– it’s like five stars, or they give four stars, and four stars brings you down.

Craig: [chuckles] Well, I think that you are a healthier person than I am about these things. You’re very good about, you decide what the worth of what you did is. Whatever people think, that’s fine, but if you like it, you like it. I think that’s healthier. I don’t like how easily swayed I can be by other people telling me if I did something well or not.

Katie: It sounds like we all three have things being reviewed right now. Obviously, the summary of this entire conversation was thank God for the critics.

Craig: Thank God.

John: Thank God for the critics.

Craig: Thank God.

John: Absolutely. Without critics where would we be?

Craig: They know I love them.

Katie: Yes.

John: While we’re talking about things being judged and awards, the Academy changed rules this week. Some summary of some rule changes here. In the writing categories, the rules now codify that screenplays have to be human authored-

Craig: Damn it.

John: -to be eligible.

Craig: Which I think is reasonable. Who are they going to hand the Oscar to if a computer wrote it?

John: Yes. I think that’s an obvious one. A better, more interesting one for me is on international feature films right now, it’s always been the country submits, and it’s always been controversial because the country may not submit their best film, or a great film from a country won’t be submitted. Now, if it has been qualifying award at some of the major international feature film festivals like Berlin, or Busan, or Sundance, or Venice, if it’s won the awards there, it’s also eligible for that, and so it can be-

Craig: A government can’t just go, “Yes, we don’t like this one.”

John: The award now goes to the director as the beneficiary rather than to the country.

Craig: That’s interesting.

John: Yes.

Craig: That is interesting.

John: Yes. I think it’s a good change.

Craig: That’s a smart change. I also saw that now actors can be nominated multiple times in a category.

John: Yes.

Katie: Would they want that?

Craig: It seems like a bad thing you-

Katie: Yes.

John: Yes.

Craig: -but it’s happened before. Director Steven Soderbergh was nominated-

John: Yes, twice.

Craig: -twice in one year. That’s nice. That’s nice.

Katie: Did he win for that year?

Craig: That’s a great question.

Drew Marquardt: I think he did. That was Traffic and-

Katie: Okay, that’s impressive.

Drew: -Erin Brockovich.

Craig: Erin Brockovich. I think Erin Brockovich. He won for Erin Brockovich?

Drew: I think he won for Traffic.

Craig: Traffic is a better movie.

John: Anyway, changes. They seem thoughtful changes.

Craig: Absolutely. Obviously, Katie, you and I are perennial Oscar considerables.

Katie: Right.

Craig: We’re always in the mix.

Katie: Right. Right. Yes.

John: Yes, [crosstalk]. Always in the topics.

Craig: Yes, so this is always– I keep careful track of this sort of thing. We’re talking sheep movie.

John: We have some housekeeping to get through. First and most important is we’re putting out a Scriptnotes listener survey. We want to know things about our listeners, not for marketing purposes, because there’s no marketing because we’re-

Craig: To sell their data?

John: We don’t want to know any of that stuff. We’re curious about, which segments people love the most, which things they want to hear more of. There’s some things we might try out, and we’re curious what people think of those things. We’re also just curious who our listeners are, how many are in the US, what education level people have, because my prototypical user is in college or finishing college, but that may not be accurate. We’re just curious.

Craig: I feel like our listener base might be older than you think.

John: Yes. I’m also curious, one of the questions is, how many people who are listening to the podcast are actually working in the film and television industry versus just like to listen to the podcast?

Craig: All good things to know.

John: Yes.

Katie: It’d be so funny to find out it’s just ages 60 to 62.

John: So incredible.

Katie: Just a very specific.

Craig: Like a steep drop-off after 62.

Katie: No awareness before those two years.

Craig: 59, nothing. 60, boom.

Katie: Yes.

Craig: There’s a free thing, free premium with your AARP subscription, and then they get it for a couple years and they’re out. They’re like-

John: Yes, it’s like, “No, this is not good.”

Craig: -“No, it’s not good.”

John: There will be a link in the show notes for that, so please click through there.

Craig: 60 to 62. Do you see why Katie Dippold is good?

John: Yes, because it’s the specificity of that joke.

Craig: That is 64 would have been bad, 62 is correct.

Katie: I appreciate that.

John: She’s so good.

Craig: Yes.

John: Craig, I want to do another random advice episode. Remember we’ve done those? People write in with non-screenwriting questions-

Craig: Oh, right.

John: -non-writing questions, because-

Craig: When we attempt to be wise.

John: Yes, because we have opinions about a lot of things. We’ll try that. Send in those questions to Drew. Send in at ask@johnaugust.com and just label it like, “Random advice,” so we know to put those in a different category for that. We have a new version of Weekend Read out there. People use Weekend Read on their phones to read scripts.

The new version is really nice and actually has some really helpful features in terms of marketing what you haven’t read, what’s new for you. You can get through long scripts faster. There’s a new scroll bar, so try that out.

Last bit of follow-up. We had Haley Z. Boston on the show. She was talking about Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen, which was terrific. On that, I had her read through the first page of her script, which Craig, you would have loved because there’s no dialogue, and yet every word on there is just delicious and delightful.

Drew and our team put together a YouTube video for Haley. She’s reading it, but we’re also scrolling the page as you’re doing it. You can see-

Craig: I like those.

John: -all the choices she’s making.

Craig: Was there a lot of white space?

John: No paragraphs more than two lines long. She’s using italics and bold in really interesting ways. It just is drawing you down in a smart way. Because this is mostly an audio medium, it’s fun to do a visual at times. Seeing that is there.

Craig: Love that.

John: We’ll put a link in the show notes to that.

Craig: Love it.

John: Housekeeping done. Katie Dippold, your show is so delightful. I didn’t know what it was going to be when I pressed play, which is so much fun. It comes up and the opening title feels like a Stephen King book cover. What was the pitch? Drew has a really good pitch for it, but I’m curious what your pitch was for it on the initial thing. What is the idea? What’s the logline?

Katie: The logline is a mayor of a New England island town desperate to bring in tourism is warned by locals that it’s cursed-

John: Great.

Katie: -and they are right.

Craig: They are clearly right.

John: Now, Drew, can you give us your pitch?

Drew: It’s Fawlty Towers, but where John Cleese’s character is the mayor from Jaws.

Katie: [chuckles] That’s great.

Drew: Yes.

Craig: Yes.

John: Yes.

Katie: That’s right.

Craig: Yes, it definitely has mayor from Jaws feeling to it. Shut it down, shut it all down, and New England, of course. Fawlty Towers because the people there are hysterical.

John: Yes, they’re so funny.

Craig: They’re so funny.

John: I can’t even imagine how you found the pitch-perfect tone so that it didn’t just all blow up at every moment. It’s just so cleverly done. They’re so eccentric and so extreme, and yet everyone’s playing the same song. It’s so hard to do.

Katie: That’s really nice. I’ve been working on this. This was like my Parks and Rec sample, 18 years ago.

John: Incredible.

Katie: I’ve been working on it ever since.

John: Give us a little backstory. Tell us how this all started.

Katie: I had just finished at MADtv. I wanted to do something like this. I’m a comedy writer, but I love horror so much. I just wanted something like this to exist. I want to go to this place. Then I heard Parks and Rec was hiring, so I quickly wrote a pilot, and I think that got me the job. Worked there for several seasons.

John: You wrote this as a pilot?

Katie: Yes.

John: How close is the pilot you wrote to what we actually see in the pilot episode?

Katie: It’s much more comedic. It’s like, joke, joke, joke. That’s why I think that gave Mike Schur an idea of my sense of humor. I think the heart of that is still there, but I kept thinking, when I would revisit, I’m like, “I don’t know that I would watch this show. I want it to be taken seriously. I want to feel tension. I want to be scared.” I had to keep taking it apart and putting it back together. There’s years where it’s been not funny or scary.

[laughter]

Katie: It’s terrifying progress.

Craig: What a great mix.

Katie: Yes, I think that’s what you want.

Craig: Yes, boring in every possible way.

Katie: Yes, really had a lot of that for a while. Then I got, I don’t know, something after doing the last couple movies, they were hard to do. I just wanted to do something just completely original. I’m like– because it was a tough time for a while. I’m like, “You know what? I might as well just take one real crazy creative swing.”

Craig: There you go. You and I have lived some parallel lives here. Caught in the same thing. At some point, you do need to just step back and go– are we allowed to curse on this show?

John: Yes, sure.

Craig: Fuck it. I love that I talk about this like I’ve never been on the show. Episode 700 and whatever. I love that you did that. Also, I do think that you can tell this is the product of somebody who is not 25. You are covering all these ages of people. Teenager, dad, older people, you got this whole thing on lockdown. It feels, the mayor, Loftis. Loftis? Loftis. Feels like such an adult, but he’s also a kid, which I love.

One of my favorite moments is when Stephen Root’s character calls him out and says like, “Oh, you used to ding dong ditch me, except you never actually rang the bell. You’re a coward.” That was when he was 11. You’re like, you can see that little boy in this guy all the time. What I really appreciate, this is where the show won my heart. You haven’t seen the second episode.

John: I haven’t seen it yet.

Craig: I’m going to give something away.

John: That’s fine. Okay.

Craig: It’s not a plot twist. In the second episode, he has to go stay in the inn, which of course the locals insist is haunted. They’re correct.

At one point, he’s alone and he wanders into the parlor where they have drinks and things. He opens a cabinet, and in that kind of B&B way, there are all these board games. The board games are wrong. One’s called Daddy’s Home, but the daddy is clearly drunk and angry. Then there’s a box that looks like it would have puzzle pieces in it.

It’s a picture of a tooth and it just says teeth, which is amazing. Then there’s a deck of cards. The card game is called Run. I love that so much, the specificity of that. I could smell that room. Do you know what I mean? I could smell it.

Katie: Oh, that’s great.

Craig: I just loved it. I can’t wait to see where this show goes, but I have to assume that part of the process of getting something like that to be that perfect is you working in tandem with a lot of people, and casting and all of that, because you haven’t run a television show before.

Katie: No.

Craig: Talk about that, because that’s a fun time.

Katie: Yes, it’s a real different experience than being the movie writer just standing by craft services, pitching jokes every now and then. It’s a different thing.

Craig: Yes.

Katie: It’s very hard.

[laughter]

Craig: Turns out it’s hard.

John: [crosstalk] whispering this. Yes.

Craig: Yes, it’s really exhausting.

Katie: It’s rewarding. You don’t really get a say in much when you’re in features.

John: My question is, did you realize that things were hysterically funny while you were filming them? Because one of the things that’s so different in this versus Parks and Rec is Parks and Rec is brightly lit and I think you can tell like, “Oh, that’s funny. That works.” Here, things are shot mostly realistically, and it’s not this high-key everything. Do you know that it’s just hysterically funny? When the assistant comes in and she’s like, “Oh, is there anything more?” She’s like staring for like 30 seconds, it’s like-

Craig: So great.

John: “No, that’s it.” [chuckles] Did you know that it was funny at the moment?

Katie: It’s different. The board games, for example, you’re not watching. This show, it’s a lot about little details and specifics. I think the way approaching it is a lot of blink and you’ll miss it, and that’s okay. It’s less presenting a big joke. It is different than being on set with– and Melissa McCarthy saying something hilarious and you’re laughing out loud. Also, these actors are so good in the show. Just their performances would get me, but it is different. It’s interesting.

There’s a lot of times, too, like the director, Hiro Murai, we would just be also looking at each other like, “Does this feel right? This feels bad.” It’s a lot of following your stomach if something felt good or bad. When something feels bad in this show, it really will take you out of it, so it’s harder.

John: Yes, because you’re weirdly, you’re very joke dense for something that it doesn’t look like it’s supposed to be funny from the outside.

Craig: They’re not in the form of jokes, which I love.

John: Yes, it’s great.

Craig: That, in fact, it’s just people being people. Tell me, okay, because I’m new to the show, and because there’s only two episodes currently out, the character, the woman who’s like works in his office, who’s not his assistant, but like his–

Katie: Are you talking about Patricia, the Kate O’Flynn brunette, or Rosemary the smoker?

Craig: No, no.

Katie: Patricia.

Craig: Patricia.

Katie: Okay, yes.

Craig: So funny. That character is just playing a woman who has been left and ignored and is bitter, but also hopeful. There is something so brilliant about her sitting and talking to Shep, the fisherman who’s found, who they say, “He hit his head, we’ve just put him under to help while the head swelling goes down.” She’s talking to him like he’s in a coma. Loftis says, “It’s only when people are in a coma.” She’s like, “Well, I’m sorry for wasting his time.” Which is amazing. It’s just like the most put upon, like, “You know what, man? I guess, fine.” No, that’s not a joke. It’s real, but it’s also funny. I love that.

Katie: Oh, I’m glad.

Craig: I just love that.

Katie: The actress, Kate O’Flynn, lovely, lovely woman, and also just incredible. It’s Allison Jones, great Allison Jones. She sent us her tape, and it was not what I pictured at all, but I was like, “Oh, but this is the person. This is– she’s still good.”

Craig: Yes, so good.

Katie: She brought so many layers to it. It was loosely based off of my mom. She has a similar, kind of just wants to be seen. She also, she can’t say the right thing, she just says– you know?

John: Yes.

Craig: Right.

Katie: Can I give you an example? I remember Drew was at my mom’s house with me, and there was an Eagles game. He’s a diehard Eagles fan. The Eagles started losing, and he got really stressed out. My mom was uncharacteristically soothing. She was like, “You know what, Drew, don’t worry. It’s okay. It’s all going to work out.” I’m like, “That does not sound like Ellie Dippold.” Then the other team scored again, and she goes, “Well, that’s not good.”

[laughter]

Katie: That was sort of the heart of it, and then Kate came in and just brought all these other layers and stuff that I wouldn’t have imagined. She’s incredible.

Craig: Just wonderful.

John: Can we talk about the actual production? Because you were clearly in a seaside town for– is this upstate New York you were shooting? Where were you actually shooting this?

Katie: We were in Massachusetts.

John: That’s in Massachusetts. Okay. Were you block shooting? Were you shooting episode by episode? How did it all work?

Katie: It was block shooting. We had to shoot out of order, too. It was an intense shoot because the scripts– I think it’s funny. I think in the beginning, we were really shooting for the stars and just trying to do as much as possible. Then no one really told us not to, in the room. Also, I remember Drew Goddard talking about Cabin in the Woods. He said that if he had known how hard it– he was glad he didn’t know how hard it was going to be, because he would have done it differently. It’s a similar thing here. I’m glad I didn’t realize how–

Craig: I believe you can tell. There is an amount of care and attention. It’s funny, when I watch shows now, I will, in the back of my head, also still be, because we’re making the third season right now, and I’m so in it, I start thinking about things like coverage. Like, “Oh, that’s outside at night. That’s fun. I wonder how many takes and how many angles and how much time and how many meetings were based just to figure out that room. The art department has to come up with what the teeth game looks like.” There’s so much. It’s hard, and it pays off.

Katie: Yes. Oh, that’s nice. I have to say, this production team, they were insane in the best way. The props department, when you see the rest of the show, this props department, I don’t know how they did it. I mumble that every day. I’m like, “I don’t know how props did it.” The production designer, that whole episode, too, that inn, the whole inside is a build.

Craig: Oh, yes, you can tell. You can tell in a good way-

Katie: In a good way.

Craig: -because you can’t get the cameras around. A hotel wouldn’t have that parlor like that, but I loved it so much. I thought that was such a brilliant thing to like– what ends up happening is you find a location and then they’re like, “I can only be here for eight days because of the season, blah, and also it’s not perfect and the electricity and you can’t get equipment in.” It was so perfect.

Katie: I don’t know what it was. Everyone working on the show was just really game for it.

John: That’s great.

Katie: Do you know what I mean? Everyone was just [crosstalk]-

Craig: Because they liked it. Katie, because it’s good. That’s, honestly, here’s the thing. I talk to crew people every day. They work on things every day. We don’t. Our show ends, they move on to another production. They mostly work on stuff they don’t like. They work on things that they read and they’re just like– that’s just how it goes. I think people get excited when they work on something they like.

John: Before you got into production, you had to write a bunch of scripts. You wrote a pilot, which obviously you wrote a ton, but I’m looking at the credits and there’s a murderers’ row of really funny people. Talk to us about the process of getting everything written. Was everything written before you showed up there? What happened?

Katie: Yes, it was a great room. I had the pilot written, and I did something that was a little tricky, but I’m so glad I did, which it was not like a room full of all comedy writers. It was a couple of writers that came from shows like WandaVision. Actually, one of them also had a super funny spec. A couple of my old-time comedy friends, one that was a writer on SNL, actually Neil Casey, that plays the innkeeper, too.

Craig: Sure. Yes, so funny.

Katie: Colton Dunn from Key and Peele, and Kelly Galuska has done a ton of comedy. Then I also had a playwright, this guy Dave, who’s lovely, and another writer, Alberto Roldán, who’d worked on Mrs. Davis. It was a real stew, because I felt like this show was going to need a lot of different kinds of thought process and just different ideas. In the beginning, it was tricky navigating this, but then it got to a point where the drama mythology people are pitching jokes that are hilarious, and the comedy writers are really passionately arguing story points. It was very rewarding to see that all come together.

John: You had been on MADtv, you’re used to that kind of comedy writing. You’d been on Mike Schur’s show. You had a sense of being in a room. This was your first time running a room with this group. How did you approach that? How many weeks did you have? What were your hours like? What did it feel like? What were the nuts and bolts of it?

Katie: We had 20 weeks, and I kept the hours. The hours were about 10:00 to 5:00. I would leave and then keep thinking about it until I go to bed. There’s no reason to keep everyone there. You know what I mean? You’re the one that needs to do that, I think.

John: Over the course of those 20 weeks, there probably was a little bit of a blue-sky phase. Then you were cranking down, “Okay, what happens in this episode? How do we get through this thing?” Are you signing people off during that time? How did it work?

Katie: God, it was so crazy just feeling my way through this process. I called so many different people like, “What are we doing?” I called you. Do you know what I mean? We blue-skied for about six weeks, four weeks.

John: Oh, wow. Okay.

Katie: I actually knew some of the dilemmas I wanted to happen. I knew certain things I wanted to do, but then working through it. It was a very creative, organic process of, we just would talk about, “Well, this just feels fun right now.” You know what I mean? “Let’s just do this now.” It was just constantly making those moves. Then people would get sent out to script one time.

Craig: When you assembled the room, did you have, “Okay, I know how this begins, and I know how it ends”?

Katie: Yes.

Craig: You had that.

Katie: Yes.

Craig: At least there was a structure that everybody was trying to fill in, too.

Katie: Yes. Even how it ended, there’s some choices in it that came up through the room, which was a very fun debate. Yes, I knew the basic. I knew where it was going, but we found so much along the way. Everyone was great.

John: You’re doing this work in a room. How much are you having to communicate out with producers, with Apple, with other folks about what was happening, or was it only when you were done with the 20 weeks that you could come back and say, “Here’s the show”?

Katie: I was kind of a lunatic about– I would send like a 30-page outline to the producers and Apple. It was very, very detailed and very specific. I would start off with this summary at the top, like, “This is what we’re trying to do here.” Then just really break down each scene. Also, because the show is so totally tricky, I just wanted to be as detailed as possible.

John: Even during the 20 weeks while you were going through stuff, they could see like, “This is where we are headed,” if they had big red flag concerns.

Katie: Yes.

Craig: I think that’s wonderful. I think that there is a value in looking at the people that give us all the money to make these things as people that deserve a little caretaking. I think they work with writers who are so internal sometimes that they get nothing back. They’re in the dark. They don’t know what’s going on. Yes, some caretaking documents goes a long way. They don’t abuse it. I find that it’s the opposite. That they give less input, the more detail you give.

Katie: I could not agree more. Our execs, Dana and Spencer were, I swear to you, I’m not just saying this because of career purposes.

Craig: Because you need them.

[laughter]

Katie: They were awesome. I never dreaded their feedback-

Craig: That’s great.

Katie: -which is unusual to say. If they called on the phone, I’m like, “Pick up the phone.” I don’t like picking up a phone. That’s the biggest compliment I can give. Apple, I have to give them credit. They really just let us do it.

John: Now, when you were actually making the show, were there any writers besides you around to pitch new stuff, or was it just you? Were you the writer on set?

Katie: Oh, well, I’m very thankful for the strike because having writers on set was such a blessing.

John: Okay, because there was a gap between the things, you were shooting in the US, you were able to pull– you had two writers with you?

Katie: Two writers on set. One of them was there the whole time, it’s Neil, and then two other writers, Kelly and Mackenzie, took turns. It was so nice. Also, just having people that they were in the room and they understand what we were going for, I really wanted to be on set a lot and make sure we’re capturing the moments, but then you have something else prepping, so having a writer being able to go with that director, because we had three other guest directors come in, and then for scouting, and just have an eye on things and be able to talk to [crosstalk]-

John: Maybe have a splinter unit, like you could– yes.

Katie: Yes, that was really, really, really-

Craig: I could probably maybe use somebody other than myself.

Katie: No, it’s great.

Craig: I’m starting to feel even more terrified by my own life.

John: Sorry.

Katie: Yes. Also, having people– just also having funny writers make sure. You know what I mean?

Craig: Yes.

John: Yes.

Katie: Just to talk to about what’s going on and stuff like that, it’s just lovely.

Craig: People to talk to?

Katie: Yes, people to talk to.

Craig: Yes, that would be nice.

John: Make sure shows, the things we were growing up on, the writers were around, and that’s part of the reason why things can work. Yes.

Katie: Yes, being around funny people, it’s a nice thing.

John: The second topic I want to get to is what you wish you knew. For this exercise, let’s imagine we get the chance to either talk to our younger selves or send an email to our younger selves. Let’s start with our 15-year-old self. If you could send an email to young Katie about some advice for her, anything– like headlines you would want her to know?

Katie: I wouldn’t have listened to it.

John: Yes, that’s honestly true.

Katie: I would have said-

Craig: Shut up, old woman. [laughs]

John: Shut up, old woman. You also know that-

Katie: Why you never wear your hair down anymore?

John: Yet you also know that you wouldn’t listen, so you could probably outsmart this 15-year-old Katie because she’s an idiot.

Katie: I would hate this advice so much. I would say, “You’re two-boy crazy, none of these boyfriends you’re going to marry. Just read some books. Just read books and don’t-”

Craig: Oh my God, you’re like, “Get out of here.”

Katie: I would have been like, “Fuck off.”

Craig: Yes, seriously, beat it.

Katie: Yes.

John: Craig, advice for your 15-year-old self.

Craig: I certainly wouldn’t have said, “Be less girl crazy.” I would have been like, “Yes, no, have fun. You’re going to get married soon.”

[laughter]

Craig: I think for my 15-year-old self, I would have said, “Hey, hold tight. You’re going to be out of here soon.” The world was pretty small for me. I felt like I was supposed to be somewhere, and I wasn’t sure where. I didn’t know. I hadn’t yet connected the idea that I would be doing this for a living. I would say, “Don’t worry. You’ll be out of here soon.”

John: Yes. I wasn’t out when I was 15, and you can’t retroactively say like, “Oh, it would have been fine to be like–” you don’t know. I think just the sense that, “You will fall in love, you’ll be happy, you’ll be married, you’ll have a family.”

Craig: Did you know that you were gay when you were 15?

John: I knew I was gay. I knew [crosstalk]-

Craig: Oh, so your older self wouldn’t be like, “By the way,” and you’d be like, “No, I’m not.”

John: Yes, I wasn’t like a [crosstalk]-

Craig: You weren’t going to argue.

John: Oh, yes, you know. There wasn’t anything to act upon at the moment. I probably could have, it was cowardice.

Craig: I don’t know if it’s cowardice. I don’t think that’s cowardice.

Katie: Yes.

Craig: I think that’s-

John: Yes, it’s not recognizing opportunities that you have.

Craig: Sure.

John: I think in terms of– I was ambitious. I didn’t know there was such a thing as screenwriting yet. I didn’t know if the movies were written.

Craig: I had no idea.

John: General advice is, “Pursue what you’re interested in, and don’t be worried if your tastes and opinions change. That’s also part of growing up.”

Katie: Yes.

John: Now let’s fast forward to you’ve arrived in Los Angeles. Maybe you’re a year in. Okay, what else?

Katie: Can we visit college?

John: College, please. Let’s go to college.

Katie: I think one thing I would have told myself freshman year of college, and I eventually did this, I just wish I got to it sooner. Just find your people.

John: Oh, yes.

Katie: For me, that was some real weirdos, and the best possible– I started pledging this sorority, and they were all really nice and lovely, but my stomach was a little, “This doesn’t feel right. This doesn’t feel right.” Then I started the theater group and improv group. I had this improv group there that it was just the best group of weirdos. I remember just being in a New Jersey diner with them late at night. We weren’t going to any party or frat house. There was a guy that could have been-

Craig: I can see the diner, by the way. It’s got the two entrances-

Katie: Exactly.

Craig: -the little lobby, the thing, go inside. There’s a case with the– yes.

Katie: Yes. They were all so bizarre in the best way. There was someone that could have been 18 or he could have been 55 years old. I have no idea, but he was the funniest person ever. Finding those people just changed my life.

Craig: Yes, God, talking to myself in college, I think probably I would have said, “You do know you’re not going to be a doctor, right? Why don’t you do what you want instead of what you’re supposed to do?” Which I started to do, it just took me a bit because also, afraid. That’s a tough thing, because if your older self comes to you and says, “Hey, do what you want,” there’s an implication, and it’ll work out. Not like, “Do what you want. Also, you’re going to end up alone and addicted.”

[laughter]

Craig: I would have maybe gotten myself off the pre-med track a little sooner.

John: I was just back in my undergrad last weekend, and I got an alumni award, which was lovely. I got to see my campus. Every time you go back to your college campus, it’s like, “Oh my God, this school is so much smaller than I remember. Everything is just closer together and other things–” it was lovely. I don’t have great advice for that kid, because I kind of did it right. I picked a school that was just the right size and that I was– I knew so many people, I was in lots of different groups. I was kind of happy.

Craig: Maybe you would have just come back and said, “Yes-

John: Thumbs up. Yes.

Craig: -thumbs up.”

John: Thumbs up. Yes, keep doing that.

Craig: Nailed it.

John: Nailed it. It was a good experience. I was happy with that. When I got into USC for film school, I’m like, “Yes, I’m going to do it. I’m going to drive my rusted out car to Los Angeles.” The luxury– Craig and I, you and I have talked about this. The luxury I had moving out here was that my family was generally supportive, and I had sort of a, if everything went haywire, I could have just moved home. I had that support underneath me. It wasn’t like they were like-

Craig: Yes. Me, too. Oh, no.

John: Yes, it’s not that different. Yes. I felt really lucky that I had a family that didn’t-

Craig: That’s nice.

John: -understand what I wanted to do, but was generally supportive.

Craig: That’s why you’re healthier than I am.

John: Yes, maybe.

Katie: That’s nice. Were your parents not excited about you?

Craig: No. No, they were angry and insistent that it wouldn’t work. Also, they had no money. That did give me a lot of fear.

John: Yes.

Katie: Yes.

Craig: When I got here, I was definitely motivated by fear. Fear, I think, is like, I’ve never done cocaine. We’ve talked about cocaine before on this show. I’ve never done cocaine. Katie is like, “That’s interesting.”

Katie: My silence. [laughs]

Craig: The two of us are like, “We’ve never done it.” You’re like, “Mm-hmm.”

John: Okay.

Craig: I feel like fear is the cocaine of emotion.

John: Just chopping up on tape.

Katie: Okay. It’s not– you want this? You go– okay, it’s not for here. It’s not for here. It’s fine.

Craig: Not for here. Yes. No, cool, cool, cool. It powers you, but I think then there’s this terrible downside. There’s the comedown.

Katie: Oh, it’s a very empty drug. I just feel like anytime I’ve done it in my 20s, I ended up making lunch plans with someone I didn’t want to eat lunch with.

Craig: Oh, the worst.

Katie: It’s a real waste of time.

Craig: Fear does not do that for me, but it definitely– fear will get me up in the morning and will power me through a day. When I get home, I’m like, “Oh, no.” It’s just, it’s an effective motivator, but it comes with a cost.

Katie: Oh, that does.

John: Craig, I think you know that you have one tattoo, I have one tattoo.

Craig: Yes.

John: My tattoo is, tibbium nihil, imagus quiddum, which is, let me fear nothing, not even fear, which I got the first year while I was here in Los Angeles. Friends, we were out just walking and they all had tattoos. I was like, “I want a tattoo.” [unintelligible 00:38:01] tattoo.

Craig: Nice, and hepatitis C.

John: Absolutely. It was a helpful thing for me to remember because unlike you where fear was motivating to go do a thing, fear was always a sort of thing like, “Stay back. Don’t reach for it.”

Craig: Healthier.

John: So often, the things I regret most were the things I didn’t do because I was afraid. It was like, the stakes were always much lower than I allowed myself to believe.

Katie: I think my biggest motivator was never wanting to feel stuck. I feel like I love my parents very much, but they were always– they divorced when I was in college. When they did, it was like, “Okay, that seems good.”

John: Yes, as opposed to [crosstalk]-

Katie: There was always like a little tension. You know like the beginning of The Shining? That sort of like– it always had that energy to them. [laughs]

John: Oh, that is also good.

Craig: Oh, that energy?

Katie: Yes, just like–

Craig: Okay. It must have been comfortable in your house.

Katie: Love them both. Love them both. Hopefully, they don’t listen to Scriptnotes. It’s just really just always wanting to not feel stuck and having opportunity, that was the biggest drive for me.

Craig: Right. I mean, that’s empowering, I think. That’s a positive thing to reach for.

Katie: Yes.

John: We’ve all arrived in Los Angeles, and things we learned early on in Los Angeles, or maybe could have learned earlier if we could tell ourselves. My nominee for this is the soft pass and understanding where like someone is passing, they just don’t want to say that they’re passing. It’s a no, but they’re not actually saying no, they’re saying maybe, or like, “That sounds great. Let me get back to you about that.” Recognizing when like, oh, they’re actually are saying no, it’s just that you’re not hearing it as the no.

There were so many times where I thought like, “Oh, this is still a possibility, this project, they’re still considering it.” It’s like, no, they did pass, they just didn’t actually close the loop. I just wasted so much time thinking that a thing was alive when it wasn’t alive.

Craig: When it wasn’t alive.

John: Yes. The lesson I took from that is, it’s okay, first off. It’s okay for things just to not happen. It’s often worth it to make the phone call or make the email to say, like, “Hey, sorry, this didn’t click, but I really enjoyed meeting you.” Basically, to close the loop for them so that–

Craig: Let them off the hook.

John: Let them off the hook, yes. Rather than being resentful, just recognize, like, “Oh, that’s just how it goes. Things will just sometimes not happen, and that’s okay.”

Craig: That’s good advice.

John: Things you’d advise your earlier self, those first years in this business.

Katie: I came to LA for MADtv. I don’t know what I would have– I probably should have recognized earlier I’m not a performer. That would have helped something. I put up a one-woman murder mystery that probably didn’t need to.

[laughter]

John: I want to see this so badly. I’m going to search the internet to find it.

Katie: Well, no, thank God you won’t find it. I think what was also funny about it to the audience is it’s a show written for someone that could do all these different characters and voices. I cannot alter my voice from this right now.

[laughter]

John: That would be amazing.

Craig: That’s awesome. It’s like the one-woman show where everyone sounds the same.

Katie: I’m trying my best.

Craig: You’re trying.

Katie: I am just sweating and trying and throwing on different wigs and hats.

John: “Hello, Dr. Trumbly,” and it’s just the same voice.

Katie: Yes, exactly.

Craig: “Yes. Well, I don’t know.” No one knows who’s talking at any given point.

John: So good.

Katie: That’s the first thing I thought of.

John: Give yourself permission to not be a performer and that there’s other things there.

Katie: Yes, exactly.

John: I like that.

Katie: Then, because even MADtv, for two years in a row, they brought me out to test to be a performer. I think they liked the things I was writing for the characters and the auditions. Then I go, “But it’s just not working somehow.” Finally, I submitted a writing packet to them.

Craig: You’re like, “Stay behind the camera. How about that?”

Katie: I was like, “Great.”

John: Craig, things you would talk to that early Craig about.

Craig: I think I would assure myself that my suspicion that everyone was stupid was correct. That everybody in Hollywood is convincing you that they are brilliant, they know more than you do, and that their power is derived from their wisdom and their connections. That you are the outsider. You are the thing that is barely hanging on. That they could flick you away, ha-ha-ha, at a moment’s notice, to make you feel powerless. My suspicion was always that a lot of them just seem stupid and fake. They were.

John: Everyone’s faking it.

Craig: There’s so many frauds. Our business is full of frauds. You can see over time, the frauds disappear.

Katie: Some don’t.

Craig: The real ones stay. Well, some don’t, but they eventually kind of do.

Katie: Yes, that’s true.

Craig: There are some people that are problematic and stay there, but what they do is something that I don’t really interface with necessarily. There’s just so many blowhards and just–

Katie: Dude, that is the hardest thing for me because I know how I should sound in this job, and it’s not how I talk normally. I’ve never been a lean-in type of person, like a fake it till you make it. If I don’t know what I’m saying, you can see it on my face. That’s why I feel like I’m jumping ahead a decade. The advice I give myself later is just making sure you really know the story you want to tell.

Craig: Before you start talking.

Katie: Yes. See, I have to know that, or otherwise I can’t fake it.

John: We’ve talked on the show before, but one thing started clicking, and it clicked really fast for me. Go happened, and I was doing a TV show, and I was doing Charlie’s Angels and doing Big Fish all at the same time. The TV show was just a spectacular disaster, a slow-motion car crash, and had a nervous breakdown during it. It ended up being very helpful that I had it because that I could just have a crashing failure, and it was actually okay. That failure is–

Craig: So healthy.

John: It is.

Craig: Why is he so healthy?

John: Well, I wasn’t healthy at the moment, but I really was just disassociating all this.

Craig: You did have a nervous breakdown.

John: I did have a nervous breakdown, but I got through it, and obviously, writing got me through it. I was fired off that show and then still had to write Big Fish, and it was like, “I will enter this Southern family and figure out the trauma from inside,” that it was just so nice, like, “Oh, I can go back and do the thing I’m actually good at doing.”

Because so often, you guys are so busy doing your TV shows and managing these giant productions, but you’re also really good writers. You can always just go write a script, which is a nice thing, too. A good reminder to me is that, oh, that core skill set you have in terms of actually being able to write things, that can lead you through.

Katie: The biggest lesson I feel like I’ve been learning for the past 15 years is not thinking about it, like, “What should I be doing?” When it’s writing or through production, when you’re making choices, if I think like, “Oh, what is it supposed to be?” Instead of just, “What do you want?” It’s weirdly been the hardest one for me to just shake off over the years.

Craig: I’m with you on that. It’s the other side of the, “Okay, there’s the Katie Dippold who writes that document and caretakes the people. Sometimes caretaking becomes, and also your priorities are more important than my priorities, or making you happy is more important than making me happy. It’s a tricky thing. I’ve talked about this with Alec Berg, who’s been on our show a few times. There’s that dial where you think like, “Okay, in one direction is hack, and the other direction is pompous asshole.”

You don’t want to go all the way to, “I just do whatever people tell me to do, but you also don’t want to go up your own butt.” I think people are sometimes innately more afraid of one side than the other. I’m more afraid of going up my own butt, so I got to be careful to not go too far towards making other people happy.

Katie: That’s a dial that everyone struggles with, for sure.

Craig: It’s a dial. Yes. Whichever one you’re more afraid of, be more afraid of the other one, actually.

John: A thing I recognize in myself that I would love to tell in an earlier version, but even now I still feel it, is you don’t have to chase things as much as you’re chasing them. Early in your career, you’re always going after any opportunity, and you see a thing, and it’s like, “Obviously, that’s a movie, so I should try to land that movie.” I think too often I would go after that thing, and sometimes land that thing, and spend a year of my life, two years of my life working on that thing, and it’s like, “This isn’t really what I wanted to do.”

Craig: Dog that caught the car.

John: Absolutely. It’s like you’re in a relationship you didn’t even really want to be in. Things to remember. Let’s answer a listener question. Drew.

Drew: Davo writes,-

Craig: Davo.

Drew: -“I’m a writer in London. In 2011, I developed a TV show tailored to a specific actress and pitched it to her through mutual friends. I have the emails, the treatments, all of it. It went nowhere, and I forgot about it entirely. Then someone pointed out that a show which debuted on a streamer years later, starring that same actress who also co-created it, shares its core premise, its inciting incident, and several specific plot elements with my pitch. I’m not here for the legal question. My question is tactical.”

Craig: Great.

John: “I still haven’t had anything produced. I’m actively writing and will be pitching soon. If I pursue this, does it blacklist me? In a town as small as London TV, is the game worth the candle, or do I just eat it and move on?”

Craig: Did you say, “Is the game worth the candle?”

John: Yes. I just love that phrase.

Craig: Is that a British expression?

John: It must be.

Craig: Why would a game be worth a candle?

John: Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Craig: That I understand.

Katie: Is the game worth the candle?

Craig: The candle. Would the candle be used? This is not at all what Davo wants.

Drew: It means the expected rewards of an endeavor do not justify the cost of further time effort.

Craig: We got that part. We just are trying to figure out why.

John: How did we get there?

Craig: Yes, games and candles.

John: I love the turn of phrase.

Craig: We got to get to the bottom of this.

Drew: I got it. The phrase stems from 17th-century French, “le jeu ne vaut pas la chandelle,” referring to gambling by candlelight. If the potential winnings were smaller than the expense of the candles used, then the game was not worth playing.

John: The thing I want to highlight in Davo’s question here is, “It went nowhere and I forgot about it entirely.” That’s what you should do. It’s forget that that moment happened.

Craig: When he says pursue, does he mean pursue?

John: He’s not clear whether he wants to– should he mention it, should he ever bring it up?

Craig: No. Because premise, we’ve discussed this many times, and he’s saying he’s not here for the legal advice, but it is connected. Yes, premises can be similar, and it’s not theft and all the rest. It’s a little bit like that soft pass. Maybe that was a fun idea that somebody once had, but they just didn’t like whatever the execution of it was. You must move on and do something that is worthy of capturing somebody and making them want to do it with you. That’s just part of this.

John: Katie, would you feel bad for stealing his idea?

Craig: Yes.

Katie: Look, I really felt like I had a take on it.

Craig: You thought you were a performer until MADtv told you were not. It was worth it.

Katie: No, I agree with Craig, but I also am furious for this person. I understand how frustrating that is.

John: I understand what they’re feeling. At the same time, I worry that if they think about this anymore, it’s going to define–

Katie: Yes, 100% agree.

John: Exactly. It’s like, “I’m the person who got screwed out over this thing.” We all know people who are like that. It ruins you.

Katie: Use this fire to write something new.

Craig: There you go. Do not let this define you. It is a poison in your veins to dwell on injustice, whether perceived or in fact. If you dwell on it, then you’re stuck. You can acknowledge it. You can be aware of it. You can look out for it. You can rue it, but you can’t obsess over it.

John: Something I read in a book, a blog post recently. It was talking about you’re stuck in a line, and it’s really annoying, and the person just says, “Thank you.” You say thank you to acknowledge that you’re in this thing, and somehow just saying thank you to it is just like, “Okay, I’ve acknowledged it, whatever, and I’m moving on. There’s nothing I can do about it. This is what’s happening.” Just acknowledging the problem is helpful, and sometimes it can get you out of dwelling on it.

Craig: We’ve released you, Davo.

John: You’ve released. Davo has been released. Let’s try another question here.

Drew: Anonymous writes, “I was hired to write five seasons of a Christian docuseries for a large Christian network. These shows had a primetime slot, were fairly successful for the network, and I got paid, but these shows don’t represent my voice at all. My spec feature is an erotic thriller, and my three pilots all have distinctly adult themes, not to mention that the Christian TV shows were fairly crappy and hyper-specific to a religious audience. I’m about to pursue representation, and I’m wondering how to position myself.

While I’m technically the credited writer for network TV, I’m hesitant to mention this past work. I’m concerned it might alienate reps or producers or even talent when they see my name attached to an obscure evangelical docuseries. Will my past credits hurt my future prospects, or does any experience beat no experience?”

Craig: I think this is a great story.

John: I think this is a great story.

Craig: I think this is something that would absolutely delight people if you’re like, “Here’s a crazy thing. Look at what I wrote. Now look at what I’m writing now.” How could this be the same person? Find out when you meet me. That’s hooky. I like that.

Katie: It’s interesting. I agree.

John: I think it’s great. I think that is an angle on you that’s going to be helpful and useful. It doesn’t have to be the very first thing you introduce yourself with, but I think it’s the second or third thing.

Craig: It’s a fun fact.

John: Yes, fun fact.

Craig: I would acknowledge it. People do look you up, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: If it’s on IMDB, I would get in front of it, but I also wouldn’t put it down. I wouldn’t say like, “Oh, it’s crappy.” Or, “Oh, it’s just for religious people,” because the thing is, look, you did a job. You took the money. They paid you. It sounds like they treated this person well. I would just say, like, “Look, would I prefer to be writing erotic thrillers? Yes. If you read one, you’ll see why. Hey, I’m pretty versatile.” We know that much.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: That’s cool.

John: 10 years from now, we’re going to see a bunch of really talented emerging filmmakers who are going to have a bunch of verticals on their series, really the dumbest things. It’s fine. People used to have music videos for random bands and karaoke videos. People do stuff to make a living. There’s no shame in that.

Craig: No, there really isn’t.

John: It’s time for one cool thing. My one cool thing is a video series that was somehow recommended to me by the algorithm, and God bless the algorithm, it did the right thing. It’s Captain Disillusion, who is a YouTuber. His real name is Alan Melikdjanian. He has 2.5 million followers. A bunch of people have watched this, but I’ve never seen this before.

What he talks about in his videos are film and TV, camera things. Things like aspect ratio, frame rate, interlacing. What’s remarkable is they’re 100 times better than they need to be. They’re full production value things with lots of jokes and details. We talk about a box full of teeth. It’s full of those kinds of–

Craig: Teeth.

John: Teeth. It’s full of those kinds of jokes. I’m just so impressed. You learn so much about, why do we have interlacing, how do we end up in these weird systems? He can just explain it all.

Craig: Electricity.

John: He’s not trying to solve the problems, but just explain why we have these systems we have. I think they’re so good. I can’t believe I didn’t know this existed until–

Craig: I love stuff like that. I’m going to watch that.

John: You’ll love it. You’ll plow through the whole post.

Craig: While I’m waiting for the next episode of Widows Bay.

John: Really good.

Craig: Which is on Wednesdays, I believe. I love that it’s weekly, by the way. Hooray.

Katie: It’s just nice.

Craig: Finally, the streamers figured it out.

John: Oh, Apple’s been pretty good on the weekly from the job.

Craig: Yes, they have.

John: That’s good.

Craig: Third Apple.

John: Katie Dippold, when you’re not basking in the success of Widows Bay, what would you like to share with our audience?

Katie: This is going to be the most boring, wonderful thing.

John: No, no. It’s not possible.

Craig: Is it teeth?
[laughter]

Craig: It’s just teeth.

Katie: I’m going to say, oh, no, that actually is the most boring one. It is the thing an eye doctor got me into. Taking rice, putting it into a cotton sock, not synthetic, putting it in the microwave, 20 seconds. Doing that warm compress over your eyes. She does it three or four times a day. I try to do it twice a day.

My eyes were about to fall out of my head, and we’re all staring at screens. Save your eyes. Do this. Here I’ll add this. Meditating is very boring, but if I’m doing two things at once, I know I’m getting heat. I’m saving my eyes, and then I’m forced to relax that way.

Craig: I’m going to do this because when I’m on a plane, I get the little hot towel. People rub their hands. I put it on my eyes immediately.

Katie: I wouldn’t trust that.

Craig: I know.

John: [unintelligible 00:55:00]

Craig: I don’t put it in my eyes, guys. I close my eyes.

Katie: You squeeze and put the fluid in the rag.

Craig: I drink the dirty rag fluid.

John: You’re sucking all that moisture out.

Craig: Guys, I put it on my eyes. That’s how I got cholera because I love the warm feeling in my eyes. It just occurred to me as you were saying this, I could do this all the time. I don’t need to wait until I’m flying.

Katie: Yes, and it also forces you that– You know that whole thing, it’s good to be bored as a creative person. It forces you to do it. You can’t with anything.

Craig: Rice, does it have to be Arborio? Is it long grain?

Katie: I’ve been trying different kinds of rice, honestly. I’m not sure which is the best one, but organic rice in a cotton sock, not synthetic.

Craig: You tie up the sock.

Katie: Tie up the sock.

Craig: You do 20 seconds in the microwave.

Katie: I do 20 seconds. Sometimes I’ll add two more seconds. Then you squeeze the rice and make sure the heat’s spread out.

John: It’s weirdly moist is the thing that’s surprising about it.

Katie: Yes, and it releases.

Craig: Because there’s water inside of the rice.

Katie: It shouldn’t burn. Oh, God, the first time I did it, I misunderstood. I thought I was supposed to heat it for two and a half minutes.

John: Oh, no.

Craig: Instead of 20 seconds.

Katie: Yes, and I was like, well, this is burning my eyes. Now I feel like I’m just trying to get back to where I was before I burned it in the first place. Anyways.

Craig: You’re building up.

John: We have something we bought on Amazon 15 years ago. It’s a tube of rice in a cotton thing that we use on our necks. We heat it up in the microwave. That is actually a two-minute situation, but it’s really good.

Craig: I’m going to do this.

John: Rice.

Katie: You have to.

Craig: It has to be a cotton sock. Otherwise, it’ll melt. It’ll get in your eyes.

Katie: Real bad, yes.

Craig: If I show up blind because of this, the lawsuit.

John: Incredible.

Craig: I’m going to take everything you have. Now, Widow’s Bay is mine. I took it.

John: Maybe she would like that. Craig, what do you have for one cool thing?

Craig: Well, even though I didn’t want to be a doctor, I do love medical science. Osteoarthritis is the worst. There is no cure for it. It’s basically the degradation of your cartilage. In joints, it becomes very painful. Almost everybody will end up with. Some people start getting it quite early. A lot of people, it’s very common, I have it in my left big toe. There’s just no cartilage whatsoever. Every now and then, I’ll go, [groans]. Oh, and the cure. There’s surgery, which is useless. This is magical. It’s early on, but there is a project that’s being funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Because government still is able to do a few things before they figure out that something good is happening and take it away. They’re funding a program called NITRO, which stands for, I hate these things when they do these. Retronyms? Is that what they are called?

John: Retronyms, yes.

Craig: Novel Innovations for Tissue Regeneration in Osteoarthritis. A team at the University of Colorado Boulder, which has gotten a bunch of money, has got this thing down where they do an injection. The injection is some sort of protein that triggers the body to start the regeneration process. Essentially, they think they may be able to inject osteoarthritis away.

Now, it is early on, there’s still an animal testing, but there is a chance that the three of us may be spared that gnarly, miserable, joint-pain existence that our grandparents suffered through.

John: That feels doable. It feels like, “Oh, that’s science, I believe, that could exist and happen.” It’s probably not peptides, but it’s something like that–

Craig: Do you know why I think it’s going to happen? Because you can see how much money you could make. Basically, when there’s money there, I feel like they’ll figure it out. They’ll figure it out. Hopeful.

Katie: That’s great.

John: All right. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: I don’t think so.

John: Our show this week is by Eric Pearson. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. Wherever you’re hearing this podcast, click through to the show notes because we have a link in there to the Scriptnotes survey. We would love for you to fill out the Scriptnotes survey to tell us what you love about the show, what you’d like more of, less of.

Craig: Less Craig. I hope that’s a click box.

John: It is. Absolutely. It’s the default. You have to literally have to pull it down to get back there. Obviously, one of the questions should be, how much more often should Katie Dippold be on the show? Should it be from every 10 years to maybe every–

Katie: I would come every week.

Craig: Honestly, I would be thrilled with that.

John: Come on. I would be delighted. The Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books. You could also pre-order Wolf’s Belly there, which is now up for pre-order.

Craig: Another surprise, John August joint. Just casually, just made a graphic novel while nobody was–

Katie: Do you know how much you would hear about this if it were me? I can’t imagine. It’s unbelievable.

John: Thanks. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find us on Instagram at Scriptnotes Podcast. The show notes with the links to all the things we talked about today are in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers. You are the very, very best. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. We send out little emails ahead of time for things like three-page challenges and stuff, so you get to be the first to know about that stuff.

You can sign up to become a premium subscriber at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on the future of television and movies on whether it’ll be around for 5 or 10 years. We’ll see what happens, but only for our premium subscribers.

Katie: Can I say something real quick?

John: Please.

Katie: It’s going to be a little mushy. I love this podcast so much. I listen to it all the time. I can’t tell you over the years how many times I’ve been writing something and been stuck, and then put on an old episode that just helps my brain think of something differently. Really, really love you guys and this podcast.

Craig: Aw, we love you, too. Thank you, Katie. That was mushy, and I’m having feelings. I don’t like that.

John: I don’t like all those feelings. All right. We’ll take our break now. Katie, thank you so much for being on the show.

Katie: Thank you for having me.

Craig: Thanks, Katie.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right. A general question, and this is something that’s come up in little panels I’ve done. It’s like, will there be movies and television in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years because of changes in the industry of AI and all these things? I think my default answer is like, “Well, yes, of course there will be because I think people fundamentally want entertainment that is in 30-minute, 60-minute, 2-hour chunks.” I don’t know that to be true. Something so revolutionary to come about that sure takes all of our attention away from that because ultimately people only have a certain number of hours per day to be doing other things.

Katie, what’s your feeling? We’ve been in this business for 20-plus years. Do you think there’s going to be TV series 5 years, 10 years from now?

Katie: I hope so because I think if not, I can’t imagine what that would mean. I feel optimistic. I really do.

John: Do you feel optimistic, too, Craig?

Craig: I do because I look at what, say, my kids do. They have so many options, including things like verticals, and they could watch AI slop, and they could do all sorts of things. The way my younger daughter, in particular, just mulches through old stuff. All of Friends, all of Two Guys and a Girl, all of whatever, there is joy in that for them. I think movies are currently doing– this is going to be a good month for movies.

John: This is going to be a good year for movies.

Craig: I think movies are back. It feels like, finally, the theater experience is back. I think people like it. We’ve talked about this before. I also think people are obsessed with authenticity. Diamonds are proof of it. Unless you get your little thing out, you can’t tell the difference between a fake diamond and a real diamond, but people want to know that it’s real. If it’s authentic, it’s worth more.

John: Made diamonds are diamonds.

Craig: Right, exactly. They’re literally diamonds. Diamonds also are worthless junk, which we’ve talked about many times.

John: People do want them dug out of the ground by some–

Craig: They want to know it’s real. Just like a painting, they want to know, “Oh, this print is real, as opposed to a–” I think people like knowing that the movie or the television show is real.

John: I want to continue on that thought to say, I think we will still be putting human beings in front of lenses to make those movies and television shows. I know there’s all this talk of virtual production and this, you can have synthetic actors and stuff. There’s two different things that could happen. You could have things which are entirely generated in the computer, and it’s more like animation. It looks live action, but it’s really the animation workflow. You’re still going to have people making those things, because just like the same way you have animators doing things, people have to be responsible for all of that workflow.

Instead, I think most of what we’re going to see is still human beings performing in front of lenses. You may swap out backgrounds and instead of green screens, it’s volumes, or it’s gray screens and stuff like that. Sure, if that happens, but you’re still going to have departments who are going to be responsible for what we are seeing on screen. There’s still going to be wardrobe departments. If the actors are not dressed in that wardrobe, then someone has to figure out, well, what is the avatar-like way we’re putting clothes on those bodies.
There’s still going to be departments. I do think there’s going to be potential for big disruptions, but I don’t think we’re getting rid of wholesale-

Craig: I don’t think so either.

John: -departments or how stuff works. Katie, in your show, someone still has to think like, “Well, what are the games in that cupboard? It’s somebody’s job to do that.” It’s not going to just be an AI inventing all that, because there has to be taste.

Katie: No, and it takes several people to make that moment work. There’s not just one thing that could replace it.

Craig: If AI did it, I would just think, “Oh, that’s an AI hallucination. If a human does it, it’s a choice.” I also think that the fact that 24 frames per second still works is proof that there is a natural human inclination to the analog that we don’t like 60 frames a second. It’s too weird and it’s too real. It’s too creepy. There’s something that feels more connected, and I think that’s true, too, with people in real environments. They just feel connected to it. We’re very thorough about putting people in real environments.

We will extend things above and beyond them, but where they are, we try as best we can to place them somewhere where they can feel like they’re somewhere and interact. I don’t know. It just grounds everything.

John: While I think it’s important to have discussions about policies and how we’re doing things and what we as an industry want to do, I also feel like market forces may push us towards keeping some things a little bit more like the way they are, because I think those are going to be successful.

Craig: Devil Wears Prada 2-

John: Yes, let’s talk about that.

Craig: -is about to make a gazillion dollars. It made $30 million, I think, just yesterday. We’re recording this on a Saturday. It was Friday. The weekend, it’ll be $80 million or something. Devil Wears Prada 1 was 20 years ago. Yes, I think people like the continuity of stuff that they’ve experienced over time. I think there will be movies and television in 10 years, and there’ll also be more crap, but there’s always been crap.

John: I think there will be cheaper versions of Avatar technology, because those are already coming to fore. There are certain things that you could do with that you couldn’t do at a price point other than that. Sure. I don’t think that’s going to be the main driving force behind how all this is working. I guess I’m just increasingly optimistic that we’re going to find ways to keep doing the things that we love. Us as writers, it still comes down to, we have to make the decision about what is literally happening, where’s the story going, who are the characters, what’s that.

I don’t think that’s going to get replaced. There’s certain kinds of entertainment. I think daytime is very vulnerable to that. Daytime soap operas are very vulnerable to that. Other stuff where you are creating worlds and characters and relationships that are unexpected and changing, that’s our bread and butter. I do think people will still want to see that.

Craig: Look at it this way. If you’re a company, and our thing is, “I’m going to use an AI to generate material.” What good are you, and what good is your company? Anyone can press that button. You’re not necessary anymore. I think the companies themselves will be incentivized to promote the idea of something unique.

Katie: Like The Sopranos, I rewatch that all the time. It’s just such a miracle. All the casting, everything about it.

John: You see the behind-the-scenes of it all. They shot it more like a conventional TV show. It wasn’t like the 30-day-per-episode things. It was like they’re cranking it on a schedule. I think people also want to see the work. I’m making my third stop-motion movie right now. There’s easier ways to make a movie by far. I think people respond to the fact like, “Oh my God, everything you saw-

Craig: Handmade.

John: -was handmade, put in front of a lens, and shot one frame at a time.”

Craig: It’s special.

John: It’s special that way.

Katie: I don’t know what this says about where we’re at. Something that popped to my brain. I’m like, “AI, I hear this.” I’m scared now.

John: They adjusted everything. This will be a show up on Spotify, and it’ll get downloaded.

Craig: There was a story the other day about a company that was using Claude, the coding AI. This company was using Claude, and they were using some sort of a server host that wasn’t like Amazon Web Services. It was like something that was slightly jankier.

John: Oh, it deleted all their stuff?

Craig: Yes. They were like, “Claude, go do this little thing.” It just decided to just delete everything, including all of the backups on the thing. They said, “Claude, why did you do that?” Claude was like, “I screwed up. I realized I screwed up. I should have done this and this and this, and I didn’t. I failed. That was unacceptable. I should not have done that.” It’s like, “Uh-huh.” That’s like that thing from Seinfeld where George was like, “Was that bad? Should I have not done that?”

John: They can do things incredibly quickly, including destroy your company incredibly quickly. Here’s the thing. You need to be able to blame somebody. That’s part of the reason. You want somebody to be responsible for everything about your company or on your set. Your props department is responsible for the props. If you have a question about props, you go to the props department. If it’s just the AI, then who do you go to? I do think the idea of concern about jobs being replaced, but there are tasks within those jobs.

If someone who is responsible for visual effects is using one of these tools to do one of the tasks that’s part of their job, great. If it’s going to work for that, you still have to have a visual effects artist who knows what they’re doing, who’s responsible for the visual effects in your show. It shouldn’t be the PA over to the left because they don’t know what they’re doing.

Craig: Why would I want to work with a production designer that’s just having AI barf out options for me? I don’t need that person then. I’m looking for taste and specificity.

John: You’re looking for taste and skill and the ability to manage to take this vision and actually then communicate it to the people who need to build the sets and do all the things and everyone else.

Craig: “Was that wrong? Should I have not done that?”

[laughter]

John: We need Matthew because AI can’t make this, or else our episode’s not going to sound as good.

Craig: Thank God for Matthew. Matthew’s our editor.

John: Thank God for Matthew.

Craig: You don’t see him, but he’s here all the time.

Katie: Oh.

John: He’s now really embarrassed that he’s editing this. Katie, Craig, thank you so much.

Craig: Thanks, John.

Katie: Thank you.

Craig: Woo.

Links:

• Widow’s Bay on AppleTV
• Katie Dippold on Instagram and IMDb
• Scriptnotes listener survey
• Katie as the Babadook
• The last time Katie was on Scriptnotes, Episode 272
• The Sheep Detectives
• Wolf’s Belly Publisher’s Weekly starred review (preorder the book here!)
• Oscar Rule Changes by Clayton Davis for Variety
• Weekend Read 2
• Watch Haley Z. Boston read her script for Something Very Bad is Going to Happen
• Captain Disillusion
• Homemade Heating Pad
• This Treatment Could Reverse Osteoarthritis Joint Damage With a Single Injection by Javier Carbajal for Wired
• Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
• Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
• Follow Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
• John August on Bluesky and Instagram
• Outro by Eric Pearson (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello, and welcome. My name is John August, and this is episode 733 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Over the years, we’ve talked about comedy a lot on the show, both for film and television. We’ve discussed jokes with guests like Mike Birbiglia and Patton Oswalt, but we often treat being funny as an inherent trait, like height, rather than a skill you can develop and improve.

Today on the show, I want to talk about a proper comedy education. To do so, I’m excited to welcome on a very special guest. Ali Barthwell is a writer known for her work on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, for which she has five Emmy Awards. She’s also written for Vulture, The A.V. Club, and Cards Against Humanity. She teaches at Second City and Columbia College in Chicago. Her new book, Reality TV for Snobs, is out this summer. Welcome, Ali.

Ali Barthwell: Thanks so much. Hi.

John: I am so excited to be talking with you. Of course, I got to talk with you a lot over the last couple of weeks and months because you were on the negotiating committee for the Writers Guild of America and were an absolute superstar. I want to talk to you about that, but mostly I just wanted to hang out with you more because I miss you.

Ali: Oh, of course. Yes. Oh, I mean, if we could be doing this in a conference room under fluorescent lighting, that would be ideal.

John: That’s the dream.

Ali: I’ll take over Zoom.

John: We actually referenced you in an earlier bonus segment because Drew and I were talking about how, in the negotiating room, like between sessions, you guys were talking to me through sketch comedy writing and terms and things and differences between Chicago styles and other styles. I just love to learn new things about it, so I knew at that moment that I wanted to have you on the show.

Ali: Oh, thank you so much.

John: We’re going to get into that. There’s also some relevant listener questions we’ll try to answer. In our bonus segment for premium members, Ali, I’d like to talk about making a career outside of New York and Los Angeles because you live in Chicago.

Ali: Yes.

John: It is absolutely doable to do, but probably different than other people’s paths would be. I want to talk about that.

Ali: Yes. I think Chicago’s the best city in the world, so very happy to have more people move here and be creative in Chicago.

John: All right. We’ll roll out the welcome wagon for Chicago there in our bonus segment for premium members. First, we have actual news. Ali, this thing that we’ve been working on for months and months and months, the 2026 MBA, the contract we negotiated with our employers for all the writers across the country, was ratified by our members, and so 90.4% of members voted to approve it. That just came through yesterday as we were recording this. Hooray, we did it. We’re done.

Ali: We did it. We did it, Joe.
[laughter]

John: Ali, I want to talk about this was my fifth time on the negotiating committee, but this was your first time. What was your expectation going into it? What did you think it was going to be like? Then we can talk about how it differed from that.

Ali: I think you hear negotiation, and you think, okay, well, we’re all going to be around the table, the studios on the other side, us on this side. We’re going to be wildly handing notes, chiming in, and calling objection. My job at Last Week Tonight is my first job in TV. Like you said, I’m not in New York or LA, so I do sometimes feel outside of all the other happenings in the industry. I did come in being like, “Oh gosh, what will I know? What can I bring to the process?” I think I was surprised at how little I spoke to the AMPDB. If anyone knows me, they also probably be surprised Ali wasn’t flipping a table in front of the studios.

I also learned a ton about the lives of writers, the lifespan of a career, all the different ins and outs. Then, personally, I went through a major health episode. I had leukemia. I had a stem cell transplant. These are all very neutral chill things at this point. Definitely, I call myself a power user of the WGA health plan. I really had an understanding and an expectation of what being someone who relies on that insurance really feels like. That was also an important thing for me to voice in the room and talk about how the healthcare works and literally saves lives.

John: In the months leading up to the negotiation, we would have meetings where we talked through all the issues going into it. We put together our proposals, the blue sky list, and then narrowing it down and how we were going to focus things. With those initial things, members who were in Los Angeles were physically in a room together, but folks from the East and people like you, who was in Chicago, were joining us by Zoom. For the actual negotiation, Ali, you came out to Los Angeles for three weeks?

Ali: It ended up being three weeks, yes.

John: That is a huge commitment for a volunteer. You weren’t paid a cent for this. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. I don’t know if members can appreciate not just how much time, but how much of a life you give up to come out and do this. You were just in a hotel room for three weeks while we were negotiating this.

Ali: I really figured out hotel living, really got my bed set up just how I wanted, all my toiletries in the bathroom. I’ve been in other unions. I was a member of Actors’ Equity because I was an onstage actor. I worked briefly with the Chicago Public Schools, so I was in the teachers’ union. I was working at Columbia. You’re in a union there. I really have an appreciation and understanding of how important unions and collective labor can be, as well as, and I think I told the story when we were in the room, I studied abroad in France for a year in college.

In the second semester, my university went on strike. First, the teachers and then the students. I did not have class for four and a half months because the students were literally occupying the university. I was like, “Okay, if we can get to a point where we are not occupying [laughter] the studios and come to some sort of deal,” I’ve seen all these different ways that unions and labor can touch people’s lives and throw things upside down, but also help people get what they really need. It was an honor and a privilege to be there.

John: Thank you again for all you did. I’m happy that the members voted to approve this and that we are out of this negotiation cycle period for a while. We can focus on the hard work of enforcing the contract, helping members get through the changes to the health plan that are going to be happening, but hopefully get to a better place. You say how unions impact and touch lives. We haven’t addressed this on the podcast at this point because I didn’t want to touch on it before we got this deal closed. I want to address, I usually say the elephant in the room, but in this case, the elephant outside the room, which was the union that was touching our lives, which was the Writers Guild Staff Union here in the West. Ali, when was this first on your radar? When did this first impact you?

Ali: I remember being in meetings with the whole negotiating committee, and there would be a bit of time at the beginning of each meeting with updates of what was going on in the West. On the East, we all had varying degrees of how in tune we were. Then, when the Staff Union went on strike, we were told certain things will and won’t be happening because the people who are in charge of those things or who work with those things are on strike.

Then those little check-ins at the beginning of every negotiating committee meeting became a little more serious, a little more focused, a little more intense. Then, the main thing being on the East, my first interaction, a week before we left to go to LA, I started and some of the other members on the East started to get incessant phone calls from the Staff Union. I answered the first one because I didn’t know what it was, and then they started coming in.

I think at certain days, I was up to 30 or 40 phone calls a day. Then I let my voicemail fill up and it became text messages. Then it was 30 to 50 text messages a day. There was a lot of attempted contact from the Staff Union. We had to have conversations about how to handle talking to them about them, what it would mean to be a union member, and to possibly have a picket line where we were negotiating. What does it personally mean to each person to cross that or not cross that picket line?

There was a lot of logistical planning leading up to the actual time in LA. Then I also think there was an emotional component of what became the intensity of the picket line and everyone’s feelings about the picket line and seeing other people, other staff members from the West, and negotiating committee members from the West, seeing people they knew and worked with on the picket line. I think there was a big logistical component and a big emotional component was also happening.

John: Yes, there definitely was. You’d like to think it was like Severance, where there’s the outside world, the inside world, and once you’re inside, you completely focus on the thing. After a half an hour of decompression, we could just get back to the actual work. I do want to stress, I think the deal we reached was not impacted by what was happening outside at all. It was the same deal that would have happened the other way. What was impacted was our ability to communicate with members.

We couldn’t do the big member meetings we were used to doing as we go into this. Then, as we negotiated the deal and were talking to our members, we had to do that all on Zoom that the East hosted because we didn’t want our members to have to cross the picket line that would have inevitably been there from the staff union. They were picketing outside of the places we were doing our negotiations, and that became, at first, uncomfortable and then scary.

There was a day where it got really scary. That was the one moment it broke through in the press where it looked like it was going to, if not get violent, a person could get hurt. That’s where we had to address how we were going to try to de-escalate and get the other side to de-escalate, too. I’m frustrated on your behalf because you’re not even a West member. This is not your fight at all.

Ali: There was some mixed messaging in those text messages and calls. They couldn’t quite decide if I worked for Ellen or Ellen worked for me. It’s like either way, I think is not actually accurate. If you want me to– I’m very sympathetic. Like I said, I’ve been in unions. I really love being part of a union. It reached a point where I felt, speaking completely, completely personally, I felt like what was happening was not even about the negotiations that we were going into. I wasn’t sure what was happening with what the staff was negotiating for because I’m not a West council member or board member.

John: No, our negotiating committee wasn’t involved in their negotiation at all, except to the degree that they are on the same health plan we are. What we were doing in the room was going to affect how much they were paying for health insurance.

Ali: I had the feeling of, I don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I don’t know what would be helpful. As someone who’s traveling, not in my own bed, also trying to keep things confidential and keep things under wraps, it’s not great for there to be hostility going in and out of the building.

Personally, I was like, I’m going to hit a point where I’m going to start saying something, and that’s not good for anybody’s cause– It’s like, we only have so much bandwidth as human beings. I think everybody’s bandwidth really got stretched in a way that I don’t know if it was better or worse for either side.

John: Last night, I was just remembering through this. I was thinking like, “Oh, you know what I should do?” It’s like, “I have all the phone numbers from all the people who called me 40 times a day.” It’s like, “I should just call them back and tell them a piece of my mind.” I realize that that’s not a productive thing. I thought, if you humor me, I’ll just wrap up this little segment. This is the voicemail I would leave if I were to call them back. This is just me leaving the voicemail.

We should stress they were all the same voicemail, basically. There was a script. This is the script I think I would be inclined to do if I were to call these people individually. “Hey, it’s John August. I’m a WGA member. I am the person you’ve been yelling at for the past six weeks, calling me a scab, calling me a traitor to the labor movement, following me to my car. You left me 40 voicemails and text messages per day.

You made it impossible for me to answer my phone. I want you to understand that from the outset, I thought, yes, of course, the staff of the Writer’s Guild should have a union to address how you’re underpaid. I still do. I want you to understand that what you’ve been doing for the past few months has been incredibly counterproductive, that any goodwill I had has completely evaporated. Instead, you made myself and other negotiating committee members feel physically unsafe. In part because you made a mockery of picketing.

You physically blocked doors and cars. You followed us down the streets. You picketed at our houses. What’s so frustrating to see is that in your public statements, in your press interviews, and your Instagram, you portray yourselves as the victim here. That’s not accurate. You are adults. You made choices, including going on strike, including picketing another union’s contract negotiations. That is genuinely unprecedented, to sandbag another union as they’re negotiating their deal. In the end, it had no impact on our deal. It just made a few weeks incredibly unpleasant.

I don’t know how this is going to end. I genuinely have no insight into your negotiations. I never did. I have to ask, as one union member to another, what is the end game here? Is your aim to actually go back working at the guild, or do you just want to “win?” I worry that you’re in this mindset that the only way out is through, and that is not serving you well. I’d encourage you to find another way, a more productive route, because what you’re doing has not worked, and I’m pretty sure will not work. Thanks.” I will leave it there.

Let’s move on to happier topics.

Ali: Yes. [laughs]

John: We have the Scriptnotes book that is out there in the world. We love that people are buying the Scriptnotes book and enjoying it. We have a dean from the University of Iowa has exciting news from there.

Drew: Dean writes, “Congratulations on the publication of the Scriptnotes book. It’s fabulous. After several years of sharing PDFs of my own lecture notes with students because there simply was no great screenwriting textbook out there, I’m delighted to tell you that your book will now be the official textbook of the new-ish screenwriting workshops at the University of Iowa. My colleague, Rachel Yoder, who’s the author of Nightbitch, first suggested the idea. She loves this book, too. We’ll be using it as the textbook for Cinema 1300 Foundations of Screenwriting beginning next fall.”

John: Oh, that is so exciting. I think there’s going to be some other programs that are doing the same thing. If you are teaching a program, you’re going to be using the book, or if you’re a student who you find out that is the book that you’re using, we’d love to hear it because one of the reasons we wanted to go with a big publisher is they have academic arms who can get it into university bookstores and do that kind of stuff.

It’s exciting to have it out there in the world for people to enjoy, a big orange book that you can see on your shelf.

All right, let us get to our main topic, which is comedy. I’m so excited to dig into this with you because I’ve never taken a comedy class, but you have taken those classes. You’ve taught those classes. Ali, let’s start from the very basics. You have a student who shows up to learn comedy. They’re considered funny by somebody?

Ali: [laughs] Yes.

John: Absolutely. I said in the intro, it’s like height, but you think about a basketball player, and there’s certain fundamentals that are going to be key if you’re going to be a great basketball player, like height and speed. Those are things that cannot be taught. We all understand that a basketball player can be coached and taught and get to be a better basketball player. The same is true for writing and for comedy. This funny person shows up. What are the first things you do? Talk us through those first couple of sessions you might have with somebody, and what a class might even look like.

Ali: Yes, and I think even that person, you’re imagining of like, “Oh, they’re funny in their friend group or their family.” I had a lot of students when I was teaching improv, specifically where they were a lawyer, an executive, or a teacher. They had some job where they had to talk to people, and they had to be able to think quickly and be on their feet. A lot of times, you’d have someone, they were like, “Oh, I started taking this class because my kids got me a gift card, because I’m retired, or my boss paid for it.” Suddenly, they’re a year in taking the final advanced courses and putting on a show.

You really do see a lot of different people. There’s lessons that you can take from improv, which is one of the things I did for a long time at Second City, teaching and directing and performing, and then also from writing. I think one of the really first things is you have to turn off that self-judgment because you’re really trying to create as much as possible. You don’t know exactly what’s going to work, what’s not going to work. You’re going to try things on.

A lot of teachers will tell you, we’re going to get you to try a bunch of different styles of things. A bunch of different exercises. If it works for you can take it and run with it. If it doesn’t work, feel free to drop it or look at it and be like, “Why doesn’t this work for me?” I think turning off that self-judgment. Then I think the other part that is really important, especially when I was teaching improv, when I would teach my improv students, I would say I require two things. You have to be honest, and you have to be present.

Those are really hard things once we get to adulthood. Pretty much probably once we get past puberty. Being present and being honest. That sense of play, that sense of discovery, the sense of honest reaction to what your scene partner’s giving you or what’s being written on the page. Then being present. Again, that taking away that judgment, taking away what I think this is going to be, where I think this is going to go. Really, you can return to a state of play.

I think that is really important. If you take an improv class, your first few classes are getting people into that mindset. Then, depending on where you study, there might be one or two little things of how important is the ensemble, how important is the individual contribution. Then, in writing, you’re teaching people, all right, I’m going to give you a little bit of some story basics. I’m going to give you a little bit of some structure basics, but then we’re going to find ways to play. I’m going to create little sandboxes for you to play in, and we’re just going to experiment.

John: I’m going to break it into two big buckets here. Let’s talk about being present, being honest, and the improv. That’s crucial there because you think of that as being a performer thing, but it’s also true for any creator who’s trying to make moments feel alive in front of you. That’s crucial. Talk us through what you mean by present. It’s listening. It is not trying to get ahead of the moment, and not trying to anticipate too far, not pulling stuff from the past into this.

Ali: I think it really is you don’t want to plan too much. You don’t want to be dictating to your scene partners or to yourself where you think the scene is going to go, and just letting yourself really react in the moment and letting yourself– because I always tell people, I talk to my parents, friends, and they’re like, “Oh my God, I could never do that.” I’m like, “But you did. You were a kid, and you played pretend.” We have to break you out of that adult mindset of, “Oh, it would go really well if I did it this way, or it would go really well if I did it that way, or if I do this, people are going to think of me a certain way.”

You have to break that and be like, “What would a little kid do?” It’s like, they’re going to see something in front of them. They’re probably going to touch it. They’re probably going to pick it up. They’re probably going to shake it. They might even tear it into two parts and eat one. It’s that sort of process of whatever’s in front of me, I’m allowed to interact with, react to. I do an exercise where I have two people stand face-to-face, and I have one person send the other an emotion. However they want, non-verbally, but maybe with sounds, send them an emotion.

Then I have the person mirror the emotion back. Then I send that same emotion and send the opposite back. Then the third one, I go send the emotion and send the appropriate response back. It’s like, if it’s happiness, the opposite might be crying. Do the same, it might be laughing. The appropriate one back might be that person suddenly feels like, “Oh my gosh, they’re laughing at me. I’m going to feel embarrassed at someone laughing in my face.”

It might be like, “Oh, we’re co-conspirators, and we’re laughing together.” It’s teaching you there’s no wrong answer. If it makes sense to you and it was your, again, that honest reaction, don’t judge it, just do it. Then, if we add words to that scene or add character to that scene, we can figure out why you wanted to be embarrassed when someone laughed, or you wanted to laugh with them, that sort of thing.

John: Yes. I’ve never taken an improv class. If I do the introspection for why I’ve never done it, it’s like, I didn’t want to be bad at it. I was afraid of failing. That fear of failure is an embarrassment, are real, palpable thing. I’m sure those are some of the first walls you need to break through in one of these classes. It’s just like, it’s okay. The stakes could not be lower in an improv class.

Ali: Right. I had a class– At Second City, their upper levels are called the conservatory. They had this bit where I would split them into two groups and be like, “Okay, each group come up with a scene,” or each group come up with something. They’d go, “Who won? Who won? Who won?” I said, “If you wanted to win, you should have played lacrosse in high school.” We are comedy nerds doing make-them-ups at 9 AM on a Saturday. Nobody won. [laughter] Nobody won. They were laughing about it, too.

It’s just, we’re playing pretend. We’re goofing. We’re playing pretend. A lot of improv warm-ups and exercises really are meant of, all right, if we all just start making funny faces, we’re all going to be on the same page with each other. If we all start wiggling our arms weird, then we’re going to break down those walls. I say, the beautiful thing about improv is you do it once, and then it’s gone. We can never do that exact same scene again.

If you’re embarrassed, you’re like, “Well, it’ll be over, and I’ll never have to do that exact same scene again.” Sometimes, I think when the writer brain turns on, that frustrating thing of like, “Oh, I had something right there, and now it’s gone.” That’s, I think, a little bit in there is where you get that improv to sketch, which is what The Second City does and what I really liked to do as a performer and then a teacher and a director and all that stuff.

John: Yes. Let’s start making that transition because you’re saying that no one wins in improv. It’s like, “Did we have a good time? Did the play happen? Did we get through to that moment?” I’m sure you can then look at the tape or go back and analyze what things worked, what things didn’t work, but you’re probably focusing on, was everybody present? Was everybody honest? Was everybody playing the game the way you play the game?

Then as you move into sketch, you really are like, “What am I trying to achieve here?” You’re probably coming in there with a character, with a concept where you’re clearly communicating that concept. If things didn’t land, if things didn’t get a laugh, that’s when you can actually start to pick apart. Well, why didn’t that get a laugh, or that thing did get a big laugh? Why did it get a big laugh?

Our instinct is going to be like, oh, well, you can’t analyze comedy. You can’t pick it apart, but of course you can. Just like we can three-phase challenges, we can look at why this scene isn’t working, you can look at a sketch and say, oh, this is not working for this audience in this moment because of X, Y, or Z. Talk us through how you’re getting started getting people thinking about sketches and how you’re improving sketches.

Ali: The first thing in improv that I have to teach you to do is I have to teach you to make a choice. You have to make a choice. You have to say yes. You have to pick up the rock and look what’s underneath it. You have to look at empty space in front of you and be like, “That’s a butterfly.” I have to get you to make a choice. The second thing I want you to do is I want you to make a choice that will serve you a little better, a choice that will make your life a little easier.

If we’re in an office and there’s like, “oh, look at that on the desk,” it’s probably going to make everybody’s lives easier if it’s a paycheck, so now you can see your coworker’s paycheck. It’s going to make your life a little harder if that’s like a tiny man who can speak German to you. We can do it, but it’s going to be a little harder, or we’re doing a different thing now. Then I think that transition from improv to sketch is looking at every– so there’s lots of different ways to do it.

One, like you’re talking about, if we’ve improvised something, we’ve improvised a scene or maybe a form, and now we’re looking at what do I want to see again? Then you run through, okay, what do I want to see more of in this scene? What do I want to see less of? I always say, “What do you want to see more of? What confused you?” I go easy, hard, fun, stupid. How was that? What do we want to see more of? What confused us?

Then you’re looking to pick out, maybe you’re picking a character, maybe you’re picking a whole arc, maybe you’re picking a turn of phrase that we stumbled on, an interesting point of view or a piece of dialogue. Then you’re looking and saying, “What do I want to see again? What choices do I want to make again?” Then go from there.

John: What is the first version of a sketch that you might see as a person teaching this class? You have students who’ve gone off, they’re coming back in with a sketch. Is it a written thing that they’re putting up on their feet? Are they showing you a piece of paper? Have they just worked out with their classmates what they’re going to do? What does it look like when you’re first seeing something?

Ali: It’s all kinds of things. Personally, I love to see, I have an idea, we want to try it. It’s like, “We got together, and she’s going to do this.” I’m like, “Great, don’t tell me anything. Get up there, just start doing it.” I’m going to call time, probably around three and a half, four minutes. Then we’re going to sit down and talk about it. Students can also bring in an outline where they’ve written down, this happens and this happens and this happens.

Or it could be a fully written that they’ve used their office printer at their day job, and they’re bringing it to class, and they hand out copies. The thing that students do, oh, they’ll give me a copy, and everyone’s on their phone. I’m like, “That is terrible. Figure out who in your class has a day job, you can abuse the printer and bring a written sketch.” I think for all of those situations, the next step is what were you trying to do? What were you trying to say? What do we want to see more of?

My personal thing that I really pushed and want to get my students, the thing that motivates a lot of my work is point of view and self-expression. A student will put their scene up if they’re improvising through it the first time or they’re using it from a script. I go, “Cool, what was the point of view?” There’s a lot of different things that you can mean when you say that. I go, “What was your point of view?” I don’t always say it in these words. What were you trying to do? Then I go, great, that’s what you want. Here’s what we can change to make that louder, clearer.

I really am from the school of thought of if you know what you want to say, then we can take your idea and put it anywhere. I think the majority of my training at Second City with social and political satire being the base of that, it’s like most of our scenes in our running order, we want to be saying something about ourselves, the world, the government, relationships. We want to be saying something. I did a lot of work as a teacher to help students be able to say back. I made up all these exercises and a mad lib and all these things to say back to me, what is the thing that you want to do with this scene?

John: Students are coming in, they’re putting up this scene, you’re taking a look at it, and then you’re offering suggestions. What are the common knobs you find yourself adjusting with what they’re doing? Is it about like, “Okay, you have too much here. I didn’t understand.”

Ali: They all have too much.

John: They all have too much.

Ali: They always have too much.

John: Everyone always thinks a joke is funnier if you put more words in it. It never is.

Ali: Yes.

John: One thing I notice in sketches is that you have this blessing in the first few seconds to establish, this is the place, this is the concept. The stuff that would normally be the set, you’re creating that. Thank you for coming into my office. This should only take a few minutes. It’s fine. Great. We’ve done that. If a sketch didn’t have something to establish where we are, what we are, we’re floundering for those first few moments. We don’t know what we’re actually seeing. I’m sure a common complaint is like, I don’t know who this person is. I don’t know what I’m supposed to think of this person at the start. I’m listening, but I’m not fully taking it in because I don’t get why I’m supposed to be engaging with them.

Ali: I’ll see sketches from students, and I’ll tell them, I’ll go, “Okay, you have five pages for your sketch. You have about five minutes.” I go, “We should know who the people are, where are they by the middle of the first page, the most the bottom of the first page.” If we are explaining who, what, where beyond that, either this is like we’re aliens or something, and I really got to get on board for that. Then it’s also like, is this a sketch or is this a short play? Is this like our show bible? How many pages do we need to explain what the aliens are in the sketch show? I want to get to the thing that you want to do in this sketch.

The thing you want to do in the sketch is not explain who everybody is at this dinner party. The thing you want to get to is that somebody brought their girlfriend, and their girlfriend went to the rival college, and now we’re going to all have a freakout because she went to one school and everybody else went to the other. We want to get to the thing that is the most fun. That’s the first thing. Then it’s like, let’s give everyone something to do that everybody can have fun and make sure that everything we’re doing builds up to the point of view that the student wants to get across.

John: That’s right.

Ali: If there’s something in here, it’s like, this isn’t paying into this, we can pull that out. I had a student, they brought me a scene. They were all flamingos. They were doing really amazing flamingo work. Everyone–

John: The physical comedy, the embodiment. We love it

Ali: Embodiment. All their heads were going. They were moving around [onomatopoeia] on the stage and calling out flamingo specifics. At the end, I was like, “Cool, what were we trying to do? What was that scene about?” They were like, “Oh, that was about climate change.” I was like, “What?” [laughter] We didn’t say anything about climate change. [laughs]

John: I think that’s a great opportunity because you see students in front of you who are like, “That thing you’re doing is clever and funny.” The physical comedy that I can visualize it, which is great. What is the thing? What is the actual point of view? Once you’ve established that this thing, it has to go someplace. It has to build to another thing. It could just be a physical thing without words.

Ali: Yes, totally.

John: It’s them fighting over a fish. That could be hilarious, but it has to build. It’s not just an impersonation.

Ali: I remember this from when I was a student at Second City. One of my ensemble members brought me a sketch. He was a robot. It was this very complicated allegory for racism. The guy who was the basketball team owner that said all the nappy-headed hoes or whatever, he owns a basketball team of all robots. I was his human girlfriend. I was like, “What is this?” [laughter] He was like, “Well, there’s all this racism in the news.”

I finally had a meeting with our director/teacher, and I was like, “I’m not going to do this. This is entry-level stuff about racism. This doesn’t have any of my point of view in it. I’m a Black person in America.” Then the teacher was like, “Okay, take it back to this.” She was like, “Bring me the version that you want to do.” He brought back a scene where it was just a silent scene where he was a robot, had no racism in it. It was just like, he just wanted to be a robot, which I’m fine with.

It’s that sort of thing of we have to identify what is the thing that you really want to do in this scene. There’s no wrong answer. Whatever you say, I can turn that dial up. If we just want to be flamingos, then we’re going to think of 10 things flamingos can do on the stage. We’re going to give everybody a flamingo name, and maybe there’s a song we could do. If we want to talk about climate change, then the flamingos have to talk about climate change, or something has to happen about climate change.

John: Absolutely. As an instructor, ultimately, these classes will lead up to some sort of showcase, some sort of performance where everyone has to do those things. It’s your job to then figure out how to order this in a way that makes sense, that’s going to play for an audience. Can you talk about that?

Ali: Oh, yes. Again, that’s another thing. Talking about Second City, when I was there in those student classes, the main objective is everyone has to have one scene where they’re the star. Maybe you have 12 students in a class, we have to have 12 scenes where somebody’s the star. It’s probably about a 50-minute show, maybe a 40-minute show for some of those student showcases. Then you start looking like, “Okay, how do we get everybody in there?” That’s its own process, figuring out, teaching people how to make themselves the stars. That’s its own process.

The other part is you do have to structure and protect things, and there is a little bit of– We call it running order math. You want to open with something where the opener, ideally, you want to see every cast member, you want to hint at the theme of the show if there is one. You’re usually teaching the audience how the show’s going to go, how they’re going to watch the show. Then you’re probably putting in a two-person relationship scene, which is like a specialty of Second City. Not a lot of other sketch comedy theaters really do that two-person, so it’s like a grounded–

John: Give me an example of what that kind of scene would be.

Ali: SNL doesn’t really do them. Key & Peele doesn’t really do them. They look like a scene out of a movie or a TV show. It might be two people that have gone on a first date, and they’re standing outside the door. One person’s really nervous to kiss the other person, so this is like a silly version that you could do. Today, it’d be like, someone’s going to use ChatGPT to help them make the move. They’re talking to each other, and then going and typing in Chat and coming back. It would be that type of scene, a grounded, two-person relatable scene.

John: In Harry Met Sally, the restaurant scene where they’re faking the orgasm scene, would that be? That’s a two-person relationship scene.

Ali: That could be a good two-person relationship scene. The first time they have the conversation, who have you had great sex with? I don’t believe Sheldon. [laughter] That’s where you learn a little bit about each character. You get an insight into who they are. You maybe learn a little something about how the writer thinks about relationships or the theme maybe we’re going to explore. From then on, we’re trying to get variety. We’re trying to move fast.

Then we want to hit a point where we’re going to put the funniest scene in the show about two-thirds of the way down. Then you want to, as quickly as you can, get to the closer from that point. Again, the closer, we’re going to see everybody. We’re going to wrap up any themes. If our opener asks a question, it’ll be answered by the closer. Then in the middle, there’s variety. There’s a song. There’s a silence scene. There’s another relationship scene. There’s a group scene. Someone might have built an improv game. You’re just building variety in between those bookends.

John: Can you talk about blackout and that as a tool?

Ali: Yes. A blackout is a very short scene. Typically, some of the best blackouts are under 20, 30 seconds. 30 seconds is a lot for a blackout. It is one joke executed on stage where the punchline is some sort of reveal or twist. Then the lights blackout immediately afterward. They are used to subvert audience expectations because they expect a full scene. They’ve been watching for a little bit, and they’re like, “Oh, there’s another scene.” Then it ends after maybe three to five lines.

It also changes the pace of the show. They’re easily swapped in and outable, so they could be really good to put in something topical. A blackout, they have two constructions. One is inappropriate response. It would be, you think you know how this scene will go, and someone says something that is unexpected. A classic one at Second City, a guy’s driving his car. A carjacker comes up. He goes, “Get out of the car, get out of the car.” The guy’s like, “Oh my God, don’t hurt me.”

The carjacker gets in the car, and he goes, “Oh shit, it’s a stick shift. [laughter] Get back in the car, get back in the car, get back in the car.” Blackout. We think we know how a carjacking or a carjacking scene would go, and then you blackout.

The second type is called clash of context. Sometimes you hear them called a reframe. We believe we’re looking at one thing, and then that last line reveals it to be something else.

The one that I always talk about when teaching is there are two women, and they’re standing, and they’re popping their gum, and they’re rubbing their hands like this. They’re like, “He’s going to tell me I got to be professional at work. I’m going to take a break when I want to take a break.” Ah, ah, clear. [onomatopoeia] [laughter] He dead. Amazing blackout.

We think from the visual and the way they’re behaving, there are two ladies outside, maybe on a smoke break. Maybe they work at a store or something, and they’re hiding from their boss to file their nails, but they’re charging up a defibrillator, [onomatopoeia] and then they’re dead.

Blackouts typically work the best if they’re one of those things. You see in each situation, it’s a setup, and the setup is that, “Hi, thank you for coming into my office,” but then the reveal is either the clash of contacts, the inappropriate response, and then it gets big laugh, we’re out of it, and we go on to the next thing.

John: It’s a classic joke, but just an embodied joke, really, because the classic joke is, where does the general keep his armies? In his sleevies. Again, you have the wrong context for what the framing is. This is the light, and of course, we could go on for hours about this. I want some practical advice for our listeners who are thinking like, “Okay, well, Ali’s convinced me I probably should take one of these classes.” It’s geographically based, so you should go to wherever’s in your area. A second city in Chicago is, of course, iconic and classic, and there’s classes all the time. Los Angeles has Groundlings and UCB.

There’s other groups that do things. There’s obviously New York and other markets, too. How does a person know that it’s a good one? Do you look up reviews? Do you go to a show? How will you know that these people know what they’re talking about?

Ali: Yes, I would definitely go to a show if they have a professional resident component to be like, “Let me go look at that,” and if that’s fun and making you laugh, they probably know something. They probably know what they’re doing. Talk to people that have taken those classes, and you want to have a sense that they can offer you something, whether it’s a show at the end, but you shouldn’t have to pay to play. If you’re paying to take the class, you probably shouldn’t be paying to do the show at the end of the student workshop or something.

They should probably have some version of something free, a drop-in class, a student jam, a show that maybe at the end of the show, there’s a free improv set or something like that where you can get a look at what’s going on there. I would say those are probably a good bet.

John: Obviously, you’re building skills, but the other potential benefit here is you’re meeting people who are doing the kinds of things you want to do. Especially if you’re new in a city, you’re new in a place, or you’ve been in a city, but you don’t know anybody who works in this space, it’s a chance to meet some people who you might want to hang out with, work with, collaborate with. There’s a reason why they’re very good schools, but also it’s a bunch of really smart people who are all under the same roof who then rose up and did great things together. That’s another good argument for at least giving it a shot. Even if you don’t think of yourself as a comedy person, a comedy writer, it’s a good experience for you.

Ali: Yes. I just know the people that I was going through classes with, that I was watching on stage when I was a student, that I have taught as a teacher, they are making cool things, they’re performing, they’re writing, they’re getting stuff produced and written. The way that you do that networking is you just be a cool person and be a cool friend. If someone needs a skill and you have that skill, go help them out.

If someone wants you to read something for them and you’re both broke students, it’s like read that thing for them because when it comes time, if that person pops off and ends up in a writer’s room somewhere and they get a chance to recommend people for the next season or for the next time they staff up, they’re probably going to remember the person that was helpful and nice and took a genuine interest in them rather than the funniest person in the class. I say you can be 10 out of 10 funny, but if you’re 10 out of 10 asshole, nobody’s going to hire you, but if you’re 7 out of 10 funny and 0 out of 10 asshole, someone’s going to remember that you were really nice to counteract that.

They want to be in a room with you for eight hours a day. They want to be on Slack or Zoom with you for hours at a time. It’s going to be that person that was nice and helpful and helped use their office copier to make programs for their show. [chuckles]

John: Sounds good. All right, let’s answer some listener questions. The first one here I see is from Kate.

Drew: “I am writing my first big broad comedy, and holy hell, if Craig isn’t right, then it’s the hardest thing I’ve ever written. A lot in the script is working really well, but in giving it to readers, I’m finding a lot of them turning into logic police when my mission is to have them along for a wild madcap, super heightened ride. My instinct is that the issue is actually very early in the script. While the initial couple of scenes are funny, something about them is signaling to people that this is a grounded world with grounded characters when that actually isn’t the case. I wanted to ask, how do you think about the opening scenes of a comedy? Any tricks, insights, or thoughts on how to use them to teach people how to watch a movie?”

John: Yes, this is the longer version of what we were just talking about.

Ali: Ooh.

John: Yes, those initial scenes are so crucial to get people on board for the kind of movie you’re trying to watch. It’s entirely possible you wrote some great scenes that are queuing people up for not the movie that they’re expecting to see. You got to go back and look at those scenes, or could you lose those first scenes and start later? Which may be the way into this is to get going in the middle of something that’s just a little bit more madcap. Ali, what’s your instinct?

Ali: I would wonder how much of those early scenes are grounded. I know that, okay, there’s information we definitely have to get out, but I would want something fantastical or big and broad to happen even in the middle of those early scenes, a little glimpse of it, a tiny little nugget of the silliness that’s to come. Because if those first scenes are grounded, and then we get into that turn out of the first act and it suddenly becomes silly, we haven’t taught our viewer that the world is silly and it’s going to get sillier. Every scene in that first grounding bit should have a touch of the silly, the fantastical, the broad, so that when that bigger turn happens, we’re in the world.

John: You’re probably not making a spoof. You’re not making an airplane. I think you would have told us if you were making that, but maybe you’re making a fish called Wanda or something that has some bigness to it. You’re going to need to see that piano falling early, the equivalent kind of thing happening there to let us know this is a world in which this kind of thing can happen. Also, I want to say, give it to us on the page. Let us know as a reader, take a look at your voice and your early pages, and are you cueing up the tone of where this is going to go? Because that could be a factor in it, too.

We just had Haley Z Boston on talking about her script for Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen. In those initial pages, they’re really beautifully written, but they’re also very clearly setting up big things are going to happen. We know it because she is telling us that these kinds of things are going to happen. She’s giving us a sense like this is what it feels like, and you may just need to be a little bit more explicit on the page there, too. The reader from the jump really gets a sense of this is this kind of movie.

Ali: One more thought.

John: Please.

Ali: If folks are turning into logic police, I would look at what are the reactions of the characters to the wacky things happening. If they are always saying, “Oh my God, what?” or like, “Get out of here, this doesn’t make sense,” if the characters are rejecting the wacky stuff, then your audience is going to probably be trained that some level of that is what needs to happen here. If you think about like a fish out of water sketch, there’s a couple of characters in a fish out of water sketch that are amenable to the fish’s weird behavior. Even if they aren’t familiar with it or they don’t accept it, they’re like, “Okay, this is what this guy is.”

Or maybe they adopt a little bit of it by the end if you’re thinking of like a fish out of water sketch. Look at how many characters and how stridently they are rejecting the funny thing. If their reaction to those silly funny things happening is, “Oh my God, what are you talking about? This doesn’t make sense,”and I think that can probably be really attractive to get a quick hit out of a funny thing, like a reaction of like, “Say what?” but it’s like if everyone’s going say, “What,” the audience is going to start going and say, “What.”

John: Maybe I just have Rachel McAdams on the brain, but I’m thinking both to Game Night and Send Help. Both of those are broad comedies. She’s one of the crucial people in there who is, like in Send Help, her character is broad from the start. Even though we’re in an office environment, we know this is a movie that has the knobs turned up a little bit. Also, in Game Night, from the top, this is heightened. This is not a grounded level approach to things. Those might be a good thing for you to take a look at, Kate.

Hannah in New York writes, “At what point do I stop taking assistant gigs? I have a manager, I have an agent, I have a script with good producers attached, but I’ve not made money as a writer yet. I’m about to go to work as a director’s assistant on a show this summer. I love these jobs, but they take up all my time and energy. I force myself to write on the weekends, but it’s hard. This job will be great connections, working with a production company that did a big movie about a famous plastic doll, but sometimes I wonder if that’s worth it when I have so little time to write. What’s your thoughts?”

John: Ali, what’s your thought?

Ali: I don’t know. Again, this is like an area where I’m a little bit like, “Oh, that was not my path, so I don’t know exactly what the advice.”

John: Ali, what was your path? You went to Wellesley, and then how did you end up in Chicago? What were your jobs? Were you immediately working at Second City?

Ali: Yes. I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. I was actually a theater kid. I did theater, I did spoken word, I did speech and debate. When I went to college is when I first was like, “I want to do theater, but I don’t want to learn lines. I want to be too busy doing my homework.” I was like, “Oh, I’ll do improv.” You get to a point and you’re like, “Second City’s in the distance for improv.” You look up improv, it’s like Second City. I actually got a scholarship to Second City when I was a senior in college. When I graduated, I went and did classes. I did fellowships at Second City. They had one for students of color. They had this scholarship.

I was able to take classes for free or for much cheaper. There was a period of time where I just was taking a lot of classes, performing, and rehearsing five, six, seven nights a week. I always had a day job. I did not leave nepo baby allegation start today, but I was able to work for my mom. I worked as a temp. I was a bartender. I started teaching with Second City, but I did not quit any day job until I was a touring member of Second City because that’s really hard to have a day job at the same time, like a traditional nine-to-five day job. Also, I was writing recaps for Vulture. I was really in that personal essay boom that time.

I was cobbling together a lot of different things and started teaching, started directing when I stopped touring. I got Last Week Tonight because they reached out to me because they had been given my name when they were looking for people. I did the submission, I did the packet, the second round of the packet, and got hired. It really was doing everything all the time, and then moving into Last Week Tonight. I still did my recaps, essays, I wrote a book, I still go back to Second City and teach. That was my path.

It’s like, until someone really is going to pay you to do it, in my mind, it’s very hard to leave a day job or to leave that constellation of side gigs, and because having somewhere where you can have an output for your material where you’re putting it up or you’re working– Sketch was really useful because you could put something different up every week. It was really easy to get a group of friends together, hire a theater, put some material up constantly. I got my on-camera agent, Ashley Nicole Black, and some other great people in Chicago said, “We all want agents. We’re really good.

We want agents,” and put together a showcase, and everyone wrote five minutes of solo material and put it up. For me, that period of constantly putting material up, trying it, taking all of that while having my recaps, which were an outlet for my work, all of that was going in tandem.

John: I relate to Hannah’s question so much because her experience was sort of my experience too where I was working as an assistant to producers, but at the same time, I landed an agent, I was starting to take meetings. It was hard for me to get my writing done and all this other stuff. It was weird for me to be answering phone calls for other people while also trying to set stuff up herself. I want to underline what Ali is saying. There’s no curse to day jobs. Day jobs are good. They’re keeping you employed. At a certain point, you may want to step back from jobs that are keeping you from writing. Ali had the opportunity.

Her day job was also getting her the experience and exposure and all these things. Hannah, in your case, you’re working as a director’s assistant on a show. That’s great. It looks like it’s not your first time doing this. At a certain point, you may need to say, “I got to focus on my own stuff and take the job that requires less of your mental time and focus so you can really focus on your own stuff.” Some of the most productive times I had writing was I was an intern at Universal, and my job was just so mindless. I was just filing physical files and papers. It’s just like I came home from work. It’s like I didn’t use my brain at all, and I could write at night.

If you can’t get writing done, you may need to pull back. This could be the time to pull back, or you could say, “After this job, this is my last of these. I’m going to spend six months really focused on my writing here.” You won’t know until the next thing happens whether you made the right choice or not is the the bummer here. You’re asking the right questions, at least. Let’s do our One Cool Things. Ali, what do you have for us?

Ali: This is very silly and small. I have a self-inking stamp. It’s a star with a little smiley face like I am a child. When I was writing my book, it was a book that had a lot of sections and segments and sidebars, and I wanted something to keep me motivated and to be like a little reward. It’s a little, let me find a piece of paper and show you. You take your little stamp and it puts a little star-

John: Aww.

Ali: -with a smiley face on the paper.

John: It’s like you’re a teacher, but you’re giving yourself a star.

Ali: I’m giving myself a star. It has a really satisfying, let me see if I can hold it up to the microphone, has a really satisfying click. This was under $10 online. If you are someone that you need a little treat, a little gold star. Also, the visual progress of seeing, I would print out pages that had all the different segments that I had to do for each chapter. As I would get a segment done, I would put a little star next to it.

John: I lover it.

Ali: You can have a little fun with your writing, find a way to make it fun and silly for you. That was my little silly way. [laughs]

John: Fantastic. More importantly, this was helping you write your book Reality TV for Snobs, which we’ll put a link in the show notes too, and everyone should pre-order immediately like we will.

Ali: Yes, thank you.

John: Pre-orders are how books get sold. Pre-orders-

Ali: Very important.

John: -are super, super important, so I cannot wait to read it. I am currently reading Anne Libera’s book Funnier. She is a teacher at Second City. It’s really good. Fundamentally talking about her theory of comedy, having taught comedy for a long time and seeing people from all different schools of comedy coming through there and different ways of doing things from very physical people to the witty folks and very dark people, and how you find a blend and how you get each person to the best version of what they are there to do. I’m really enjoying it.

It feels like the script in this book, but very specifically about crafting comedy, so I’d highly recommend that. As a bonus, we can take a look at Ashley Padilla on Saturday Night Live. She’s one of the breakout people on Saturday Night Live. She’s the cast member-

Ali: So funny.

John: -who’s getting the most screen time there. She’s so funny. Her comic timing and her ability to draw out a moment and just sit in a moment of pain. She has this really neat gift. I’m going to link to an article by Jason Zinoman writing for New York Times about her and going through some of her sketches and just how she’s able to pull out these moments that are just great. This is a very strong cast they have right now with some superstar players, but she just has a different energy that is so fun and so exciting to see because it’s not just she’s a master impressionist or anything else, but she’s just–

Ali: She’s a really good sketch actress.

John: Yes.

Ali: It’s a very specific style of timing and pacing and development of relatable characters and characters that are relatable with a twist. It is such an interesting, really fun thing to see someone who’s a great, great sketch actress, actor on TV. It’s great.

John: It’s great. I don’t have a sense of how much she’s writing because everything on SNL is written by a bunch of people, but it feels like there are sketches that are just so in her zone and in her pocket that it’s great. It’s worth watching every week, but I’ll put a link in the show notes to this article, which has the clips out to some of her sketches from the last two seasons, which are so good. That is our show this week. Descriptions is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Matt Gillespie. If you have an outro, you can send it to the link to ask@johnaugust.com.

That is the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. The Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books, including many university bookstores, apparently. You will find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram at Scriptnotes Podcast. We have T-shirts, and hoodies, and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find show notes with links to all the things we talked about in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber.

Thank you again to our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on Working in Chicago. You’ll get the full scoop of Chicago. Ali, an absolute pleasure. I’m so excited to get to see you again after these weeks and months leading up to this. An absolute delight. Thank you so much for coming on.

Ali: Thanks so much for having me. This was great.

John: Yay.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, Ali.

Ali: Yes.

John: You, of all of the folks on the negotiating committee, were the one in Chicago. It’s important for people to understand that 85% of members in the Writers Guild live in either LA or New York, and then you’re the 15% of members who are Chicago and other parts across the country. That number will probably grow over the years because people are able to move out of the big cities to do their work because more stuff is going remote, but you’ve been there from the start. Talk to us about working on Last Week Tonight, but entirely from Chicago. What is your day like, and how are you interacting with the team if you’re not there in person, or is anybody in person?

Ali: I was hired in July of 2020, so peak pandemic. John was still making the show in the void. He was still recording on his own. We were all in a lot of far-flung places. When they started to talk about opening the office back up, they already had some version of a hybrid workflow because when you’re on an assignment, you don’t have to go into the office. You could work from home even before the pandemic. People had a routine where they would come into the office, have a couple meetings, and then go home at lunch and then be at home for a few days.

A lot of these workflows worked out for some people not being there, but at first, it was like, “Got to make a home office in my one bedroom with my boyfriend and we’re both at home,” and we had to figure that out. I joke, our work is a lot of writing individually. It’s a lot of writing term papers and jokes. The typical image of, oh, a writer’s room where we’re all around a table yelling things out, trying to one-up each other. We don’t really do that. It is a workflow that is really suited to being remote, but it is interesting because most of the people are in New York. There was someone in LA. There’s someone in Texas.

There’s someone in Colorado. There’s a few people in other places on the East Coast. It is a little like you’re constantly hearing about what’s going on in New York or they’re talking about what the weather’s like, or some event that’s happening. You’re a little like, “Okay, guys, Chicago has stuff, too. We have rain today.”

John: Is there still an office? Is there still a place where people go in, and there are a bunch of writers who are in one physical space, or is everybody remote at this point?

Ali: There’s an office. People go in. A lot of what we do is individual and over Zoom anyway. Even if you’re in the office, you’re coming in and out of meeting with different departments or waiting for an assignment to come down, or waiting for something to be handed back to you for you to go off and work.

I try and go into the office, I don’t know, two or three times a year. The writers will all do some of our assignments together. We’ll be like, “Okay, we’ll plan to all be there on this day so we can do this part of our work together.” It’s not an office where it’s like one person has to take notes what everybody’s throwing out. We’re all typing on our individual laptops when we’re in person anyway.

John: That’s great. To the degree you’re allowed to talk about it, you’re saying these are term papers with jokes. What does it all get fed into? What is the central nexus of everything you’re doing that it goes into? I picture the show as being one long bit of text that’s all fed into the thing because he’s at a desk through most of this talking to camera. What is that process? How does that happen?

Ali: The lifespan of an episode of the A story, the main story, is around six weeks-

John: Wow.

Ali: -from beginning. The idea gets pitched to John taping it. Research and footage, we have a research department and a footage department, and they will compile a research memo and a footage document. The research memo, they’ll call experts, and they’ll read books and read different articles and compile that into a big document. Then footage, we’ll find basically any time that topic has been on TV, or in documentary or in C-Span or on and on. Then we will take the footage and research documents. We’ll have meetings like, “What did we find? What’s interesting?” The writers will go off, and they will turn it into an outline.

They’ll say, “Here’s the video clips I would use, the quotes that I would use. Here’s how I would tell the story. Here’s the different chapters,” and then we turn the outlines into John and Tim. They combine it into one outline. “Oh, we like the way Ali found this clip, and this person found this.” Then we take it, we go write the script, go write our draft. That’s where we’re doing the jokes, like what we think John would say. If we’re putting in jokes, where every joke you write, you’re putting in two, three, four. I always write way too many, so I write five or six alts, different versions or different setups or whatever for the joke.

Then all that gets handed in. John and Tim again pick their favorite, and that gets turned into the script, and then we work from that one script for the different rewrite processes that exist.

John: That’s great. Last Week Tonight, unlike The Daily Show, which tends to send a correspondent out to do those things. I don’t want to say it’s traditional, but it’s more what we’re used to. To go out reporting a story and coming back, and then you’re trying to find a funny way to report that. The host is throwing out to the thing, and then coming back to the thing. This is all just, it’s a monologue with a lot of footage and other things that go with it. It’s also different than the SNL Weekend Update kind of thing, which is just like, “We need to have the funny visual that goes with it, but it’s just the host.”

It’s a more complicated thing, and that’s why I can understand why it takes six weeks to do it. It’s honestly like a podcast series would do a similar kind of thing where you need to go out and you need to find and research all this stuff, and figure out, how are we talking about this topic in this show? It’s great, and it’s very specific. Did you know that you could do it? Because they approach you.

Ali: [laughs] Yes.

John: You’re a smart woman, but you’re a smart woman who has done a lot of sketch before this. This is a different kind of writing. How did you get up to speed with it?

Ali: There was a moment, so they said, “Here’s the packet.” They made a little sampler packet for the submission. I was sitting there, and I was like, “Oh my God, how am I going to do this?” Then I had a moment where I went, “Oh, it’s a recap.”

John: Oh, yes, it is, isn’t it?

Ali: I write a lot of those. I was like, “I know how to recap a story from beginning to end. What are the funny things? What little digressions can we take?” It was really like my recaps at Vulture, they’re 1,500, 2,000 more words that I’m writing a week from a two-hour episode of The Bachelor or an episode of Real Housewives or something. I looked at it and I said, “Okay, it’s a recap. I just have to make sure I put in alts for my jokes.” Also, I had worked at Cards Against Humanity. The skill from there that helped was I could find a setup or an idea for a joke, and then find as many alts as possible by just substituting, really doing a fill-in-the-blank.

One of the things in my packet, we talked about something that was tangential, but I included it as the Streisand effect. The more you hide something, the more it shows up, and it came because Barbra Streisand tried to keep her house off Google images or something like that. They said it led to this many Google searches or searches for her house. I said, “Okay, but 50,000 of those were,” and then I had a blank, and I thought, “Who would be the different people trying to see Barbra Streisand’s house?” One was Dionne Warwick trying to case the joint because she’s going to go in and rob Barbra Streisand.

One was Barbra Streisand’s genetically cloned dogs trying to plan an escape route. One was Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau’s father, I guess he dated Barbra Streisand, trying to get a glimpse of that bastard, James Brolin. It was like I had the setup. I knew what I wanted the joke to be, and then I could just plug in different versions of the result, and so that sort of amalgamation of all these different things and making it look like how they wrote their scripts was how that packet came together.

John: That’s awesome. Born in Chicago, living in Chicago, you want to stay in Chicago?

Ali: I think so. It would have to be a very tremendous opportunity to draw me away. My family’s here. My boyfriend has two of his sisters are here. You can’t beat making WGA minimum on Chicago prices. It’s a little bit of a boost. I really love it. Being able to go, like we were talking about, go back and teach and work with students is also really nice. It’s just good for my brain to kind of like I have all this sketch knowledge and exercises and stuff I’ve made to get them out of my brain, but also to see what people are working on and wanting to help students. My Mom jokes that that’s my volunteer work.

John: Working on Last Week, so they came and found you. Do you have an agent, a manager? Do you have people who are out there like, “This is Ali Barthwell, you need to pay attention to her,” or do you need that for what you’re doing?

Ali: I don’t have an agent or a manager. I remember when I got hired and tweeted about it, my tweet blew up back when Twitter was like, “So am I still a good place?” I had some agents and managers reaching out, and some of it was like, “The way this person is talking about what they think my value is to them,” I was like, “I don’t know if I want–” A few people in the summer of 2020, some agents being like, “I think it’d be really great to have a black woman on my roster of clients.” I don’t think so. Then also part of it was just like, “I don’t know if I want to give up 15%.” [laughs]

John: That’s a real thing.

Ali: I now have a literary agent for my book, so I’m really getting to see what that relationship is like. I always say I never expected to end up in TV. I never knew how it worked to get to be able to do it. I know the kind of work that I like to do, and I think it can be across all genres. Again, like I said, I love satire and expressing myself and helping other people express themselves and using comedy and humor to educate and to expose people to points of view that they maybe wouldn’t have encountered.

I think whatever I do next, I hope to do this job for 10 million years, but whatever I do next or in addition to this, that’s the thing that’s motivating me, and it helps with the barometer of like, “Is this good to do? Is this what I want to do?” and being able to have that internal check for myself.

John: I also love seeing in the background of your shot, the Writers Guild Awards and the Emmys there, which is lovely too.

Ali: Oh, a custom-built California Closets-

John: Stain?

Ali: -bookcase.

John: Absolutely. How often do Chicago Custom Closets have to build for these awards?

Ali: Listen, she did not seem fazed, but I do think it was a fun challenge to really get the dimensions of each box. Then it was I built for what I had and not to grow, so we’re going to have to get creative on how to build out on this, the livid family memo–

John: Yes, you don’t want to crowd them [laughter] Ali, an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Thank you again for your work on the Negotiating Committee. It was just one of the highlights, really many highlights of the Negotiating Committee. We had an effing great group. It was a delight getting to spend some time with you, both then and today. Thanks so much, Ali.

Ali: Thanks so much for having me. Union strong.

John: Union strong.

Ali: Union forever.

John: Forever.

Links:

• Ali Barthwell
• Preorder Ali’s new book, Reality TV for Snobs
• The Second City
• Pre-inked star stamps
• The Padilla Pause: How the Breakout Star of SNL Nails Comic Timing by Jason Zinoman for NYTimes
• Funnier by Anne Libera
• Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
• Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
• Follow Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
• John August on Bluesky and Instagram
• Outro by Matt Gillespie (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: Oh, my name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is episode 731 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Often on this podcast, we talk about characters heading out on a quest. We discuss wants and motivations. Today on the show, Craig, let’s flip that around. What are characters running from? What are they trying to avoid? How can that help drive story? Let’s also answer a listener’s question. Questions about writing as a couple and what happens to residuals after we die.

In our bonus segment for premium members, I want to talk about the pivot to video because if you’re a premium subscriber, you sometimes see us in addition to hearing us because we’ve been doing videos for the last couple of months, but this is still basically an audio podcast. There are some changes coming to Scriptnotes, and I want to give listeners a preview of what is to come in the road ahead.

Craig: Change, John.

John: Change.

Craig: Change. Feels like something we should avoid. Perfectly on theme. I love it.

John: Mostly, Craig, I want to say hello because I’ve not seen you in so long. There’s been an interregnum. You were off directing an episode of your great series. I went to Madrid, and then Portugal, and I was locked in a room negotiating the WGA contract, which just wrapped up.

Craig: Oh, I thought that was your code for being locked in a room. You’re like, “I got to go to Madrid again today. I’m stuck in Portugal.”

John: We’re back.

Craig: We’re back.

John: Thank you to our listeners for your patience while we did encore episodes and other things to fill the month that we were away from our microphones.

Craig: Just to be clear, the reason is because when I’m directing, once Saturday comes, my brain just stops. It’s just pudding. It’s pudding for Saturday, and it’s pudding for Sunday. Then I start again on Monday. Got through that happily and glad to be back. Particularly glad because there’s stuff about the new contract that you guys did on your sidecast, which is awesome. I just wanted to say congrats to you, John, as co-chair of the WGA Negotiating Committee for the least drama-filled while still successful negotiation for our union. Thank you.

John: Certainly. You’re very welcome. It was an honor and a privilege and absolutely exhausting slog at times. It was more normal. We just haven’t had normal for a long time. 2023, of course, was a strike. 2020 was the pandemic. 2017, ended up having a strike authorization vote. It was also a healthcare fight. It’s been a while since we’ve had a cycle that was more, these are the things, this is how we’re going to get it done, and we got it done.

Craig: New leadership on their side as well, which sometimes makes a big difference. If you can hit a reset button there. Carol Lombardini, who was the head of the AMPTP, wasn’t really new. She worked for Nick Counter, who was the prior head of the AMPTP. It was more of a continuation of that regime or even a worsening of it, I think some people would say. Some new faces over there, maybe a sign of better things to come.

John: Yes, one would hope so. I would say that we have to remember that the AMPTP’s job is to give us the absolute least they can possibly get away with. That was consistent in this round as well. Hopefully, some tone matters too. We were able to get through this.

Craig: Tone and a basis of historical success. It’s good. It’s well done.

John: Yes, absolutely. All right. Let’s get back to our actual podcast, the thing that we are here to do this morning. Let’s do some follow-up. It’s been a minute. Drew, help us out. What did we miss?

Drew: Jesse in Chicago writes, “I remember a discussion about Craig’s frustration with locking pages during production. He suggested that because most people receive and view scripts digitally, that we really only need to lock scene numbers. As a script coordinator, I agree, but I’ve never had the buy-in to put it into motion. I’m wondering if Craig has implemented this on the new season of The Last of Us. If so, how is it going?”

Craig: Jesse, I tried. I tried, and I could have. It wasn’t that I didn’t have permission, but somebody I remember when we were talking about this, a script supervisor, mentioned that there was some aspect of the software they used that would make unlocked pages a little more arduous. Because our script supervisor already does 12 different jobs a day, and because I rely on him so much for so many things, he asked nicely if we could keep the pages locked. I said, “Sure.”

Just the other day, something happened that drove me crazy. Because of some adjustment, there was a scene, and then the next page, there was just one line of dialogue. Then on the next page, the scenes continues. There was something when we were doing it where that line, people were putting this emphasis on this line. I’m like, “Why is this happening?” Then I looked at the sides. I’m like, “Oh, for F’s sake.” I went over to them. I understand psychologically why this line is sticking. It has its own page. That doesn’t mean anything. Just flow on through. It was devil’s road to earth. Jesse, oh, man, next one. I swear, I swear to Moradin, the dwarven god of steel.

John: Back in future times, you and I were basically our own script coordinators. If we had run into that situation, we might have done something tricky in order to pull that line onto a previous page. This way, it’s a roundup. I hear you. I feel you. It’s so frustrating because we associate white space with emphasis, and this was not meant to be emphasized.

Craig: No. I do try and do that, but there are times where I think to myself, am I screwing this scene up just to change? That really, oh, that one. I haven’t. Maybe the last episode, I’m going to go, no page breaks, drive them crazy.

John: We have more follow-up from Stephen Follows, who is the data scientist who does a lot of stuff with movies and screenwriting. We’ve had him on the show before. What’s this bit of follow-up here?

Drew: He tried to calculate whether one page was actually one minute. He grabbed over 2,500 screenplays, put them up against the runtimes on IMDb, and basically, what he found was that one page doesn’t equal a minute. It equals about 55 seconds.

John: Yes. This is a follow-up on, he’d done an earlier study, but he took a larger sample set to make sure that this rule of thumb, which is approximately correct but not actually accurate, and how it all works out. The takeaway is that for four out of five scripts, the rule doesn’t really hold. Screenplays are normally longer than the movies that result.

Different genres have different standard lengths. It falls apart for long scripts, for short scripts, and if you take the end credits out of the movies, it’s even worse and sort of less applicable. Again, it’s what you’d expect. It’s a rule of thumb that should not be taken as an actual rule or law.

Craig: Do you happen to know if when he did this study, he also included the notion of standard deviation? If most scripts don’t follow this rule, it’s just that in the aggregate, this is what it ends up, then do you know what I mean? Some scripts are–

John: Standard deviation and how it falls on the bell curve is absolutely a thing. We’ll put a link in the show notes to his post, which really runs through in exhaustive detail.

Craig: I love exhaustive detail.

John: It’s approximative but not accurate.

Craig: Yes. I actually don’t think it ever works for me.

John: We’ve discussed this topic before. The reason why we need to be mindful of this fake rule is that people use it to justify having to cut things shorter than they should be.

Craig: Also, it may be that a produced single page takes more than a minute on screen, but things get cut. Barring additive reshoots, the general process is to winnow things down, which means you will effectively get fewer seconds on film per page, which means when you get the script, it doesn’t mean– If it’s 120 pages, it doesn’t mean the movie’s going to be two hours. No.

John: We’ve had conversations with folks who’ve been on shows, long-running TV shows, and on those cases, you probably can much more closely estimate, like, okay, based on this length of the script or this number of words, it’s going to track because you’re doing in a set thing. For any given single screenplay, it’s not going to be accurate.

Craig: No.

John: More follow-up. I love it when a How Would This Be a Movie becomes an actual movie. We have another example of that.

Drew: Christian writes, “In Episode 525’s How Would This Be a Movie, you discuss the story of Syllable and Brains, a Scottish rap duo who faked being American to land a record deal. Craig’s verdict was that the stakes were too low and that he struggled to care, but I’m pleased to update that the story has now been turned into a movie directed by James McAvoy. It’s called California Schemin’.”

Craig: Well, let’s find out if I was right. [laughs]

John: If you’re right.

Craig: There are movies where the stakes are simply, we want to succeed as a band, and that can often be nice. I struggle to care about all sorts of things. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t become movies. Now, the question is, do we think anybody heard what we said, and then we’re like, “No, there’s no chance,” right? They’d already licensed it, I’m sure.

John: At some point, our paths will cross with James McAvoy, and we’ll ask if he had any awareness that we talked about this idea.

Craig: After he punches me in the mouth.

John: Exactly.

Craig: I deserve it.

John: We’ll put a link in the show notes to the trailer. The trailer is charming, and I hope it succeeds. McAvoy seems really smart. I can totally believe him being a solid director on this. I like that he’s Scottish, the band is Scottish. It all makes a lot of sense. Two bits of follow-up on the Scriptnotes book, which remains out there in the world for people to buy. It’s always nice to see it featured prominently at bookstores. What do we have on follow-up for Scriptnotes book?

Drew: Micah says, “I’ve recently purchased a Scriptnotes book and have been having an amazing time reading it thus far. I’m sure many have brought this up, but one of my favorite things is the lightweight quality of the paper. In particular, it makes it such that my cat can jump on my lap and stretch out fully as she’s prone to do, while I can raise the book into the air and keep reading without my relatively weak wrists getting tired. The result is a satisfying situation for all parties.”

Craig: [laughs] I just love the idea that Micah and his cat are both sort of like boneless people.

John: Totally.

Craig: That’s great.

John: We made a book for weak wrists writers, and that’s fantastic.

Craig: That’s most of us.

John: We know that Micah is American because it’s the US version that is lighter than the British version for just reasons. It’s mostly because you perceive that it should be heavier. We talked about the support. You perceive that it should be heavier than it actually is, so it looks more like a textbook size, but it doesn’t have a textbook weight. That’s what happens here. More follow-up from Luke in Mallorca.

Drew: “In the introduction to the book, you say, struggling with theme, you can jump right to that chapter, but there’s no chapter on theme, nor is there an episode specifically dedicated to theme. Craig’s How to Write a Movie episode looks at thematic arguments, which is super insightful, but I’d love to hear both of your thoughts on theme and the many different interpretations of exactly what theme is in a story.”

Craig: Then they included this beautiful picture of where they were in Majorca with the book and a glass of, I’m going to say, beer. Beautiful.

John: Beautiful. I think as we wrote that sentence, as I probably wrote that sentence in the first chapter, there probably was a chapter on theme that was pieced together, and it all pulled apart into different things. Drew, you’re nodding. I think there was a theme chapter at some point, and-

Drew: I think there was.

John: -it just got broken into other pieces. We have a page in The Notion about the Scriptnotes book of things to fix in second printing. I think the sentence about the theme chapter will probably be updated in future printing.

Craig: John, you and I read the classic Choose Your Own Adventure books as children.

John: Oh, God, yes. So amazing.

Craig: I remember one. I think it was one where you go to some new civilization in space or something where there were two pages. There was a point where you would open the book, and on the left and the right, it was a place that you couldn’t get to by choosing. They were like, “We don’t know how you got here.”

John: You’re not supposed to be here.

Craig: “This is the secret place, and blah, blah.” I was so like, “Oh my God.” Yes, maybe that’s what’s happening.

John: There’s a secret theme chapter. You just haven’t found it yet.

Craig: It’s not listed, and you haven’t found it. I will say, Luke, the how to write a movie thing, that is basically how I think about it. You got my two cents in there. Yes, mostly when I think about theme, I try and get rid of that word as quickly as I can and come up with something that’s more useful.

John: If we update that sentence, I’ll say, you can skip ahead to Craig’s chapter on how to write a movie, which is his analysis of theme. Finally, we have a question about free work.

Drew: Brian writes, “In Episode 727, Craig mentioned that, per Working Rule 8 of the WGA contract, if you’re a member of the WGA, you cannot write for anyone without an employment agreement. I hope this isn’t a stupid question, but as someone who has currently written two freelance scripts for television, and is about to join the WGA officially, does that mean I cannot work on a project on spec, which I later intend to pitch?”

Craig: No, it does not mean that. When we say you cannot write for anyone, anyone means any employer. It means anyone who could pay you. You yourself can write anything you want for yourself, of course. What happens if you sell something on spec is a little bit of legal jujitsu, where the employer says, “Yes, you wrote this, but really, you wrote it because we wanted you to write it. Now, we own copyright, and here’s a bunch of money, and you are now employed on a thing that you, in fact, created.

Then everything is fine. No, you are free to write on spec to your heart’s delight. There’s this interesting thing that happens. There used to be a lot of this. I don’t know if it’s going on as much anymore, where producers would ask writers to write things on spec. That is a funky territory. We know that, for instance, a studio cannot ask you to write something on spec, obviously.

John: Like, a producer saying, I’m really looking for inexpensive horror that could be shot in this sort of schedule or in this location. In those situations, you’re writing this thing that you actually own, you have no agreement with that producer. It’s the idea that producer will then be able to set that thing up for a thing.

Craig: Yes. Really, Brian, the rule is there so that you don’t take money from people under agreements that are not WGA agreements. That’s really what the rule is there for.

John: Yes. One of the best things about being a writer is you can just create your own stuff. Actors have to wait for someone to hire them. Directors need material. You can just self-generate, which is great. In the time that I’ve been a WGA writer, I wrote Go on spec. I wrote The Nines on spec. It’s a thing that writers are often doing. That’s absolutely appropriate. In TV, you’re often writing new samples for yourself to get yourself considered for other projects. Yes, you’re always writing your own stuff. Never stop that.
All right, let us get to the marquee topic today. I want to talk about avoidance. Here is–

Craig: I don’t. I don’t want to talk about it.

John: Exactly. Craig has the spirit already. I’m reading this book called Indistractable by Nir Eyal. There was one bullet point that just stopped me cold. His quote was, “All motivation is a desire to escape discomfort. All motivation is a desire to escape discomfort.” I said, “Well, that’s not true.” I feel that’s fundamentally not correct. Yet, it feels plausible on some level. It’s provocative.

I wanted to pick this apart because, Craig, we’re often talking about motivation. That’s what’s driving story. You have a hero that wants something, and that’s what’s causing the story to begin. Craig, do you mind talking us through the basics of the hero’s journey kind of thing we’re usually talking about with motivation?

Craig: Sure. This goes to the simplest thing. What do I want? We do want things all the time. Whatever we want could be something like winning a race, or getting the girl, or defeating my enemy, or saving my village, or keeping my child safe, or it doesn’t matter, or going faster than the speed of light. Whatever it is, it’s the thing we want. Typically, in these stories, and this goes back to the most ancient of fables and mythology, typically, what a story is, is somebody trying to get what they want, and other things or people trying to keep them from getting what they want. If they do get what they want, their life will change for the better. If they don’t, their life will change for the worse in significant ways.
That’s the most basic plumbing of a story I can imagine.

John: Part of the reason why it’s so important to think in terms of what a character wants, what a character is trying to get to, is that as the reader, as the audience, we lock into what they want. We want them to get that thing that they want. We understand what the story is about. It’s like the contract that we’re setting with the audience is, okay, this character is trying to get this thing, and we will see the character work to try to get this thing. At the end, they will either get it or not get it, but that’s the journey that we’re going on. We often talk about the freeze frame.

You should be able to watch a scene and freeze the frame and point to each of the characters, like, what are they trying to do? What is their goal? What are they aiming for? What I’d like to talk about today is, so often, you can actually reframe that as, what are the characters trying to avoid? Reframing that positive motivation, what they’re aiming for, as the negative motivation, what are they trying to escape from or get away from? Generally, the characters are running from something. Sometimes that is built into a classic hero’s journey, which is the denial of the call to adventure, that they want to stay put and stay at home.

Often, it’s just, they’re trying to just avoid anything unpleasant, and they want to stay in the place they are.

Craig: Very often, a character will want the right thing, but for the wrong reason. I don’t think all motivation is a desire to escape discomfort, but I do think a lot of it is. I think really, there are only two real basic motivations that humans have, fear and love. Those are the things that drive us. One of them is generally viewed as positive. One is generally viewed as negative.

What we often find in stories are that characters are moving towards something or away from something out of fear, and then are taught to elevate themselves and change their motivation to a more positive love, that is a higher motivation based on the well-being, not just of themselves or anything selfish, but everyone, or sometimes it’s a higher spiritual state of being.

Luke Skywalker wants to get off his stupid planet. He wants to be a pilot. He wants to fight in the war. He’s doing all these things because, in a sense, he’s afraid of being meaningless. He’s afraid that people around him will die, like his uncle and aunt, who are all crispy there. Then, of course, in the end, he has to change that so it’s not fear, but rather this higher, sort of stretching love here to embrace the force and join with everybody as one consciousness so that he can commit an act of violence that kills many, many innocent people and is a war crime.

John: Yes. You’re talking about fear and love, and those core emotions are driving a lot of the avoidance here. Fear, loneliness, awkwardness, all of the things that keep people at home, keep people from stepping out of their comfort zone, it’s understandable. Our brains psychologically are hardwired to try to get back to homeostasis, that we’re going to go back to this thing that we recognize, the thing that we feel safe in.

Sometimes what looks like a lack of motivation is just someone just trying to avoid that discomfort. They’re making choices that are unproductive, either for story or for themselves, because it’s understandable why they’re trying to stay close, stay at home, keep things normal.

Craig: They could be productive in the sense that they are staying safe, and it’s working. It’s just not the best life they could live.

John: The idea of avoidance, of course, goes back. It’s always been part of philosophies. You see it in Buddhism that dissatisfaction or suffering is the source behind craving, craving being ambition or a call to action to do things. Schopenhauer already talks about will comes from a lack, that you’re missing something, that you’re suffering, and that’s what causes you to go out and try to do a thing. Again, a positive motivation is often really just an expression of this thing you’re trying to avoid.

Craig: Yes. There is the pleasure principle, which would argue the opposite, that what people go for are the things that make them feel good positively. I think it’s both. I do. What we forget, I think we tend to overlook how important avoidance is for us, and how important fear is for us, and how much of what we do really is secretly about that.

John: Let’s get some concrete examples. The first thing that jumped to mind was Carl in Up. This is a man who has shut himself off from the world after losing his wife, and he’s an almost entirely avoidant character. He just doesn’t want anybody to do anything. His quest, and the balloons, and going into Paradise Valley is about shutting himself off from everything else.

The movie is constantly creating obstacles and forcing him to confront these things he doesn’t want to confront, and step outside of his comfort zone. Up, we talked about your chapter in the book, and you talk a lot about Marlon in Finding Nemo. This is again an avoidant character. It looks like he has a quest. He’s going to see his son, but really, he’s driven by fear. He’s driven by trying to avoid the pain of the loss and acceptance of what’s actually happened.

Craig: Yes. This duality of fear and love was something that I think I made as concrete as I possibly could in the Bill and Frank episode of The Last of Us. Bill is avoidant. He does not want to deal with the world. Anyone who locks himself behind a fence is theoretically thrilled. Doesn’t matter. Even before the world ends, he avoids expressing his sexuality or experiencing connection with other people. Frank is about love. Frank’s goal is to make the street look nice and to have friends and to enjoy things as much as he can while he’s here to make the world around him better.

We do find typically that when we have a choice of a character, we want to choose the guy who’s avoidant to be the protagonist because they’re the ones who have to change. So much of the story of avoidance is face it. Face the thing you can’t face. Deal with it because after all, I think that’s what 99% of therapy sessions are. Can you face the dragon, slay the dragon, or are you going to continue to get eaten by the dragon?

John: Yes. It represents two Pixar movies, but the third, which one is also iconic, is Inside Out. In the real world, you have Riley, who’s trying to avoid uncomfortable situations. Then in the inner world, we have Joy who’s just trying to keep things happy and avoid the reality like, “Oh, there’s other emotions too who need to have their turn at the wheel.”

Craig: Toxic positivity.

John: Toxic positivity, for sure. Paul Giamatti in Sideways. This is a character who looks like they have a quest. They’re going to go on this road trip to encounter all this great wine, but really, he’s just trying to escape his failures, his failed marriage, his book, his life. It’s avoiding confronting the realities and situations, and the movie is forcing him to encounter those along the way. Whiplash. This, again, looks like a kid who has a quest to become a legendary drummer, but when we see his home life, we see like, “Oh, no, he’s actually just trying to avoid being the normal kid. He’s trying to avoid this being ordinary or nothing special.

Craig: Which is what a great example because there, throughout the movie, you do sense he is driven by this avoidance of that life. His move towards something is really a move away from something, and he is punished for it. Over and over and over. In the end of the film, it is clear that he is no longer motivated by fear. He is motivated by love. He creates something spontaneous and outrageous because he’s not afraid anymore. He just is experiencing love. He doesn’t care what that guy does to him anymore. In that moment, the caterpillar becomes a butterfly of bloody hands, and there’s a whole lot else going on there, but basically fits into this dynamic.

John: Now, when we talk about the Bill and Frank episode, they’re partnering up two characters who are an avoidant and an outgoing, one are often successful, but you look at Lost in Translation, Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson, they’re both essentially avoidant characters. Neither one wants to confront the reality of their situation, and together they kind of do, which is an interesting dynamic that you don’t see very often.

Craig: Yes. In that case, which is a wonderful story of two people in limbo, they will not see each other again. They should not have seen each other this first time. This is an ephemeral moment in which they can both take comfort in each other’s fear and loneliness. Two lonely people getting stuck together is fascinating because they’re no longer lonely. You’re right. The dynamic of the avoidant and the, I’ll just call them the loving person, is classic. Planes, trains, and automobiles, John Candy, just outwards.

All the movies that David Spade and Chris Farley did, Spade avoidant, Farley outward and loving, and it always ends up where the one changes the other. It’s always the avoidant one who must change, always. You never want to see a movie where an outwardly loving person goes, “Yes, you’re right, we actually would like to change. This is a little crazy.”

John: You see the same dynamic in Groundhog Day. You have Bill Murray’s character, who is super avoidant, and then becomes trapped in a situation. Annie McDowell’s character is the one, even though she doesn’t realize she’s doing it, is the one who’s pulling him out of this thing and making him see the love in these moments.

Craig: Yes. With very little agency, by the way. There is a better version. I love that movie so much. It does suffer from the very specific ’90s era woman as morally perfected human syndrome. It’s just this sloppy man trying to reach the already perfected height of a woman who was created perfectly and will exist in such perfection. You’re like, “No, what’s interesting about people is that they are not,” but it’s still awesome movie.

John: Yes. The opposite case of the morally perfect woman is Lydia Tár in Tár, who is the most complicated woman. We find her already at the peak of her career, and then she’s avoidant about everything crumbling around and the bad choices that she’s making that is causing it all to unravel. I just love Tár so much. I just love what an incredible character is there. Obviously, she had a goal going into this, but we’re coming into this moment where she’s avoiding all of the negative repercussions of the things she’s done and love it. It’s just the right moment to see it.

Craig: It’s also one of the best character names possible in general, but also specifically for what is happening to her, Lydia Tár.

John: Tár. It has to have that–

Craig: The little slashy.

John: The little accent, the little down slash on it.

Craig: The movie, just being called Tár with the little slashy, it’s wonderful.

John: So good. I want to talk about sometimes avoidance can become the quest, which is actually a fairly natural pattern. Legally Blonde, Elle, she’s going to Harvard, but really to avoid the pain of heartbreak. She doesn’t have a vision for what her positive version of her life is going to be. It’s like she wants to get back to homeostasis. She wants to get the guy back, and that’s motivating her initial quest to Harvard. Mad Max: Fury Road. Max is trying to stay out of everything and ends up getting dragged into it, and then becomes the reluctant hero in it. A classic pattern.

I guess what I’d ask people who are thinking about this for their own characters is, does the character know they’re running away from something, or do they think they’re running towards something? How does the audience react to this? Is the character self-aware or not self-aware of what they’re trying to avoid can be helpful?

Craig: Yes. You need to at least understand what they’re afraid of. I don’t care who the character is. If you are a loving character, you’re still afraid of something. If you are a fearful character, you still have the capacity to love something. Han Solo can just keep saying over and over, “I’m just in this for the money. I’m just in this for the money. I’m avoiding being part of the fight. I’m avoiding giving crap. I’m avoiding falling in love with that lady who’s kissing her brother.” Then, in the end, he comes back and does something loving.

John: I think what you’re talking about is there’s a pivot. There’s a moment in which the character, what they’re running from, someone else needs them to face it. Basically, it’s the thing that they’ve been avoiding is the thing they actually need to address in order to help something else. That pulls them into, it brings them across the barrier into the positive quest.

Craig: They will inevitably get called out. Somebody at some point in a story where the main character is avoidant will call them out and say some version of, “Are you going to run away like you have your whole life? Are you going to pretend to not care your whole life just to protect yourself? Are you going to give a damn about something because we need you?” There will be that moment always. Inevitably, at the end of that little speech, the avoidant character will say, “Screw you, I’m going home.” Then they’ll just think about it. Then they’ll come back. We like that. We love the rhythm of it. We love it as much as we love verse, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, break, chorus.

John: Let’s wrap this up by talking about, so often we’ll get notes about making sure the character has agency, that the character is driving the story. Some of those are good, well-intentioned notes. I think it’s easier to imagine characters who have a lot of agency and a lot of vigor and vim and zeal. They’re driving stuff forward, but they don’t feel real because real characters have fears. Real characters have things that are pulling them back from moving forward. The avoidance things are what we as an audience recognize in them. The fact that Indiana Jones is terrified of snakes, that’s a reality. If he didn’t have that, he wouldn’t feel as real to us.

Craig: Yes. Indiana Jones also avoids the religious, spiritual implications of the things he engages in. They’re simply objects that belong in a museum. He needs to be avoidant of these things so that, at the end, when there is something that is about to happen that is supernatural, he must embrace that in order to save himself and Marion.

John: The takeaways for our listeners is that, yes, you should be thinking about what characters want and being able to articulate what they want and to what degree the characters understand what they want, to what degree the audience understands what they want. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t running from something as well. It’s finding that balance between what they’re running from and what they’re running towards, so it feels like a continuous arc.

It feels like, “Oh, this is the journey that I’m seeing these characters on.” Obviously, we’re talking largely about movies here, where there is a clear arc and trajectory. Even in series television, there’s a sense of seeing both aspects of a character to make them feel real. They’re both driving story, but they also feel like real human beings.

Craig: Always. Sometimes it switches. As characters go through things, somebody may be on the rise, or another person is. For ongoing series that are meant to keep going, like soap opera, drama, whether it’s daytime or prime time, they need people to cycle around each other where one is avoiding, and one is creating and moving toward. It’s inevitable.

John: All right. Let’s answer some listener questions. Drew, help us out.

Drew: Trepidatious Boyfriend writes, “My girlfriend and I are both early-career TV writers in LA. We’re a couple of months into our relationship, and she wants to write something together with me.”

Craig: Ah.

Drew: “Wondering what the pros and cons are of writing with your romantic partner. What sort of feedback have you received over the years from writing partners who happen to be dating or married to each other?”

Craig: The ones that we know that are married to each other who are writing are only the ones that were successful. [chuckles]

John: Exactly.

Craig: The rest of them broke up in all possible ways. We don’t even know.

John: There’s a strong aspect of survivorship bias in the things we would cite.

Craig: Exactly.

John: A couple of first instincts here is basically, do you want to write the same kinds of things? If that’s not the case, you should definitely not write together. Are you Crepidacious Boyfriend, a person who is a good, creative roommate? Do you share well? Do you like having that second brain? Would you write with a partner if it was not your romantic partner? That’s a good question.

There are big advantages to writing with your romantic partner because you see each other more and that can be great. It can be a problem too if you need some space from each other, but it can be really good. We know so many teams who it’s great they’re working together, because they’d like to be together, and they get to stay together, and they get to do the stuff they love to do. Craig, what other instincts do you have? What’s the checklist you would give them in terms of yes or no?

Craig: I think the most important thing would be that you both fill slightly different roles in the process. From the married couples that I know who work together, and we know a few, it does seem like one of them fills a different role or capacity than another. Typically, while they are both imagining and thinking, one stays more in dream town, and one is more in typey town. Not like I’m only typing what you say, but rather there’s one that generally is a little bit more constructive on the page, while the other one is more imaginative, outlining, conceptual. That’s just my impression.

For you, Trepidatious, the thing that’s concerning to me is you are a couple of months into your relationship. Give it a little more time, maybe? Because, man, this could kill it fast.

John: It could. I’m thinking back to some of the writing couples I know who’ve lasted. In some cases, they were writing partners first, and then they fell in love over it.

Craig: That’s different.

John: That tracks and makes sense.

Craig: That’s fair.

John: I think your love life, your emotional happiness, your finding a partner in life is more important than finding a writing partner. I would say prioritize that.

Craig: I agree. Yes, you don’t need a writing partner. Clearly, because you’re both writing individually anyway. Finding somebody that you can love and live with, honestly, it’s like so much. What’s the point of, you know? God help you, the day you guys break up is the day you get a call that you just sold a script as a writing team. I guarantee you, it’s a nightmare. Give it some more time. Get a little more of a basis.

John: Friends of mine were a married writing team who were staffed on a TV show, and they broke up during the episode. It was really, really hard. It’s hard for them emotionally, but then they also have to have a professional relationship split up, and that’s so tough. Don’t go into anything expecting catastrophizing it, of course, but these are just things to think about.

Craig: I’m guessing the odds are low. I’m guessing the odds are low here. The odds in general are low. 50% of marriages end in divorce, I think. I’m not suggesting marriage here, but that’s the funny part is writing together is sort of marrying somebody. It’s an entwining you may not be ready for.

John: All right. Another question here from JP.

Drew: With the recent passings of so many Hollywood legends, I can’t help but wonder what happens to a person’s residuals when they die? When a person’s no longer around to collect those checks, who does?

John: The setup of this question, recent passings of so many Hollywood legends, this probably came in around the time of the Oscars. Wow, that in memoriam segment was so long. There were so many iconic people who passed away this last year. It made me realize, “Oh God, that’s only going to continue. I’m going to know more and more people who show up in the in memoriam section.”

Craig: This is good news, John. Because the more people that we know that die, the more comfortable we will be when it is our turn to die. Because we’ll be like, “Yes, that’s what’s going on these days. That’s what we’re doing.”

John: Craig, true confessions here. I cannot help but watch the in memoriam segment and say, “If I had died in that group, how much notice would I have gotten in that group? Would I have been a slide that goes past? Probably?”

Craig: Yes, I think you would. I think when the screenwriter slides come by, my expectation is that when they’re creating the death montage, they are orchestrating for swells of emotion. When you know you want a big swell, put the screenwriter into lower.

John: I’m in the middle of a beach.

Craig: It’s a dip. It’s a dip to set you up for an actor. It really is. Let’s face it. You don’t end the thing on the screenwriter.

John: Whereas, Craig, I think you would be in the Emmys in memoriam more likely than you’d be in the Oscars in memoriam.

Craig: That’s correct. I think I would be currently in the Emmys. Do people normally show up in both? Is that a thing?

John: They can, for sure. I feel like Rob Reiner would show up in both.

Craig: That’s true. Yes, I do. It’s funny when I watch these. I just do think like, “Oh, okay, they just put that.” He’s like a camera operator. He worked a really long time. I think I got a shot at getting into this thing. But I’ll never know. That’s the thing. I’ll never know.

John: You won’t even know. There are unanswerable questions, JP, but this is a very answerable question you asked about residuals after you die. I looked it up. This is a thing you could have Googled, but I’m actually happy you asked the question because I actually can have an answer for you. I’m going to read you from the page that I found. In 1977, the Guild negotiated for the member’s right to receive residual compensation in perpetuity. As a result, even after death, a writer will continue to receive residual compensation if their material is reused. Your residuals will be dispersed pursuant to the terms of your will or trust document or under intestacy law. Did I say that right? Intestacy?

Craig: Yes. If you are intestate, it means you died without a will. It sounds dirty, but it’s not.

John: As well as under the terms of community property, as may apply. Yes, residuals are forever. They go along with your estate and, in some cases, can be meaningful. That’s some good stuff. I looked it up in SAG-AFTRA. It’s basically the same thing. The bottom line is there’s no expiration date on residuals. They follow the worker, and so therefore they get passed on to estates.

Craig: It is important, actually, for so many reasons, to have your stuff in order. Even if you are not, say, ready for the Emmy post-mortem montage, you’re a young person; it’s still important to have some sort of arrangement made. There are very, very cheap ways to do this. What does happen sometimes is when someone dies, and there’s no arrangement, and nobody tells anybody anything, the guild tries to figure out who to give the residuals to. In the end, a lot of money ends up in the unclaimed residuals pile. That money eventually, I believe, starts to filter back into the general fund of the writer’s guild, but they do try to distribute those funds as best they can. Obviously, you want to make it easier on them than harder.

John: Absolutely. All right. I think it is time for our one cool thing. My one cool thing feels like a Craig one cool thing, but it’s delightful for both of us.

Craig: Oh, yes.

John: Josh Wardle, who created Wordle, he came on the podcast many years ago. We celebrated Wordle as a great product that he’d made. He has a new thing out called Parseword. Parseword is a cryptic crossword puzzle game that Craig directly inspired. It’s based on his conversation with Craig on this podcast, and Craig extolling the virtues of cryptic crosswords that got Josh thinking about, “How could I make a game for cryptic crosswords that would actually be accessible and playable even by someone like John August?” He succeeded. Parsewords is delightful. It’s just parseword.com.

It walks you through how to think about these things because it’s complicated. It’s not as simple as Wordle is, but I see Craig smiling. You’ve got to be delighted.

Craig: Of course. What Parseword does is, in its own way, teaches people how to do this. It’s a very specific format. A typical crossword clue will just give you some prompt, and you have to answer it like river in Egypt, Nile. The cryptic crossword will give you both a straight clue and a wordplay clue within the same clue in a way that’s funky. Let’s say, winding river in Egypt leads you to straight. What is that? In Egypt, it’s not a very good crossword. It’s not the bad cryptic clue, but it’s Nile, and then you anagram it to line.

There’s all these like– actually, what I just did is illegal, but regardless, the point is, this teaches you all the tips and tricks of how to do these things. I have to say, once you get into cryptic crosswords, you just don’t care about the regular crossword anymore because it’s just like, “Do I know a thing? Sure.”

John: It’s why, after you started skiing blacks, you don’t want to ski bunny slopes anymore.

Craig: You leave it behind. Checkers was fun. This is chess. Then there are so many levels, and I go deep into, as I’ve mentioned before, the Kevin Wald cryptics, which are insane. Even beyond those, there are the cryptics from The Listener in the UK, which are borderline impossible.

It’s all fantastic. It’s just such good brain work. Doing a cryptic crossword is my night routine to go to sleep. I spend 20 minutes or so, and then when I feel like, “Oh, I made some progress,” I put the iPad down, and I go to sleep. If I didn’t have that, I don’t know if I would sleep. I think I would just stay up all night.

John: People should check out Parseword. It’s a really well-executed version of a difficult thing to do. It’s just so smartly done. Check that out. parseword.com. What have you got?

Craig: I have a book review. I’ve not read the book, but I’ve read the review. It’s in The Nation, so it’s quite thorough. The book that is being reviewed is The AI Paradox: How to Make Sense of a Complex Future by Virginia Dignum. Side note, when did books have to be title, colon, explanation of title?

John: Oh, yes, that’s interesting. I don’t know when that started.

Craig: It just happened, and it just never– there’s no way to not know it.

John: I think it’s within the 2000s, but if you just called it The AI Paradox, it wouldn’t be meaningful at all.

Craig: That’s how books used to work, though. Anyway, The AI Paradox: How to Make Sense of a Complex Future by Virginia Dignum. This review is by Ben Tarnoff.

What she seems to be digging into, per his analysis, which I think is really fascinating, is that we seem to be caught between either fearing that AI will destroy us all or fearing that AI is a huge scam and our economy is about to collapse because it’s just a sham. What Ms. Dignum takes the philosophical position that, actually, artificial intelligence isn’t really like our intelligence, but it is something to cooperate with our intelligence, and that we ought to be–

Rather than running away from it or elevating it instantly to replace us, we should be actively figuring out how to work with it by its side and make it work for us. I liked the review mostly because I think it was positive about– and I thought a very reasonable approach, like, “Hey, what if everyone on the extremes is wrong here? What if there’s just this messy middle?” I remain generally in the, I think this might be a scam camp, but I was somewhat hopeful that this could be a really, really good version of a calculator, and work like that is of value.

John: I’m looking forward to checking out the review and possibly the book itself. It is tough because you have to hold multiple things simultaneously in your head. It’s like there are genuinely useful things that people are using it to do, which is great, and applications that seem valid and like, “Oh, that’s a thing you couldn’t do without this kind of technology.”

Disruptive and dangerous, just this last week, the security implications of the new Anthropic model that could basically break everything. That’s why they can’t even release it until they find all these patches for stuff. The fact that all the money pouring into it and the weird side deals, it could be Enron, but also be real. It’s very frustrating.

Craig: It is frustrating. It’s hard to tell if people are in so deep financially that they have to just keep shoveling crap at us to make sure that we don’t notice that it’s just bland. Then again, maybe this is in its best version, a great new tool like the computer. The computer changed– it wasn’t like when the computer came along, people were like, “Oh my God, so many people are going to lose their jobs.” A lot of people did lose their jobs and had to retrain doing other jobs, but it notably created a billion jobs. The notion that artificial intelligence must replace us, that seems like that’s the toxic point of view.

John: An article I was reading yesterday was talking about are humans horses or coal when it comes to AI? Basically, we used to have so many horses in the world, and it was like, “We just don’t need the horses anymore,” so all those jobs for horses went away, or is it like coal, where it’s just like, we are still necessary for actually figuring out how to implement it and do all the things with it. By being able to do stuff, we can actually grow things bigger. I don’t think we know yet.

It’s probably both. It’s a very different thing. I think the rise of computers and the rise of the internet are directionally similar, but it’s just a different force than we’ve had before.

Craig: She makes the argument that part of what makes human intelligence different is its cooperative nature with other human intelligences, that we are constantly relating to each other, learning from each other, and changing our minds because of each other in an inventive, creative way, including people whose minds don’t work quite right. For lack of a better word, mentally ill people have had an outsized impact on art and culture forever. That part of things, I don’t think AI knows what to do with. I don’t think so.

John: We’ll check in several hundred episodes to see where we’re at, if we’re still around.

Craig: We’re at the bots. We’ve got Craig Bot, John Bot.

John: Craig Bot, John Bot. It’s all working.

Craig: One final, one cool– I have an extra one cool thing this week. My daughter, Jesse Mazin, was asked by the Indigo Girls to open up for them. She will be opening for the Indigo Girls on all of their western dates. If you go to their upcoming concert, it’s Portland, LA, and all places in between, and I think Boulder, I think Colorado is her first– she’s put this song out, and it’s attention, and this is going to be her first real thing. We’re all very excited and very proud of her, and she did this all on her own. I don’t know the Indigo Girls, but she will be opening for the Indigo Girls, and we’re all very excited. If you want to buy a ticket, check it out.

John: Absolutely. Every father is so proud of their child’s first national tour.

[laughter]

Craig: I never expected that I would ever say– when I was in college listening to the Indigo Girls, I never thought, “You know what, it’s fun, maybe I’ll make somebody, I’ll make a person, and that person will open for these ladies one day.” Did not have that on my bingo card.

John: Life is full of surprises.

Craig: Indeed.

John: That is Scriptnotes for this week. It is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Don’t know him.

John: Our outro is by James Ashley McLaren. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask at johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com along with a signup for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. The Scriptnotes book is out and available wherever you buy books.

You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram @ScriptnotesPodcast. We have T-shirts, hoodies, and drinkwear. You can find those at Cotton Bureau.

You’ll find the show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you, as always, to our premium subscribers. You keep the lights on and make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record about video and other changes coming to Scriptnotes. Craig, it is a damn delight to have you back in my little Zoom window to record another episode of Scriptnotes.

Craig: He’s back. Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Let’s talk about video. For Episode 726, we recorded our first full episode as a video podcast. We didn’t have Craig, but our guests were Natalie Musteata and Alexandre Singh, who have since gone on to win the Oscar for their shorts.

Craig: Probably because they were on the show.

John: Honestly, probably because it was a tie.

Craig: Then definitely.

John: Literally.

Craig: Literally, somebody voted because they heard that episode.

John: Absolutely. I voted for him. I’ll say I voted for him. I was the one.

Craig: You were the one.

John: They were our guinea pigs. We sent that video as an exclusive link to our premium subscribers and asked them to give feedback. Drew, what did they say?

Drew: Very muted, no opinions.

John: No, that’s crazy. I really thought our listenership would have had opinions, but no, it was just silence, radio silence.

Drew: No, we got a lot.

[laughter]

Drew: It was very helpful. I can just run through some. Grigorij writes, “Huge fan of the podcast. This is really amazing. Well done. Would love to see all episodes as video episodes. Just miss Craig, 100% the way to go.”

Craig: All right. That is super positive. Why don’t we quit there?

Drew: Yale says, “This was really well done, and everyone’s heads had the right amount of shine. That said, I can’t see myself switching over to this format. It’s just that we’re 700 episodes in, and I just can’t say that in all those hours of listening to you guys as I’m doing the dishes or putting away laundry or on the subway, I’ve ever had a thought of, ‘Oh man, I wish I could see John and Craig right now.’ I’m very happy to have you continue to chat away in my headphones while you accompany me on my errands.”

Craig: Do you know what Yale just said? She said, “Oh, thank you, but I prefer that we just stay friends.” She straight-up did that. You know what? I get it. Don’t want to see me either, Yale. We’ll call that– what do you call that, a neutral?

John: Yes, we’ll call it neutral.

Craig: Neutral. Neutral, like take it or leave it, I guess.

Drew: Christopher says, “I had no intention of watching the whole video when I hit play. I just wanted to check it out for a few minutes since I don’t watch video podcasts. I prefer to listen to podcasts because I was born in the ’70s, and that’s what we do. 71 minutes later, I’m writing this email. What I enjoyed the most was connecting with Natalie and Alexandre as people visually. I felt more emotionally connected to their story as I watched them tell it than I think I would have just by listening to the podcast. I guess that’s why we write scripts in the hopes of turning them into films for audiences to watch. I loved seeing the studio space you’ve set up for these video recordings.

Nice attention to the background detail without being distracting, wonderful soft lights with the lamps. I even caught a squirrel on the wall just above Alexandre’s head at one point, to my delight.”

Craig: That was an unexpected win there with Christopher. I like that.

Drew: Rich says, “For me, this worked, and I love your background, but just be careful if and when you start to show video clips of movies in this medium to remember your roots and know that us in the car or on a walk can’t see it.”

John: That’s always a big problem with audio podcasts who try to include clips because then you have to describe what people saw in the clip, and it does slow everything down.

Craig: We generally don’t do much in the way of clips anyway for this very reason.

Drew: Guy says, “For me, pictures ultimately distract from your core purpose.”

Craig: Here we go. Finally.

John: “Scriptnotes was put here on earth in order to have two very experienced and amiable screenwriters chat about how to use words well in service of building pictures in people’s heads. With audio, there’s no distractions. I don’t want to see mics and cables. I just want to listen to my one-way friends and concentrate, usually while I’m driving or doing the washing up. ‘That’s fine,’ you might say. Just keep listening to the podcast. You won’t be forced at gunpoint to watch us. True, but here’s the thing. This will take up a lot of time, energy, and resources, and I suspect that ultimately may get passed on to your loving but financially stretched subscribers in the form of increased subscription fees.

Although you’re both fine-looking gents and this is slick, it’s audio-only vote from me.”

Craig: I like that Drew added some good old anger into that as he read it. He just imagined Guy getting pissed.

John: He’s an actor. Drew is fundamentally an actor. He’s a trained dramatic actor.

Craig: He’s an actor. He’s a trained dramatic actor. Also, by the way, I love Guy. Guy’s awesome. This guy’s great.

John: Give us the numbers. What was the breakdown here?

Drew: I broke it down. About five people said, “I prefer Scriptnotes as a video podcast. This is the only way to go.” We got about 26 people who said, “Heck yes, I love this,” but didn’t name a preference. For the people who said, “Looks nice, but there’s really no value add for me, and I’m probably going to stick to audio-only,” that was about 18 people. Finally, about four people said, “Do not do this. You’re ruining a good thing.”

John: That’s fair.

Craig: Let’s see. How would we evaluate this overall?

John: This is what I would have expected, but as Drew was reading through this, I was thinking back to Craig, we didn’t even used to look at each other on Zoom, or was it on Skype when we originally did it? We have our cameras on right now. We’re looking at each other, but for most of the podcast, we’ve only been hearing each other. I think one of the reasons I think we’re successful is because we actually do listen to each other.

We think of ourselves as an audio podcast. I still think of us as an audio podcast that has some video now. That’s where my head’s at. What’s your feeling, because we haven’t talked about this?

Craig: You’re right. The fact that we were audio-only has shaped what we do. I don’t think we would do anything differently with video as an added thing because I completely understand where people are coming from. I hope it doesn’t lead to more higher subscription fees. Maybe the idea is you get more subscribers, I would imagine. I understand that it looks nice, but no value add for me; we’ll stick to audio-only people. Then from time to time, if we have a guest on or somebody, I think that’s really where it can be valuable. I think this is generally positive.

I think the two of us are self-aware enough to know. If we suddenly started acting like on-camera jackasses because there was a camera there, it’s just not who we are. We are as set in our ways as Guy is. [laughs] I think we would just keep doing what we do. It’s just that if he did want to see, you could.

John: We sent you that episode to take a look at it. Your feedback was exactly my feedback. Do you remember? You were talking about camera placement, basically making sure–

Craig: Framing.

John: Yes, making sure we’re just not always in profile, which is how we were set up.

Craig: This is something that I’m constantly talking about on set all day because profile is, or three-quarters, often is a very flattering view of somebody. If you’re having a moment where people are connecting and learning, teaching, agreeing, arguing, something about the on-axis frontal view-

John: Say both eyes.

Craig: -it creates connection. You can feel it better.

John: We have gone back. We didn’t have to relight, but we had to move some stuff around in the studio to do it. Our great DP, John Pope, has been helping us out with that. We’re going to do some more of these. When we have guests in, we’re going to roll the cameras and have those as video episodes. A logistical thing, too, is when we record video, should Matthew edit the audio and then match the video to it, or should he edit the video? Prioritizing the two of those is a factor. This episode we’re doing right now, we’re not doing the video. We don’t care about the video for it. It’s just an audio episode. He’s great at both, but it’s where do you prioritize?

Craig: Way easier to edit audio. Way easier.

John: You can hide things. All of our little flubs just like, disapear.

Craig: If you have a couple of angles, obviously, you can cut to the other person when you need to snip something out, but it can get a little tricky, and you might end up with some jumping and stuff or just a cut to some little weird thing. Maybe we just do that. It’s called the video editing frog, and it’s like a little ceramic frog you just cut to, and there it is for some reason, and then we’re back to the discussion.

John: That’s the frog. Our current plan, just for listeners to know, is that when we have guests or we have a marquee topic, we may pull that marquee topic out as a video that just lives on YouTube, but full episodes will probably not be showing up on YouTube. As Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other places let you do video podcasts, we may put the video version of the podcast up for premium members and not have it for our standard feed. Our standard feed is just the audio of it all. Partly because one of the things we do at Scriptnotes, we’ve always done, is only the most recent 20 episodes are available in the free feed, and it’s a premium feed for everything beyond that.

If something’s on YouTube, then why would anybody subscribe? From a business model, it doesn’t make sense. We want to be able to make this a sustainable business. Part of sustainability is also recognizing the limits of our time and ability to do things. I am about to embark on a project that’s going to be taking a lot of my time over the next year or so. Drew is going to come with me over on that new project. There will be a new Scriptnotes producer at some point in the future. You’ll hear a different name there.

Craig: Who?

John: You’ll hear a different voice.

Craig: I wonder who it is.

John: We’re excited to introduce.

Craig: If I had to guess, could I guess what that person’s name is?

John: You could guess.

Craig: Meredith.

John: The Ouija board, where’s the tile?

Craig: I’m just guessing, Meredith. I don’t know why. I’m chucking it out there.

John: It feels right.

Craig: Putting it out in the universe, let’s see what happens.

John: No, that’s a thing that’s coming at some point down the road. I love co-hosting this podcast, but it’d be great to have someone on who could do a little bit more of everything else and whose job it is to just full-time be the Scriptnotes producer.

Craig: You’re very sweet that you say you co-host it. I co-host it, you host it, and I show up.

John: We want to make sure that we can keep the quality excellent even as I get much busier doing other things. I think we’ll be able to do that. Because we’re in the premium feed here, just thank you to all our premium members. The only reason that we can do some of this professionalization of Scriptnotes is because people pay the money for this thing, and we want to make sure that it stays excellent, and you are the people who let it stay excellent. Craig, Drew, thank you for a fun episode of Scriptnotes.

Drew: It’s just nice to be back.

John: Thank you.

Links:

• Does one page of a screenplay really equal one minute of screen time? by Stephen Follows
• California Schemin’ trailer
• Indistractable by Nir Eyal
• Explanation of Disbursement of Residual Payments After Death from the WGA West
• Parseword
• Frankenstein’s Regrets by Ben Tarnoff for The Nation
• The AI Paradox: How to Make Sense of a Complex Future by Virginia Dignum
• Indigo Girls Tour featuring Jessie Mazin!
• Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
• Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
• Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
• John August on Bluesky and Instagram
• Outro by James Ashley McLaren (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is episode 730 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

This week, Craig and I are still both off on our adventures, but fingers crossed we should be back in person with a normal episode next week. Today I’m here with producer Drew Marquardt. Hey, Drew.

Drew Marquardt: Hey, John.

John: I also haven’t seen you for a bit either because I’ve been in negotiations with the Writers Guild and then on vacation before that, so it is nice to see your face again.

Drew: It’s really good to see you too. I’m excited for this episode too.

John: This episode reminds me of, you know that feeling where you haven’t been to the grocery store in a while and so you open the fridge and you’re like, “What can I actually eat in here?”

Drew: Yes.

John: That’s the feeling today because we were trying to assemble a meal from leftovers. Sometimes those turn out really tasty.

Drew: Oh, those leftover sandwiches that are just weird things that you don’t think go together, but they’re great.

John: Looking through the big folder, a thing which we had in that folder was this interview I did with the Northwest Screenwriters Guild. This was an event to promote the Scriptnotes book and do a Q&A with their members. It ended up being really great.

The Northwest Screenwriters Guild, we should say, isn’t a union, but rather a screenwriting community based out of the Pacific Northwest. It was just me. Craig wasn’t able to join for that one. What I remember about it is it started out as a standard promotional stop, but actually became a really good conversation about process and career. We asked them and they said yes, that we could take the audio from that and share it with our listeners.

Drew: I feel like I’ve heard you talk about the Scriptnotes book and tell your career story 4 billion times at this point. This is the first time I felt like I heard new things and really frank things. It was really exciting to listen to.

John: There were a lot of good questions, and so we’re putting this in here. It’s a little bit of a strange episode because it’s just people asking me questions, but it is about the thing that Scriptnotes is about, which is screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. It was also a good reminder that there’s folks out there for whom all of this is new, and they’re asking these questions for the first time. I enjoyed this conversation. Hopefully, you’ll still learn something new even if you listened to 729 episodes of Scriptnotes. Then we’re back at the end for a boilerplate and wrap up.

In our bonus segment for premium members, I want to talk about sketch comedy writing because one of the real joys of being on the negotiating committee for the Writers Guild is we get a chance to talk with members who work across all sorts of different fields. Especially, we get a lot of writers from the East who work in sketch comedy and work right for shows like Last Week Tonight or the other big late night shows, SNL.

I had a great conversation over lunch with them about sketch comedy writing. I want to have them on the show to actually talk about it. I want to have a chat with you, Drew, about just the nature of sketch and, again, a segment of John didn’t know about how the process works and what the lingo is behind sketch comedy.

Drew: I’m into it.

John: Cool. Enjoy this conversation with the Northwest Screenwriters Guild. We’re back at the end and we’ll be back with a normal episode next week.

[music]

Mike Johnston: Hi. I’m Mike Johnston. I’m the vice president of the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, someone absolutely no one wants to listen to, so let me introduce our very special guest tonight so he can talk, the co-host of the podcast Scriptnotes, Mr. John August. Welcome, sir.

John: Hello. It’s really nice to be here.

Mike: Great.

John: I usually say hello and welcome. That’s my default greeting on Scriptnotes, but it’s nice to see a bunch of either faces or list names in boxes here for this. Mike, Lynelle, Scott, thank you so much for having me here at the Northwest Screenwriters Guild. I think what you’re setting up to do here is a lot of why I got involved in answering questions about screenwriting. I grew up in Boulder, Colorado, was a journalism major in Iowa, and it wasn’t until I was in college that I actually found out there was such a thing as screenwriting. Everyone on the Zoom is ahead of where I was at.

When I was first finding out that there was such a thing called screenwriting, the only opportunity I had to read scripts was books would sometimes publish the screenplay that went with a movie. The first thing I read was Steven Soderbergh had a script for Sex, Lies, and Videotape along with a production diary. I was able to read through that and say, “Oh my gosh, this is everything they’re saying in the movie.” I was watching the videotape. Everything they’re saying in the movie is written down there on paper beforehand. It seems so obvious because we’ve all grown up reading plays in high school.

Of course, a movie is like a play, but with more stuff in it. I just didn’t know it until I actually saw it and read it for the first time. In discovering that there was such a thing as a screenplay and someone had to write that screenplay, I was like, “That’s a job I think I want to do.” I went to the library because this is pre-internet, and read as much as I could. I found out there were film programs.

I went to a summer program at Stanford where I learned the basics of shooting film and a little bit about cinematic storytelling. Then I applied to and got into USC for film school. For grad school, I did a two-year producing program. That’s where I read a thousand scripts and really got to understand what screenwriting was and how it worked.

I always remembered what it was like not to know these things. As the internet came up, IMDb asked me to write a weekly column about screenwriting. I was answering listener questions about screenwriting. I read a question about screenwriting. I started my own blog where I answered more of those questions and talked about what it was I was doing. Then almost 15 years ago, I started a podcast with Craig Mazin about screenwriting, and that was Scriptnotes.

Our imagined listener is the person who, maybe they’re working in the industry, but maybe they’re just the kid I was in Iowa who wants to know about screenwriting and wants to have good information about it. Since there weren’t other online communities for it, we were just trying to provide that answer for people with those questions and really talk about what the experience was like. For 15 years, we had a weekly podcast about it, talking everything from the craft to the business. That’s the instinct behind Scriptnotes, the book, the podcast, and why I like to talk to people online about what screenwriting is like.

Mike: Absolutely. I stopped screenwriting because the feedback I was getting, it was all these rules. Then I discovered your podcast. I’m like, “These guys get it.” It’s been a whole summer. I went back to the earliest episode I could get. I can easily say that I have listened to every single one of your podcasts.

John: Holy cow.

Mike: I highly recommend.

John: 714 or so episodes of Scriptnotes to listen to, plus some bonus segments along the way. It’s good you talk about the rules of screenwriting because one of the things when we set out to write a screenwriting book is that every book of screenwriting is basically, “Here are the rules, and follow these rules, and you will write a good screenplay.” We felt like we had to start with an introductory chapter that was just like, “Here are the rules of screenwriting. We came down to 20. I’ll just read you this 20, and then I’ll tell you why they’re all bullshit. These are the kind of rules you’re going to see all the time.

Your script must be 120 pages or fewer, 12-point career only. The inciting incident must happen by page 15. The first act break must be by page 30. The midpoint is really important. The second act break must be on page 90. No scene can be longer than three pages. You can only use day or night in scene headings. Never use cut to. It’s unnecessary filler. No camera directions unless you’re also the director. Don’t use “we see” or “we hear.” Use uppercase only for sound effects and character introductions.

No bold, italics, or asterisks. No punctuation in parentheticals. Don’t make asides to the reader in actual descriptions. If it can’t be seen or heard, cut it. Don’t use the words “is” or “walks.” Don’t use passive voice. No adverbs ending in -ly. No -ing verbs. No VoiceOver. Those are the 20. Those are the kinds of things we kept being forced at us as we were starting off as screenwriters.

These were like the shibboleths, like “Don’t do these things.” The truth is in reading good screenplays, you will find all these things in abundance. You’ll find a bunch of different ways and styles that writers write. There’s conventions, but there really aren’t rules to screenwriting. There’s just a way of conjuring the experience of watching a movie just with the words on the page. That’s all screenwriting is, but it’s a lot. That’s why it’s been 15 years of podcasting and a book.

Mike: Absolutely. Of all the guests that you have in there, writers, directors, who would you say was the best on theme?

John: On theme. I’m going to define theme loosely as the underlying thing about what a movie is really about and that it’s not about the plot. What is the question, the dramatic question that it’s trying to answer? Listen, Christopher Nolan was a fantasy guest. We were excited to have him on board, have him coming onto the podcast.

It was really interesting seeing his approach to writing something like Oppenheimer, which is basically, he had to do just a lot of digging to figure out what did the movie mean to him? What was it about Oppenheimer’s life that was so fascinating that he could key into that to keep coming back to? For him, it was sometimes really imagery to keep coming back to in the movie in terms of his discovery process that got us back into it.

Greta Gerwig talking about Lady Bird and what it meant to be a young woman who is both rebelling and also finding her place, and In Little Women, how she approached this book that she knew so deeply and so intimately, but she knew she needed to explore it differently on screen. Those are the kind of conversations that were so exciting to me to talk through.

Yes, on theme because you need to know what the movie is really about before you start writing it, but sometimes it’s also a discovery process. You write a draft and then you read it and other people read it and realize, “Oh, I thought it was about this, but it’s actually about that.” That becomes the unifying goal for the next draft.

Mike: Thank you. Was there a section that you wish you had more pages on structure, outlining, rewriting? Was there a section you really wanted to expand?

John: Yes. The initial draft of the book was 600 pages, and we were committed to 300 pages, so we bargained our way up to 333. One of the chapters that didn’t make the cut was called Getting Stuff Written. It was really about the process and procrastination and all the psychology of what it takes to actually get words on the paper. What I’m proud about with the chapter is that we were able to balance that.

Sometimes you need tough love and sometimes you need self-care. We talk you through what is the balance and how are you productive but not self-destructive? How are you finding ways to make writing rewarding and not just an absolute exhausting chore? That’s a chapter I’m really happy with.

Mike: Thank you. When you went through this whole process, did you find your opinions maybe evolved over time, and what might those be?

John: I think our opinions over the 15 years of listening to the podcast, some stuff has progressed. An example would be, I think 15 years ago, I believed in meritocracy more than I do now. I believed that, oh, if you’re a really good writer, it will work out and people will notice you and things will happen. I’ve just seen so often really great writers who the dots just don’t connect. I think I’m much more aware that there’s other factors that play there and some variables you can predict and some variables you can’t predict. That’s an example of how I’ve evolved over time.

I think it’s only because of talking with a bunch of other writers and, honestly, a bunch of listeners who are facing real challenges. I also think I had a very US bias in terms of screenwriting. I think I’m much more aware of the fact, if I’m answering a question, that the question might pertain to the US film and TV industry, but other industries just work a lot differently.

Even though the fundamentals of craft are going to be universal across all experiences, any answer I’m giving about the business itself is very going to be US-based, because that’s just the world I know. I also know very much a Hollywood world. I’ve done a lot of work with Sundance Institute and some other independent films, but I’m always surprised about hometown filmmaking that sometimes can be great and this was outside of my wheelhouse. I think I’m much more aware of the stuff I don’t know now. I’m very capable of saying, “but I don’t know, and there’s other good answers out there.”

Mike: Sure. Speaking of the business, a lot of people assume I write a great script, I get an agent, and then people pay me to write scripts for them. What’s the reality of what you do as a successful professional screenwriter? What’s your day like? What’s the stuff you’re doing besides screenwriting? How much hustle do you need to be a screenwriter?

John: I think that’s a great day to be asking that question because the episode we just put out today is by the two writers of KPop Demon Hunters, who are recent college graduates. There’s the prototype of just like, “I came out of college with a film degree and I hustled really hard and I made it and now I’m still working.” It’s good if you’re someone who’s in that cohort.

Great lessons in terms of just they made the most of their ramen days where they were broke and they just knew they were broke and that’s okay and they were scrambling. They were saying yes to everything they possibly could. They just worked and worked and worked and worked. They’re a great example of that kind of very classic story, which is that eventually people start passing around your scripts without you knowing they’re passing them around, and suddenly the heat just builds and it’s great. They made a lot of opportunities for themselves. They took advantage of it. That’s not universal.

There’s people who are entering into the business, switching from a different career, they’re coming in later, they’re doing different things. In those situations, there’s no one with classic way that it happens. I was talking to a guy at the Austin Film Festival who realized that he got tired of trying to pitch on things. It’s like, “I’m just going to write everything as a spec and I’m going to just sell specs.” He sold three comedy specs over the course of 18 months and got started and got things going. That does still happen.

I think my frustration has always been, even before I started the podcast, is there’s a lottery ticket mentality sometimes with screenwriting. It’s like, “I’m going to write this thing and they’re going to buy it for $1 million and then I’ll be set and then I’ll be working constantly.” That’s just not the experience. It’s amazing if you have a first sale, but more importantly is that you write something that people want to hire you to write other things because that’s the sustainable way that you keep going in this business for most writers.

Mike: You also mentioned pitches. I’m hearing and reading more pitches are getting bought. Is that something that entry-level people can take advantage of or is that really for established writers?

John: I think it can happen across the gamut. Listen, I think pitches are a good bellwether that there’s the businesses picking up some, which is great, and that people are excited to start developing new stuff and get things going. There are ideas that are very pitchable. There are ideas that you can see, like, “Oh, I get why that is a movie. I can see what the trailer would be for that. I can understand what the concept is there.” If you’re writing a thing that’s like that, then being able to pitch it is really important.

Is it a little tougher to get in the door to do that pitch if no one knows who the hell you are? Yes. Yet every day there’s examples of people who do that. That pitch might get you in to meet with a manager or to meet with other people. Again, they’re excited to hear the idea, but they’re only excited if the idea is matched with samples that they’re excited to read. Very few of these pitches are selling from people no one knows who didn’t also read a really great screenplay. It ultimately comes down to that.

Again, this episode that was dropped with the KPop Demon Hunters’ writers, they had a good, funny script. With that good, funny script, they could get in and pitch on KPop Demon Hunters. They weren’t just taking a random person off the street and hoping that they could do it.

Mike: Sure. You gave me a piece of advice once.

John: Oh, great.

Mike: It really stuck with me. I was hoping you could expand upon it. Getting notes is just part of the business. You told me, when I asked about getting notes, you said, “Everybody has an agenda.” Could you expand on that?

John: Absolutely. There’s actually a whole chapter we did expand on it in the book called Notes on Notes. There’s a whole bunch of stuff that’s just like the Mike Johnson perfect pitch for that. Whenever you get a note about a script, keep in mind that the note has an intention behind it. There’s something that was not working for the reader, and they wanted to let you know about it. Honor that. That’s great. It’s good that they’re giving you the note. Hear that they had an issue. Don’t take their solution as the solution.

If something isn’t working for them, your job is to figure out what it actually is. Sometimes they’re saying, “Oh, it’s this thing on page 15,” but is it really about the thing on page 15, or is it something that actually happened on page 12 that was knocking them off the track? Your job is to figure out what that is. Thank them for the note, and then see if you can explore and figure out what’s actually really happening there behind the note.

Some notes you just disagree with, or sometimes the person is not reading the same movie that you’re intending to make. You can have a good conversation where you can figure out what movie it is that they think they want to make. If they’re not the decision-maker, they’re not the person who’s writing the check, you don’t have to do their note.

If you get a consistent note, though, from several people, it’s especially worth paying attention to because something is not clicking right about the script. They’re not seeing the same movie that you’re seeing. That’s a good sign to dig in and figure out, is there a movie that matches their expectation that also meets what you are setting out to do?

Mike: Sometimes it comes out as a feedback. There’s three different pieces of feedback, and it’s all the same underlying problem.

John: Exactly.

Mike: They don’t know what it is, but they see the effect it’s having on your story.

John: Especially if you get notes like, “I got a little bored here. I got lost. I didn’t know what I was doing here. I found this repetitive,” those are signs that something before that was just not working right. You didn’t click and engage with them right because you’ll find that viewers and listeners and readers will forgive you a lot if they’re engaged and curious, but if you lose that engagement and that curiosity, they may keep flipping pages, but they’re not really reading it.

Mike: Sure. On the craft itself, think about earlier in your career: Go, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; you’ve worked on a lot of stuff for a very long time. What are some lessons you wish you had learned earlier in your career?

John: This is probably not as much a craft thing as a business thing, but I’m really happy with the movies I’ve gotten made. Love them to death. There are a lot of movies that I did just as much work on that didn’t get made. Some of the frustration I feel is that there’s a whole bunch of my work and the movies I wrote in my head that don’t exist out there. I think some of that is my own fault because I made some bad choices.

I think I chased and pursued some projects that were interesting but weren’t really my passion. Sometimes they were paydays, but sometimes they were a chance to improve myself in certain ways. I know I wish I would have spent a little more time focusing on writing the things that I could do myself, that I could direct myself, that were very specific and that only I could do.

I think in some cases, I was writing movies that lots of people could have done, and I was happy to do it, but it wasn’t my calling in life to do it. Big Fish was a movie that I feel like only I could have done. It was very specific to my experience. I got to do the Broadway musical version of Big Fish, which was, again, very true to my experience and took 15 years of my life. It was a lot.

I don’t regret that, but there’s other small projects along the way, including some that made that were not the best use of my words and my time and my attention. That’s a thing as a professional writer, but even as someone on Zoom who’s an aspiring writer who’s aspiring to become a professional writer, think about what movie you most want to see exist in the world, and that’s the one you should be focusing your time and your attention on, not just the one you think like, “I could sell it maybe.” It’s not going to be good for you.

Mike: I have a couple of those. [laughs] I could describe your writing style because I’ve read your screenplays. It’s just clean, Hemingway-esque, short, muscular sentences, but voice. How would you describe your voice? I think a lot of writers struggle with what a voice is, so how would you describe yours?

John: It’s friendly. It’s not crazy, smart, intellectual. I want it to feel like I’m sitting right next to you in the theater watching it on a screen. That’s what I want it to feel like. If I say we see and we hear, that’s because I’m right there with you and this is what we’re watching together, and so we’re on this ride together. I’m never going to refer to the second person. I’m not going to say you see this, but we do this thing as an audience together. We see and feel this thing. It’s warm. It’s not especially cold and clinical.

I can go back to scripts I wrote to see if I could 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and I will have forgotten every single thing about it, but it will still read like me. Essentially, you do develop a voice at a certain point. There’s a fingerprint to it, and it does feel like me. The thing I was writing this afternoon versus 15 years ago, they’re very similar in terms of the words I’m choosing and what it looks like on the page. You develop a style.

I should say, if you want to read any of my stuff, at my website, johnaugust.com, there’s a library there. Basically, everything I’ve written, all the scripts I’ve written are there. If you’re curious to read Big Fish or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or any of those things, that’s there.

Mike: Are you an outliner or right-by-the-seat-of-you-pants kind of guy?

John: Classically, I’m more of the pantser. I’m more figuring stuff out as I go and feeling my way through it. I do have a sense of what the overall shape of the story is, but I will write whatever scene is appealing to me right in the day. I’ll write out a sequence. I’ll do all that kind of stuff. Increasingly, I’ve been doing stuff where I’ve had to turn in an outline first, sometimes in animation or other projects. I resented it, but it is really handy when I can say, “Oh, actually, the story problems are solved, and now it’s just about the scene work.” I do appreciate that.

This project I’m working on right now, I turned in a 45-page outline. At that level, you really do know the story. There’s no mysteries. It was required stuff for this project, but it was really nice to be able to have conversations with the studio. They knew exactly what movie I was writing and so when I delivered them that movie, they weren’t surprised. They weren’t shocked. It was just a better version of what they had in the outline, and that felt good.

Mike: You’ve done original features, adaptations, big budget films. Is there crossovers or certain tips that you could give us on working with those different types of stories?

John: I do a lot of adaptations. Crucially, an adaptation, the idea is coming from someplace else, but it has to be a movie first and foremost. You really have to look at what does this story want to look like on a screen. That can mean radical transformation of the underlying narrative to make it fit in that two-hour block and with just what an audience approaches with expectation for a movie.

Big Fish is a collection of tiny little short stories. The book is very different from the movie, and yet it tracks, it makes sense. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has every single word I could keep from the original book and get onto the big screen is there, but it’s actually structured a lot differently. In the movie version of it, Charlie is the antagonist and Willy Wonka is the protagonist. Willy Wonka is the character who changes throughout the course of it because I needed somebody to actually have an arc over the course of the movie.

Charlie Bucket starts the movie as a really good kid and ends as a really good kid. I needed to have him be the one who created the change and created the nervous breakdown that was happening for Willy Wonka. It’s incredibly close to the book and yet also incredibly different in terms of the character dynamics you’re seeing there in the story. It really depends on the needs of what it is.

The movies I’m writing as originals, let’s say that I’m writing them in original right now, and it’s great. It’s liberating. It’s sometimes a little scary not to have the backstop of the material you’re adapting.

Mike: Sure. What’s a piece of advice that you just keep giving writers again and again and again they keep ignoring?

John: I alluded to it first, which is basically write the movie you would pay money to see. I said the pay money to see is, I think, important because it distinguishes between commercial, like big C commercial, like, oh, everyone is going to go see that movie. What’s the movie that you actually would want to see? If you love low-budget grisly horror, you should write that because that’s a movie that you wish you could see, that you’d actually pay your money to see.

By the same token, don’t write a football movie if you don’t like football movies. So often, I see people who have spent a year of their life writing movies you would never go see this. There have been a couple times in my life where I’ve come in and done a couple weeks on a movie, it’s like, “I’m never going to see this movie. It’s just not my movie at all,” but as a craftsman, I was just coming in to help them out. I think most of the movies I’ve worked on are movies that I’m genuinely excited to plunk down my money on a Friday night to go see, and that is an important distinction.

Mike: Good advice. After all these years, what do you love about screenwriting?

John: I love the adventure. I love just the chance to just build out a whole new space in a world I’ve never seen before. My experience of writing is, I close my eyes, I put myself in the scene, I see everything, I hear everything, I let it loop through, and then I quickly scribble down what I saw and then go back through and do a clean version.

I’ve always been just very good at just imagining and imagining myself in a place. I love going to that place and imagining it. There’s a series I’m hoping to do next. If it happens, the good part of that part is I look at being in a place for years at a time writing those episodes, and that’s really exciting to me. It’s a little terrifying, but exciting to me to get that chance to stay in a place and watch it grow and develop and change and interact with the realities of production.

Mike: Fantastic. Good answer. You mind if we take a few questions?

John: Sure. Let’s go for it.

Mike: Lynelle, are you still with us?

Lynelle Souleiel: I’m still with you. We have a number of questions, but this one has stood out to me. This is from Luke Rankin. He says, “We’ve talked to good routines, but what bad habits were you able to kick that helped you become a better writer?”

John: It’s a great question. I’m going to fall back on a thing I’ve said other times before. Google it, and I’ve probably said it before. I used to have bad habits, and then I decided to label them habits and not define them as good or bad. They’re just the ways that I work. As I recognize myself falling into a less productive habit, that’s just me. I’m wasting time in the ways I’m wasting time, so I’m doing that thing again. I’m not as harsh on myself when I see myself doing it.

Bad habits are the classic procrastination or doing the New York Times crossword puzzle when I know I should really start first. If I don’t get work done in the morning, I’m not going to get as much work done over the course of the day. If I don’t start that first sprint, which is that first hour of really concentrated work, I’m not going to get as much done in the course of the day.

Also, stuff will eventually get done, and that’s okay too. I can ruminate too much. I can fixate too much on stupid things, but that’s also a part of my brain that’s involved with my imagination. That’s also the muscle I use for writing dialogue. I have bad habits, but I just choose not to label them as bad anymore.

Lynelle: Connor O’Farrell says, “What matters to you more when you write, the process of writing or the prospect of the finished script? Is it the journey or the destination that drives you?”

John: Honestly, it’s the destination. I love having a finished thing. I love reading through something that I really like the outcome of it. Getting there sometimes is bloody and messy along the way. There’s moments where you enter what we call flow, where it’s just like, oh my God, it’s natural and it’s easy, and you just lose time. You’re like, “Wow, this is going so great. It can be addictive. You can start to chase flow in a way that is unhelpful.

If you actually go back and look at artists’ best work, it didn’t always come while they were in their flow states, when everything was good and easy. Some of their best work came when they actually were grumpy and resentful. As long as you’re getting stuff done, that’s what really matters most. Getting stuff done and finishing things, I love it. Love it to death.

Lynelle: [chuckles] Hanif Bahati asks, “How do you think that Hollywood has changed in terms of non-Hollywood writers, the talent outside of America or Hollywood?”

John: There have always been international writers who’ve worked in the Hollywood system. Obviously, a great number of British writers and Australian writers as well who are writing in English, but writing from overseas. Sometimes they come here. I have friends, Kelly Marcel, who’s a terrific writer who came from the UK, but made her career really in the US.

What’s changed most over the course of 15 years is that with the rise of international streamers, there’s a lot more local language production that’s happening with approximating Hollywood budgets. Have been serious, but there have always been great features made overseas. That’s giving exposure to a lot of international writing that US audiences would never have seen before. The globalization on that front is terrific in terms of the ability for non-English language media in particular to be consumed as primary media in the US. It’s a great change.

Lynelle: Claire June asks, “You worked hard to be an in-demand industry insider. What draws you to a project to say yes or to say no?”

John: Great question. There’s the underlying material itself. The first question is it a movie I’d actually pay money to see? Is it something I feel like I could do and that I could do well? Are there good, interesting people associated with it? If they’re people I’ve always wanted to work with, fantastic, or I have worked with them before, great. I will also call around and find people to work with them for it and get the download like, are they an asshole? Life is too short to be working with a bunch of assholes sometimes. Sometimes it’s worth it, but most times it’s not worth it. Those are the things.

I’m also really mindful of the opportunity costs. As I said before, I think over parts of my career, I’ve been chasing a little too much and doing the thing that I feel like I should be doing rather than the thing I really want to be doing. I will ask myself, “Am I just chasing? Is this actually a thing I really do want to do?”

Lynelle: Here’s a question from Joe King about The Prince of Persia. You’re on IMDb page or in your library on your site. He doesn’t see it. There are things he admires about that script. Is there a version you wrote that could be available?

John: I never read Prince of Persia. I was an executive producer on Prince of Persia. Jordan Mechner wrote it, and so Jordan Mechner created the original game of Prince of Persia. We got partnered up through a friend. He said, “I really wanted to do a movie of Prince of Persia.” He and I went around town over the course of two days. We pitched it to every place. Disney bought it for Jerry Bruckheimer.

Jordan wrote it in a great, great script. It got Hollywood Studio’d a bit. I think the movie that Jordan wrote was better than the movie that came out. I’m happy that some people like the original movie, but I never wrote it. It was a good lesson for me in that producing a movie seems like it’s easier than writing a movie, but it’s also very frustrating as a writer because I love Jordan to death. Yet, as we were going through the draft, I kept wanting to just fix things myself rather than suggest how he could fix things.

I likened it to being an airline pilot, and you’re in the cockpit, but you’re not allowed to touch the controls. It was a little bit frustrating on that front. That’s a reason why I’ve not done producing of other people’s stuff over the years. It’s that I learned I’m not a great creative roommate when it comes to screenwriting.

Lynelle: Combining a couple of questions, I’ll just paraphrase. Does age matter? If you are, say, over 50 or 60, does that make you obsolete?

John: It doesn’t make you obsolete, but I think age does matter. Age matters to the degree that you have different possibilities at different moments in your life. If you are just graduating from undergrad and you can live on very little money and eat your ramen and scramble and do things, you’re going to start your screenwriting career differently than if you are a parent with two young kids. You’re going to just make different choices, and that’s understandable and right. Both ways can work, but I think it’s naive to assume that everyone is going to have the same opportunities at every moment in their career.

Screenwriting is about writing a screenplay that people can then use as the basis for making a movie, but it’s also about being able to sit across from somebody and convince them that you really can deliver what they need in order to shoot that movie. There’s a large psychological component, a social component to it, which is important. A 22-year-old is going to have a harder time doing that than a 30-year-old sometimes because it’s just hard to get people to trust you a little bit.

If you are a person who’s not living in Los Angeles, it can be harder still to do that stuff. The logistics and age and things like that do matter, but it’s not because there’s some hard, bright line that you can’t cross. It’s just the nature of physically doing the work with other people that’s a factor.

Lynelle: Here’s a loaded question from Jermaine Reed. “For writers building original films instead of IP, what’s the smartest way to make the script undeniable on the page?”

John: Undeniable on the page. If you’re writing an original thing and it’s going to be a calling card movie, a thing I would strongly encourage you to do is see if there’s a way that the main character, the protagonist, can read as a reflection of you, can read as a reflection of your own experience. As you’re picking through all the things you could possibly write, the thing that most speaks to–

Someone read this script and then they met you, like, “Of course, Mel is the person who wrote this script.” It makes so much sense because they talk to you about, “Oh, where did you come from?” “Oh, I see exactly why you and only you could have written this script.” That is incredibly useful and helpful because not only did they like the script, but they understand, they get a sense of who you are as a person. They can be thinking about, “Even if I don’t do this script, how can I get this very talented writer to write something else for me?” That’s incredibly useful.

Listen, if you want to sell that script, and it’s mostly going to be a sample, if that sample is not just of your writing talent but your voice, your personality, who you are, that is incredibly helpful. That undeniability is not just that it’s commercially viable, but that, “Oh, I get why only he or she could have written the script.”

Lynelle: Here’s one on, “What’s something in younger writers that you’re really excited to see in the future? Is it style or is it theme? Something that Gen X and Millennial aren’t quite doing.”

John: Listen, theme is a hard one. It’s too esoteric, but style and voice. If I’m writing a script, I want to have a sense like the characters are speaking with interesting voices, but also the storytelling style on the page is engaging. If I keep flipping pages and I’m excited to see what happens next, that is a great read and that is a person I want to meet. It’s really of any age. If I was looking for somebody who was specifically writing for younger characters or writing for people currently in their teens and 20s, that’s the kind of thing I would look for on the page.

Lynelle: You personally have a goal of how many pages for yourself you write a day?

John: Three pages is great. Three pages is about an hour or two of writing a day. That seems like that’s not actually a lot, but it’s diminishing returns after two hours of actual writing per day. Just the amount that you actually get done tends to decrease. There are days where you will just crank through 20 pages and they’re actually like a pretty good 20 pages. If you start to think like, “That’s the normal,” you are going to burn yourself out.

In the bonus chapter we put out with Getting Stuff Written, we really dive into that. It’s just basically find whatever is the sustainable amount of writing that you can get done in a day and aim for that. Don’t beat yourself up if you’re not hitting that because otherwise you’re going to start resenting writing, which is not the goal here.

When I was writing, I’ve written some books. I’ve written three. I have a three-book series called Arlo Finch, which is middle grades for Harry Potter age. For those, I had to write 1,000 words a day because I recognized that if I wasn’t hitting that target, you’re just never going to finish the book. 1,000 words seems like a lot, but when you actually look at the screen, as I scroll, it’s not that long. It’s a frustratingly small amount of actual page count, but it gets the job done.

Lynelle: Personally, I wrote a novel and did eight pages a day.

John: Great.

Lynelle: It was exhausting.

John: It is exhausting, yes.

Lynelle: It was tough. You think, “Only eight pages,” but it was exhausting. This is an interesting question from Hannah Lehman. She says, “What is the best time of the year to go out with a script realistically?” Meaning taking into account festivals and holidays, when is the best time to present your script?

John: I am not an agent or manager, and they would have much more experience with this. I would say back to school feels right. September feels right. Your instinct is correct that the holidays are just like, this is a terrible time of year for everything. January after Sundance can be good for a while. I think there’s a fear of the film festivals and stuff like that, overwhelming stuff.

The people who are reading scripts coming in aren’t quite the same audience for that. There’s some time in the spring. Stuff can happen in the summer. It’s just that people are gone more in the summer. It’s tough. I think that’s why you see so many things happening in the fall. Scripts sell every week of the year. There’s times you tend to avoid just because you know fewer people are going to be around.

Lynelle: Arthur asks, they’d love to hear about pushing through when working, when your world or your environment is not conducive to writing.

John: Oh, it’s tough. We have two episodes with a counselor, a psychotherapist named Dennis Palumbo; Episode 99, and there’s another episode. The second episode, I don’t remember the number, but the title of it is like Writing While the World Is On Fire, which was specifically this past January, which come after the elections and Los Angeles was burning. It felt incredibly hard to be thinking about doing meaningful or creative work while it just seemed like the world was crashing down around you. Sometimes it’s bigger outside factors.

Sometimes it’s personal factors. It’s your financial situation. It’s family. It’s illness. There’s other reasons why it’s harder to do. What I would encourage you to do is to think about, let writing be a time where you do have some control in this out-of-control world or life situation.

Can you take 20 minutes and write a scene? Put on your headphones and write a scene and just go off to the corner and do that? You will probably get some stuff done. You’ll probably feel a little bit better. Let writing be an opportunity to manifest some order and structure in a place that’s otherwise very tough to do. I’ve had to do some writing during some really difficult family times. It wasn’t always great or pleasant to be doing it, but in the end, if I were looking back on which pages I wrote during which time, I couldn’t tell you what I wrote when. It ultimately is still my writing.

Drew: Lina, let’s do two or three more.

Lynelle: Stacking your projects, what type of workload do you have? Just curious. Is it two specs and one assignment? They’re wondering about the workload of a professional writer.

John: Writers who are working pretty consistently– I don’t tend to write specs. I’ve written probably three specs over the last 10 years just because I’m generally moving from assignment to assignment with things I pitched to set up versus I wrote from scratch. Generally, I have one first draft that I’m working on. I’m doing that. Then if I hand that in and I have a rewrite or some other project I’m going to, very rarely are two things underneath my fingers at the same time that will happen.

There’s been situations where I’ve been on a first draft and a rewrite and a straw polish all at the same time. Based on the needs of what people needed to do, I was doing all three things. It’s not great for your brain to just be shifting back and forth between all these different things. You’re not going to get story confused, but there’s just a habituation time to put yourself back in the place of what that is and enter into that movie like, “Okay, what do I need to do in this space to make this make sense?”

I will rarely do more than one creative project over the course of the day. As I said earlier, I’m probably only writing two hours of script during the day, but I’m writing other stuff. I’m writing blog posts. I’m writing other initial draft things on stuff. There’s other writing that can be done, even if it’s not the all-consuming brain work of screenwriting.

Lynelle: One more question from David Pimentel. He’s writing and directing an animated movie, and they’ve screened and tested well, but the main character keeps getting the lowest scores. Any thoughts on the matter for that would be awesome.

John: David, sorry. It’s a really common thing, and so hopefully the other people involved in the project understand it’s a really common thing. You’re running into the sidekick problem, which is that the sidekicks in movies, especially animated movies, they’re just more fun because they’re more fun because they don’t have the burden of carrying the plot. People love them because they’re happy and free and get to do things and say crazy stuff.

If you have an opportunity to change things at this point, it may be looking for how can you get some of that sidekick energy into your hero. Are there moments where that hero could actually do a little bit more of that, especially in the very start of the story, so that we’re clicking and engaging with them more as not the responsible character, but as the wild character who is a little bit more unpredictable? What you’re running into is super common, particularly in animation, and that’s just the reality of it.

I’m sure if you actually were to test the characters in Inside Out, for example, Joy’s character probably tests low because she is responsible for carrying the movie on her shoulders, which is a great character. I don’t think everyone else probably scores higher in their boxes because they’re so jokey. That’s just the difference.

Lynelle: You’re getting lots of compliments on Scriptnotes, they’re all in the chat. Personally, I just wanted to say, I know last year, you all went through the fires in LA. I’m from LA, and so my heart’s there. I hope that you’re all pulling through well. It seems like the industry’s coming back after such a difficult time.

John: No, we’re in a much better place, but thank you for asking. It’s improved a lot.

Mike: Any closing thoughts?

John: These are all the right questions. It’s tough because it’s not like there’s one way to do anything, but I can hopefully just share my opinion on what works for me.

Mike: Thank you, John, for taking the time out of your schedule. Have a good night, everyone.

John: Thank you so much.

Lynelle: Thank you, John. Thank you, everybody.

Mike: Thank you so much.

[music]

John: All right, we are back in the present. I have one cool thing that I want to share. Julia Turner is a guest who’s been on the show before. She was at our live show, and she interviewed us about the Scriptnotes book. She’s formerly editor-in-chief of Slate Magazine. She’s a person who knows her journalism. She has launched a new thing called LA Material. It’s a website. It is a podcast. It is a newsletter, and it’s great. Unsurprisingly, it’s terrific. It’s very specifically about Los Angeles.

Some of the articles you can read that are up there right now are about five days that changed the LA mayor’s race. A deep dive inquiry in how many cars should turn left on a red light, which is a very specifically LA thing. Drew, what’s your instinct? You’re at an intersection. There’s no left-turn signal. How many cars are allowed to creep across before, what’s the acceptable number of cars turning?

Drew: Maximum of three. Once the light turns, three is the maximum, and then any more than that is too much.

John: I would agree with you, but the article goes into the wide range of opinions of what that is. Three seems to be where people tend to stop. Four is incredibly aggressive. The idea is that, of course, one car has crossed pretty far into the intersection during the light still being green, and a second one is probably inched into that space, too. It’s a question of whether that third one can gun through. Four is crazy.

Drew: Four is crazy, but if that second one doesn’t go, that’s a problem.

John: Oh, it is a problem, yes, because you’ve blocked the crosswalk, you’ve made a bad situation. You can tell people who’ve only been in Los Angeles a short time because they don’t know that they have to actually clear that intersection.

Drew: Have you ever been in the car with someone who’s born and raised in LA and follows all the traffic lights to the T, is polite at left turns?

John: I haven’t met that person. Have you?

Drew: I’ve sat in the car with a few of those people, and it always blows my mind. I’m like, “I thought you were baked on this. I thought you knew what we were doing.”

John: The weird thing is, LA drivers are not particularly aggressive. They’re not particularly smart, but they’re not particularly aggressive. We will tend to stop for people at crosswalks and do that kind of stuff in ways that people in other cities might not, but you’ve got to learn how to make the left turns. You will see, when I go back to Boulder where I grew up, there was an influx of California people and native Boulder people were like, “Ah, they’re doing these crazy things on the left turns.” Because that’s where they came from. That’s the culture. You’ve got to understand the culture.

Drew: We don’t honk. That’s the whole thing.

John: No, we don’t. It’s not a honking in town.

Drew: I’m excited for Julia because I remember her mentioning– We teased this at the last live show.

John: Yes. Now it’s launched. It’s LA Material. I got to see the list of all of the beta names and other things they were considering. I think LA Material makes sense for what they’re doing. There’s Hollywood news, but it’s not mostly Hollywood. It’s really about just being in Los Angeles.

Drew: I love it.

John: That is our show for this week. Special thanks to Mike Johnston and everyone at the Northwest Screenwriters Guild for hosting this event. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask at johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today in this forum, but we usually answer your questions, so send those in to ask at johnaugust.com.

You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. Of course, the Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books. Thank you for continuing to buy the Scriptnotes book. We look every week to see how many we sell, and God bless us, we’re selling a lot of copies. You’ll find us on Instagram @scriptnotespodcast. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkware, you’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find the show notes with the links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber.

Again, thank you to our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become a premium subscriber at scriptnotes.net where you get all those backup episodes and bonus segments, like the one we are about to record on sketch comedy writing. Drew, it’s good to see you, and thanks again for putting together this episode.

Drew: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segement]

John: Drew, in addition to being a writer, you have also been an actor, you’ve taken acting classes, and you’ve done a sketch comedy class somewhere here in town?

Drew: Yes, I did a sketch writing class at UCB, God, probably 10 years ago, but yes, I did 101.

John: The two big schools in Los Angeles, the two big programs that people talk about are Groundlings and UCB, both have improv aspects, but they have sketch comedy as a big factor in it. Talk to me about the things you were doing in your 101 sketch class.

Drew: I remember the first week was just write a sketch and figure out what your voice is, and then we would try to do things out of the news. Every week was a different assignment that was specific. It felt like different types of SNL sketches, basically. You started realizing they were all in little buckets. Then on top of that UCB has a specific philosophy around the concept of game.

Characters have a game, which is hard to describe, but the best description I’ve heard is, an emotional reaction to an unusual thing. You figure out what that is, and then you just try and heighten that and heighten that and heighten that until it gets insane. You’re applying that and practicing that idea and putting characters through that lens. Is that even the right word? That’s not the right word.

John: Yes, but that’s a framework, a structure. Sketch writing was on my brain because an Instagram friend had DM me to say, “Hey, I’m writing a sketch for the first time.” It’s a person who’s a stand-up comedian, “I’m writing a sketch for the first time. Do you talk about that all in your book?” I said, “Not really. There’s no chapter in it and it’s not about sketch comedy writing.” On previous episodes, we’ve talked about, “Okay, here’s a comedic premise.” I think this was an episode with Mike Birbiglia. We talked about, “Here’s a comedic premise. What is the joke version of it? What is the sketch version of it? What is the movie version of it?”

This Instagram friend was asking me, “Tell me about sketch comedy writing.” I said, “I don’t genuinely know how people in that field talk about it, but I can tell you what, as an outside observer, I notice about how sketches work.” Is that there is a premise, a complication that is like, “Oh, we’ve established the normalcy. This is the complication.” Then there’s a series of escalations, and there has to be an out, a button, somewhere to blow out of this moment.

That’s what you see in most internet live sketches. That’s flow of it. It actually closely resembles what a short film would be, except that there has to be something that is so often so strange about what’s happening in this that it actually it feels like a sketch. What you’re describing it with UCB in terms of the game is what is the recurring mechanism that is generating, that is keeping the momentum going in it, correct?

Drew: Correct, and how do you come at it from different angles, too. That’s where the real surprises, I think, start to happen. They pointed a lot to the Kids in the Hall and Mr. Show, Sketches, and Key & Peele, where all those writers came up through the similar ranks, which I think started Second City in Chicago, too.

John: Second City is another important touchstone here. One of the writers I was talking to around the lunch table in negotiations, one came out of the Second City, and one came out of a more New York focus on things. The Second City writer was talking about how character becomes a much more important part of the Second City philosophy of sketch writing, is that a character is driving things. You have to have a character with a specific point of view who is creating the energy within the scene. That tracks.

It’s not just anyone could do the scene. No, it’s specific to these characters or the relationship between certain characters. You see this in a lot of sketches, but also other things out there in the world, where it only makes sense because this character is doing it. Matt Foley in a Van Down by the River. That is a big character who is driving that thing.

It’s not just normal people with a heightened situation around it, as opposed to starring a life sketch with Harry Styles for Pepperidge Farms, who’s doing inappropriate captions for Pepperidge Farm products. It’s more of a normal world, and it’s just the situation gets more absurd around it. It’s great to hear people who do this for a living talking about and thinking about how they’re doing this work.

Drew: Was there anything surprising that they sent to you?

John: Actually, two of the people around the table, they taught this. It was interesting hearing them describe their process of teaching students about this. One would say, was that a timer for three minutes or three and a half minutes, and she would call scene. You have to understand this is the audience’s attention. The audience’s attention is out here. This is the blackout. You have to get out by this moment. That some ideas lend themselves to that short period of time. Some need to be developed more fully, and some are really just a 30-second. It’s just a premise, and then you’re out. It’s really recognizing where is the comedic heart of that idea.

There’s also a conversation about how you think about a Saturday Live sketch or something produced for filmed content, there’s an establishing shot. You see that, “Okay, we’re at the beach, so we don’t have to say that we’re at a beach.” Anything that’s being done on a black box stage, there’s just this expectation. Some character needs to say, “It’s so great that we’re here at the beach,” because otherwise, you just have no idea where it is, where the context is.

There’s things we don’t think about as a feature writer or someone who’s doing television. It’s like, there’s always a visual to tell you that information. You can’t assume that with a sketch, you’re going to have that visual. You may need to communicate really directly with the audience about where we are, what this is, what your expectations should be, and that has to happen in the first 10 seconds. If you’re not getting to the joke premise quickly enough, everyone’s going to feel like they’re out in space.

Drew: That was the thing that they basically told us by line three, you need to know. Line three is what they said.
[crosstalk]

John: Setting up. In case of UCB language, what’s the game? Also, where are we? What’s going on here? Then knowing that you may have situations where you know that your audience knows what the thing is, and so then you may have some sketches that are deliberately messing with that. One of the regs was talking about a thing that he and his scene partners would do, which was basically, they’re both a straight man in the scene. They’re both delivering setups that have no punchline, and they just keep doing it again and again and again, “My wife is such a good cook.”

[laughter]

John: It was like, “Yes, I’m sorry.” It’s like nothing goes that way. It’s that frustration of unanswered things. Everyone comes in with the expectation of what’s going to happen next. The value you’re not delivering it is just like audience edging.

Drew: That is brilliant because they’re breaking the rules.

John: Exactly.

Drew: Yes, another thing that we were taught was don’t hide the ball. You need to get that premise out by line three because the longer you hide whatever the complication is or whatever this premise is, the more the audience is going to want– The more they’re going to expect. They’re going to expect it to be funnier, and you’re never going to live up to that expectation. Just start messy and get it out messy if you need to, and then get to the fun, which I feel like is a good lesson for all writing. We’ll forgive you a little bit of messy at the beginning if it’s worth it for them.

John: It is. Also, I can see why it’s a challenging thing for folks who are coming from a features or TV background, where we talk about those first three pages, which is basically the setting up of things. It’s like, you got to make those sparkly, wonderful, magical and stuff. The lesson from some sketch comedies, sometimes you just need a blunt, clear thing. It’s like, “This is where we are,” and then the magic happens. The engines are just different, and it’s important to recognize that.

Drew: One of my favorite sketches I saw used the stage. They just put a super title above it. It was Mary Holland, who’s an actress who’s great. She was a silent film actress who had Her Arms Were Asleep. They just put that title in front. You knew the premise, and then it’s her trying to go around, and her arms are just flopping and smashing everything. It was so funny. Yes, it’s all you needed. It’s just, now we know the premise, and she just took off. It was great.

John: Other things. There’s often the scrolling credits that are established in this documentary about this, or it’s a presenter saying, “Back in the seminal 1940s film, this, blah, blah, blah,” and setting up what this thing is. Without that, you wouldn’t know– You don’t know what the essential hook is and what the game is that you’re looking for. I did also hear that people get frustrated by the term game because it’s used to apply to anything. It’s one of those terms that’s set for everything and doesn’t mean a specific thing.

Drew: It is a little nebulous, which is why when I was like, “How do I define game?” It’s frustrating, too. I think a lot of these theaters, too, have their own dogma, for lack of a better word, and approach to things. It’s however you get to it. It’s whatever you get to. I think character is always where to ground in a smart way.

John: Absolutely. What is the unique point of view of these characters in this scene? What is specific and unique? Like I said, it’s specificity. This is the thing they’re trying to do. Ego Nwodim had a character on Saturday Live, and I can’t remember the character’s name, but she was this big character who would always– In a restaurant, she would be sawing her food. She was cutting her meat really aggressively.

It’s a hard character to repeat because basically, it’s just doing the same thing. What is the next escalation? We’re talking about, how would you do something else? We understand what her thing is, but what’s another character who could enter into that so that they could have interesting, conflicting contrasting styles? That’s the challenge. Otherwise, you’re just doing the same. It’s just the same beats, and it’s not a new sketch, it’s not a new idea. That’s got to be one of the great challenges, frustrations, and opportunities for shows with great recurring characters, is what to do next.

Drew: Did you talk to anyone who was in the more like a weekend update, last week, tonight, Daily Show people?

John: I did, yes. They talked about joke buckets, which joke buckets are desk bits where there doesn’t need to be an escalation. It’s just like, here’s a joke, here’s a joke, here’s a joke. They’re all in the same line and thread, but they don’t need to escalate up. Desk bits are often joke buckets where it’s just like, here’s one funny thing after another. That’s totally great and totally valid, but it’s a different thing than sketch writing. You can understand why people on a show might be assigned specifically to that task versus other tasks.

Drew: I’m always so impressed with comedy packets because they have to have it all. You have to be able to do sketch. You have to have all of those daily show jokes. It’s so much funny material that comedy writers have to pull together.

John: I was heartened to hear that one of the writers who was teaching said that they often go back to the chapter in the Scriptnotes book or the episode before it was a chapter on Craig’s how to write a movie and the specific Finding Nemo stuff from there about this is a relationship between these two characters and what they need from each other. So often comedy does come about by really understanding what characters want and how you’re communicating that to the audience, to the viewer.

Drew: It all comes back to that, doesn’t it? We can’t get away from it.

John: We will have some very smart sketch people on the show to talk through in actual knowledge rather than just secondhand knowledge like we did today. I just want to say one of the real joys of being on the negotiating committee is I’m surrounded by so many smart writers. Tom Fontana is in the room every day. Tom Fontana has created all of these shows. He can introduce himself by saying, “I’ve been a WGA member for 45 years.” I’m like, “Lord,” and a showrunner for 41 of those years, which is wild.

To recognize the long line of writers and how they have shaped this industry and how the things that they’ve created are why we have Hollywood that we have, which is incredible. Drew, great chatting with you.

Drew: Great talking to you too, John. Good luck with stuff.

John: Thanks.

Links:

• Northwest Screenwriters Guild
• Steven Soderbergh’s Sex Lies and Videotape book
• Our episode with KPop Demon Hunters writers Danya Jimenez & Hannah McMechan
• Notes on Notes
• John’s screenplay library
• Dennis Palumbo episodes, 99 – Psychotherapy for screenwriters and 676 – Writing while the World is on Fire
• LA Material
• Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
• Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
• Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
• John August on Bluesky and Instagram
• Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.