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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep 742: Obsession with Curry Barker — Transcript

July 17, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: No, no, no, no. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is episode 742 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we welcome the writer-director of one of my favorite films of the summer, which has become a surprise blockbuster and the subject of countless articles.

Craig: A few think pieces here and there.

John: Yes, positing, what does this mean for the future of Hollywood? No pressure here.

Craig: No pressure at all. [chuckles]

John: The film is Obsession. The writer-director is Curry Barker. Welcome, Curry Barker.

Curry Barker: Hello. Thanks for having me.

Craig: So nice to have you here. I’m going to go a little further than you. Maybe it’s my favorite movie of the year so far.

John: Wow, that’s crazy.

Craig: It’s not that long of a year. I don’t know. It’s not that–

John: No, absolutely.

Craig: It’s really good. It’s really, really good. I just loved it.

Curry: Thank you.

Craig: Loved it.

Curry: That’s so awesome to hear that.

John: We want to talk about the movie. We want to talk about the process of getting it, but really kind of focused on the crafty things. As we said in terms of the warm-up, I’m sure you’re sick of answering a thousand questions about the blockbuster of it all. The blockbuster is wonderful, but if this movie had made $5, it’s still a really good movie that people should check out. In our bonus segment for our premium members, I want to focus on one of the most crucial things that no one is talking about in Hollywood.

Craig: Thank God.

John: It’s not IMAX, it’s not 3D, but it’s a fundamental part of the cinematic experience these days, which is the popcorn bucket.

Craig: The popcorn bucket.

John: The novelty popcorn bucket.

Craig: I saw it happening in your brain before you said it. You know why? Because we’re close.

John: Yes, that’s what it is. We’ve done this for a few years.

Craig: Very close.

John: We have a sense.

Craig: Yes, ever since the Dune popcorn bucket, it’s just been a thing.

John: Yes, it’s a thing now.

Craig: It’s a thing.

John: We will focus in on what we want for our popcorn buckets for our films. Also, going back in time, if we could create a popcorn bucket.

Curry: The potential of the popcorn bucket back in the day.

John: Absolutely.

Curry: What was the Jaws’ popcorn bucket?

Craig: How could it have been bad? What could have gone horribly wrong with a– I could definitely see an exorcist popcorn bucket where she’s barfing the– There’s so many ways to go.

John: In our bonus segment for premium members, we will dive deep into–

Craig: We’ll get there. That’s the last free popcorn bucket people get.

John: We will pick the last kernel out of that popcorn bucket.

Curry: Okay.

John: First, we have some follow-up that I will actually, I promise, tie into our discussion with Curry here. In episode 740, we talked about competence. It was a really good conversation. We were centered around this blog post by Iris Meredith, and there was a word in there which you and I had never heard of, ultracrepidarian.

Craig: Ultracrepidarian.

John: We didn’t spend enough time on that, I think. You are a person who loves words.

Craig: I do.

John: Try to figure out ultracrepidarian, what that might come from. It’s Latin.

Craig: Obviously, ultra would mean beyond or above.

John: Crepeda. Do you have any sense of crepeda?

Craig: Crepeda. I’m trying to think of other words that have– It’s C-R-E-P. There’s crepuscule, which is a red blood cell. I don’t know if that’s connected.

John: It’s not, no.

Craig: Maybe that’s Greek.

John: I don’t think we’ll get there. It’s sandal.

Craig: Oh, sure. I would not have gotten there.

John: It’s beyond the sandal, which seems really strange. Iris actually wrote in. She listened to the episode, and she wrote in, just to tell us where the origin of that is. Apparently, it comes from this painter named Apelles of Kos, who was getting criticism of how he painted sandals in his depictions of people from sandal makers. Sandal-makers are like, “You painted that wrong.” He’s like, “Okay, I’ll fix how I paint the sandals.” Then he started making notes about the legs and other things. He’s like, “No, no, no, you can focus on the sandals, but not above, beyond the sandals.”

Craig: Beyond the sandals. This is it. There’s a comic book artist — is it Rob Liefeld? — who’s infamously bad at drawing feet? Or maybe he’s really good at drawing feet. I can’t remember. There’s somebody who’s notoriously bad at feet.

Curry: It’s like my characters always have shoes.

Craig: Why?

Curry: It’s like it’s in my contract. They have to have shoes.

Craig: Even in the shower, the shoes. Ultracrepidarian.

John: Ultracrepidarian. That’s the origin of that word. The segue I want to make to is with the success of Obsession, I feel like there’s a lot of ultracrepidarians weighing in here on sort of like, they’re not just talking about the little bit of knowledge that they actually understand, but they’re trying to apply much more broadly to things beyond their actual scope of expertise. It’s nice to have the person who’s actually the expert on making the film Obsession to talk about Obsession itself. There you go.

Craig: This is better than a million think pieces about, “Everyone’s got a hot take.”

John: Everyone’s got a hot take.

Craig: You know what? I will say that one of the things that I really loved about the work is that there is an elegance to it. The idea is not complicated. In fact, almost nothing about it is complicated. It’s so simple and elegant, but it’s so interestingly done that I think the reason– I’ll do a think piece on think pieces, the reason there are 5 million think pieces is because it provokes an enormous amount of thought. It gives you space, as somebody watching, to theorize and more importantly, put yourself in the shoes of the people that are involved. I found myself being both of them.

Curry: I think I gravitate towards simple stories anyway. To me, people that would say, “Oh, this is such an idea that we’ve seen before or whatever, to me, when I got excited about this idea three years ago, I wasn’t excited about a wish-gone-wrong movie. I was excited about the version that you saw. I was like, “Oh my God, I have this idea about this crazy movie.” Even if you were just to read the logline, you’d be like, “Oh, what? We’ve seen this a million times.”

I love stories that are simple because there’s so much room. Sometimes simple is just better. It’s kind of like a magic trick. Obviously, the movie’s been out for a while, so spoiler alert, but like Megan’s death scene, right? Crazy. If that happened four times in the movie, then it’s a slasher and it doesn’t really work anymore. Because it’s all leading up to this moment, why I say it’s like a magic trick is it’s like, got you, it’s like this movie is going there. In a way that a movie that does it a bunch of times, you would watch it and be like, “The kills in this movie were just as crazy, so why was this one more effective? It’s just because it’s more simple.

Craig: You can’t kill that character more than once because it’s too good and important of a character. The more you kill people, the less important they are, and the more they are functionaries of plot. It was wonderful how under the skin we got with everyone in the film.

John: I do want to focus a lot on the storytelling, but I want to give some sense of your storytelling here because I feel like a lot of our listeners can picture themselves in you in the sense of a kid who grows up outside of Los Angeles, outside of New York, outside of the industry, moves here, and figures out how to do stuff. Give us a sense of where you come from. It’s Mobile, Alabama.

Curry: Yes, I’m from a small town in Mobile. Grew up, went to high school there at Baker. I was really involved. I didn’t make good grades, but I was really involved. I was in there–

Craig: Loved extracurriculars.

Curry: I was in the acting program. I was in the marching band. I was in BH1, which was our news where we actually got a lot of editing skills in BH1. I went to acting competitions out in the States. I was constantly doing things. I even started my own film club in school.

John: Classically, you did a lot of the things you could do as a high school student, but it wasn’t like there was a giant film community in Alabama. We made Big Fish in Montgomery. We had to hire everybody from every place else to get up there.

Curry: It was non-existent, really. There is community theater out there. It’s actually kind of a Baker thing. If I wanted to act in film, I had to make it myself. I started really even editing and putting things together at a pretty young age. I think what I really got a sense for is my instincts of storytelling started growing at an earlier age that I think has really given me an advantage. I think there’s a lot of instinct with storytelling sometimes, right?

Craig: No question. There is talent, and a lot of it is connected to that. What is interesting about somebody like you, especially now, as people are coming to their own in their 20s and 30s, is that you do grow up with all the tools to make things, whereas we did not have those. A lot of times what started for us was writing. The first interaction you have with a professional writing is you read a screenplay, and you’re like, “This is what it looks like? Okay.” Can you talk about that aspect of it? There isn’t a lot of practical instruction or do-it-yourself-ishness to that.

Curry: Right. What’s really funny is I never would have saw myself as a writer. If a 12-year-old me were to look up and be like– to see me now and see that I’m a professional writer, and I did air quotes for people that are just listening.
[laughter]

Craig: They were implied in the way you said–

Curry: Yes, right. My 12-year-old self would just not believe. Would be like, “No, you’re not. You’re not good at English class, and you don’t understand grammar too well.” It just didn’t seem like it was in the cards for me to be a professional writer. It’s really about storytelling and the human raw– My bread and butter is conversation and how it can get uncomfortable. Also, I learned a lot from– I did the Aaron Sorkin MasterClass. That was a big thing for me.

Craig: Finally a MasterClass paid off. I’ve been waiting for one of these Masterclasses to pay off. Aaron Sorkin, we salute you.

John: Tell me about the Aaron Sorkin MasterClass. This is an online class where it’s several lesson.

Craig: By the way, this podcast is brought to you by the Aaron Sorkin MasterClass. We’re not getting paid anything. This is outrageous.

John: Tell us about that.

Curry: This thing called MasterClass came out. It’s like this app you can download. There’s a director MasterClass. There’s all these MasterClass. I think when I moved out here, someone suggested, maybe it was even my dad, was like, “You should do the Aaron Sorkin MasterClass,” or something. I just started taking it. I learned so many rules about storytelling.
I took it to heart in a way that probably really enhanced the way that I– the rules are so important. You can’t introduce something in the first act and then not pay it off in the third act. You can’t have something magically appear in the third act that you didn’t introduce in the first or second act. You can’t have all the answers to the equation in the third act. All these things that are pretty important to make sure that you’re either paying everything off or not, that I could really give credit to the Aaron Sorkin MasterClass.

John: It’s great. It feels like, at some point, someone needs to sit you down and tell you these fundamental things or at least point them out in ways that maybe you could have discovered over the course of years. It’s nice to have someone do that.

Curry: Totally.

Craig: The great mystery and magic of it all is that you can– A lot of people have taken the Aaron Sorkin MasterClass. I always feel like, even with our podcast, we’re really broadcasting to some group of people that we’ll be able to convert, which is not everyone. You found it one way or the other. You found what you needed, understood it almost immediately. It was like right into your bones and then, boom, out came something great.

Curry: It’s an instinct thing, really. It’s like you understand that if something doesn’t feel right, it’s probably because it wasn’t paid off correctly. Or if something doesn’t feel satisfying or– What is it that you want to feel fully satisfied at the end, but then also the art of knowing what doesn’t need–

John: To be paid off.

Curry: What doesn’t need to– That’s really hard. Sometimes I just want to ask other people. If I’m writing something, I’m like, “Does this matter to you?”

Craig: Do you?

Curry: Right

John: Did you ask people?

Craig: Is that part of your process?

Curry: Yes. The thing I learned is that you’ll never get an answer.

Craig: There is no answer.

Curry: Yes, that’s the problem.

John: Here’s another thing that’s actually different about how you learned versus how we learned is that you were making things constantly. Talk to us about when you first post– You’ve shot something and you’ve put online for strangers to look at.

Curry: I think the first time I ever– when I first moved out here, we were doing this show called Roommates. It was just about–

John: Who was the we?

Curry: Me and Cooper Tomlinson.

John: Who is one of the co-stars of the movie?

Curry: Yes. He’s my writing partner in crime. We do our sketch comedy show together and everything. He’s great. I’m talking week one. We met in school and we were already doing this thing called Roommates. We were just like, “Let’s make something.” We just had the bug. That was interesting. That was getting 200 views, 500 views, small things. Then the first thing that really hit it off for me, like, “Oh my God, I’m a director,” was The Chair. It was a short film I made for $2,000, which is funny enough, even more expensive than my Milk & Serial movie.
I made it for $2,000. Most of that went to the DP. I remember writing it. I had this small friend group where we would write short films, or even some of our friends were writing features. I wasn’t at that level yet, but some of our friends were. We would all gather and do these little table reads. When I had this chair script, I was like, “I’m going to order some food and I’m going to get everybody together and we’re going to do a table read of this.” People didn’t like it that much. I was like, “No, you don’t understand. It’s going to be weird.” I honestly felt a naive amount of confidence because I was like, “No, I’ve got an idea for this.” People were like, “I don’t get it. It doesn’t make sense.”

Craig: There is, and this is the burden that we share as writers of things that are supposed to be filmed. It’s different. In and of itself, there is a bit of a craft in trying to take something on the page and add a little bit of extra that maybe sometimes is not even necessary to help get them where you want it to be. Sometimes there are things that just need to be made that you won’t get it any other way.

John: That’s a real benefit, I think, your generation had is that you got the chance to experiment a lot. I’ve seen a lot of sketches you did with Cooper, and many of them are great, but I also suspect there were ones that probably weren’t great that you just didn’t [unintelligible]. It is also a luxury because when you’re making something in an afternoon, if it’s great, fantastic, it’s great. If it sucks, you don’t have to show it to the world.

Craig: I can’t take any of my shit down.

John: Whereas as opposed to a movie, the stakes are so much higher, you have to release that movie at some point.

Curry: Right. Totally. That’s so, so true. The experimental phase for me is over. It’s a scary thing. Even if I were to do a short film-

John: The spotlight will be on.

Curry: -the spotlight would be on it. It would be like, “What?”

Craig: And yet?

John: Yet the stakes are actually lower than you think.

Craig: It will all be an experiment from here on out anyway. It’s just that everyone’s staring at you now in the lab.

John: Craig and I both, I think, wish you the most successful failure at some point.

Craig: Fail out loud just as much as you’ve succeeded out loud. You have no option now anyway. Take big swings.

John: I want to point out that we’ve had smart guests who’ve come on the show who would strongly underline what you’re saying. Courtney Kemp was on recently and she was talking about how if she were starting today, she would get together with a group of friends and just shoot a bunch of stuff and learn how to do it because that’s how you do things now. Mike Birbiglia has been on the show and talking about getting a pizza and getting all his friends around to read drafts of things. That’s smart. What I think is crucial about this is it’s finding a group of people you like and you trust who are trying to do the same things. It sounds like moving from Alabama to Los Angeles was how you got that process started.

Curry: Yes. I got lucky, too. I don’t think it’s always going to happen that way to find a group of people. Going to film school, you hopefully will find people that have similar interests. I think, to me, that’s the most important part of film school is meeting people out. First of all, it gets you out here. I’m from a small town. It was an excuse to leave. It felt like–

Craig: Which film school?

Curry: It was the New York Film Academy.

Craig: New York Film Academy.

Curry: It was in Los Angeles. It got me out here. It didn’t feel like I was just on my own. It felt like at least I had something. I was going to school. I had an immediate schedule.

Craig: You had a structure.

Curry: Right. The thing I got from it the most was just the people that I met along the way. I was there for like a year.

Craig: When you decided to come out, whether it’s film school or not, I think you made a choice that a lot of people struggle with. We do advise this all the time. I feel bad sometimes because people will ask, “I live,” fill in the blank, “Billings, Montana. I really want to make it, do I have to move to LA?” No. It gets easier. Then I sometimes, I think we feel a little worried that we’re luring a lot of people who have no chance. Then I think, “But wait, we also have to lure the people who do have a chance.”

Curry: Right. I think you don’t have to worry because the people that don’t have a chance– I hate to say it like that.

Craig: There are people that don’t have a chance.

Curry: Right, but those people will weed themselves out anyway. The people that have a chance are the people that won’t give up. In that case, at least they got to see a cool city and be here for a little bit. Also, you’re right in that you probably do have to move here because it just keeps you dreaming. You have to keep dreaming. If I was at home, I would probably feel like this stuff was so far away that I would just be like, after two years, I would have given up. Being here and seeing Warner Brothers and wanting to be on the other side of that fence so bad.

John: Because when you’re in front of the cameras, it’s right by Warner Brothers. It’s across from Universal.

Craig: Right there.

Curry: I’m like, “There it is. That’s where I want to–”

Craig: Your group of friends, they’re doing stuff. It’s not like you can sit around and go, “It’s impossible.” Then a week later, three of your friends are like, “Hey, come on over and watch the thing I just did.” Now you feel like a lazy piece of shit.

Curry: Right. Exactly. It keeps you —

Craig: The culture is one of making things.

Curry: It really is.

John: Give us a sense of that first year or two in Los Angeles. You’re going to this program, you’re making a bunch of stuff. Are you also working? What was the hustle? What was the grind?

Curry: First I was in school, didn’t do anything. Then I had a job at a burger joint, and then I had a very small-time editing job, which to me felt like such a cool thing. I was like, “Oh my gosh.” It was editing these little commercials for local things, like a local little kids’ soccer team. I was getting hired to edit these things. Then I worked at Starbucks for a year-and-a-half.

Craig: Got yourself some health insurance.

Curry: Yes, right. At one point, I was working on a show called This Is Us for two years. First, I was a COVID monitor during COVID.

John: I remember that. Yes, I remember.

Craig: Hold up.

Curry: I was the person that everyone hated it. I handed the masks.

Craig: You were the COVID monitor. Everyone hated– The COVID monitor. That’s the worst job.

Curry: It was the worst.

Craig: No one likes you.

John: You were on sets.

Curry: Everyone was so nice on This Is Us. I guess I was a very ballsy guy because I would just go up to Milo or Yasu, who’s a DP, and just talk and talk and ask them questions. They were nice. They were nice enough to even give me their phone– I was sending them short films, and so crazy that they were nice enough to talk to the COVID monitor.

Craig: You know, the thing is, if you’re not crazy and you’re not boring, it’s wonderful to talk to anybody on a set. It’s cool. Every now and then you do get somebody who’s a little boring and/or crazy. People actually do want to encourage the next generation to come on up and come along, I think, in general.

John: What I’m hearing through all these anecdotes is that you just have a lot of agency. You take a lot of agency. You’re sort of like, “This is the thing I want.” You’re not asking permission. In a very kind of an appropriate way, you’re saying you’re not waiting for someone to invite you in. You’re just saying like, “Hey, can I talk to you about this thing?”

Curry: Yes, I guess so. It’s just so funny because I never would have considered myself that type of person. I’m very chill. I did have that attitude of just, “I’m doing what you’re doing. I want to–”

Craig: Maybe this is why the writing in your story rings so true because everybody who is one thing is also the other thing, I think. Here we have Bear is the most timid, diffident, don’t-take-chances, terrified, so terrified of success or even trying. I don’t think you can occupy that as honestly as you did unless it’s there. We are reactions to ourselves sometimes. It’s like, “Don’t be that guy. Go be this guy and do that.”

Curry: Oh, that’s an interesting observation.

Craig: Do you know what I mean?

Curry: Yes.

Craig: I don’t think you could write that character that well if you’re just effortlessly alpha. Do you know what I mean?

Curry: Totally.

Craig: There’s this aspect of it. I’m curious, in your writing process, you do something so beautifully in the movie. To me, it’s very writerly. You are able to occupy two people in a scene with two people, and those two people are so wildly different. They don’t know what’s going on in the other person’s mind. They don’t even understand, really, the truth of what the other person’s saying. We watch them, and we want to be like, “Oh my God, can I do therapy for the two of you?” Not hearing each other or seeing each other.

Curry: I love it.

Craig: How do you get to that when it, because it’s just you?

Curry: I love writing dialogue where two people misunderstand each other, which is exactly what you just described. When you start from a place of wanting that, which is, by the way, just already a captivating way to write any scene, honestly, is like one person wants one thing, and the other person wants a different thing. I wanted every single character in this movie to have different perspectives.

It’s so interesting to have Sarah saying, “Nikki is taking advantage of you. She’s using her opportunity of her dad dying to latch onto you, and that’s not healthy.” It was just so crazy from what’s actually happening. What a fun thing to write, that one person has this crazy perspective, but you know as the audience that– Also, I really, really like to write from one perspective, which is Bear. You can hear what Sarah and Ian are saying, but you don’t follow them home and see their story. You stay with Bear.

John: You have a limited point of view, but we actually understand that the characters are locked to the point of view on him, which makes sense. It reminds me of Jon Favreau in Swingers. This character who we appreciate, we adore, he’s making bad choices, and we’re with him while he’s making bad choices. You set up a character in Bear who feels like he is in a romantic comedy, and yet the genre of the movie isn’t letting him be in a romantic comedy.

Curry: That’s great.

Craig: The voice message seen in Swingers is like the comedy version of Obsession.

John: It’s cringe because-

Craig: It’s cringe.

John: -we were so embarrassed on his behalf, and yet it just keeps going worse and worse. That is what’s happened with Bear up until he cracks the willow.

Curry: Yes.

Craig: Again, credit to the way you approach things because I think you never villainized anyone, really. Even what he does in and of itself, it’s not an act of crime. He’s just going, “Ah, I wish.” If it’s a crime, it’s a crime of cowardice, but there was no expectation.

Curry: Absolutely not, which is so funny, because I see people make these videos of like, “If Bear would have worded his wish differently.” Like, “I wish that I–”

Craig: Oh, [unintelligible].

Curry: I’m like–

Craig: That’s not what this is about? If only he were a lawyer, this would have worked out great.

Curry: Yes.

John: Yes.

Craig: No.

Curry: Or like, “I wish I had the confidence to–” which I get that, like, saying the correct thing, but it was a toy.

Craig: A toy.

Curry: He didn’t know it was going to work. That’s the whole point.

Craig: That’s the whole point. It was just this goofy set. It was almost like when he does it, it’s like, “This is how much I suck. I’m doing this.” What I appreciated was how I understood how he felt. I felt that way. I think actually everyone in the world at some point or another has experienced obsession or– what’s the wo– limerence? Is that the word that people use a lot? of wanting another person and feeling helpless.
It’s not even that you think they would want you back, you’re just scared to ask. You know they don’t. You’re lost, but you can’t seem to get out of it. Everyone’s had this feeling. It’s incredibly relatable. Also, I think maybe not everybody, but almost everybody’s had the feeling of understanding, “I think that person wants me. Eh, it’s not going to happen. How do I deal with that?” I was both of them the whole time.

John: One thing that’s so important to note here is that Bear is making a choice and Bear is kicking off the action of the movie. He’s protagonating the way you want him to start the story. Yet, you as the filmmaker are still doing the thing we always urge our writers to do is you are torturing your hero. You are making things awful for your hero. You’re building this moral staircase where he keeps making choices that are reasonable in the moment that are actually worse overall for him and for everyone else around him. To your credit, it works. We can feel your hands doing that. We’re delighted because that is also the genre. It’s the nature of the kind of story we sat down to see, which is fun.

Curry: It’s interesting to talk about it at such a high emotionally intelligent level at this point because when I first was writing it was just raw. You know what I mean?

John: Tell us about those early drafts. Tell us about what you thought the movie was as you were sitting down to start writing it.

Curry: I knew that I wanted to do some crazy things with Nikki. In The Chair short film that I did, there was this girl character who would flip from different emotions. I was like, “I want to do a movie where that’s the whole gimmick.” Then this came to me. I was like, “Oh my God, I can do that chair thing that I really liked with the girl. This can be that movie.” Something that’s really cool about this movie is that it lends itself well to being in the horror genre in a way that other ideas I have don’t, where I’m like, “Oh, where’s the scary angle?” This idea, just the obsession of something, it’s scary. It’s scary to have someone feel so strongly about you. In real life, it really is.

Craig: It was really, I thought, so smart. Even though Bear’s the protagonist, he’s the character we’re following, and so much of it is through his perspective, we do feel through Nikki like we can see, and you give her moments where she gets to come back, where we understand she’s like those people that have locked-in syndrome, which is the most terrifying thing. Now I’m with her. Now I’m just imagining the terror of what this must feel like.

On both sides of it, the desire to love someone that doesn’t love you, we all know the power of that feeling. The feeling of not being in control of yourself, we also know that feeling. If I were to write a think piece about why this movie works, it just comes down to it is a hyper-presentation of stuff we have all felt. We must feel it because it goes to what love and desire is, which are beneath our forebrains. That is where the scary stuff is.

Curry: Right. Wow, that’s interesting.

John: As you were working on this, in the writing, in the directing, and in the editing, where did you find a line between, we are in a horror space and this is a comedy? Because so much of what you’re setting up is essentially a comedy press, where this girl is so obsessed with you. That’s a comedy.

Craig: There is a Jim Carrey version of this movie.

John: Totally, yes. Where did you find moments where you had to pivot between those two?

Curry: The funny thing is that it just hums naturally for me because I’m not– When I was, I think, 17, I was still in high school, and I saw JJ Abrams say on a podcast or something, “The most successful people in life don’t take themselves too seriously.” I don’t know what it is about that statement that just stuck with me. It was like, “Whoa.” It just freed me up because I was like, “So I don’t have to take this seriously?” I know that sounds like, “You don’t take it seriously,” whatever, but don’t take the art too seriously because there’s something freeing about– You watch these horror movies that are so brute and like, “This is serious. We need to figure this out.” It’s like, but what if that was real? Then you would probably be– You would talk different. You would say–

Craig: What if that were real? I cannot tell you how often I will say some version of the following thing. “Okay, but what would really happen?” When I read somebody’s script and I’m like, “This moment is a very interesting moment, but everything that happens after that.” We do this with our– How would an actual human being respond in this circumstance?

Curry: Exactly, man. Yes.

Craig: It’s a good thing that JJ said that, and I love that you come from a comedy background, and there is something about comedy and horror that just they’re like twin siblings.

John: They both revel in being uncomfortable and just sitting in a really uncomfortable place and not letting it resolve.

Craig: Getting to squishy stuff underneath without taking itself– it shouldn’t take itself so seriously.

Curry: Here’s an example. People would think, “Oh, this is a comedy scene,” but the morning after when Bear wakes up, he’s checking his hair in the mirror. He goes up to her, and he’s like, “Let’s not do that anymore.” That’s funny, and people think it’s funny, but it’s also honest. In every horror movie, crazy things happen, and then the next day, the characters just ignore it. They’re like, “Dude, you just saw some crazy shit. Let’s talk about it out loud because that’s what you would do.”

Craig: What would you do in this circumstance?

Curry: Exactly, yes.

Craig: There are kinds of stories where everything just feels a bit elevated because of the nature of it, if it’s a fantasy or something like this. We understand that in Lord of the Rings– I always think it’s funny, when people die in a movie like Lord of the Rings, everyone should just stop and vomit. Do you know what I mean? They don’t because that’s the world they live in, and I get it. It’s fine.

Curry: Maybe you can accept in a world where war is every day and people die left and right. It’s like, “Fine.”

Craig: Yes, fine. In a story like this where I’m basically a kid and I work at a music shop and I really like this girl, even blood, anything-

John: Literally.

Craig: -is enough to shatter you. If nothing else happened except that one night, he would be in therapy about it for a while anyway. I love that you go right to that question, like, what would really happen?

Curry: It’s almost like when you ask that one question, it opens up so many genres. Now you can think about, “Oh, but what’s the version of this movie that we’ve seen 100 times? What’s the version of it where it happened in real life?” It just kind of excites you. That’s why a simple idea doesn’t scare me off. It excites me because I can think about, “Oh, but what if it’s raw and real and the reactions are–”

Craig: The more real you’re going to be, the simpler you want the idea to be. The more complicated and large the concept, I think then almost the characters start to have to drift away from grounded.

Curry: Because there’s no way to push the plot forward without them doing– You would go to the hospital. Okay, well, that’s boring. Now the rest of the movie takes place at the hospital. There’s so many things that do drag– Even this ghost movie that me and Cooper just wrote, so many times we were like, we want to do the absolute most bonkers crazy thing. It’s like, “Oh, what if we killed off this character right here? It’d be crazy.” It’s like, “Yes, but there’s con artists. They would just give up and go home and be sad.” They wouldn’t carry out the rest of the– We’re constantly thinking about that. Also, not wanting to answer anything is such a challenging way to write. Because when you’re saying to me, we understand that she’s popping into her body at this point in the movie. I never had a scene where Bear’s going to Ian and saying, “I think she’s popping back into her body.” [laughter] You just understand it. When you write that way–

John: You have to talk to people and be like, “Did you understand like this?”

Craig: For this particular movie, was there a process where after you make the movie and you cut it together, did you, for lack of a better phrase, test screen?

Curry: Oh, yes. We did a test screening with– I had just gotten with UTA, and they let us use their screening room. Hayley, the producer, put on Instagram, free movie, because we didn’t want to get friends and family. We wanted to get random people.

Craig: [unintelligible]

Curry: It was just us doing it. It wasn’t some super–

Craig: NRG or any of those research companies.

Curry: Yes, it wasn’t. It was just us. We got as random as we could of people, and we all gave them papers and made them write down things. The number one thing that people said is they were frustrated with Bear and that they didn’t understand why he wasn’t making more effort to fix it. By the way, you’ve seen the movie as it is. You haven’t seen the movie before the reshoot.

John: Talk to us about that.

Craig: There you go. You learned something.

Curry: I did learn something. What’s really interesting is that I did the thing that you hear about in stories where I didn’t take the note. I took the note behind the note, which is everybody wanted me to fix Bear and make him go to that crystal shop sooner to find the One Wish Willow and try to fix it sooner. I was like, “Okay, I get it now.” The problem is that I haven’t done a good enough job of telling people that Bear wants this to work.

Craig: Exactly. He’s not ready to undo it yet.

Curry: Yes. That scene that I was just talking about with the haircut, and he comes and he explains that to her, that was a reshoot. Before, we had this other scene where he’s like, “Where were you?” She’s like, “I was in the room.” The twist is that she was on the ceiling. It was cool, but then I was able to come up with an idea of a scene where he’s trying to say, “Please don’t do that anymore because it freaks me out.” Then she says, “I promise you I won’t.” He goes, “Good.”

Craig: She gives him permission to keep going. Here we have one of our favorite and most horrifying things in writing, which is logic. It is remarkable how people need it. They need logic because–

Curry: Even if they don’t know.

Craig: That’s right. We will trade on this concept of, what would people really do? We will get very far with it until we forget that maybe also people would really do this or this. We forgot to do that. Boy, they go right to it, don’t they? That’s amazing.

John: Two examples I can think of on terms of, what would people really do? I just rewatched Get Out, which we should do a deep dive on Get Out. It’s so spectacular. You are right there with your hero in terms of something is really messed up here, and I’m going to leave. I’m going to leave. We’re going to go right now. He tries to leave at the right, appropriate moments, and there’s the social pressures to continue to stay, but he doesn’t. Also, Blair Witch Project, in terms of these are characters who are encountering these weird things, and they’re responding the ways– They’re freaking out in the ways that they should freak out. A lesson we tend to forget in genre is that people don’t know they’re in a genre. They’re just experiencing life.

Craig: Therefore, it does become corny when they don’t appear to be behaving the way we do. Then you get the classic movie theater moment of, why are you going in there? Get out.

John: Why are you going into the house?

Craig: I think it’s great that you had that experience. It speaks to why I think– Anybody who is going to do this for a long time, right off the bat, you’ve said two things that are very important. One is, okay, I don’t take myself so seriously. I take the work seriously. I don’t take myself seriously, which means I leave room to be wrong. I’m not wrong because they say they don’t like something. I’m wrong if I say, oh, wait, I know why they don’t like something. I did something wrong. I see what it is. Let me fix it. That’s a big deal.

Curry: Thank you. I appreciate it. It comes from that JJ Abrams quote from a long time. I’m just like, “Dang, it is that.” I see people that do take themselves too seriously, and it paralyzes themselves. I went to a film school where friends would have these short films, and they would spend years on this one short film because they just wanted to get it right. It’s like, “Bro, release it.”

Craig: There is no right.

Curry: Yes. “Work on the next one.”

Craig: Work on the next one. There’s a paralysis, I think, that happens. Somebody did a statistical study once of Oscar award-winning directors, and the time in between movies after someone wins an Oscar is twice as long as the normal time between movies because they become paralyzed and start to think, “Now I’m an Oscar award-winning director. My next film must be Oscar worthy of my greatness,” and they just stop.

Curry: I mean, honestly, I know I didn’t win an Oscar, but I’m feeling that pressure now. All these awards are breaking. Like, “Better than E.T.” came out. “Beat Beat Blair Witch…” I’m almost like, “Stop. Stop.” I’m like, “Slow down, slow down. I didn’t ask for this.” It’s just a crazy amount of success that that movie is having.

John: One of the advantages you have here is that you already shot this next movie. If you were prepping another movie right now, or that was–

Craig: Or you didn’t know what you were going to do next.

John: Or, here’s this $100 billion thing that you’re going to do… We would turn off the cameras and we would caution you to stop you from doing this. I do think the fact that you have another movie that you already know is going to happen, you’re actually already editing, is a good step.

Craig: It’s in your mind now, right? Partly, you just have to now go through the miserable exercise of forcing yourself to stop thinking about it and to not put what you do now in the perspective of what just happened because it can be terrifying. By the way, it’s okay if the best thing you ever did is– Something has to be the best thing you ever did. It may be that this is not. I’m fully rooting for you that there’s something bigger and better. You just have to forget about it.

John: One thing, you do tend to look to other people and say, “Oh, what did they do?” This may be a good moment to look at other folks who were in similar circumstances and learn from them in terms of what filmmakers you loved who followed up a big hit with another thing that was really great and interesting. That’s the track to follow and not look at the negative examples of the people who just then spun around for years and years because we know them. It’s tough.

Craig: It’s hard. You’re in it now. It’s impossible to see when you’re inside of it. When you look back 20 years later, you may say, “Oh, this is crazy,” because there are filmmakers like this who their first six movies out of the gate are massive and awesome. Then there’s 10 more movies that nobody wants or likes. There are filmmakers who go on, off, on, off, on, off. There are ones who come in clumps. There are ones who just ride along on a B- the whole time. You don’t know. All you can do is what you do in the moment as best you can do it and not repeat yourself. Just trying to not repeat yourself.

Curry: That’s scary. That’s hard.

Craig: It is. It’s scary.

Curry: Harder to say because I want to repeat whatever happened with–

Craig: Of course.

Curry: You’re comparing, you’re like, “Oh my gosh, what worked with this? Why was it resonating with people? Is my next idea, is it deep enough? Am I known as the deep guy now?” All these things that I’m just trying, trust me, and I am. I’m trying to push them out.

Craig: You can’t completely. Listen, I went on many long walks, talking to myself, trying to figure out which disaster would be the best disaster for me to make a television show about after I made a show about a disaster. Okay, well, that’s what I do now.

Curry: I’m a disaster guy now.

John: There was no Chernobyl Two.

Craig: I would be insane to not keep doing the disasters now. Then I would just have to repeatedly hit myself in the face and say, “Do not.” You have to almost forgive yourself for all of the instincts to be afraid. By the way, if you do repeat yourself, you repeat yourself. That’s okay too because, God knows how many sequels I did in my life. I was being paid. It’s all in service of something, all of it.

John: I love this is the most niche advice we can give to a person. After your giant hit, here’s how to follow up the giant hit.

Craig: We’ve had them. We might as well talk about it.

John: Something that would be very practical for a lot of our listeners is, how do you make that first movie? Because you’ve made a ton of shorts. You made sketches. You know how to shoot stuff, but now you have a script, and you actually have to go try to film a thing. What was your process? You mentioned a producer. Ultimately, you mentioned UTA, but how did that all come together?

Curry: I’d already made Milk & Serial, but nobody had seen it.

John: Milk & Serial is found footage.

Curry: It’s a found footage, 60-minute movie. It’s almost considered a short film, but it’s just long enough to be considered a feature.

Craig: It’s a long short.

Curry: Yes, it’s a very long short, which the first cut was an hour 20, which there’s no doubt that it’s a feature. I’d done that, and I’d done The Chair and I did one more horror film, but this producer, James Harris, reached out and said, “Hey, listen, I have this program where I find a filmmaker, and I give them X amount of money and give them basically a shot. If you have an idea– I liked your Chair, are you doing a feature of The Chair, or is that something?” At the time, I had actually written a feature for The Chair. I was like, “Oh my gosh, yes, I have The Chair.” My manager was like, “Well, The Chair could be a cool IP,” which by the way, we’re doing nothing with now.

At the time, it was like, “You’d already written The Chair, why don’t you see if there’s something else for it? Maybe we could have a bigger budget for The Chair, and we could save that, and maybe there’s a different idea.” I was like, “Well, I have this obsession idea.” I’d written the short film of it. I’d had the idea. This was after The Simpsons episode. I was excited about this. I told him, I was like, “Okay, I’ll do Obsession.” I pitched Obsession to James. His response was basically, “I like this idea, but why don’t you write the script?” [crosstalk]

John: What you pitched him was a lot of what we saw in the movie, the four characters that set up.

Curry: I pitched him that it was a movie about a guy that makes a wish that this girl becomes obsessed with him, and she becomes– and I pitched it as a Possession movie, but it was a love story, Possession movie, gone wrong thing.

John: Possession, yes.

Curry: He dug it, but he was also like, “Yes, it’s been done before, but I dig it. Why don’t you write it?” I started, “Oh my God, this is a huge opportunity for me,” which you know what? Looking back, that gives me some hope or makes me feel better that I was still under pressure then, or just a different type of pressure. As a matter of fact, maybe it was even more pressure because it was like, “This has to be good.”

Craig: Oh, yes.

Curry: I never thought about that. I never thought like, “This just has to be good.” I always just was like, [hums], just stream of consciousness.

Craig: When nothing’s happened yet, you are about as free as you’ll ever be. In a way, trying to shut everything out to be that free again is part of the challenge.

John: When I wrote Go, there was no expectation that it had to be a thing. I was writing the movie I wanted to write.

Craig: Yes. Sometimes you just have to turn all– You do, you have to turn all of it off. Everybody out there will drown you. Even their love will drown you. Their hatred will drown you, the love will drown you, the think pieces, the criticism, the awards, all that, which is designed to celebrate what you’ve done, in a way is corrosive because what you’ve done, you did. We’re always dreaming.

Curry: It’s so crazy, humans. I think about this. I’m like, “I’m having the biggest hit ever right now, and I’m thinking about what’s my next movie.” I can’t even for one second-

John: Enjoy.

Curry: -enjoy this. I’m already thinking about what’s my next one, next one, and even next one.

Craig: Okay, so good news, bad news. Bad news is you will never enjoy it. Good news, this is the best, most striking sign that you will continue to succeed. That is the thing that keeps people going. Because the people who were motivated by success, when they get it, they don’t realize it, but they just got fed. They’re not hungry anymore. If that’s not what you’re hungry for, if what you’re hungry for is the next dream thing–

Curry: It’s crazy how it means nothing to me. It drives me nuts, actually.

Craig: I’m really sorry, and I get it.

Curry: It’s like, “This should mean so much to me.” This is so crazy, but I’m like, “Nahh.” It almost just makes me angry. It doesn’t make me excited. I’m jealous of myself. How is that even possible?

Craig: Jealous of yourself, disappointed in yourself for not being enlightened enough to enjoy it. Jealous of the guy who did that thing because you don’t know how he did that, really. Sometimes you’re like, “Did I even do it?” [laughter] It’s terrifying, and then you do it again. This is your personal heaven, hell. I think the people who do what we do, and who do it at length, and who have– everything’s not always a success, but repeated success, this is part of it, is this feeling. I’m suspicious of people who are, “You know what, for the next four months, I’m just going to enjoy this moment.” What?

Curry: What.
[laughter]

Craig: What?

Curry: How are you not thinking, “Oh my God, I got to do that again, and how am I going to do it?”

Craig: If I get to not terrified, that’s a huge day for me. I love hearing this. This means we’re going to get a lot more movies out of you. This is great.

Curry: That’s a thing. I’m trying to figure out what my pace is because some of my heroes, like Ari Aster, even Zack Cregger, even Jordan Peele, they don’t come out with movies every year.

John: I think Zach Cregger’s working pretty hard.

Curry: Yes, he is.

John: Jordan Peele’s taking it at a slower pace.

Craig: Your heroes are not you. Your pace is your pace.

John: Is your pace.

Curry: If I’m not doing something, I would go crazy.

Craig: Then your pace is your pace. There are people who put out a movie a year, some of them famously, and no one who puts out a movie a year makes all good movies. They make a lot of movies. Luca Guadagnino is out there making a movie every 60 days.

Curry: Soderbergh.

Craig: Soderbergh, who retired 20 years ago, makes a movie every month. They just keep coming. That’s the pace. Your pace is your pace. You don’t have to worry about that.

John: Quick questions before we move into one cool thing. You wrote the script. You gave it to the producer. The producer said thumbs up. You shot a ton of shorts. You shot a bunch of sketches. What, from your YouTube experience, applied and what didn’t apply? What things did you have to figure out is different?

Craig: That’s a good question.

John: Because you’re working with a professional set. You’re working with probably a much bigger team than you’re used to.

Curry: Oh, yes, definitely. I’ve said this a lot on other platforms, but the YouTube comments have taught me a lot about that people are really smart, which is not always the thing you learn online.

Craig: You don’t hear that about YouTube comments.

Curry: It’s just people are picking up on things. You know that thing we talked about that was like, when you don’t give any answers, you almost have to ask people, “Are you getting this? Do you understand?” The answer is yes. As long as you’re telling it through subtext enough, people are getting it, and learning that through YouTube has given me the confidence to treat my audience like they’re smart in a way that maybe I wouldn’t have learned. I like to give credit to that.
Also, now I’ve actually learned that comments are very bad for me. Someone said recently, and I was like, “Oh, my God, I love that.” That comments are like food that you put it in your body, and you’re choosing to digest that. If you just don’t eat it, then you don’t have to– you can eat an entire thing of chocolate cake, or you can just not eat that chocolate cake.

John: What’s the difference between YouTube comments and reviews? Are you reading reviews?

Curry: Reviews are the new modern YouTube comment.

John: It’s just the same thing.

Craig: It’s just long-form YouTube comments.

Curry: It’s so funny because people were like, “What’s it like going into a medium where there were comments and now there’s not?” I was like, “There are. There are comments.”

Craig: I’ve struggled with this my whole life, or at least my whole professional life. Where I landed was, I think that it’s me as my most childlike, trying to get what I should have gotten and didn’t, which is some sort of perfect, beautiful, unconditional love and acceptance. You look for that, and you will get it from some of that stuff. It will mean nothing, and then the punches come, and you will feel those so much more.

Curry: I know.

Craig: 200 I love yous and 1 punch, and all you think about all day is the punch-

Curry: Is the punch.

Craig: -because it was not a healthy exercise in the first place, because you’re looking for something that ultimately you don’t actually need or even want. You just have to sit with your own awareness that you didn’t make something perfect. You are trying to get better. There is a corrosive aspect to it, and there is almost an indulgence. It’s almost like a suicidal indulgence, like, “Kill me.”

Curry: It is. You literally are like, “I hope the next one’s not negative,” but you’re still scrolling. Stop doing it.

Craig: You’re waiting for it. It’s like people who don’t stop gambling until they’ve lost everything.

John: It is the emotional slot machine.

Craig: It’s emotional slot machine. It’s bad for you.

John: Let me try to distinguish between there’s the comments you get on the thing that’s still in process. Someone who you want to read an early draft of your script to see, are they getting it, or people who are seeing this at the UTA, the test screening to see, “Oh, is this working?” At a certain point, when the thing is finished, you just have to be finished with it and stop reading.

Curry: Because there’s nothing to be-

Craig: You can’t do anything.

Curry: There’s no such thing about constructive criticism, because there’s no construction.

Craig: There’s no construction anymore. Construction completed. You just don’t like it, and it is me. You don’t like me. You rejected me, and you can see how intense that feeling is. In your movie, the feeling of being rejected and unwanted is baked into the movie. I would strongly urge you. It’s hard. It requires an enormous amount of ego strength. I’m going to deny myself the cheap thrill of fake love to protect myself from–

Curry: It’s so true.

Craig: It’s hard, though. It’s hard.

Curry: The difference is videos and stuff, because I know you asked what’s the difference between YouTube stuff versus the more traditional stuff. Nobody makes video essays about— People did about Milk & Serial and stuff. Arguably, that was a feature film. It’s really cool to see the videos of people talking about it. That just feels so much more different than– Because you can read the comments of that, and that’s a bad thing.

Craig: Don’t read that.

Curry: The videos–

John: Where someone’s actually taken the time to look at, pull apart, to contextualize things, sure, I can see that being helpful.

Curry: I’m just also really lucky that it’s been mostly positive for Obsession as far as people having opinions about it.

John: You may still need to stop watching those.

Curry: I know. I will, and I should. [laughs]

Craig: You can have somebody in your life who curates a little bit for you. You can say, “Listen, if you see something that it’s not just somebody going, best thing ever, or it sucked,” but somebody who goes, “Okay, I’m going to make a 10-minute video about the use of perspective in Obsession, that is some thoughtful analytical thing that isn’t about praise or condemnation, just an exploration of something that we do out of respect. Maybe somebody in your life can say, “Hey, this one’s safe for you.”

Curry: Check it out.

Craig: Check this one out.

John: We have curation on the Scriptnotes book reviews.

Craig: Oh, we do?

John: Yes. On the good reviews.

Craig: I’ve not looked at them.

John: I think I sent one thing through to you, which was this essay that I couldn’t believe how long it was. It was actually really smartly done. The fact that this person had spent all this time really looking at what we did on the Scriptnotes book was actually meaningful. It’s like, “Oh, that connected.”

Craig: Well, they spent time on it.

John: They spent time on it.

Craig: It mattered to them. It wasn’t just some barf. So much of it out there is just somebody going, “Blah, blah, blah, next.”

John: They don’t even think about how it could affect somebody at all.

Craig: They don’t think about what they just wrote within a millisecond after they hit send. It’s gone.

Curry: That the funny thing, they may even change their mind the next day.

John: Yes, but they’re not going to go back and change their comment.

Curry: You’re just stuck with the comment. Forever.

John: Forever.

Curry: Forever.

John: All right. Let’s do our one cool thing. My one cool thing. This was a study that was done. I want to pose it to you so you can tell us what you think the results were. If you have a bunch of people, schoolchildren even, just in an empty space and just tell them to wander around for 10 minutes, which direction are they going to turn? Are they going to individually turn clockwise or counterclockwise?

Craig: They have to turn. Straight ahead is not an answer.

John: They can move straight ahead, but an empty field, and so eventually they’re going to start turning around. They’re not going to just wander off forever.

Craig: My gut is that most people are right-handed. They’re going to go towards their dominant hand, and I’m going to say to the right.

Curry: I also thought it was this way.

Craig: Yes. Clockwise.

John: Clockwise.

Craig: Yes.

John: It’s counterclockwise.

Craig: What is wrong with us?

John: Universally around the world, and they can’t figure out why. They’ve done all–

Craig: Even in upside-down places like Australia?

John: Yes. I’ll put a link to The New York Times article about this. It’s written by Rachel Nuwer. If you look at the comments on that, everyone says, “Oh, but they should do it in the southern hemisphere because of the Coriolis effect.” That’s not true.

Craig: There’s no magnets.

John: That’s not real.

Craig: Can I tell you something weird? I don’t know if you’ve had this experience. In fact, I know you haven’t. No one else has except for me. This is far beyond random probability at this point. When I write something, I try and be very visual about the space, and I imagine the moments happening. I’m going to say 90% of the time when the production designer comes and shows me, or somebody does a previs or an illustration or a storyboard, they’ve put everybody in the other direction.

Curry: It drives me crazy. Oh, yes.

Craig: I go, okay, “Well, I imagined them the other way.” Everyone’s like, “Oh, that’s weird. We all imagined it like this,” and I can’t explain it. I’m backwards in my head from everybody, and I don’t know why it’s actually terrifying.

Curry: I know what you’re saying because anytime, if I didn’t explain exactly where the couch was supposed to go, then it’s always in the wrong spot.

Craig: Okay, so what’s going on?

Curry: In my head, it’s so clear-

Craig: So clear.

Curry: -that the couch is right here.

Craig: Is it like how our retinas have an upside down image that gets flipped back into our brain? What is happening?

John: As far as this study goes, they’ve a bunch of different theories and none of them pan out. They really have no idea. Scientists, it’s an active area of exploration. It could just be like we are biologically inclined to turn to the left, and they’re not sure why. If you blindfold people, it doesn’t-

Craig: It doesn’t work.

John: -work the same. If you blindfold people and tell them to move straight, I think that bias isn’t there, but it’s just a natural tendency to move.

Craig: It’s all a simulation, obviously.

John: Handedness doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Craig: It’s so weird.

Curry: But we both said right.

Craig: We both said right.

John: I was like, “I’m going to go there.”

Craig: Because I imagined in my mind, and I think maybe this is the problem, is that whatever my brain does spatially, I can see it clearly, and then when I put it, however it comes out on the other end, people are getting the flipped image. It’s so weird. It’s so weird.

John: I would say in probably 80% of scenes where I’m picturing a character entering into a space, I picture them entering in through the left. I picture them moving left to right across the screen. I’m sure statistically if you actually look at the movies I’ve made and things, that’s not the case, but I’m almost always picturing them entering into the frame from the left side of the frame.

Curry: You read from left to right. That’s part of it.

Craig: Then do people who read Arabic or Hebrew go the other way?

John: It’s wild.

Curry: I just learned that books– I don’t know if it’s in Japan or China or just Asia in general, but books are flipped.

John: I didn’t know that. There’s a lot of different cultures where what we consider the back of the book is actually the front of the book, and you’re going the other way through.

Curry: I don’t understand.

John: Manga comics, I think, are back to front.

Craig: You’re reading left to right, but you’re flipping progressively this way?

John: There’s different ways it can work-

Craig: Oh, I see.

John: -in different languages.

Curry: Manga comics is exactly what I’m talking about because I just got one. I was like, “This looks like the back of the book. I had to flip it.” I’m like, “Wait, this feels so weird.”

John: It does feel so weird.

Craig: Now that I think about it, when I went to Hebrew school, where I learned zero Hebrew except the Hebrew phrase for shut up, which every kid who goes to Hebrew school, [Hebrew language] that’s all I remember is the teacher telling me to shut up. This is great education. The books were– the cover was like this, except you would read right to left as you were turning pages this way, which is very weird. It’s all backwards. You should make a movie about that. I don’t know how many of you get that now. This is being weird. We should make a movie about that.

John: We should make a movie about that.

Craig: This is weird. Something happened that’s vaguely and boringly weird to me.

John: Crazy. One cool thing?

Craig: I do. It’s a little bit of a throwback to an old one, I’m pretty sure. It’s a game, but it’s fairly newly released on iOS. I think a long time ago, I did a one cool thing for a game called Curse of the Golden Idol, which was available on Steam. It’s this very strange game. It’s very surreal. The artwork is– sometimes there’s art styles that are aggressively, purposefully ugly. This is that. Grotesque somewhat. It’s a logic deduction game. You get a scene, you find these clues, and you have to piece together what’s actually going on. The scenes become progressively more and more difficult to figure out.
It’s all logic. You become a little bit of a Sherlock Holmes as you go through it. I liked it, but interface-wise, it was a little difficult. As it turns out, it was always supposed to be on iOS or some touch-based because it’s so simple now. It’s so easy. They’ve released two additional DLC things for it. Underneath all of it is this very weird, occult story that begins to unfold of a secret society doing some weird shit. The story’s fun, but mostly, it’s just this really interesting exercise in being very logical and observant. There’s no time limit on it. Games that put a clock on me, I start to freak out.

John: Curse of the Golden Idol?

Craig: Case of the Golden Idol. I’ve been saying Curse of the Golden Idol the whole time. It’s Case of the Golden Idol. I think the people who make it, they have their company name, which we’ll dig up here. It’s like a Pantone or a hex code for a color, I think, which I thought you would enjoy. Yes, Color Gray Games. Their logo for Color Gray Games is like the hex code Pantone. Anyway, the Case of The Golden Idol.

John: The Case of the Golden Idol. I heard you have one cool thing to share with us.

Curry: My dad, for Christmas last year, got me the Scriptnotes book.

Craig: You weren’t a little insulted? Like, “Dad, I know how to do this.” [laughs]

Curry: No, because I’m always trying to learn. I still feel like I know nothing about writing. Every day I’m like, “Oh, how do I learn more? What’s the answer?” I’m constantly chasing. I want the Aaron Sorkin Master Class again. What else can I learn? I’m studying Save the Cat. I’m studying Hero’s Journey and trying to figure out what works better for me and also trying to throw it away at the same time. You know what I mean?

Craig: You’ll find one day you will be teaching a master class where you have digested, synthesized all of it, mushed it with the things that are uniquely you, and you will then give something.

Curry: Three-act structure is important, and that’s what I’ve figured out, I think.

Craig: So far, so good for you, I would have to say. Yes, I wouldn’t dig too– By the way, here’s the one cool thing. You’re wearing a Members Only jacket, and that is the actual– is that like a vintage Members Only jacket?

Curry: No, they still have them.

Craig: That’s like a new version of the old Members Only jacket?

Curry: Yes, but it’s the same exact thing.

Craig: It’s the exact one.

John: [crosstalk] in high school. Oh, that’s cool.

Craig: I had that in 1985, I think. Members Only in whatever the early ’80s was the coolest thing ever, and then one day later, the least cool thing ever. It wasn’t like there wasn’t a middle ground. It was like everyone had one, and then suddenly, “Oh, my God–

John: If you’re wearing one, you’re lame.

Craig: -are you wearing a Members Only jacket, you loser?” I’m like, “It was cool yesterday. What?”

John: Wow, that’s crazy. I didn’t even know that.

Craig: It’s all–

John: Yes, so I assumed it was ironically cool, but it’s just genuinely cool. That’s the generational split.

Craig: I think now it’s all the way just cool.

John: Everything my daughter wears is found at vintage stores and thrifted.

Craig: My daughter as well. They could go thrifting together. She loves it.

John: It’s reminding me, your daughter is in a similar situation with Curry. She’s just making stuff herself, and she’s making music herself rather than making films herself, but she just was able to do the thing that she wanted to do and didn’t have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up.

Craig: She didn’t have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up. They just met her there, which is really– it’s cool, and it’s exciting, but she goes through these same things too. Not everybody survives the withering gaze of the world. It is slightly monkey’s paw. To be ironic, you get what you wish for, and then you’re like, “Oh, no.”

John: Craig Barker, we wish you all the success and luck. We wish all these things for you. It’s going to happen.

Curry: By the way, because I don’t want this to come out a year later, and you’re like, “Wait a second,” you might see more Members Only jackets from me.

Craig: Oh.

John: Oh, nice.

Curry: In a weird way that I won’t say, but you’re going to see it in less than a year, and you’re going to be like, “What? We were there at the birth.”

Craig: We were there at the birth, or the midlife.

Curry: It’s not as random as you think.

Craig: Okay.

Curry: A little teaser there at the end.

Craig: A little Chekhov’s Members Only jacket.

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Meredith Stedman. Our intern is Lauren Loesberg. Our outro is by Matthew Chilelli. If you have an outro, we could use more outros. Please send links to those to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we often answer on the show. 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, just like Curry’s dad did.

Craig: Yes, cool guy.

Curry: Cool guy.

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

Craig: I got to get some drinkware, by the way.

John: Yes, drinkware.

Craig: I need some. Why not have the drinkware?

Curry: I don’t know.

John: I’m going to get some.

Curry: Get the drinkware.

John: Drinkware.

Craig: Yes, drinkware.

John: You’ll find show notes with the links to things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you again to our premium subscribers. They’re the best.

Craig: They make this all possible.

John: You’re going to be getting a notice soon, premium subscribers. We’re also going to email you about special things. You’re going to get a special little email soon.

Craig: Possibly a Scriptnotes themed Members Only jacket. Because my understanding is that stuff’s about to go.

John: Can you imagine an orange Members Only jacket?

Craig: We screw them over. We just salt the earth. The members are like, “Oh my God, it’s so overdone.”

John: Absolutely.

Curry: Yes, I don’t want the Members Only to be done before the thing.

Craig: No, we won’t do that, too. We promise.

Curry: I want them to come back when they’re supposed to come back, which is coming soon.

John: Curry Barker, attempting to time culture, which I love.

Craig: So far, so good. So far, so good.

John: You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on Popcorn Buckets.

Craig: Popcorn Bucket.

John: Curry Barker, thank you so much for coming on the show. It was a delight.

Curry: Thanks for having me. This has been so fun.

Craig: Oh, excellent.

John: Yay.

[music]

John: Craig, all right, you had a movie on theaters this summer, you had Sheep Detectives. Was there a special collectible popcorn bucket for Sheep Detectives?

Craig: I didn’t know. Sheep Detectives snuck on into the movie theaters all meek, like a sheep.

John: Meek. Like a sheep.

Craig: It stuck around for a while. Look, I was trying to punch above its weight there. Had Obsession out there.

John: Yes, sorry.

Craig: No, listen, man. Honestly, the fact that our movie got a theatrical–

John: Were you the same weekend?

Craig: No. What weekend did you guys open?

John: It was June 15th.

Craig: We were before that. No, I don’t even know what we were opening.

John: It wasn’t May 15th.

Craig: I think we were like a week before that.

John: Sorry, it was May 15th. Yes, it’s all a blur.

Craig: The movie, which, look, for 10 years, it just sat on a desk at a studio.

John: They weren’t doing popcorn bonanzas.

Craig: No, and then suddenly it got made, and it happened, and we were very–

John: Dude, that movie got praise.

Curry: It got praise, yes.

John: So much praise. It’s like–

Craig: No one saw that. Everyone was like, “Well, that’s going to be dumb.” By the way, advice, make a movie that looks like it’s going to be stupid that would not be stupid. I used to make movies that looked like they would be stupid and they were stupid, but I realized the trick is–

John: The trick is to make them good.

Craig: No, so there was no— We barely got a standee in theaters. Certainly no popcorn bucket.

John: No, the popcorn bucket we can find for Obsession, but only online. I don’t think there were–

Curry: No, it was at the AMC.

John: It was at the AMC?

Curry: Yes.

Craig: What was the popcorn bucket for that?

Curry: It’s funny because I was also aware that this popcorn bucket thing was happening. One of the first things I asked people when the bidding war was happening, I was like, “Well, are you going to do a popcorn bucket?” They were like, “Yes, we were.” The popcorn bucket, it looks like a One Wish Willow–

Curry: Oh, great.

Craig: Makes a lot of sense.

John: Not like the box–

Craig: It’s like a triangular box in the movie. Yes, but it more looks like the container that would hold the triangular boxes.

Curry: Oh, for sure.

Craig: Oh, like for the group sale stuff. Those things, yes.

Curry: Right, but it holds the popcorn, and it’s made of tin, so it’s metal. It feels high quality. I have three of them, but they sold out very quickly at the AMC all around the world. They’re gone. You can’t get them anymore, which is something cool about that. I also am like, “Should have made a little more of them.”

John: Aline had a similar situation with a Devil Wears Prada. It was like–

Craig: What was hers?

John: It was a shoe. It was like–

Craig: Makes total sense.

John: They’re really constrained supplies. That’s partly the design.

Craig: Yes, there’s not really– It makes sense. Yes, because you don’t want to drench the earth in those things. The popcorn bucket, I was not aware of the popcorn bucket even existing as a thing until the infamous-

John: The Dune.

Craig: -Dune popcorn bucket, which–

John: Looks like a sex toy.

Craig: It was a butthole. It just was. It was a butthole and it’s awesome. I think that after that, everyone was like, “Guess this is what we’re doing now.”

Curry: We missed out on the Jaws popcorn bucket, but did you have the Jaws toy, Craig? Were you trying to get the things–

Craig: Of course.

Curry: Yes, trying to get the hook, the thing out of Jaws’ mouth?

Craig: You had to fish the thing out of Jaw’s mouth, and there was a little piece of plastic, and if you caught the piece of plastic, then the–

Curry: Snapshot, yes.

John: What?

Curry: Oh, yes. It’s amazing.

John: They handed that out at theaters?

Curry: No. This is a toy you bought.

Craig: No, you had to bother your parents to let you buy this plastic piece of crap. Milton Bradley probably made it.

Curry: I’m sure. Absolutely.

Craig: It was a real piece of crap, and it would break fast.

John: What’s so fascinating is that was a toy, but we can totally imagine the popcorn bucket version of it, and these essentially are toys. I was looking at the ones for Masters of the Universe, which was a castle gray skull, and the drawbridge opened, and there was all the powers.

Craig: That makes sense, because it was a toy.

John: It was a toy, but I can’t even imagine being the theater employee who has to put all those things together, or just like, where are you storing them at the theaters?

Craig: I don’t know. I do think now I don’t even know what, for the sheep movie, what would it have been like? Just, “Oh, hold the top of a sheep’s head up so that they’ll reach inside and eat its brain?”

John: It could be his trailer.

Craig: Oh, I guess. Who cares?

John: Who cares?

Craig: Yes. That movie shouldn’t have a popcorn bucket. You need to be, I don’t know– The Sheep Detectives is not a cool movie. It’s quaint. It’s throwback. It’s cozy.

John: If you can’t come up with a good popcorn bucket, there’s an argument for should the movie even exist. No, I’m kidding. Oh, my God. Dang it. That’s a joke.

Craig: That’s a total joke.

John: It’s all about the popcorn bucket.

Craig: It’s all about the popcorn bucket.

John: It’s not about the story.

Craig: The bucket.

John: We had Joakim Truer on the show talking about sentimental value. I should have asked about the popcorn bucket–

Craig: The popcorn bucket for sentimental value.

John: I felt like that was really a missed opportunity.

Craig: Yes, because there’s probably somebody that does have a site where it’s like they make modern popcorn buckets for old films.

John: If not, then right now, that should be the thing.

Craig: I would love if somebody is doing that, but all of them were just slightly off, like the doing popcorn bucket, like E.T.’s finger, and it’s just obviously a dick.

John: Yes, I love that.

Craig: Everything’s wrong.

John: It’s like every popcorn bucket should be like, why does it look like that? That would be really funny. I tend to be sort of anti-junk, and so I want to be against it, but I truly am not against it because let people have things that they love, and if they really love a movie and they want that collectible thing, go for it.

Craig: At this point, anything that makes people happy about going to a movie theater is a wonderful thing.

John: It is. You were part of this giant summer. Independent of your movie, it’s been just like a hugely wonderful, I guess really started before that with Project Hail Mary, but it’s just been great.

Craig: This year’s been a big year for movies. It really has.

John: It’s so cool to be even a part of that at all, because I want to keep going to the theater so much, but people keep asking me as if I’m some sort of representative of Gen Z going to the movie theater, but they keep asking me like, why is it that you think your generation goes to the theater more than, by the way, any generation right now? It’s just a statistic. I think it’s because we’re tired of the phones. We’re wanting to grasp onto any reason to get out of the house nowadays, and the movie theater is a place where there’s no social expectation. You’re expected to put away your phone. You’re encouraged to shut up, not talk, and watch the film. I think people really want that, or are craving that more than ever.

Craig: I also think that Gen Z had a chance. They were the first generation since the first generation where movies happened where they could go. We are now going to discover the joy of going to movies because they’d been robbed of it. They were robbed of it by video, and then COVID, and it just wasn’t as big of a thing. Whereas for us, you turn six, you’re getting dragged out to the movie theater. I think Gen Z got to say, “We’re choosing.”

John: Craig, did you have summer movie programs? Was there a thing where local theaters would, for kids over the summer, they would have basically a film series for kids where they’d buy a pass for the whole thing?

Craig: I grew up on Staten Island. Everything was, “Screw you, buy a ticket.”

[laughter]

John: I remember the Basemark Theater in Boulder, and it was Tuesdays and Thursdays, afternoons, and so parents would just drop us off. You basically pre-bought for the whole summer.

Craig: No, we didn’t have that.

John: That’s where I saw Herbie the Lovebug.

Craig: I went on my very first date, which wasn’t really a date. It was me and my friend took two of the girls from our class, and we were all 10. We went by ourselves to see 9 to 5.

John: Wait, let’s share an experience. It was an inappropriate movie for us to see at a young age? Love it.

Craig: Almost every movie back then was inappropriate for us.

John: I learned so much.

Craig: I learned so much.

John: They’re smoking pot in the movie.

Craig: They’re smoking pot. There’s S&M gear at one point.

John: I feel like that’s coming back. Just more movies being inappropriate. Obsession is rated R, by the way. You know what I mean? To make as much money as it’s making, rated R. I don’t know. I just feel like that’s crazy.

Craig: Rated R movies, there was a moment when I think it was, I guess, in the 2000s where maybe it’s American Pie, where just suddenly almost everything had to be rated. There’s a weird cycle that occurs where then suddenly everything has to be. The Sheep Detective says PG, a rating that no one has anymore. It’s either you’re G or you’re PG-13. Nobody wants to be PG. We’re like, “Mm.”

John: I feel like that happened on accident, right? I can’t speak for–

Craig: We weren’t trying one way or the other.

John: You get the rating that you get because the movie–

Craig: Exactly. If you’re trying to get PG-13, there’s a whole process you go through to get out of the R into the PG-13.

John: Or if you’re trying to get from PG up to PG-13, you add one word.

Craig: From PG to PG-13, you add a word.

John: Really, people do that. People try to go up.

Craig: It becomes like, where are you going to use your one use of the F word here?

John: What is the context?

Craig: What is the context? Exactly.

John: All right. Thanks for this discussion of popcorn buckets and the success of films.

Curry: Of course. Thanks for having me.

John: This has been so fun.

Curry: Thanks.

Scriptnotes, Ep 741: Craig Takes Questions — Transcript

July 17, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

Craig Mazin: Hello, and welcome. My name is Craig Mazin. No John? That’s okay. Don’t panic. I’m handling this stuff not alone. I’ve got intrepid helpers.

Today on the show, we’re going to be doing question-a-rama. Every now and again, we have to do a question-a-rama because questions start to pile up. At some point, we’ve got to make a dent. Today, we’re going to be going through questions, making a huge dent. I will be as entertaining as I possibly can.

Also, in our bonus segment for premium members, I’ll be talking about how to be wrong. This is something I know really well. It’s hard for people to be wrong, especially on the internet. Oh my God, it’s so hard for them to be wrong. Then the doubling down and the tripling down. We’re going to talk about how to be wrong because it’s actually a beautiful thing.

First, we have some follow-up. Meredith, I think this follow-up revolves around a One Cool Thing from last week.

Meredith Stedman: It does. This one comes from Arabella. I’ll call this one Justice for Drew.

Craig: I’m already against it.

Meredith: Dear Craig and John, you are so wrong about rhubarb. You are not cooking it right.

Craig: Oh, come on.

Meredith: I have some favorite ways of eating rhubarb.

Craig: That’s nice.

Meredith: One, lightly stewed. Poach sections of rhubarb until they are soft. Add sugar. Eat with double cream. Two, rhubarb crumble. Eat with custard. Three, rhubarb and ginger fool. Honestly, this is a flipping treasure of gorgeousness. Four, rhubarb jam. Five, and probably the best, make a rhubarb liqueur by steeping the rhubarb with sugar and a bottle of vodka for a few months. P.S. Use your taste buds. It’s amazing.

Craig: This is obviously somebody who wrote in from the Rhubarb Council.

Meredith: Multiple people from the Rhubarb Council wrote in.

Craig: Now, let me point something out. This is what the suggestion is. You’re not cooking it right. What we should do, oh, and this is so simple, is we take rhubarb, a disgusting vegetable, and we, let’s see, add sugar and cream or custard or ginger fool, or we make jam, which is more sugar, or we put it in a bottle with vodka. Why don’t we do all those things and just skip the rhubarb? All those things are awesome. I don’t need a crunchy piece of gross celery in the middle of it. Rhubarb Council, you need to slow down and back up. It’s not going to work. Not one of these was like, just take a piece of rhubarb, grill it, add a little salt, and it’ll be– no, everybody knows you can’t do that. It’s disgusting. Well, they tried.

Meredith: There will be a lot more rhubarb follow-up.

Craig: Oh, God. What is going on? We’ve gotten ourselves into quite a rhubarb. Listen, this may tie into how to be wrong. One day, I may say I was wrong about rhubarb. That said, I made it to 55. My opinion has stayed solid. Well, we’ve also got some things from the listener survey, apparently.

Meredith: Yes, that’s right. There was a survey. We got 316 responses, all anonymous. Here’s just a few from that bunch for suggestions for thought starters on what you guys should be talking about. Here’s one. How do you find the tone of something? Personally, I need to draft something once or twice until the drama of the pilot or film follows the character logic and main thrust of the dramatic arcs. Then, I can go in and actually write with any enjoyment or flair and make it funny or scary or stylish. Is that the same for everyone? Are there some people sitting down and writing with that confidence of execution right off the bat?

Craig: Well, that feels like a topic that– I feel like we’ve done tone at some point, but maybe we could talk a little bit. This is probably a good topic for me and John to address at some point, which is this final bit. Are some people sitting down and writing with that confidence of execution right off the bat? The answer is yes. The real question then is, why do you care? We have different approaches. I think there’s a good topic here of how to deal with Grass is Greener Syndrome as a writer because I think we all have it.

Meredith: Flagging that for a future episode. What is it like rewriting scripts often daily on the set of TV, film, or stage projects?

Craig: Again, these are meant to be topics at some point, or should we answer these questions?

Meredith: You can answer them as questions. I feel like this one would be a good one for you.

Craig: This is a good one. What is it like? Well, rewriting on the set is actually a joy because it means you’ve figured out a problem and you have to solve it. There was something in a scene we were shooting recently, and I could just tell that once it was mounted and things were happening, two more lines, there was like a little exchange, and it was like, “Oh, we just need one more rule of three.” I had to figure out what it was. I just walked off into a corner, and I made everyone stop, and everyone stood there, hundreds of people waiting for me to pick up something, which I did. A little nerve-wracking, but fun. It’s sort of romantic. It’s like, “Ah, the writer.”

Most of the time, writing is not romantic. It’s tragic. That’s quite fun, actually, as long as you can do it. The one thing you have to know about rewriting on the set is that you are holding everything up, and time matters. Thinking quick is important, and always having your tool with you, which would be your laptop, probably. There is something about a daily rewriting that I find suspicious. I think it may be that some writers really do like to just keep that way. I think comedy sometimes can be like that. Ideally, when you show up on the day, the stuff you’ve written is close enough, but it can be fun.

Meredith: In that instance, when you had to walk to the corner and think of something, how long did it take you?

Craig: It seemed like it took me 19 hours, but I believe it was 10 minutes. 10 minutes, oh my God, if I told you what 10 minutes of every shooting day costs on our show, you’d vomit. It is what it is. It made the scene better. What can I do?

Meredith: This is another one that I think would be really good for you in this period of time. Any tips for navigating life when working on set in another city away from home for a week or months at a time?

Craig: That’s the thing. I wish it weren’t so much of a thing. Obviously, there were always things where you needed to travel because you were shooting stuff that took place in Venice or something. Nowadays, and for decades now, we get displaced because of economics. We go to Canada, we go to Europe, we go to the UK, we go to Australia, New Zealand, Malta. They’ll send you anywhere to save a dollar. Even if you stay within the United States, they’re always shipping you out to somewhere. First things first, you need to make it a home. It’s a tough one. You can live out of a suitcase, you shouldn’t. You can live out of a hotel room, you shouldn’t. I’ve done that before. It makes you feel like you don’t really belong there, like you’re not really there. You need to actually put some roots down, find a long-term rental, unpack everything, put it in your closets, and live there. It’s easier now than it used to be because we can Zoom with each other. We’re all closer together than we used to be. Hopefully, your loved ones will come visit you. You know what? I’m coming up on my 30th wedding anniversary. Can you believe it?

Meredith: Congrats.

Craig: 30th. Thank you. One of the secrets, I think, to making it to 30 years is sometimes you just go away for a year. You know what? The other person gets a break from you, you get a break from them. It’s nice. You don’t have to be together every damn day. It was much more difficult when our kids were young. That was rough. It was rough on Melissa. It was rough on me. If you’re out there living on set in another city, live there is my advice.

Meredith: Good advice. This listener writes, “I have a frustrating tendency to underwrite. I’ll set rough page count benchmarks, but find myself struggling to figure out what to expand on. How do you know how long a specific scene should be? How do you know where to add more detail to a scene?”

Craig: Sometimes, questions themselves are indicative of a problem. I think this question is indicative of a problem. Rough page count benchmarks, I don’t know why. I’m not really sure what the point of that is exactly. I’m not even sure what underwriting means. Does that mean it’s too short?

Meredith: Yes, I think so.

Craig: Then it’s the length it should be. Take Widow’s Bay, for example, the show everybody should be watching. We had Katie Dippold recently. That show is in my mind, it’s like an hour-long drama. We have the half-hour comedies, we have the hour dramas. That’s how streaming works, roughly, except… it’s like dramedy but more tilted towards drama. It’s shot like a drama. Last week’s episode was 30 minutes because that’s how long it was supposed to be. We can do that now. Movies are a little trickier. You can’t show up with a 60-minute feature film. It’s got to be, I think, 82 minutes or something, per German law. Part of this is like, hey, maybe your frustrating tendency to underwrite is your correct tendency to write the length that it’s supposed to be. How long a specific scene should be, it should last as long as it should last. A scene has a point. Sometimes the point is somebody walks in a room, punches someone in the face, and walks out. That’s the scene. Sometimes it’s two people looking at each other talking for eight minutes, and that’s the scene. There’s no way to say how long a specific scene should be. To this person, I would say, you’re worrying about the wrong things. You are trying to exert control through math. This is not math. If you feel like you’re running out of stuff to say in a scene, maybe that scene and another scene are supposed to be smushed together into one scene. Maybe you just write short scenes. I’ll tell you what, there’s no substitute for believing in the work. You’re like, “Hey, this is a muscular 28-page thing.” Show it. See where it goes.

Meredith: Since you mentioned Widow’s Bay, I’m going to bounce around here, actually, and come up with a Widow’s Bay-specific question. This question comes with a picture, actually. The question asker sent in a couple of photos, stills from Widow’s Bay, and then they wrote, “In Widow’s Bay, they put a lot of effort and props that are not directly tied to the plot.” I’ll show you the picture. “Typically, who comes up with that kind of stuff? Is it the writer, the props team, someone else?” The photos are of a board game in the second episode of Widow’s Bay, a game called Daddy’s
Home, and another game–

Craig: There’s also Teeth.

Meredith: Teeth.

Craig: My favorite.

Meredith: When he opens Teeth, it’s just a pair of pliers. Exactly.

Craig: That’s the thing I use to get people to watch the show, by the way. Daddy’s Home is incredible. We’ll include this somehow in our links. Teeth and Daddy’s Home both look like these retro-style 1960s Parker Brothers board games, except they’re off. Daddy’s Home, it’s like a family that’s like, yay, except that Daddy is clearly a drunken savage and everyone’s terrified of him. For situations like this, the writer almost always is coming up with the idea. Someone like Katie or one of her terrific staff will say, “Okay, we all want to do these weird board games. What if one of them was called Daddy’s Home, but it’s a drunk guy? What if one of them is called Teeth and inside it’s just a pair of pliers?” From that point, you can describe as a writer as much detail as possible. Knowing me, I would probably try to describe the game as best I could. For something like that, then, that is made in a bespoke fashion, the art department will work with the props department. The art department is generally responsible for anything that is illustrative. Artists will come up with the illustration. The props department will create the box, the size, obviously the pliers. They will work together hand in hand. Then, weirdly, after the art department and the props department work together, then the set deck department they’re the ones who place it in position and move it around. If you’re like, “Oh, I actually want teeth over there,” that’s a third department that comes in. You wonder why our crew’s rather large. Everybody works together. There’s a show and tell where you get to look at the prop box, and something like that, you would really want to dig into deliciously because it’s awesome.

Meredith: So good. This one comes from Ash in London. “When, why, and how to kill?”

Craig: The worst person to ask this.

Meredith: I love that.

Craig: Yes. When, why, and how to kill? Obviously, I’m going to answer. Episode two. Killing characters happens. In movies, it happens for a very permanent reason. Killing characters typically creates the impetus for the journey to begin, or it changes the trajectory of the hero so that they finally begin to confront what they must need to confront. There is also a third kind of death in movies near the end, which is inevitable sacrifice. The old man disappears. In television, for many years, the primary reason that you would kill somebody is because they were asking for too much money. This is notorious. Either they were asking for too much money, this is on serialized dramas, or they were a pain in the ass, or they needed to be killed because they wanted to go do other things, and the show didn’t necessarily need them. There was an infamous example of this. We had David Kelly on the show recently, and he was a writer on L.A. Law, which was a legal drama that aired in the ’80s. It was procedural and had these characters who would repeat.

One of them, and I don’t know why the decision was made that she should die, but it was like an end-of-the-season moment where they’re in the offices, and she says, “Well, I’ll see you on Tuesday.” The elevator door opens, and she steps into the elevator, except the elevator’s not there. She plummets down an elevator shaft. Everybody went, “What?” I still don’t know why they did that. It’s an incredible death. I’m still talking about it. It’s insane. It’s actually insane.

Ideally, when people are dying on shows, it’s for the reason they die. For instance, on our show, it is meaningful. It is always planned. It is always intentional, and it is there to disrupt the course of the hero’s path. If a hero is relying on someone, they must have that person. That person is the one who makes them feel safe, the one who gives them their confidence, the one who is teaching them, the one who is parenting them. That person likely must die. Otherwise, our character’s too safe. Drama is echoing life. I think at this point, I could probably do spoilers on The Sheep movie. One of the characters dies, obviously, in addition to poor Hugh Jackman, who dies relatively quickly. I think everybody knows that. He dies in part to force another character to confront the reality of death through his noble actions. Death must be meaningful to the hero, to the protagonist. If it’s not, it’s just death. Then once you know, okay, this is a meaningful death, the question of when should be clear to you. The how, I believe they asked how?

Meredith: Yes. They asked how?

Craig: Now you got a lever that you can set in many positions. There are grotesque deaths. There are clean deaths. There are off-screen deaths. That becomes a real question of tone and what you want the audience to feel, and what you want a hero to feel, and the nature of the hero. For somebody like Ellie in The Last of Us, who’s grown up in a violent world who has seen her friends die violently. She’s seen people kill themselves. She’s seen all sorts of manners of horrors. Witnessing Joel’s death had to be meaningful to her, not only emotionally, but viscerally, literally viscerally. It had to be a horrible thing, worse than these other ones.

For something like The Sheep Detectives, these innocent sheep live on a farm. One day, their shepherd is found dead. He is lying peacefully in the grass. You do not see his face. He’s just quietly asleep. There is no blood. There is no trauma, nor should there be. There does not need to be. The fact that he is dead alone is the thing that is startling to them. In the novel, interestingly, he is found with a spade, like a shovel, buried in his chest, which is a much more violent death. We thought that’s probably one of those things that deserves a little bit of an adaptation massage for general audiences.
In the end, Leonie Swann, the novelist, understood correctly this guy had to die. When you get to the end of that, her version of the mystery, which is quite different, it all makes sense in the end, and brilliantly so, but for us, totally. You have to ask, what does the audience require? What would they tolerate? What would upset them? How do you want them to feel? How do you want the main character to feel? Because blood and guts and all that is a tonal choice.

Meredith: Ash in London has a little bit of a footnote on that, too, which I think might be interesting since you mentioned death being meaningful in these different options. They wrote, “In reality, the biggest losses in life come out of nowhere and don’t have any poetic justice attached. I’ve seen this work in films like Hereditary, where one of the characters dies, and the shock of how random it is makes it even more powerful. Whenever I write, the death of my character feels perfunctory and purely there to serve the story. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.”

Craig: That is correct. Random, shocking deaths do mirror the way life often works. The truth is, most of the time when people die, we understand they’re going to die. They have a chronic illness, or they’re very old. Maybe there’s hospice. We understand. Every now and again, somebody just drops dead. Somebody’s just shot. Somebody gets run over. It just happens, and it is startling. It can be very startling when you do it in a dramatic context because you are making the audience also feel unsafe. We certainly– I think, startled a lot of people when Joel died, especially because of the fact that it was episode two. I wanted to do it as early as I could in the season without doing it in the first episode, which I felt was way too, ah.

The problem I think this particular person is having is that they’re saying that these deaths feel perfunctory because they’re just there to serve the story. There’s the issue. Death should not serve the story. We talk a lot on the show about relationship, and we talk about how characters have these main relationships that teach them over the course of a movie how to go from thinking one thing to thinking another thing. The death has to impact that person’s relationship to the point of the movie, to the way they think and feel about things, not the plot. The plot is a function of all of that.

Sometimes people do these things because the plot says there’s a conspiracy, and now I figured out that you’re the killer because this person died, which is math, and that’s fine, but there needs to be something about the relationship between the hero and the victim that matters. That’s the part that makes it feel not perfunctory. As we say in The Sheep movie, the victim is the most important clue, which is a line, by the way, that I stole from a conversation I had with the great Scott Frank when Scott Frank and I were talking about The Sheep Detective way back in the day, which he was a big fan of the book. For a while, he was actually going to direct it, and then it just didn’t get made for a long time, so he moved on. I recall it was Scott who said the victim is the most important clue, and Scott is obsessed with film noir and mystery, and I thought, “Oh, that’s gorgeous.” We might as well say the relationship is the most important plot point. Everything comes down to that. Maybe this person needs to either kill somebody else or ask the question, how will this death change the hero internally?

Meredith: That’s good. There’s a lot of questions about mystery, so I feel like there’d be a good topic coming up.

Craig: Fun.

Meredith: Switching gears entirely, here’s one from anonymous. “I’ve been trying to get a low-budget horror going for about a year with myself as director and writer. Recently, I was introduced to a producer in LA who’s been very gung-ho and has reached out to her network, et cetera. Luckily, several of those people have shown interest and requested the screenplay. However, it turns out they’re not reading it themselves, but getting script coverage from an AI service called Greenlight Coverage. The producer sent me one of those coverages, and while it was positive in its assessment of the script, the content was nonsense. It completely misunderstood the nuances of the story. It had casting suggestions that were entirely unrealistic or misplaced. For instance, I have a 19-year-old Southeast Asian character, and it suggested multiple famous actors who are in their mid-40s, and even if they were right for the part, they would expect the entire budget of the film as their salary. This brings me to my question, is this becoming commonplace? If someone shows genuine interest and puts their money where their mouth is, will they actually ever read the script?”

Craig: I cannot say how prevalent this is. What I can say is that since the beginning of Hollywood, there has always been an exurb around the industry of charlatans, or let me be a little more charitable, schlockmeisters. People who exist to spend $12 to make $15, guaranteed, and everything is about simple formulas to guarantee small amounts of money, they are not really in the business. First of all, I love that they acknowledge this. They’re like, we don’t even read these
scripts. We just have AI barf out something that tells us yes or no, meaning they have no taste or no belief in their taste, nor do they even read what the computer barfed out, because if they had read it, they would have also understood. This just doesn’t make any sense. They’re not reading anything, actually. Then the question is, okay, so the people who would be financing this don’t care what’s in it at all, and there is a grand tradition of this. Again, it goes back to the beginning of Hollywood. I don’t know if you guys have seen Ed Wood. Have you seen the film Ed Wood?

Meredith: Yes.

Craig: Incredible. There’s this great bit where he’s trying to sell this movie to a guy who’s just like, “I just need boobs,” and that’s it, boobs. That was the business for a while, where it was just like, I need explosions, I need boobs, I need this type of star, I need explosions, whatever it is, and then that’s enough for me to shove on a poster and get paid my guaranteed 120% of the 100% of money I put in. That’s it. That’s what I do. It’s all about the poster. This isn’t new.
The fact that they’re using AI is just this new tool for idiots. They don’t care about your script if they do this. They simply care about whatever the small issues are that they know they could check off and say, “I can make money off of this.” Right now, I think, given the success of certain movies, Backrooms and Obsession, lots of people are going to try and do this, but they’re useless. If somebody takes your script and gives it to AI, they’re useless. You can give your script to AI. What do you need that person for? Do they have money? Usually not. They’re middlemen talking to middlemen talking to middlemen talking to somebody. The bad news here is, anonymous, you are currently walking through a bad neighborhood getting offered things by people on the street, like brand new Rolexes for $800. Caveat scriptor, be careful. It doesn’t mean that this can’t work out for you. What it does mean is you’re in a bad neighborhood. The best possible thing would be for somebody who is a little bit closer to the inside of the business, to the legitimate business, which is also a horror show, by the way, somebody more in the legitimate business, sees what you wrote, actually reads it, actually understands it, does the minimum basic work that a producer should do instead of this, which is ridiculous. It’s a sign. When people show you who they are, believe them. Poor anonymous.

Meredith: Poor anonymous.

Craig: I know. Stupid AI. So dumb. I can’t believe people are still like, “Oh, yes, we’ll just give it to AI.” Well, it’s obviously not working. They just keep doing it. It’s not working.

Meredith: That was not the only person that wrote in about that specific service, too. We got a couple.

Craig: It’s called what?

Meredith: Greenlight Coverage.

Craig: Greenlight coverage. Well, I’ve not used Greenlight Coverage, obviously. I can’t speak to the veracity of the claims here. What I can say is if Greenlight Coverage is the best possible AI coverage ever, it still makes me ask the question, then why do I need the person who gives it to them? Why can’t I just give it to them? What do I need this middle person for? They’re useless. Looking at Greenlight Coverage, I personally don’t get it. I don’t understand why people would pay for this. I wouldn’t. I would recommend against it. They’re not doing anything illegal, as far as I can tell. They’re just doing something that I consider to be commercially useless. Again, that’s Hollywood. It’s been going on forever. Before this stuff, before AI, and they’re still out there, script consultants. Script consultants, what is this? Useless. Just sucking up money from people, taking people’s money, and giving them nothing of value back except confidence. Just like when you drive down the street, and you see palm reading, it’s useless. This is palm reading, in my humble opinion.

Meredith: Well, this may dovetail into another question someone asked, which is: how to know if a producer is or isn’t worth his or her salt?

Craig: Well, it would be nice if there were some sort of Yelp rating. All we really have to go on with producers are their credits and their relationships with others. That said, the credits are often misleading as hell. I know from having been on the inside of a lot of things that there are people who walk around saying, “Well, I was a producer on blah, blah, blah,” and I’ve never met that person. I don’t even know them. They did nothing. Maybe they have their name on it for some reason or another. Credits can be deceiving. Relationships are a little more indicative. If you know that they are friends with so-and-so or they have a good working relationship with this one or that, then it’s relevant. If they are in a business that has financing attached to it, that’s always a sign. Always be cautious. Many producers have a singular skill for self-promotion. That is their skill. They are producers because they’ve convinced people that they’re producers. They are essential because they have convinced people that they are essential. They’re the ones who rise to a certain spot because they’ve convinced everybody else that the other people that could have risen into that spot were no good and should be fired. That is a talent. It’s the talent of surviving. Is it a creative talent? No. Is it, in fact, essential? No. There are very few producers who I would consider to be essential to things who are extremely legitimate, who add value, not just because they know people, but because they have insight and taste, and experience. As you enter the business, you’re going to have to mill around. You’ve been to Vegas.

Meredith: Yes.

Craig: There’s Vegas. the Strip is like, ooh, there’s really cool parts of the Strip. Then there’s a slightly dicey part of the Strip. Then you go to downtown. That’s rough around the edges, but okay, fun. Then you go further out to one of those desert casinos. That’s Hollywood. When you start, you’re in a weird border town desert casino where everyone’s just chain-smoking, and they’re telling you their slots pay out the best, and there’s a prime rib dinner, the best in town. You’re like, “Okay.” You got to work your way to Fremont Street, and then to Dicey Strip, and then Good Strip. The more you go and the further you go, the more likely it is, shock of all shocks, that you will encounter legitimate producers. When you are on the edges, it’s going to be a lot of Greenlight Whatever-the-hell.

Meredith: Jeremiah writes, “How long should I research a subject for my story? Is a month of just researching enough or not quite? Is it just purely research, or should I do it along the course of writing a screenplay the whole time?”

Craig: Well, this falls under the general heading of, tell me how many chews I should do of this food before I swallow it. I don’t know. It depends on the project. There is no clarity. There’s no right answer. If it is something that you feel requires good amount of research, do the research. It will only help you. Do that early. If you’re writing a story about the Donner Pass and the people that ate each other, read some books. Go ahead and read some books. Go a little deeper than that. Try and hoover up everything you can that it’s at least close to your hands. While you’re reading it, read it like a writer. Do research like a writer. When I say that, I mean I don’t just sit there and read through books about how nuclear reactors work. When I’m reading, my radar is up, attuned to moments that I think would be interesting to dramatize, that would be fascinating to imbue characters with. Little tiny anecdotes. In your mind, you can suddenly expand that to be something pretty incredible. If you are attuned and looking for story material as you do your research, it will be of great benefit to you. You don’t want to fall in the trap of just researching all year because you don’t want to write stuff. Sometimes I think people do that. Dig in. Dig in and read it like a writer.

Meredith: This one’s actually maybe just, maybe think about this, and maybe you and John should come together on it. Someone wrote in, “I want cool stories about the late ’90s film business.” How do you feel about that?

Craig: So specific. The late ’90s film business. Oh my God. I remember it well. Well, yes, I suppose John and I could talk about it. The late ’90s were actually weird. There was a sense of everybody felt a little bulletproof because of the home video business. Seemingly, you couldn’t lose money. If you made a movie, even if it bombed, there were blockbusters everywhere. Netflix in 1998 was mailing DVDs to your house. That was their service. It’s funny how Netflix, the company that seems to abhor theatrical distribution, was founded on the backs of things that were theatrically distributed. That aside, everything seemed to make money. A lot of movies got made. So many movies got made. Because so many movies were getting made, so many people came into the business. There were, I think, more opportunities certainly in film than there are now, way more opportunities. In television, my guess is there were probably fewer opportunities because we hadn’t yet gone to the explosion that we have from streaming. The network still ruled the day. There was a lot of basic cable stuff that was a little less than. Still, I think it was an easier time for writers. Then things started to turn. I think as the internet began to grow, and then by 2007, also financially, the world fell apart. 2001, there were quite a few convulsions that occurred. The late ’90s, to me, maybe John has some good stories, everybody was pitching all the time. I was going on meetings all the time, pitching all the time. Everybody had open writing assignments. There were so many open writing assignments. There was just a lot to do and a lot of producers. It is interesting how that is a base of a pyramid that, as the years go on, all those people just start to fall away until you get like there are still people left from the late ’90s. I’m one of them, but there are a lot of people that are gone. Weird time, late ’90s. Oh, man. Good movies in the ’90s, though. Great movies in the ’90s because of this. They were making everything with a lot of junk, but, man, the ’90s for movies, maybe my favorite decade. It’s incredible.

Meredith: “How do you deal with notes when you have no leverage?” Again, this is from Anonymous.

Craig: I think the concept of leverage is a little overstated here. None of us really have leverage over the truth. Some notes are just good. Some notes are bad. Our jobs, and we’ve talked quite a bit about notes, our jobs are to put ourselves aside and look just at the honesty of things. If someone has given you a note that is profoundly bad, part of my strategy has always been to ask them questions about it to get underneath what that might be and to see if there’s just a fundamental difference between what I think this is and what they think it is. It’s also, I think, incumbent upon the professional writer who is getting paid to be responsive and to try. You can try. It’s extra work, but then again, you’re getting paid. Ideally, you can go back to them and say, “I tried, it just didn’t work, but here’s what I think is working
better.” Or you can go back to them and even say, “I’m going to show you these two things. Here’s, okay, it doesn’t work, but this one would.” When these people give you these notes, they really are either trying to make it better or more commercial, or they’re just trying to make somebody above them happy. The worst thing for them is for somebody to go, “I don’t want to, or I’m not better.” Just try. I do feel like when a writer comes back and says, “I tried,” you actually don’t want to do this. I am giving you good advice here. Think of me like a doctor. I’m telling you, you actually do not want to do this cosmetic surgery, but let’s take a look at this and this and this. They feel heard. The leverage aspect of it never really changes. HBO has suggestions for me, and I guess I could say, “I’m not doing it, but I don’t,” why? Even if I did, I just think somebody above the person telling me– Eventually, I would get a call from Casey Bloys, who runs HBO, and he would yell at me. You know what I mean? There is no leverage. Good is leverage. That’s really the only leverage you have.

Meredith: Do you have a technique for dealing with perfectionism?

Craig: No. No, I struggle. I struggle with it sometimes. The need to obsessively go through little things. I think of it sometimes as just, it’s neither a bug nor a feature. It’s just part of it. None of us are perfectly efficient machines. We all come with something. I think people who have the ability to write shamelessly can write much faster than I can. They can write more than I can. Then, though, it may take them longer to get to what they would consider to be good. Fewer of their things may get to the point that other people say. There’s these pluses and minuses, whereas I can take too long, I can obsess, I can make myself crazy in my head, takes longer, but then when I hand it over, it is further along because I’ve obsessed over it and I’ve taken more time. I feel like we just have to go with the rhythms we have and accept that this is part of the deal. I do think as time goes on, the experience of struggling with myself teaches me how to struggle with myself a little less. You start to accept your flaws, and as you accept your flaws, you get ironically closer to drifting away from your flaws towards something that’s better. Even then, the perfectionist must be aware that they are trying to perfect not being a perfectionist. It’s a horrible trap. It really is. What can you do?

Meredith: Do you have something along the lines of surprisingly good advice? Is there something that you didn’t believe or advice that you resisted when you first heard it, but it’s proved to be helpful?

Craig: The weirdest advice I ever give people is to learn to type. I think the faster you can type, the quicker your mind turns to words on the screen. You remove a barrier. There’s something about the slowing down process that I think can diminish the clarity of what’s happening in your own head. It can make the things on the page feel artificial because you had a thought that was legitimate and honest, and authentic. Then you have to rebuild it a little slowly. Learn to type. It goes faster. It just flows.

I don’t think there’s any advice anyone gave me early– oh, well, actually, there’s one bit of advice I always loved. It was an actor who told me this. He said, “Sooner or later, you’re going to get fired. Do not let that define you.” It’s true. In our business, sooner or later, you’re going to get fired off of something somehow. I think for a lot of people, it’s an almost unrecoverable incident because it is like an ego death involved, and because we think of being fired as like, “Oh my God,” you failed. The process is designed in such a way that sooner or later, you’re going to be fired regardless of success or failure. They’re just these circumstances that occur. You have to learn whatever lesson you can learn, if there are any to learn, and then immediately get back on the horse. Oh, that’s another bit of interesting advice.

This won’t apply to everybody, but I hope that one day it applies to you. Someone, and I can’t remember who, said, if you are lucky enough in your career to do something where you win major awards for it, you get public acclaim, immediately get back to work on something else. Do not fall in the trap of going, “Okay, now I am an Oscar award winner. I’m an Emmy award winner. I have a this, I have a that.” The next thing must be also worthy of an award. No, just get to work because a lot of great filmmakers and artists got paralyzed by these big wins, and suddenly five years go by because they’re just hunting for the thing that’s worthy. Get back on the horse. Keep going.

Meredith: This one is addressed personally to you.

Craig: Oh, boy.

Meredith: In very early episodes, Craig was adamant that he would retire early. Wondering what his thoughts are on that now.

Craig: Well, that’s going to flow beautifully into our bonus segment. How to be wrong. I am not retiring early. I don’t think I’m going to retire on time. I’m not sure I’ll ever retire. As long as my brain is working and as crazy as this makes me, it’s who I am. It’s what I do. I don’t know what else to do. I like it. I hate it. I’m compelled to do it. No retirement anytime soon. To do what? I’m sure Melissa has a long list of things. I’m like, yes, or make another show.

Meredith: That’s a perfect question to segue into One Cool Thing.

Craig: One Cool Thing. This week, rather than me doing a One Cool Thing because I’ve done them a lot of times, we’re going to have a guest come and do a One Cool Thing for us. There must always be an August doing a One Cool Thing. This week, we have Amy August.

Amy August: Hi, guys.

Craig: We’ve been promising a special episode of Scriptnotes that’s just you and my daughter Jessie, which I think still needs to happen. It would be amazing.

Amy: It does. We’re both very busy.

Craig: I know you guys are busy, but then John and I are busy.

Amy: It’s different. I’m going to say it’s different.

Craig: Fair.

Amy: I think we’re less busy than you guys are.

Craig: You could fit an hour in somewhere.

Amy: Yes, we could.

Craig: Before that happens, we get to have you here to give us a One Cool Thing. What’s your One Cool Thing this week, Amy?

Amy: I changed my One Cool Thing from what I initially thought it would be. My One Cool Thing is background shows.

Craig: Tell me about background shows.

Amy: Maybe this is just my Gen Z brain, which always needs to have multiple sources of simulation. My absolute favorite thing to do is do one thing and then having a background show on.

Craig: Oh, now I understand. The second screen.

Amy: The second screen.

Craig: Great.

Amy: Not to dig on scripted television.

Craig: Dig on it all you want.

Amy: I’m a reality TV girl. I almost solely watch reality television. Currently, I’m watching Vanderpump Rules, the great mess of a show that is. I will almost always, when I’m doing something, have a second screen onto the side playing Vanderpump Rules.

Craig: Does it get in? Does it sneak into your head?

Amy: No, it absolutely does. To be fair, I can’t really do it when I’m doing important things, but it’s just so nice to have because I feel like my brain is always in two separate places at once, and then half of my brain could be occupied with some
bullshit happening on the side. I don’t know if I’m allowed to swear on this show.

Craig: I ask this question literally every time I do it, and I don’t work here. Apparently, the answer is yes.

Amy: I’ll have some bullshit off to the side, and then I can actually lock in and focus on what I’m trying to do.

Craig: Jessie can do this, too. You guys are the same age, I think, and she will have the second screen going all the time. She does watch some reality, but her thing mostly is watching old series or all of Friends or all of Criminal Minds, and it’s just running back there on the side. I don’t know how you guys do it. I have a question for you. I’ve noticed this with a lot of people who are Gen Z. Do you turn the subtitles on?

Amy: If I’m actually trying to pay attention to it, yes.

Craig: Wow. That’s amazing to me. I hear this a lot. People who are Gen Z are like, you watch something with them, you show them a movie, and they’re like, “I just had trouble following the dialogue,” because they like the subtitles. Whereas when I was a kid, subtitles were only in French movies that you didn’t see. What’s going on there?

Amy: I don’t know. This has been more of a recent thing for me, I think. Because in high school, I was anti-subtitles. I thought that they were annoying, and they took up too much of the screen. Now, I like them. I think I’m just more used to reading things instead of just watching them. Even TikToks usually have subtitles a lot of the time. Now, I’m just used to seeing something there.

Craig: You get used to it. Hey, look, it’s reading. At least we got that going for us.

Amy: Hey, I read books. Yes. Every once in a while.

Craig: You read books.

Amy: Yes. Not as much as my dad does, but yes.

Craig: Do you read your dad’s books?

Amy: I’ve read most of them.

Craig: Have you read the latest one?

Amy: The latest one? Yes, I have read that. Very quick read, very good. Very good. Recommend it to my friends.

Craig: Yes, it’s terrific. Well, thank you, Amy. Enlightening. Welcome to the show, by the way.

Amy: Oh, thank you. My first-ever Scriptnotes cameo.

Craig: You have debuted.

Amy: It’s almost like I’ve been doing this most of my life.

Craig: We indeed have been doing it almost– When were you born?

Amy: 2005.

Craig: Yes, I think when you were six. I’ve been doing this since you were six. You’re an adult.

Amy: I know. I’m almost allowed to drink.

Craig: You’re almost allowed to drink.

Amy: Yes, I’ve never had a drink before, so it’s almost my time.

Craig: Well, since your dad’s not here, I’m not going to get into alcohol and how to drink responsibly. I’ll let him handle that parenting.

Amy: He’s pretty good at it, I’d say.

Craig: Well, welcome to the show, Amy. We’ll see if you are a busy person now, and Jessie’s a bit of a busy person.

Amy: Yes, unfortunately, I do have a 9-to-5. It’s crazy.

Craig: You’ve got a job, which is awesome.

Amy: Real adult life is hard. No one talks about this.

Craig: I think we try.

Amy: Feeding yourself three times a day is really hard.

Craig: There’s more. There’s bills and health insurance.

Amy: Hey, I’m on that till I’m 26. I’m not going anywhere. I’m getting that WGA health insurance that my dad fought for because he will not stop talking about it.

Craig: That’s the only reason you use it because he will not stop talking about it. No, it is awesome. Take advantage of that. Well, thank you, Amy. Thank you for coming on the show.

Amy: Of course.

Craig: Hopefully, we’ll get you and Jessie on together.

Amy: Thank you for letting me take up your time.

Craig: Oh, it’s fun. That’s our show. Scriptnotes is now produced by Meredith Stedman. It is edited, as always, by Matthew Chilelli. Our intern is Lauren Loesberg.

The outro this week is by Eric Pearson. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask at johnaugust.com. That is also a place where you can send questions, like the many questions we answered today. You will find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with the sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

The Scriptnotes book, a beautiful orange rectangle, is available wherever you buy books. You can find clips and other helpful videos on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You’ll also find us at Instagram. We are @scriptnotespodcast. We have T-shirts and hoodies, and drinkware. I love that we have drinkware. There you go, for your one glass of wine a night. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau because when you think drinkware, you think cotton. You can find show notes with the links for all the things we talked about today, and there were many of them, in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Cheaper, probably than greenlight.net whatever.

Thank you to all of our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you can get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we are about to record on How to be Wrong. Thank you, Meredith. Thank you, Lauren. Thank you, Amy.

Meredith: Thank you, Amy.

[music]

Craig: Meredith, How to be Wrong, especially on the internet. People really struggle with this. I understand why. Being wrong is unpleasant. I think for many people, being wrong almost feels like a self-betrayal to admit that this other person, who is obnoxiously telling you you’re wrong, stupid, incorrect, uneducated, that that person might be right about facts, is hard because in our brains, we think they’re right about us. Being wrong doesn’t mean you’re stupid. Being wrong doesn’t mean you’re uneducated. Being wrong doesn’t mean you’re a fool. It just means you are wrong, like everyone is, all the time. All the time. Do you get into fights on the internet?

Meredith: What do you think? I don’t.

Craig: No. I felt like it was going to be a hard no.

Meredith: I try not to engage.

Craig: Yes. Fighting on the internet is generally bad. It’s generally bad because if you’re right, it doesn’t seem to work. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind. If you’re wrong, it’s hard to admit it or change your mind because it’s coming with such personal vitriol. I do think a lot of somewhat famous people or very famous people who have become radicalized internet figures because it all started with a simple, small argument and they were wrong and they can’t deal with that and the doubling down, the quadrupling down, and so on and so forth until suddenly they are some fiery crusader in a corner they never thought they would be, thinking of someone in particular.

Meredith: Me too.

Craig: Yes. It’s probably the same person. Let’s talk about how to be wrong in life, in your home, in your relationships, on the internet, God forbid. I think about this a lot because I have to make, I don’t know, 100 decisions every day while we’re making our show. Some of them are easy. Some of them are difficult. Some of them, my answer is always, “Here’s my theory. I have a hypothesis. I believe this will go this way. Let’s try doing it like this.” I always say, “I’d like to hold space for being wrong.”

It’s important to acknowledge before you start making an argument that you could be wrong so that other people don’t feel uncomfortable telling you, especially if you’re in a position of authority, that you’re wrong. They’re there for my benefit. They’re trying to make things better with their expertise. I want that. I certainly don’t want people to go, “Well, he’s wrong, but no one can tell him.” I want people to tell me. Many times, I will, after doing something, say, “Well, I was wrong. That was not the way to do it. Let’s do it the way you suggested. I was wrong.” There’s no shame in it.

First thing is just leave room for it at the start. You don’t have to come at everything with 100% confidence. You can say something that you believe is true and also recognize the possibility that you might be wrong. It’s okay. On the other hand, don’t presume you’re wrong all the time. It’s okay to have a good gut feeling. “Okay, I think this is correct. I think this is true.” Just acknowledge there’s a chance. Being wrong is an opportunity. Being wrong means you’re about to be right because you realized you were wrong. You’re going to get to right one way or the other. It’s fine.

Certainly, consistency is not the goal. You can change your mind. We’re allowed to do it. It’s fine. There is no shame in it, although we are told there is. The reason that keeps a lot of people from just saying, “I’m wrong,” shame. They feel shame. If you say you’re wrong, particularly on the internet, you’re going to get slapped around. People are snotty on the internet. I’ve been thinking about what the tone is when we think about the bad internet. It’s just snottiness. It’s just snotty people making snotty little comments. It can be infuriating. It can be really infuriating when you say you
were wrong, and they just pile on, like, “Good, let us now tear you apart. You’ve shown your weakness.” None of that is real.

What’s real is you changed your mind for hopefully the better. I think you should be grateful when you’re wrong. Be grateful that you have seen the error that you had made, and be grateful that you have this new truth. Relish that. It is a wonderful feeling to me. Certainly, forgive yourself for being wrong because everyone is all the time. I personally like to thank the person that changed my mind, even if they were obnoxious, because I don’t think I’m rewarding the obnoxiousness. I think, if anything, I’m helping them be less obnoxious because they will realize they didn’t need the obnoxiousness to convince me. They just needed the facts. Explain to them how they changed your mind. It will certainly not be, “Well, you yelled really loud.”

Then, of course, leave space, and this is where it gets tricky, for the possibility that you weren’t wrong at all. After you change your mind, you are allowed to go back again. You may believe something. You may go, “Oh, that’s wrong. I’ve changed my mind.” Then later, you may go, “No, actually, that’s wrong. I was right in the first place.” That’s allowable. You don’t have to be a windsock blowing around whichever way. You’re allowed to have a backbone. You’re allowed to have a spine. What do you use as your North Star? Your own curiosity and your own interest in truth. That is what matters. Your ego does not. Being able to say, “I was right all along,” useless. Being able to say, “I told you so,” useless.

Being able to say, “I am incredibly consistent on this and always have been,” useless. Growing and changing is part of what we ought to be doing, and the only way to grow and change is to know that you were wrong. I would say love being wrong as long as you know you’re wrong. Thoughts?

Meredith: 10 out of 10. Being wrong, love it.

Craig: What if I’m wrong now?

Meredith: I don’t know.

Craig: I could be wrong about all that. I could be.

Meredith: You could be.

Craig: You know what? I just presented a theory. I’m holding space. If you think I’m wrong, please write in and tell me.

Meredith: As they did about the rhubarb.

Craig: Yes. Well, now what I’m right about.

Meredith: What about characters being wrong?

Craig: Essential. All characters that matter are wrong about something. They must be, or else they’re just going to be themselves again at the end. There’s no change. Therefore, there’s no purpose for the story whatsoever. They must be wrong. Not only are they wrong, either they don’t know they’re wrong, or they think they’re right for sure, or they know they’re wrong but can’t admit it. That is essential. Why? Because it’s the most human of things. Strange, especially for writers who traffic in characters who are wrong, to sometimes struggle with the idea that they’re wrong. We all do. It hurts a bit. I don’t know why. This is an interesting question. Why we have shame when we’re wrong? We don’t have guilt. We have shame as if making a mistake or missing something, or not seeing something, is self-negating. I don’t quite, because I feel it. I just don’t know why.

Meredith: Maybe pack mentality, like you’re going to be alone over there.

Craig: Maybe so.

Meredith: Everyone else will be on this camp.

Craig: You will appear weak or foolish. There is something embarrassing about insisting on something strongly and then waking up the next day and going, “Oh, no, I was actually wrong.” Then there’s an impulse to just deny it. We are so all in on avoiding shame that we will, that’s where the doubling down comes and the denials and all of that, because we just can’t, it’s like anything. Isn’t it admirable when somebody says they’re wrong and changes their mind? It’s the most admirable thing they can do. Nobody, I don’t think anybody goes, “Oh my God,” you were wrong
once. Yes. You struggle with it, though.

Meredith: Yes, it’s admirable.

Craig: It’s an admirable quality. Also, saying I don’t know is really important, but that’s a separate topic. I’m a big fan of I don’t know because I have to ask questions of people all the time. A lot of times, I’ll say, “By the way, I don’t know is a perfectly good answer.” You don’t need to tap dance and invent something for me that isn’t true just because you think that there’s no way to just say I don’t know. Totally say I don’t know. Then go find out. Being wrong is unavoidable, so we might as well find the upside in it. That’s the bonus topic for this week.

Meredith: That’s great.

Craig: Go out there and be wrong, everybody.

Scriptnotes, Episode 740: On Competence, Transcript

June 26, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is episode 740 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, what is competence and why do we love to see competent or incompetent characters on screen?

Craig: What number of podcast is this?

John: 740.

Craig: Horrible time to start asking that question. What’s good? Should we be good?

John: You can try to be good.

Craig: I don’t know.

John: We weren’t good when we started.

Craig: No. We may not be good now.

John: We’ve gotten better, though. We’ll talk about that.

Craig: Better is important.

John: I want to ask, what does it mean to be competent in the real world, and how does AI challenge our perceptions of competence? Because a lot of things can seem competent when they’re not competent because a person just typed it into a box.

Craig: Look, I drew something with 10 fingers only. How competent.

John: We will also answer listener questions about being ghosted by an agent, and in our bonus segment for premium members, we’ll answer a random advice question from a listener whose workplace has been upended by corrupt goons.

Craig: Oh.

John: Should they stay or should they go, and if they go, should they exit loudly?

Craig: Is this Scott Pelley writing in?

John: It could be Lesley Stahl.

Craig: Got it.

John: You’ll have to wait till the bonus segment to figure out who it is.

Craig: It could be the great Lesley Stahl. It is not Lesley Stahl.

John: It’s not Leslie Stahl.

Craig: She chose to stay.

John: She chose to stay, but we’ll see.

Craig: It’s a situation over there.

John: It’s a situation over there, for sure. We have big news right here on this very podcast.

Craig: Oh, here we go. Hold on, folks.

John: This will be the final episode produced by our beloved producer, Drew Marquardt.

Craig: Oh, we fired him.

Drew Marquardt: Me and my family have decided that it’s good that I take time to work on my own things.

Craig: Transition to…

Drew: This is best for everyone and thank you.

Craig: Respect our privacy at this time.

John: Absolutely. We will respect Drew’s privacy to a certain degree.

Craig: We did not fire Drew.

John: No. We’ve had a lot of fantastic producers over the years. Generally, when we lose a producer, Craig, it’s because he gets staffed on a show and suddenly we’re scrambling to replace them.

Craig: By “we,” we mean you.

John: Me. In this case, I have a project that’s going to require a lot more of my time, and I selfishly wanted Drew to come over to this project with me, which meant we actually had some time to think about the best ways to–

Craig: Succession.

John: Succession. We thought about succession. We didn’t get four seasons out of it. We got a couple of months.

Craig: This particular show right here.

Drew: Justice drama-fueled.

John: We found someone who’s going to be fantastic. Her name is Meredith Stedman. Meredith, some folks might already know who you are. Can you give us a sense of your background and why they might know your voice?

Meredith Stedman: Sure. If you’re a podcast listener, particularly in true crime or horror, you might have heard me before. I worked on Radio Rental for a long time, and Rattled & Shook, and Up and Vanished. Just some titles like that.

John: Fantastic.

Meredith: You might have heard me.

Craig: I’m already very soothed, by the way.

Meredith: Oh, thank you.

Craig: Very soothing.

Drew: I used to listen to her podcast to go to sleep, which is crazy because it’s a scary story.

Craig: That’s not a great compliment. That said, Melissa uses our podcast to go to sleep. We are her sleeping podcast. I walked into the room, this is my wife, seeing her lying there, a little bit of drool coming out of the mouth, soft snore, you and I talking about copyright.

John: Understandable. Meredith, we’re so excited to have you on board, and you actually know how to produce podcasts, which is so great because–

Craig: Wait, so does he.

Drew: Oh, no. I was winging it for a very long time.

Craig: What?

Meredith: Thank you.

Craig: No one told me.

John: No one who’s come on to produce the podcast has actually produced a podcast before they sat down in the chair-

Craig: This was the podcast. This was it.

John: This was how it started.

Craig: You bring some outside knowledge.

Meredith: I think I somehow am the first generation of someone who’s had this job this long. I don’t think it was a possibility before.

Craig: It was an emerging industry.

Meredith: Yes, an emerging industry.

Craig: Understood.

John: To fill out more of your curriculum vitae, you actually did go through the Peter Stark program. You actually have a film producing degree.

Meredith: Yes.

John: Part of the reason I think you wanted to move over here is because it’s a little closer to what you actually learned how to do.

Meredith: Yes.

Craig: This whole place is just a Starkie-

Meredith: You’re surrounded.

Craig: -supply tube. I am personally surrounded. It’s pretty good. I got to say, I don’t want to like it, but my whole thing is that these places basically cheat by picking people who are going to be successful and then making them spend money to confirm it. We can talk about that incompetence point. What a great scam. Here, take this test to see if you’ll succeed. You will? Give me money. Nonetheless, their selection process is on point. That much is clear.

Drew: That’s absolutely true. When I got this job, I had the thought of, “Thank God they didn’t meet Meredith Stedman because that’s the person who should have this. I’m very excited that you’re–

Meredith: Oh, Drew.

Craig: You could have just said it.

Meredith: Oh, please.

Drew: No, I wanted the job. Me first, and then other people.

Craig: I have to be honest.

John: We should talk about how you came into our orbit because you were our intern. The Peter Stark program, which is a two-year motion picture producing program at USC, that I went through, that Stuart Friedel went through, that Megan McDonald went through.

Craig: Did Megana go through?

John: No, Megana went to Harvard.

Craig: She went to Harvard.

John: She went to Harvard.

Craig: She went to Harvard. She was like, “I think we have enough here.”

John: Just the same way that I was an intern at Universal Pictures, Drew was our intern for a summer here and was great. He was helping us out with the Scriptnotes book. Then when Meg and I got staffed on a show, he stepped up.

Drew: Thank God, because it’s changed my life. It’s been amazing. There’s a lot of parents for the Scriptnotes book, but it’s my baby. Seeing that through has been amazing, too.

Craig: Beautiful orange book. I guess we’re going to ask you all sorts of questions. I’m just curious because I don’t know if this would be on the list of questions. When you say it’s changed your life, Megana Rao has mentioned that she’s recognized.

Drew: Oh.

Craig: Do people ever recognize you?

Drew: Very rarely.

Craig: By your voice?

Drew: By my voice, sometimes, but it’s context. If you’re at the New Beverly and there’s a bunch of film nerds around, I’ll get an occasional someone just sticking their head out and looking and I’m like, “Oh.”

Craig: “He’s here. It’s him.”

Drew: The only time I’m stopped is in Austin. It’s usually to be like, “Hey, you’re not Megana Rao.” I’m like, no, you’re right.

Craig: How encouraging and reaffirming-

Drew: Thank you.

Craig: -that comment is.

Drew: Big shoes to fill.

John: Each week, how many emails come in that are still addressed to Megana rather than to you?

Drew: Good question.

John: Have you had any, Meredith?

Meredith: Yes, I’ve already seen them. I’m like, well, you actually missed a little bit in between.

Drew: Probably three or four every week still.

Craig: Megana really did have an outsized–

John: Well, she was the first of our producers who actually spoke on a camera regularly.

Craig: That’s what it was.

Drew: That’s what it was.

Craig: Or on microphone, at least. You’re absolutely right.

John: I’m saying camera because now we have cameras.

Craig: Now we’re one of those.

John: One of those. 588 was your first episode. That means 152 episodes produced plus the side cast episodes during the strike, so maybe 170 altogether.

Craig: Stuart probably has the record still.

John: It’s the third most because Stuart has 259 episodes and Megana has 199. You couldn’t–

Drew: One shy of 200.

Craig: That’s the way you do it. You say, I don’t want the 200. You walk off the field like a stud.

John: Obviously, you’re incredibly central to getting this podcast out each week. Also central is Matthew Chilelli, who’s going to miss you. He put together a special presentation just for you.

Craig: Oh, this is going to be good.

John: You’ve not heard this yet. We’re going to play it for the first time.

Craig: Oh, boy. Here we go. What people don’t know is that John and Drew have the exact same thing they do when they do a verbal flub. Matthew, can you do it for us? I know you know what it is.
Matthew: Oh, right. It’s almost the sound of a tape rewinding.

Craig: It’s like that.

Drew: Victor writes, “Are you guising?” You point to it as a kitsch, and– She writes, “If you’ve ever–” Free delivery– I’m going to say that again. My friend Simon and I– I’ve organized a schedule that requires– Try that again. I’m going to try that one more time. As with your three– I’m going to start that again.

Craig: Love it. That’s what lets us know it’s not AI.

John: Thank you, Matthew, for that. Thank you for all of your questions being read.

Drew: Oh, my God.

Craig: I was hoping that was going to be what that was.

John: I mess up a lot and people don’t hear that. I think one of the challenges for you is that you won’t be talking for a very long time and suddenly you have to read a question, so you have no warmup into it.

Drew: There’s that. I had to get used to the cadence because I would hit it really fast sometimes and my brain would get ahead of the words coming out of my mouth, and that would be a huge problem. It took a while. It’s going cold into it. Also, I’m bad at talking. That’s a big part of it.

Craig: Let me try that. It is interesting. It’s fascinating. That is something that you guys both– That is your specific thing.

Drew: I think I took it from John because, again, this is the first podcast job I had. I was like, oh, that’s what we do when we screw up.

Craig: I learned it from you, dad. I learned it from you.

John: Meredith, you have a lot of hosts who come through. What do they do? Is it a three, two, one, or how do they do when they acknowledge it’s a flag so it gets cut out?

Meredith: There’s been some good ones. I worked with someone who was like, “Boop, and cut that.” They would literally do it for the editor.

Craig: They would boop themselves.

Meredith: They would boop themselves.

Craig: Incredibly helpful.

Craig: It’s very helpful. She’ll at least get on that.

John: I’ve also heard people clapping so it forms a big spike. Some people can see like, “Oh, there’s a problem around here.”

Meredith: Same deal.

Craig: Fascinating.

John: Drew, what is the most surprising thing you’ve while here or a couple of them?

Drew: Chris Nolan’s car is not what you expect it to be.

John: It flies for sure.

Drew: It flies. When people come to the office, I give them the parking pass because they park on the street. It’s always interesting to see what car people drive at different parts of their career.

John: Does Christopher Nolan have a more modest car than you’d expect?

Drew: More modest car than you expect. I expected a Rolls-Royce.

Craig: Do you know that my strong feeling ever since– Do you know who Jeffrey Katzenberg is?

Drew: Yes.

Craig: Jeffrey Katzenberg was at the height of his powers in the ’90s, I would say, when he was running Disney. His whole thing was, I drive this 1982 Camry. That’s what keeps me real while I get paid hundreds of millions of dollars. I actually think that’s douchier. I’m not saying Chris Nolan is douchey. I’m just saying that the whole look how shitty my– Am I allowed to say shitty?

John: You could have said it. It’s your podcast.

Craig: I’m just saying the whole look how crappy my car is thing, it’s a little performative.

Drew: It wasn’t a crappy car. It wasn’t a performatively crappy car. It was like he got a good deal at CarMax. It was just–

Craig: That is, I got a good deal at CarMax, seems like a crappy car to me. I’m not saying it’s crappy.

Drew: Maybe it’s incognito. You see these cars driving around LA that are big and they’ve got a personalized license plate and you’re like, you are making a scene. I like the incognito of it all.

John: Is my Chevy Bolt or my Nissan Leaf, which are my two most recent cars. Are those–

Craig: Those are high-efficiency cars. I think that that’s fine. Now, I also drive a high-efficiency car, but it’s an absolute a-hole car. Not because it’s modest.

John: You’re also never in town to drive it.

Craig: Correct. It’s beautiful.

John: Let’s get back to Drew here. Anything else that you’ve taken from your experience working here?

Drew: Oh my God, so much. Because I had an acting career before this that fell apart. To have a place, I think I’d always felt like, it’ll be lucky if I get to work in the industry and have that– I think there was a huge confidence hit in that. To come in here and to have you guys be patient with me while I had a lot of nerves early on, and then, yes, to find that again and to– Beyond having a job and being able to learn so much from so many people, just what it was able to do for me in terms of being comfortable and relaxed.

Craig: That’s awesome. I’ve always appreciated that you’re a slightly vulnerable person and that you–

Drew: Thanks.

Craig: You weren’t somebody that hid your– I wouldn’t call it nerves as much as your desire to do a good job. I love that.

Drew: Oh, thank you. I worry that eagerness can be a little off-putting, so I appreciate it.

Craig: Not to me. I’m sure a lot of people hate it. I thought it was quite lovely.

Drew: Thank you.

John: I think, Craig, you haven’t had a chance to read Drew, but Drew’s also a really good writer. You had a bit of a writing career before this and you have a writing career now that’s percolating, which is nice to see as well, as a writer and a director.

Drew: Thank you.

Craig: The impulse is to be like, not at all. No, I’ve never been paid for it.

John: Here’s what’s a little awkward about this is it’s not like you’re going away forever. You’re sticking around. You’re just not going to be producing the show every week.

Craig: You’re sliding one chair down.

John: You will just have one email address rather than two email addresses, so you won’t be answering the Ask Account, which is easily 50% of your job.

Drew: Oh, my God. Yes. This week when it shifted over to Meredith, I was like, oh, look at all this time and mental space I have.

Craig: How many emails do we get a week?

Drew: Oh, not 1,000, but–

Craig: 1,000?

Drew: No, not 1,000, but–

Craig: If you say not 1,000, that means nearly 1,000.

Drew: I bet we’re getting 100 emails a day.

Craig: Oh, my God. 100 emails a day. We’re so behind.

Drew: Well, but it’s not all listeners. There is just random PR stuff. There’s a lot of– Publicists will send through stuff like photo calls and all that stuff.

John: We get a lot of incoming about guests on the show.

Craig: We are just a thing that is on a mass, like blanket it to get my guy on the show.

Drew: That would be 60% of it.

John: Well, Drew, we thank you for your producing of the show week after week, for dealing with the email and–

Craig: Dealing with us, and really, I mean me.

John: Thank you.

Drew: No, it’s long overdue.

Craig: Not knowing where I am, what I’m doing, where I’m going. Great producer. Great job.

Drew: Thank you. I really appreciate it.

Craig: Really good work.

Drew: Thank you, guys.

Craig: I won’t miss you. You’ll still be here. How can we miss you if you don’t go away?

Drew: That’s the problem.

Craig: That’s always been the problem.

John: All right. Some follow-up. One thing that won’t be going away is Widow’s Bay.

Craig: Oh, wait. Widow’s Bay.

John: A second season.

Craig: I was reading a little bit about Apple today, and there was an article that was talking about how they’re becoming the most concentrated version of what HBO has been, or perhaps was, where instead of the Netflix model of fire hose, they’re just drip, drip, drip, but each drip is meant to be high-quality. The viewership does not have to be high, but the impact on culture has to be high. No one has any idea how many people are watching these shows. I don’t know how many people are watching these shows, but Apple does do a good job of making– they’ve got a high signal-to-noise ratio, no question. Widow’s Bay has been amazing. I was just texting with our buddy this morning, and I told her, you’re never getting off that island.

John: It’s very good. We do have some information about viewership on Widow’s Bay because they have released some stuff, and so it has tripled week over week.

Craig: Do they say from what?

John: From like a 100 baseline. I’ll look and figure out where that viewership never comes from. I think what it speaks to, though, is that the weekly release schedule has been a huge driver of the success of that show.

Craig: It generally is a fantastic way to do things. The more we go through these technological convulsions, the more it seems like people who have come to disrupt our business eventually arrive at the most disruptive plan of them all, go back to the way we did stuff. You know what we really should do is stream television, but include advertisements within the programming. Oh, you mean like 1945 Geritol Presents? It is remarkable. Of course, week to week. Widow’s Bay is actually doing something interesting that has brought to mind something.
We’re recording this on a Friday. Have you seen the last episode, the penultimate episode this season on Wednesday?

John: Oh, yes. A little cliffhanger.

Craig: Do you know the length of that episode?

John: Short.

Craig: 30 minutes. Now, I’m sitting there going, why am I breaking my body and mind apart to do these sometimes 80-minute-long episodes, right? Why don’t I just split them in half and they’re only– because I did not mind it at all.

John: No, it was great.

Craig: I didn’t mind it at all. Widow’s Bay has piqued my interest in the half hour– Look, I’m sure Widow’s Bay is currently submitted for Best Comedy.

John: Yes, which is appropriate.

Craig: Which is fair. Unlike The Bear, which was not correct. It’s not category fraud, as they say. It’s also a drama. It’s a dramedy. I can see a world for a 30-minute drama. The reason that we have hour-long dramas is because network television would give a drama an hour. 20, what? Eight minutes of that or maybe 20 minutes of that were advertisements.

John: They were really 40 minutes.

Craig: They were really 40 minutes long. Then you suddenly got this much denser hour-long thing. Now I’m thinking, is there a new category here of half-hour drama? Which The Bear, by the way, was. It is?

John: It is. Still. We have one last bit of follow-up here. I would love you to do this for us, Drew, if you could, because it’s also your last chance to talk about D&D on the show.

Craig: Your last chance to go [onomatopoeia].

Drew: We’ll see if I get in there. Adam writes, I think you two would be interested in a trick I’ve been using in my D&D campaigns. One of the hardest things about starting a campaign is finding out why this group of misfits starts working together to begin with. Start with the Stewart special. Session one starts right in the middle of the inciting incident as the event that changes the characters [onomatopoeia].

Craig: There it is.

Drew: Session one starts right in the middle of the inciting incident, the event that changes the characters from a group to a party as things lead to a climax, a record scratch. Yes, that’s you guys. Bet you’re wondering how you got here. It all started at the tavern. This can really change the tone for that first session or two. Instead of milling about, it’s now the player’s job to figure out why they were at the inciting incident. If they say, “I don’t think my character would do that,” you can say, well, we know it happens, so what would make your character do that?
If it doesn’t line up in the end or they get themselves killed in the opening scene, well, the flash forward was a prophecy and you just defied destiny.

Craig: The hangover model of D&D.

Drew: Yes.

Craig: I’m a little worried about a DM who says, if you die, if you get yourselves killed in the first session, I don’t know, maybe ease up on the combat a little bit. Session one. Fudge a roll, let them live.

Drew: Yes, but level one characters are so squishy anyway. It’s just one swipe by a bear.

Craig: That’s why you got to really tune those encounters. Right, Meredith?

Meredith: Right.

Craig: She’s like, I regret everything.

John: She’s like, how do I get out of this job?

Craig: Googling fast exit.

John: Yes, but also, it’s nice if a level one character dies, you’ve established stakes in the world of death. Is it real?

Craig: That’s true. I believe in death in D&D, as you know. I think it’s important.

John: My characters have died.

Craig: I think the coolest thing a character can do role play-wise is die. It’s awesome. We have players who disagree strongly, which is fine. I don’t try to ever do it. It’s best if it happens rarely. I do believe that. Starting a campaign. This was not the point of why this guy wrote in, or woman. The point is that it is a fun way to force everybody to figure out, how did we get here? How are we friends? It is the clunkiest part of things. There’s no question. It’s one of the reasons I applaud Baldur’s Gate for their way to get everybody together was you were just randomly plucked up by mind flayers, all of you infected.

John: And now–

Craig: Now you’re in it together.

John: I think I did on the campaign that you played in recently, Craig, is I required all the players in session zero, it’s like you have to be related to two other characters in the group. It can be they’re your brother, they’re your friend, you have a crush on them, something else, just that there would be interpersonal connections before it started, and you all were in the same small town.

Craig: What we inevitably discover along the way is we find our own connections anyway because we start to get to know each other’s characters and things happen.

John: Bits develop, yes.

Craig: Bits develop.

John: All right, let’s get to our marquee topic. This was put in my head by this blog post I read by Iris Meredith. She offers this really useful framework for describing what it means to be competent. We’ll put a link in the show notes to it. The three main bullet points is that competence is knowing enough about a field to know what good things and bad things are, two, generally wanting the good things rather than the bad things, and three, being able to execute at least one method for getting the good things rather than the bad things.
What I like about her post is that she’s distinguishing two kinds of incompetence. The first is when someone has no idea what they’re doing, and the second is when someone knows what they’re doing, but they simply just don’t do it, either because of external causes, like there’s bad systems around them, or internal forces, like burnout or just disinterest. They just don’t want to do a thing. Recently, Craig, we were talking about competence porn. I think you brought up competence porn. It’s exciting to watch characters who know what they’re doing.

Craig: Yes, we enjoy it. It’s incredibly satisfying to see somebody that can’t miss. It’s a weird thing. You would think that the rules of drama are such that we like watching people struggle and suffer, which generally we do, but every now and again, we want to, as they say, park our brains under our seat.

John: You want the person to be someone challenged, but to be able to overcome a challenge without–

Craig: Without question. They’re so good at it. There are entire genres of action movies, the point of which is, yes, you messed with the wrong guy. The Equalizer is the ultimate in competence porn. Denzel Washington plays a guy who does not lose any encounter. He, in fact, is so competent, the only challenge he has is giving himself a challenge of how quickly he can kill everyone in the room, but they are definitely going to die. It is so satisfying to see someone that confident in what they do.

John: Yes. Heist films, in general, are all about competence. They have a plan. They’re executing the plan. You don’t even know how the plan works, but it’s great to see them working on their plan. In terms of systems, a lot of Sorkin’s movies, especially Sorkin Walkin Talks, are people who are incredibly competent, and they’re just doing their thing. Even though a huge thing is happening, they are on top of it.

Craig: It’s comforting. The West Wing was comforting. Oh, look, everybody up there is really smart and cares and is working so hard.

John: We had Tony Gilroy on the show talking about Andor. The rebels in Andor are incredibly competent in what they’re doing, which makes you feel good because, even if they’re facing astronomical odds, they can do it.

Craig: Tony Gilroy’s Michael Clayton. Competence porn. Michael Clayton can clean up any mess as a corporate fixer. The question only is, should he clean up this mess or not? Not, can he clean up this mess or not? That’s exciting to watch.

John: In science fiction, you have The Martian. Matt Damon’s character is so incredibly competent. No one else can do what he’s doing. He’s doing great. The Pitt is a great example, or ER, of doctors who are really good at doing what they’re doing. Yes, they’re facing challenging cases, but they know what they’re doing.

Craig: MacGyver, from our childhood, every week would take a paper clip and a piece of bubble gum and some windshield wiper fluid and make a bomb. He could do that every single week. He needed to do that every single week and you never-

John: That was the franchise of the show.

Craig: -sat down and expected that one day, MacGyver would go, actually, none of this stuff adds up. Now, is it as good as MacGruber?

John: No.

Craig: No.

John: Let’s flip it around and talk about incompetence porn because I do think that’s actually one of the real hallmarks of comedy. The Office is incompetence porn. It’s people who are above their station. They don’t know what they’re doing. Veep is just incompetence. It’s just people failing constantly. Succession, I would argue, is sort of both because you have people who work– We have Jerry, who’s incredibly competent, but then you have some of the heirs who are competent only in small domains and are flailing around.

Craig: I would put that right into incompetence porn because you have the most competent man in the world, Logan Roy, looking down at his failed sons and failed daughter. The people below him that work directly for him, the non-family people, like Jerry, for instance, are conniving and backbiting and would sell them out in a heartbeat if they thought they knew who was going to be taking over. The guy who wins is not particularly competent. He’s more of a coward.

John: Yes, he learns along the way, though. That’s actually one of the nice things about a multi-season show is that you see Tom Wambsgans’ fans actually develop some skills along the way. Even Greg develops some skills along the way. He has no moral compass whatsoever.

Craig: No. Greg is pretty incompetent. Tom describes his one skill beautifully to the character that Alexander Skarsgard played. I’m a pain sponge. I absorb misery so you, the guy who owns the company, won’t ever have to be touched by it. I am your scapegoat. I’m your sacrificial lamb. That’s a horrible, depressing way to view yourself, but he understood that indeed was the thing that made him strong. Watching the failures there, every time Jeremy Strong’s character was this close and then he would just mess it up, if he’d just shut his mouth. Did you ever see Father Ted?

John: I remember Father Ted, yes.

Craig: Father Ted, great incompetence porn. Faulty Towers, great incompetence porn. The Brits do incompetence porn.

John: Widow’s Bay is incompetence porn.

Craig: Yes. The staff is ridiculous. Rosemary.

John: Rosemary.

Craig: So good. [laughs]

John: What I want to point out about competence is it is not a general trait. A character is not competent across all areas. They’re competent within a very specific domain. That’s what’s so interesting. I personally am a very competent wrapper of gifts. I’m really good at wrapping gifts.

Craig: I’m so glad you added of gifts.

John: I was like, no, you’re not. Oh, of gifts.

John: Of gifts.

Craig: Yes.

John: Don’t ask me to do any sport other than running. I’m just incompetent at all other sports.

Craig: John, I cannot wrap a gift. I’ve tried. It is so triggering for me. In school, I was competent across every class, including PE, except for arts and crafts. Arts and crafts, I was the kid who would end up with a popsicle stick in his hair, glue on the back of his neck, and some horrible mess in front of me, glitter everywhere. Zero abilities. I don’t know what it is. When I’ve tried, I’ve sat there with a YouTube instruction video to try and wrap a gift. It looks like an animal did it. Whereas Melissa could work at Bloomingdale’s wrapping gifts.

John: Yes. I love wrapping gifts. I don’t care about gifts. I love wrapping them.

Craig: You just wrap–

John: Love it.

Craig: Does Mike know how to wrap a gift?

John: He knows. He can wrap a gift.

Craig: But he comes to you, doesn’t he? He’s like, “Can you wrap this?”

John: Yes, absolutely. You mentioned the word confidence earlier. I think that it’s important because they’re related things because we often see them correlated. When they’re not correlated, is when you get some really good comedy.

Craig: That’s the juicy stuff or tragedy.

John: Yes. We see confidence before we see competence. We see the character is approaching a thing as if they know what they’re doing, but the situation itself is the only way that we see whether they’re actually competent there. It’s the action the characters are taking that reveals whether they’re actually competent. With confidence, you have both internal confidence, does the character believe they know what they’re doing, and external confidence, do the people around them believe they know what they’re doing? Those are the dynamics of scenes. That’s what creates drama and suspense.

Craig: It tends to work best when we, in the audience, can’t obviously see that this person is competent if only she would take her glasses off and whoosh the hair. That was a very common trope in the ’80s and ’90s. You’re like, no, they’re pretty hot with the glasses on. The glasses do nothing. There’s an off-replayed clip on YouTube of the 1978 Superman, Christopher Reeves, taking his glasses off as Clark Kent and then straightening his body up and getting taller.
He’s pretty awesome-looking with the glasses on. No one still to this day quite understands how he got away with that. It’s better when we ourselves start to realize with somebody, wait, I can do something. Now the question is, do I have the confidence to actually try and risk failure?

John: Let’s look at situations where a character is competent and confident versus competent and incompetent. I want to compare two Andy Weir heroes. Mark Watney is the Matt Damon character in The Martian, is confident and competent. He knows what to do, and he’s ready to do it. Then you look at Ryan Gosling’s character in Hail Mary, he is the least confident person around, and yet he’s incredibly competent. He’s able to do all the stuff to save himself. Our approach to the two characters is so different because we want Ryan Gosling to believe in himself, and he doesn’t.

Craig: You’ve given two good starting points, not necessary starting points, but good ones for drama versus comedy. In a drama, a character is confident and competent and must push through some emotional stressors, some very human things because they’re in an extreme situation. Only they would survive at all. The question is now really, do they have the heart to withstand it all? Whereas, somebody who does not believe in themselves, but has the tools, it’s going to be funny. They’re going to bumble around, and they’re going to feel like an idiot, and we’re going to laugh.

John: I would say that the confident-competent duo isn’t just for protagonists. Miranda Priestley in Devil Wears Prada is confident and competent, and we see that in her, and that’s a huge part of who she is, that she’s both of these things. She knows what she’s doing, and she believes she knows what she’s doing.

Craig: A good villain is typically confident and competent.

John: I can only think of one counter-example. Salieri in Amadeus, he’s not very good, and he knows he’s not very good.

Craig: Yes. He knows he’s mediocre. He is, however, a court musician. He’s one of the best– Salieri was legitimately one of the best composers of all time, just not in the top– He’s not in an A rank. He’s not S tier, and he’s not A tier.

John: I’m saying the character in the movie–

Craig: The character in the movie, what was so fascinating about it, and it’s why we keep coming back to the notion of Salieri, or at least the dramatized notion of Salieri in Mozart is to say, what happens when you are confident and competent, and then you meet somebody who is resplendent? What happens when the mortal man meets the angel? What does that do to us? Which is a very specific sort of thing because he definitely wasn’t incompetent.
The most beautiful moment in Amadeus, to me, is when Mozart is dictating his Requiem to Salieri, and Salieri is scribbling this down, hating him for it and weeping in real time because he can hear the music in his head and being so in love with the product of it.

John: Just to complete the little grid here, we also have characters who are confident but incompetent. Michael Scott in The Office.

Craig: Yes. Always fun.

John: Mostly of the heirs in Succession.

Craig: Yes. The emperor in Mozart. Too many notes.

John: Absolutely. That’s often a comedy character.

Craig: Almost always. It’s because it is so funny to watch somebody blithely announce to other people, usually people who are competent. Blackadder is a good example of this. You have your Hugh Laurie, and then you’ve got your own Atkinson. It’s always funny. Now, in real life, it’s the worst. You served in the WGA. One of the things that happens when you serve any system is that you come to learn why things are the way they are. It doesn’t mean they can’t change or be improved, but there are things where you always thought, why do they do it this way?
Then you find out, oh, because of law and stuff. Inevitably, somebody would then come along and announce with total confidence and complete incompetence that you’re all stupid because you haven’t done X, Y, and Z, the most obvious things in the world to do. Everybody patiently waits and then says, we’re not allowed to do that by law. You are very confident and you are very incompetent. It’s not fun in real life. On TV and in movies, it’s hysterical.

John: Just delightful. You bring up the systems that may be an obstacle there. I was thinking about, you also have to want to do the thing. Ron Swanson’s character on Parks and Recreation, the great Nick Offerman, he could do all the things. He just doesn’t want to do all the things. He just chooses not to.

Craig: Yes. He’s a reluctant hero. You do know that when the chips are down, that Ron Swanson could probably do anything. Have you ever seen– you’re not a big South Park fan, are you?

John: I’ve watched a lot of South Park, yes.

Craig: Have you ever seen the episode Scott Tenorman Must Die?

John: Incredible. You look at how Cartman is like, wow, Cartman could do all these things. Cartman can murder a child.

Craig: Cartman, as it turns out, when he puts his mind to it, is the most competent person in the world. That episode still has one of the best endings of any work of art I have ever experienced. It’s incredible.

John: It’s incredible. I don’t want to spoil it for everyone to see it.

Craig: If you have not seen Scott Tenorman Must Die, watch it.

John: We also need to talk about knowledge. The character has to have the ability to know what is right and what is wrong, what the actual goal is and whether they’ve achieved the goal. You think about there’s people who are knowledgeable, but incompetent. You think about the critic who can’t actually do the thing that they’re criticizing, the chef who knows every technique, but can’t get dinner on the table. They know the field, but they can’t actually execute the thing. That’s an aspect of competence.

Craig: Yes. There’s a good growth story to be had there. The experience of book smarts released into the world and learning how things actually go. That’s a fun story to watch.

John: Yes, that’s both in comedy and dramas, yes. Let’s just talk about just overall areas, though. We’ve been talking a lot about careers, but it also applies to parenting. The trope of the dad who doesn’t know how to do anything or who has weaponized his incompetence so that he doesn’t have to do anything.

Craig: Oh, diaper.

John: I can’t do that. With any technology. The grandparents who can’t–

Craig: Can I just ask, the very first time you changed diaper, I was drenched in sweat. Drenched. I wanted to do a really good job. This baby would not stop moving. It was my baby, by the way, it wasn’t some random baby. Stop moving.

John: I would say that I’m good at wrapping gifts. It actually really applies to–

Craig: It actually makes sense. It was getting the onesie on and off that really put my adrenaline to work. All new parents begin as incompetent, whether they know it or not. They could be confident, they could be not confident, but they are incompetent. Then you learn pretty fast. You learn fast.

John: You learn fast. Every workplace is a study in competence and incompetence. We mentioned Ron Swanson, but you also have, Leslie Knope, who is so competent that she wants to do everybody else’s jobs, and that’s the source of the friction.

Craig: Yes. She’s an A-plus student, and that is fun.

John: Cooking shows we love to watch because they’re just so good at doing these things. How are you able to pull that off? Same with the fashion design reality shows. How do they make that thing happen?

Craig: We also love watching those things for when people suddenly have an exposed incompetence. Like Project Runway, you have someone that’s doing great every week, and then suddenly the challenge is going to Home Depot and make dresses out of stuff you can find at Home Depot. Somebody who’s amazing with regular stuff is like, I don’t know. I made something out of saw blades and sandpaper, and it’s bad.

John: It’s bad. Finally, we have the characters who are clearly really good in one specific domain, and they try to apply those skills to things that they have no business touching. Elon Musk is a classic example of this. Craig, there’s a crossword puzzle word which I had to look up. Ultracrapadarian?

Craig: I don’t know. Ultracrepidarian. Is that a new coinage?

John: No, it’s an existing word that’s in the dictionary, but it’s a person who frequently professes opinions and judgments outside their area of expertise. Wow, we know some of those folks.

Craig: We sure do. We call them know-it-alls normally. Ultracrepidarian is not a great crossword word because of its length.

John: It’s too long.

Craig: You need quite a large grid for that.

John: Yes, but it feels like a puzzle word. It feels like some thing that you build together out of little pieces.

Craig: Ultracrepidarian. A crepidarian is somebody that–

John: Crep, not crap.

Craig: Crep. Oh, not crap. Ultracrepidarian.

John: Crap feels like knowledge.

Craig: I see. Ultracrepidarian. A crepidarian is somebody that occasionally will profess knowledge outside their area of expertise, whereas an Ultracrepidarian–

John: We’re being Ultracrepidarian right now. We’re assuming that we can get to the definition of this word.

Craig: I feel pretty good about what I just said.

John: I feel pretty good about this. As we wrap up this topic, I want to talk about how the rise of the internet overall, but especially AI, changes how we perceive someone being competent because you can fake your way through things much more easily now than we could when we were in school.

Craig: Yes. Even prior to the emergence of AI, the technology that underscored this for me the most was music production. Drumming, for instance, used to require an amount of competence, and now it requires you to have a finger and a button to press. Things like adding reverb, editing music, blending tracks, down mixing, all of that stuff has been automated to a remarkable extent, which has democratized music production to the extent that so much of it is ignorable because it all sounds like the same.
The floor rises, everyone feels competent for a while, and then they realize, oh, no, if everyone around me is at the same level of competence, this is no longer competence. This is just the floor. AI may be doing that for some things. I know, for instance, vibe coding has turned the floor of coding. The floor of coding is raised, so now people that couldn’t code anything can now code some things, but that doesn’t mean it’s good. It just means it’s the floor.

John: Well, I think the challenge is we’re so used to looking at the output and assuming, well, if this output is good, then the person knows what they’re doing, but you have broken those things apart, so the output could look good. We can assume, oh, this person must be competent, but they really have no idea what they’re doing. They just punched buttons and got the right result.

Craig: Yes. You can now generate a college essay this way. What begins to happen is that people who are exceptional become all the more notable and interesting and valuable. We are all pretty good now at dressing ourselves because there’s so much you can read about what colors vaguely to throw together. Everybody can vaguely dress okay, so no one gets credit for it. These guys do, but we three don’t. I feel that’s the way it’s going to be with a well-written essay. No one’s going to get credit for that anymore.

John: Let’s talk about then how do we assess competence in a world where there is AI and where we can’t judge the outputs.

Craig: We become more particular, and we become more refined in our taste because restaurants. People didn’t go to restaurants that often, and now they go to restaurants all the time. Foodies, we didn’t have that many different kinds of opportunities when we were growing up in the ’70s, and now we can eat foods from everywhere, so now we can go, “This Thai is fine. It’s fine, it’s not great.” Thai food did blow my mind the first time I had what today I would call a C-tier Pad See Ew blew my mind when I was 17, because I’d never eaten it before. This is what occurs now with everything. The democratization of what we would call vaguely competent just becomes normal, and then we start to look for the exceptional.

John: I think some of what you’re saying in higher ed may be what we need to start doing in the workplace as well, which is basically it’s interviews, it’s talking, it’s looking at the output and then actually speaking with the person about the output and making it clear that they actually understand the output and how they got there that wasn’t just generated by some outside system. It’s the interviewing references and just talking with people. You want to make sure you have a person who can’t just do the thing once but actually understands it and can do the thing in a crunch. As we’re hiring people, I feel like I’m going to be especially vigilant. I don’t want to hire somebody off just one writing sample; I want to make sure to talk to them about how they got there and what their process is.

Craig: You also are looking for something that feels better than the average.

John: Yes.

Craig: The average is going up and we will then have to redefine what competence is as the average improves, and it is. I do remember reading in college, sometimes we’d all do, “Here, we’ve all written papers, read each other’s papers.” I would read a paper and think, “Well, this is a perfectly well-written thing. It is boring. I am unmoved and uneducated. It is formatted correctly. It’s competent.” That used to be an insult. “Well, it’s a competent paper,” meaning you checked all the boxes, it’s just not special. Now, if I read that, I wouldn’t even get two paragraphs in and chuck it because it doesn’t matter whether a human did it or a computer did it; it’s nearly competent, but it’s not special.

John: All right, let’s go to listener questions. For this one, I’d love to have Meredith read it because, Drew, I think you’ll have a good answer for this.

Drew: Okay.

Meredith: This is from Claudia in London. Claudia writes: “My agent, whom I’ve been represented by for two years at quite an established agency, has completely ghosted me. Before you think it, I don’t believe I’ve done anything to warrant it. I know the very clear answer to the conundrum is that I must part ways with immediate effect, but my question is why would an agent do this? I signed with them when I had a contract come in to write a feature film, and since then, I’ve delivered two spec scripts that are ready for industry circulation, but since checking in mid to end of last year, I now cannot muster any response whatsoever. Could you tell me why agents do this and how we, as writers, can cope with the mental rejection?”

Craig: Very British question. Excellent use of “whom” and “full effect.”

John: Full effect. I love it. Drew, you had a British agent.

Drew: I had a British agent for two years.

John: Talk to me about your instincts here.

Drew: I was dropped because they just took me off their website is how I found out.

Craig: I’m so sorry.

Drew: It’s okay. “We simply don’t represent you.”

Craig: It was that?

Drew: Yes. It was like, “Well, you’re in America now, and it just didn’t feel right for you to be there.” I said, “Well, I feel like I’m an artist worth having on your books and worth putting out there,” and they said–

Craig: They said, “Ah, there’s the crux of our difference.”

Drew: They said, “Well, if that’s the way you’re going to be, then maybe we should part ways.”

Craig: Sweet. They weren’t trying to get rid of you as a client; they were just taking your picture off?

Drew: No, they were, but in that very slow British sort of way.

Craig: British sort of way.

Drew: I do feel like the British industry is much different than the US industry in that way–

Craig: It is, yes.

Drew: -particularly with agents and casting and all that stuff. I guess that’s really my experience. I feel like, especially in the States, I’ve had agents be more directly mean to me, but they’ve been also– It’s a nice–

John: It goes faster.

Drew: It goes faster. I had one agent be like, “Your career doesn’t have a pulse.” I was like, “Wow,” but that guy’s been really nice to me for the rest of my time in LA. When I need an actor for a thing, I’ll reach out to him. He’s at a big established agency, and he’s super helpful.

John: He was honest.

Drew: He was honest, which is different.

John: He was honest. Yes, there is a certain passive-aggressive nature to– I don’t want to tarnish the entire British culture here, but they are infamously, dangerously polite. I have quite a few British people that work on our show, and I, from time to time, have to stop them and go, “I feel like what you’re trying to say is, we should not do this. It would be bad.” They tend to put it all in the form of a question.

Craig: Pose a hypothetical.

Drew: Pose a hypothetical.

Craig: Speak in the subjunctive.

Drew: Yes, and it is cultural. However, culture does not justify out-and-out rudeness. To not return phone calls, messages, texts, emails at all is insufferable and cowardly. Why do they do it? Because it’s uncomfortable for them. It’s the simplest answer. They don’t want to deal with the minimum discomfort of delivering bad news to someone. As the weeks go on, it becomes harder and harder for them because it will become more and more uncomfortable for them. Because now they have to both express why they don’t want to be your agent anymore and apologize for not having told you this for two months now, and it just gets worse and worse. Eventually, they’re just closing their eyes and hoping that the ghost that keeps knocking at their door leaves; they think of you as the ghost. They want you out of their house. It’s not acceptable.

John: It’s not acceptable. I think what Claudia is feeling is, like, “Do I have an agent? I just don’t know if I’m represented or not.” That’s the weird limbo. The answer is that you’re not represented, but I think you’re also worried that if one of these spec scripts sells or someone has interest, suddenly this person is going to reappear. They probably won’t.

Drew: The quickest way to ensure that they won’t is get a new agent.

Craig: Yes.

John: Well, and get a new agent before you’re officially dropped, I think, too. Don’t wait for them to–

Drew: Yes, that makes sense as well.

John: Because you can honestly say, “I’m represented at this agency, they’ve not-

Drew: Serviced well.

John: -serviced me well. I’m looking for this. I have two spec scripts ready to go out,” which is a great thing.

Drew: “I had a job.” Yes. Certainly, inaction here is not an option. She has to do something to get a new agent. To the direct question, why? Cowardice.

John: Cowardice.

Drew: Simple as that.

Craig: Incompetence, too, maybe.

Drew: It’s dishonorable.

John: Yes, it is.

Drew: That’s what I would say. It’s not incompetent. It’s dishonorable.

John: I agree. All right. It is time for our One Cool Thing. Drew, this is your last show. I would love for you to start with your one cool thing.

Drew: My one cool thing is rhubarb. [laughs]

John: All right. I’m completely opposed to this, so celery and rhubarb.

Drew: Really?

Craig: So am I.

John: Yes, you’re going to have–

Craig: Are you kidding? So am I.

John: Oh, please tell me why we should put celery in our pie.

Craig: [chuckles]

Drew: Because it’s delicious-

Craig: Argh.

Drew: -and it’s super easy to make. Okay. There was a New York Times cooking article that had a little, “Hey, it’s rhubarb season.” I was like, “I haven’t had rhubarb in a while.” It’s super easy to make. It’s a little bit of sugar, and you cut it up and you–

Craig: It’s a whole lot of sugar.

Drew: It’s a quarter cup.

Craig: Okay.

Drew: Quarter cup of sugar, a little zest of lemon, massage that together. I put a little bit of ginger and a little bit of– Trader Joe’s has a vanilla bourbon paste.

John: This is supposed to make a rhubarb pie?

Drew: It’s making a compote. You just have a little rhubarb compote that I put on. I have oatmeal every morning. I put it on my oatmeal. You can put it on dessert at night. It’s like a little summer treat. It’s just been this lovely little thing that’s brightened the start of my summer. I highly recommend it.

John: It’s entirely possible I’ve been wrong my entire life. In believing you, I will make this rhubarb compote, and I will try it to see whether I can do that.

Drew: Do you not like the flavor of rhubarb to begin with or do you not?

John: The texture of it freaks me out. The fact that it is essentially celery.

Drew: Yes, horrible.

John: It’s a stalk. Friends of mine got married, and instead of a wedding cake, they wanted to have rhubarb pie so all their friends each made a rhubarb pie and brought a rhubarb pie. I didn’t care for it.

Drew: If you’re not a fan of the taste, then I don’t think it’s going to change your mind.

John: Maybe I just didn’t give it enough of a shot.

Drew: You don’t want a crunch on it, though, too.

John: Oh, so you have to cook it down enough so there’s a crunch.

Drew: It cooks it down. The recipe that I found, we’ll put in the show notes, it’s 20 minutes in the oven, just super easy, but it becomes mush, basically.

John: I should say this is no celery slander. I love celery for savory purposes, but to take a celery product and put it into a sweet context, I just find it abhorrent.

Craig: Melissa loves this. She’s like, “Oh, it’s tart.” I’m like, “It’s a gross vegetable sitting in the middle of what would otherwise be a delicious– You took a strawberry pie, and you ruined it by shoving this piece of crap in there that nobody eats. There’s no other dish with rhubarb, ever.”

Drew: Isn’t it amazing?

Craig: No, there’s an indication there’s a problem.
[laughter]

Craig: It’s like, “Oh my God, what do we do with this awful weed?”

Drew: It is technically edible,-

Craig: “Shove it in a pie.”

John: -and the leaves are poisonous.

Craig: Yes, they’re poisonous.

Drew: You have to grow it in the dark to get the red color, too. It’s labor-intensive.

John: There’s no value here.

Drew: It’s delicious and–

John: There’s no value.

Drew: It’s fall in the early summer. It’s that feeling for me that I really like.

John: While we’re in the conversation about slightly wrong tastes, can I say about Meyer lemons? No. Meyer lemons are–

Drew: I agree. Correct. No.

John: They’re not really a lemon. They’re halfway between a lemon and an orange in a way I don’t want at all.

Craig: Yes. Incorrect, they’re just not lemons.

John: Yes. You try to use them as lemons in recipes for lemons, though, it’s wrong.

Drew: Screws everything up.

Craig: It’s stone fruit season right now. At the farmers’ market, there are 4 million permutations of different plums and stuff like that. Some of them are amazing, and some of them, it’s like, “Oh, God, no.”

John: “Bad. God, no.”

Craig: “We should not have made that.”

John: No.

Drew: Rhubarb. Rhubarb. It’s got the “barb” in it.

John: I promise you, I will make this recipe and I will try it because as a–

Drew: You’re making this rhubarb recipe?

John: I’ll make this rhubarb– I’ll bring it to D&D so we can–

Craig: No.

Drew: You just need two stalks. It’s a little bit–

Craig: “Oh, just here, pointlessly, throw this in.” It’s like, “Oh, here’s pizza, and then let’s just put this weird thing on top that nobody asked for or wanted.” There’s no place for rhubarb in this world.

John: Yes. I like mayonnaise too, so I’m going to-

Craig: Oh, God. Doh.

Drew: [laughs]

John: -put a little rhubarb compote on top of that mayonnaise sandwich.

Drew: Yes. Try it out. Why not?

Craig: Oh my God.

John: It’s so good.

Craig: [gags]

John: My One Cool Thing is a website by Bartosz Ciechanowski. It’s an explainer on how curves and surfaces work for– you know, Bezier curves, which is those things in drawing programs where you put the little points and you drag the handles in order to make the curves?

Drew: Yes. Spirograph.

John: I’ve never understood the math behind it. I’ve never been able to make those things work properly. This is an explainer that goes through with constant little interactive explainers where you can move the sliders around to see this is what’s actually happening.

Drew: I see.

John: I feel like I understand it for the first time. It’s just so smartly done. It does a good job of compressing the math down so you don’t have to really think about the math, but like, “Oh, if I’m dragging these points out and I’m creating a tangent, I get what’s sort of happening here.” I love to start an experience not really understanding it, and understand, it’s like, “Oh, I get it.” Will it change my life?

Drew: You’re starting to see.

John: Yes, but it’s just good to see this. I really applaud someone putting the time and effort into explaining something for the betterment of the world.

Drew: Do you think that site, that explainer would have been improved by adding a bitter, crunchy, disgusting vegetable-

John: 100%.

Drew: -just in the middle of it for nothing,-

John: Yes.

Drew: -for no reason-

John: Yes.

Drew: -whatsoever.

John: For a treat.

Drew: For a treat. A treat.

John: Just a treat.

Craig: “Here you go, kids. Kids. You know what you would like? Do you like celery? Well, this is grosser. It’s grosser celery. Let’s throw it in dessert.” God, I’m so glad we could [unintelligible].

John: I’m just happy that you got some of this of Craig umbrage, like on your last episode–

Craig: I say finally did.

Drew: Finally. I’ve got rhubarb.

John: Craig, what you got?

Craig: I have a recipe.

John: I’ll be fine for you.

Craig: Yes, and this is a good one.

Drew: Oh, yes?

Craig: Yes, there’s no vegetables in it.

Drew: Impress me.

Craig: Yes, it’s called Cheesecake, my friends. Delicious.

John: All right.

Drew: Aha.

Craig: There are a lot of cheesecake recipes out there. I’ve actually used a few. I’m not even sure if this is the exact one I’ve used, but it’s very, very close. It achieves the things that you’re going to look for. I do like to make a cheesecake. It’s a little tricky, but it’s not too tricky. If you get it right, nothing’s better. This particular one is from Sally’s Baking Addiction. What I like about it is that it follows what I think are just the simple, basic things you need to do to make a good cheesecake. You need a graham cracker crust.

John: Oh, yes.

Craig: Graham crackers are one of those things. I like to make everything from scratch. I do not make graham crackers from scratch. It is pointless. Don’t do it. I’ve made shortbread from scratch. I’ll do that. I will not make graham crackers from scratch. Why? I don’t think they even exist in any other form other than here, Honey Maid, boom, done. You want to add some sour cream to a cheesecake. It’ll help it from being dry, but it doesn’t add any flavor. Just a little bit of vanilla, a little bit of lemon, always. Eggs, butter, cream cheese. The key to all this is the water bath.

Drew: Yes, the bain-marie.

Craig: The bain-marie. When you put a cheesecake in an oven, it starts to cook. If there is nothing to moderate the temperature around the pan—you need a springform pan, obviously—it will crack because the outside will cook and get hotter than the inside. The water bath helps the inside keep up with the outside. One little trick that I like to use—the danger when you’re making a cheesecake is you’ve got a springform pan, which you need to pop the sides off to [unintelligible]—you put that in a water bath, water leaks in, you’re done.

John: Disaster, yes.

Craig: It’s over. You might as well have a rhubarb pie at that point. That’s how bad it is.

John: You wrap the bottom in foil, correct?

Craig: Here’s the problem. I use heavy-duty foil. I do two layers. Somehow, water finds some sneaky leak. There’s always some little leak in, but a roasting bag works great. The kind of thing you might put a turkey in. You place it in a roasting bag, lift that up. I like to tighten that around with some tin foil and some elastic. Put that in the water. Nothing’s getting in.

Drew: That’s correct. What a complicated way when you could just cut up a little bit of rhubarb in one pan, 20 minutes, you’re done.

Craig: Why even cut it up? Why put it in a pan? Why not just stick it up your butt at that point and just say, “Look, it’s done”?

John: I just think the barrier for entry on mine is much lower.

Craig: It is for good reason. It’s garbage food. It is a gross piece of garbage food. It’s fibrous.

John: Yours, leaking in the water?

Craig: Yes. Mine requires care so that something good happens in the end. You’re just taking a gross thing, making it hotter, and then handing it to us. Horrible.

John: I want to point out the episode of South Park, Scott Tenorman Must Die, actually refers to a pie-making competition, I believe.

Drew: It’s chili.

John: Chili, but it is food.

Drew: It’s very recipe-based.

John: Yes. It’s recipe-based, so it’s appropriate that this is the final fight.

Craig: It is the final fight. Our first and final fight. I can’t believe he brought up rhubarb at the end. You know what? He knows he’s leaving. That’s why he did it.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: He knew this whole time, this would have made me crazy. Now people are going to write in about their grandma’s rhubarb. “You know, it’s refreshing.” Oh, beat it.

John: I can see Meredith’s taking notes all like, “What will be my final thing to piss off Craig be?”

Craig: Mayonnaise.

John: Yes.

Craig: 10 years from now, and she finally just–

Drew: I had dinner with a British friend the other night, and she didn’t even understand my mayonnaise thing. She was like, “What do you mean? You can’t “not” like mayonnaise. You can’t even like subsets of mayonnaise.” I was like, “I hate all of it.” The worst of it all is salad cream. Have you seen this disgusting thing the British have?

Craig: Yes.

Drew: [gags] It’s like, “What if we took mayonnaise and made it sickly green?”

Craig: And thin.

Drew: Argh.

John: You’re okay with cream cheese. Cream cheese on a bagel, fine.

Drew: Oh, yes. Of course. I’m Jewish.

John: I want to make sure that it wasn’t just all white spreadable foods.

Drew: It’s a lot. For instance, sour cream is not something that I would ever use in any way other than a constituent ingredient.

John: I was going to ask about that. Sour cream on a potato, never.

Drew: Do not. Do not do. I do not do it. I don’t begrudge people who do it, but I don’t.

John: It’s not a rhubarb level of–

Craig: Rhubarb is just stupid. I can eat rhubarb. I just don’t know why I’m doing it. It’s not like I’m disgusted by it, I just think it’s dumb.

Drew: You could put rhubarb on yogurt.

Craig: You could. You could also put gravel on yogurt. You don’t. Or lawn clippings. It’s edible. I guess grass is edible. We don’t sprinkle it on–

Drew: Is it?

John: It’s not actually edible.

Craig: It’s edible. It’s as edible as rhubarb. Rhubarb is not a processable food. It’s just fiber. It’s cellulose that just goes through you. There’s no calories in rhubarb. It has no nutritional value.

Drew: It’s a delivery system for all the sugar and good stuff around it.

Craig: So is a spoon.
[laughter]

Drew: You can’t beat me on this one.

John: That is our show for this week.
[laugher]

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with help this week from Meredith Stedman.
[cheering]

John: It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Ahh.

John: Thank you, Matthew. Our intern is Lauren Loesberg.

Craig: Also, woo.
[cheering]

John: She’s here in person. She’s watching the cameras, helping us out.

Craig: She’s watching this madness.

John: Yes.

Craig: Quietly thinking about how to break it to us that her parents own a rhubarb farm.
[laughter]

Craig: All of her money comes from big rhubarbs.

John: Absolutely. She grew up a rhubarb farmer, just so good. Our outro this week is by Matthew Chilelli. It’s a special one produced just for Drew.

Drew: Is it a blah, blah, blah?

John: No. I gave him two song options.

Drew: Oh.

John: We’ll see which one he picks.

Drew: All right.

John: If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. Drew will not be on the other side of that mailbox anymore.

Drew: Never again.

Craig: [groans]

Drew: I’ll miss you all.

John: All right. 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 in this past week, which is especially great. Please keep reading Inneresting. The Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books. Drew, thank you for all your help making the Scriptnotes book.

Drew: Thank you.

John: You can find clips and other helpful videos on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes. You can give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram @scriptnotespodcast. Lauren has been doing a great job cutting video for our Instagram and our TikTok, also.

Craig: We have a TikTok?

John: We have a TikTok.

Craig: That’s so cool.

John: We have T-shirts, hoodies, and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau.

John: 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 again to our Premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You’ll miss the Premium subscribers very much, though; they’re the best.

Drew: They’re the good people.

John: You can sign up to become a premium subscriber like Drew at Scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we are about to record on whether you should quit your job loudly.

Craig: Oh, loud quitting.

John: Loud quitting.

Craig: Drew just kind of did that.

John: He did. He went out with a big rhubarb bang. Thanks, guys.

Drew: Thank you.

[outro]

John: In our bonus segment, we got a random advice question from a person named Not Yet Broken, who is a government worker. Meredith, could you read the question?

Meredith: Yes. “A common theme in film, television/storytelling is people who do the right thing in the face of great difficulty. What would you say now to the federal government employee who has spent the last 16 months trying to fight the good fight? Is it worth it? How did you stay motivated when others don’t believe in the work you’re doing? I know it’s hard for people out there to see us and know that we’re still trying.”

John: All right. We have some context behind the scenes that’s not for air, but this is a person who’s been working with the federal government, and their politics do not align with what’s happening in our government at this moment. Craig, what’s your instinct in terms of you’re in a system that you believe is corrupt, that is broken, and yet you still feel like there’s important work to be done, the original mission of the thing? Do you stick around to try to get through this awful place? What’s the calculus for you?

Craig: If you’re in a situation where there is no chance for rescue, that’s one thing. A sinking boat is a sinking boat. Our government is something that has been remade and reformed a number of times. My hope is that good people will hang on. In times like this, I like to share the wisdom of the great Rudyard Kipling. A little section from his poem, If—:
“If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools.”
And so on and so on he goes like this. The idea is to resist, to be as resilient as you can, to take the blows and the punishment, to suffer the indignities, and outlast the bastards. Because that’s how you win, consistency and prevailing. If there is a chance you can prevail, hang on. What you can’t do is perform things that you know are wrong. You have to somehow figure out how to make it better if you can.
A soldier cannot obey an illegal order—should not obey an illegal order—but if you’re working for an incompetent boss, if you are working in a situation where the mission has been distorted, if you’re working in a way where you realize you could be helping people so much more than you are, money’s being wasted and misspent, and you see that it could get better, try to hang on. It sucks, but if you leave, if all of the good people leave, then it’s over. They’ve won.

John: This goes back to our conversation about competence, is that if all the competent people in a government or in a system leave, then it’s only the incompetent people doing that work. Either they are incompetent because they don’t have the right mission or the right information, or they just simply don’t know what they’re doing at all, and everyone suffers in those cases.
I sympathize with Not Yet Broken here is that you are trying to figure out whether you can do more good by staying in or by leaving or exiting loudly from this situation or from this place. You don’t have to do it every morning, but maybe once a week, just take 10 minutes and actually sit down, write down what you’re thinking about where you’re at, and is it the right choice to stay or to go? I think I’ve done a lot more over the last couple of years is journaling. I’ll just actually acknowledge. I’ll just write down what happened over the course of the day so I can just see patterns because sometimes when you don’t write it down, it just becomes invisible to you, and you don’t recognize what’s actually happening. You can’t refer back to, “What was the day that thing happened?”
If you see misdeeds happening, you can speak up at the moment, and you can also document that they happened so that when this moment passes, there can be some accountability. Where I find myself genuinely flummoxed is trying to think about what happens after this administration is out. To what degree is there going to be truth and reconciliation about the things that have happened? Because so many of the crises have just moved off the newspaper, but they’re still happening, and “What are we going to do about it?”

Craig: We don’t know-

John: Yes.

Craig: -because we’re not in there. We don’t know right now who is being an unseen, unheralded hero. We may never know. We may never know their names. We may never know what they do. That is the nature of service. What did he say in Hamilton? “Legacy is planting seeds in a garden that you never see”?

John: Yes.

Craig: There are people that are working for us right now in government, who are taking care of things or who are preventing the worst of things. We have no choice but to rely on them and to rely on the notion that there is some hope. It’s all we can do for this person who is not yet broken. Emphasize the Not Yet, and think to yourself, “Okay, time moves by pretty quickly.” Seems slow when you’re in the middle of a mess, but retrospectively, it will have gone fast. What do you think you should be doing on day one after this?
Start talking about better systems just for yourself, making plans to reassure yourself that there is a way out still, that it is reparable, that this is not a corpse, this is an injured body. “How can we treat it?” Generally, villains get found out.
Also, the federal government is the largest employer in the United States. What some people like to refer to as the deep state, others of us like to call Government. Hundreds of thousands of people work for the federal government. I suspect the vast majority of them are doing exactly what they were doing before or are laboring under some new difficulties but prevailing as best they can. I would urge you, if you are feeling this way, Not Yet Broken, it means you know, so hang on, we need you.

John: Yes. There may be situations where you can sandbag or slow down the worst of things, or prevent the worst of things, disrupt the system from within to the degree that it’s useful and helpful.

Craig: Oh, that’s what “they,” some people call the big conspiracy, that the deep state won’t let bad people do bad things. That’s right?

John: That’s right.

Craig: That’s how it works. That’s how it’s supposed to work. You should not be able to just show up and throw everything into chaos just because you say so. The one thing that I think our nation is going to have to struggle with moving forward on a structural level, on a constitutional level– in my life, I’ve never really thought about anything that demanded constitutional amendment. I think there are things that I’ve come to loathe. There’s a lot of problems with the electoral college system, for instance. There are some reasons for it, but a lot of probably more objections at this point, I think, have been emerged.
The over-empowerment of the executive branch or the complete neglect of the checks upon the executive branch must be addressed. The Constitution grants Congress sole authority to declare war. Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1941. We have been in war almost every year since then, possibly every year, somewhere around the world, and Congress has not declared war once. The president has now assumed sole authority to declare and pursue war. That’s a huge problem.

John: It’s one thing to pass laws or to establish rules, but if no one actually enforces those rules or follows those rules, they’re not really rules. You look at the Constitution of the Soviet Union, probably read really well.

Craig: It did not. That was really boring.

John: I’m sure there are things. You can find good systems of law on paper, but if they’re not actually followed, they’re not–

Craig: That’s right. Then they don’t matter. There are also some aspects of the Constitution that we have to consider. For instance, the Supreme Court. The way the Supreme Court functions over time has become interesting. This is not necessarily something that’s a right or a left thing. The primarily liberal court in the ’60s and ’70s did some things that lit some stuff on fire, and that fire never went out. There were repercussions, and there are solid legal arguments about why some of those things were overreaching. I think we see overreaching now as well because the court is out of whack. There is an answer for that, and it’s one that Franklin Delano Roosevelt almost applied when he was struggling to get the New Deal going, and that is to change the size of the court, which they can do.

John: They do. They have done in the past.

Craig: Yes, and everybody talks about it like it would be some earth-shattering defiance of our Constitution. It isn’t.

John: No.

Craig: Some kind of checks and reins upon the executive branch need to be established, no matter who the president is. There are traditions we have, firewalls between the Justice Department and the executive, that are just gone. Those firewalls were not really legally based. They were traditional. Some traditions need to be put down on paper and enforced.

John: Do you think there will actually be a reckoning, though? Because I feel like after Watergate, it was sort of like, “Well, we’re just not going to deal with that for the good of the nation. We’re not going to pursue seeing this out.” After the first Trump presidency and after the insurrection, there wasn’t a reckoning. We just keep doing that.

Craig: Well, yes and no. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon but all anyone talked about after Watergate was Watergate for decades, including turning every political scandal into something-gate, it definitely had a huge impact. Jimmy Carter became president because of Watergate, but when you look at Watergate now, it’s a goof compared to what they’re doing now. It’s the equivalent of somebody tried to rob a little bank versus now, it’s just full-scale.

John: “Get me out at $1.8 billion.”

Craig: Yes. Just straight-up extortion. There will be a reckoning, but it’s going to be difficult because of the volume of crime. The emoluments clause has been battered. I feel like a lot of politicians are just waiting for this to go away so that they can then speak their minds. You see this over and over. Once a politician is retiring, they don’t have to worry about repercussions, then they say exactly what they think. They all think the same thing. A lot of reasonable people think they’re not getting anywhere saying it from the inside. When this ends, there’s going to be some sort of convulsion, and it will. We’ve talked about this before. America has been in a worse position than this, but I don’t think in my lifetime.

John: To wrap up to the person asked the question, my instinct is, yes, stay if you can-

Craig: Yes, please.

John: -and thank you for staying and doing what you can do in that situation. If you do exit and you have the opportunity to exit loudly, do. Had this been eight years ago, you could exit loudly, and people would actually pay attention. They won’t so much now.

Craig: Nobody cares. In fact, if your “out loud” exiting won’t have any real impact whatsoever, maybe exit in a way where you can then quickly return when it’s safe.

John: Yes.

Craig: My hope is that good people hang on. I thank everybody who’s doing that. I know it’s difficult. We sometimes find ourselves, obviously, far lower stakes here; we’re making entertainment, but you and I have both found ourselves inside of projects where the only thing we could do was to nobly hang on and keep it from getting worse.

John: Yes.

Craig: It is unpleasant.

John: It is very unpleasant. The timeframes are not the same, and we know that the movie will end. We know that, yes.

Craig: It will end, and this will end, too.

John: There have also been situations where I’ve left projects because I am not helping anything here, and it’s just misery for me.

Craig: That’s a normal kind of exit. I’ve been involved in some things where you make something, you feel like it’s got a chance, and then you realize that the system it’s inside of is designed to destroy it and turn it into something horrible. All you can do is try to keep it from getting worse. It is a bad place to be. If you can hang on, hang on.

John: Yes, I agree. Thanks, Drew. Thanks, Craig.

Drew: Thank you.

 

Links:

  • The attack on competence by Iris Meredith
  • Scott Tenorman Must Die (South Park – Season 5, Episode 4)
  • Bartosz Ciechanowski’s Curves and Surfaces
  • Rhubarb Breakfast Dessert by Melissa Clark
  • Easiest Citrus Roasted Rhubarb by “Kate Cooks”
  • 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 Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Meredith Stedman and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our intern is Lauren Loesberg.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 739: The One with David E. Kelly, Transcript

June 10, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is Episode 739 of Script Notes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we welcome the creator of 20 television series.

David E. Kelley: Oh, my God.

John: Who is also the first writer to win an Emmy for Best Comedy and Best Drama in the same season.

David: It’s too much.

John: His latest show is Margo’s Got Money Troubles on Apple. Welcome to Script Notes, David E. Kelley.

David: Thank you to you both. Good to be here.

John: It is remarkable to have you here. Craig, in front of you see a list of his TV shows. Just remind us of some of the shows that he’s done.

Craig: I’m going to do this. This is a process where I experience just a deep, brutal humbling. You all should. These are the television series created by David E. Kelley. Doogie Howser, MD, Picket Fences, Snoops, Chicago Hope, Ally McBeal, The Practice, Boston Public, Boston Legal, Harry’s Law, The Crazy Ones, Big Little Lies, The Undoing, Goliath, Anatomy of a Scandal, Big Sky, Love and Death, Presumed Innocent, Nine Perfect Strangers, The Lincoln Lawyer, which I think is in its 900th season, and now Margo’s Got Money Troubles. What?

John: It’s a what and how.

Craig: I feel so stupid and lazy.

John: Craig, we all are stupid and lazy by comparison. We want to talk to you about all of those shows. We can’t go into depth on all of them, but really the idea of what a TV engine is because you have a knack for understanding how to not just create a show that will last a season but will keep going on.

In a bonus segment for premium members, I want to talk more about those long-running series because most of us are thinking about how we get that one season to happen. You’ve experienced shows that have just gone on and on. You’ll tell us, hopefully, what happens when you’re approaching your fifth or sixth season of a show. We’re excited to have you on just to talk television overall.

David: Amazing. I hope I don’t disappoint because I don’t have a knack or a science, but I’ll do my best.

Craig: Well, you’ve got something. It’s pretty remarkable, the longevity here. It’s not a thing about age, really. It’s just a thing about repetition, how many times you have to start something up. Pitch the idea, get the approval, get the room together, get the budget together, figure out where you’re going to shoot it, and cast it. To do that for a television show once is a lot. What I’m struck by is how many times you had to start over in a way. How did you, and how do you continue to keep it fresh somehow to get excited yet again for another reset?

David: Well, let’s start with the last part of the question first in terms of fresh. There was a point where that did become a challenge. How do I come up with something new and explore new creative muscles? I actually felt that it was around that time I was doing Harry’s Law, which I loved doing, but I felt this is a track I’d run around before. I think there’s a danger for any creative person, especially a writer, when things start to feel facile and the best thing you can do is to go outside of your lane and try to challenge yourself.

Now, the risk is you may fall off the high wire and bloody your nose because you may have picked the lane that you’re not particularly adapted to running in. I think I got a little lucky there because I started adapting projects, working off IP that was very well baked and hatched by excellent authors.
My first adaptations were Big Little Lies by Leon Moriarty. It was just a fantastic book, well-characterized and well-plotted. The second one was a book called Mr. Mercedes by Steven King. He’s the master of horror, but he’s also-

Craig: He’s a great writer.

David: -brilliant at character as well. Both of those particular projects, especially Mr. Mercedes, was well out of my lane. If I had set out and endeavored to write a horror piece just because I thought it would be good to wade into that genre, who knows what would have happened. It could have been a disaster. Having the training wheels of Steven King, having hatching that plot and developing those characters, that gave me the confidence to walk out on a plank that I hadn’t walked before.

Big Little Lies, similarly, I was a little more comfortable with that turf because it had a tonal blend of comedy and drama, which I’ve always gravitated to. It was a character piece. I felt pretty comfortable adapting that book. Again, great credit to Leon Moriarty. She wrote a wonderful book, and that made it easier.

Now, having gone down those paths with those two books, I realized there’s maybe a second chapter, or I don’t know, a third chapter in my own career, taking the IP and the ideas and the characters of others and adapting it.

Craig: Like Presumed Innocent.

David: It wasn’t something that I ever thought would appeal to me because, and you guys know better than anyone, that the true intoxicant of the job is the idea. Coming up with the story, breaking a story, discovering characters that you want to spend time with. That’s a certain form of adrenaline and dopamine that allows you to do the hard work, which is the writing itself.

I always felt, well, if you strip me of that, I’m going to not have the fuel, and it’s going to be all work and no play. To my great surprise, it was neither of that. You could take the ideas of others, infuse ideas of your own, and give occasion or allow yourself to hatch something that was original in and of itself.

John: David, I’m looking at your credits, and you have so many broadcast shows from the peak of, this was broadcast television and now many streaming shows, but there’s not a lot of cable in there. Were you developing shows for cable? Did you just skip over that generation? Tell us about that.

Craig: It was Big Little Lies.

David: No, HBO would be my cable experience. I did Big Little Lies and The Undoing with them and another show called Love and Death. Yes, you’re right. It was broadcast and then to streaming. It was broadcast really forever. It was the first 20-some odd years, maybe more, of my career. I actually quite loved broadcast television and miss it a little bit still. I never felt that I was constrained creatively or content-wise on broadcast television. Certainly, you couldn’t use all the words that you can use on cable, and some violence and nudity, obviously, are not allowed, but that was never my thing anyway. I had the most fun writing characters and ideas and even topical ideas, socially relevant ideas.

What was great about broadcast for that is it was so fast. I could be writing something today that would be on by the end of the month. Maybe by the end of the season when you’re doing 22 episodes, you’re writing episode 21 and 22, which could be airing in 10 to 12 days. You can be very timely. I loved that.
Now in the streaming world, you don’t have that. You’re expected to have all your episodes written before you even roll camera. What’s airing is going to be, on the fast track, probably a year to 16 months if you’re lucky. I do miss that from broadcast.

What I got tired of on broadcast is the commercials were rearing their ugly head. The show length, for example, when I was doing L.A. Law, I think we were 48, 49 minutes. By the time we got to Harry’s Law, we were down to 41 minutes.

Craig: Wow.

David: It was a ton of commercials. It became increasingly more difficult to tell stories with any kind of soft build of emotional momentum because it’d be interrupted by a loud Ford or Dodge Ram commercial. It’s just every six, seven minutes you were cutting to the commercial and then coming back and having to restart. That was frustrating.

I also was envious, probably of the talent pool that I saw cable drawing on. I moved to HBO, and Big Little Lies happened, and that worked. The streaming world was proliferating at that time, and there we went.

John: We think about you as this titan who’s made so many shows. In the year 2000, you had 67 episodes of television that you either wrote or produced, which is insane.

Craig: That’s illegal, I think, actually.

John: You also started someplace. Can you talk to us about L.A. Law and getting your start on L.A. Law and what you learned in those years in the room that are still the lessons you’re implementing today? What’s that first season on a show like for you?

David: That’s a great question because that was the job that imprinted upon me like no other. My first boss was Steven Bochco, who gave birth to L.A. Law. I was a lawyer back in Boston, and I didn’t really even watch much television. One thing I did watch was Hill Street Blues. I was really quite blown away by how good it was, the storytelling, the depth of the characters in it. You could have thrown out any name in the Hollywood industry and it probably would have gone right over my head, and I wouldn’t know who that person was.

Steven Bochco was a name that I did recognize because at the end of every episode, there was his title. His episodes usually ended with your jaw dropped near your abdomen. That name I knew.

I had written a project, a movie idea of my own, and mainly wrote it on my own because I didn’t know anybody in Hollywood to write it. It wasn’t that I said I wanted to become a writer, but I thought it made for a good story, and I liked to write as a hobby, so I started penning it. That happened, and it was a legal piece, and that happened as L.A. Law was being developed by Steven Bochco, and he was looking for lawyers who also wrote because he was seeking some authenticity to the show.

I came out and met him, and that went very well, and I became a member of that staff, and it was an incredible writing staff. In those days, again, forgive me if I sound like a dinosaur, but I am, but in those days, it was only broadcast, so it was a finite number of shows, and the talent pool for writers was just bigger. Those rooms, I think 30-something was on at that time, and Moonlighting was up. Those were all-star writing rooms, and ours was, too, so I was very blessed to be surrounded by a lot of talent.

First and foremost, Steven, he was a great teacher, and he really stressed finding stories that were not just good stories in and of themselves in terms of plot and engaging entertainment but stories that were conduits into the characters that allowed you to explore the characters as you were moving the plot. He was very ferocious in his storytelling approach that way, and he set a bar for all of us.

The first show that I did on my own after L.A. Law was Picket Fences. Steven wasn’t part of that show, but then again, he was because, again, his standard was in play. It’s funny, we never worked on the same show again after L.A. Law, and I’ve said it before, so I was never in his writer’s room again, but he was always in mine and is still in mine because his work ethic, his discipline. Everybody showed up at 9 o’clock, and it was 9:00 to 5:00 or 9:00 to 6:00 job, and his attention to detail and his respect for the audience. Those tenets made a big impression on me, and it still do today.

We’ve all gotten the note. Make it simpler so that the audience will follow this or understand that. Steven rejected that note out of hand. He was going to write up to the audience, not down. That was a great lesson that I learned, and I try to live up to this day.

Craig: I would say you have, and then some. What strikes me is that even though you picked up these great lessons from Steven Bochco about what to value and perhaps some notions about how the process should function and finding the reason that the show should exist beyond just “here’s some stuff that happens.” There are things about your work that are you, and there’s a lot of them.

I’m curious if you have any sense, looking back at all of it, maybe with the benefit of the perspective of time. What are the things in your work that feel like a united thread? Are there themes that you approach? Are there particular characters that you like to find? Is it a general intelligence, which I think marks all of these projects? What do you think? If I were learning from you in your writing room, what do I walk away with?

David: I don’t know. I’ve never tried to look at the wiring. I’m afraid if I try to. It’s like asking the golfer, do you breathe in or breathe out as you take your backswing, you can ruin them forever. My compass for any given show, I know, is it’s got to be characters that have some dimensional staying power because, in success, you’re going to spend a lot of time with them. It’s not something I would recommend to people, but I’ve spent my entire adult life hanging out mainly with characters who are not real, who are fictitious.

John: Me too.

David: Speaking to people I have never met in the audience. That’s a weird dynamic. On the other hand, all the characters– we’re all observing as writers. Whether we know it or not, we’re picking up eccentricities or behavioral nuances of people we encounter. It goes into the blender or whatever it is, the creative thing in your head that’s concocting.

It comes out. Picket Fences was the first show that I had. It was personal in that I grew up in small towns. I was always drawing on small towns and the people who populate those particular venues.

L.A. Law, obviously, I was a lawyer before that and in office life. I know I was drawing on that for both L.A. Law and The Practice and Ally McBeal and Boston Legal. I think if there’s one common denominator, I’m not sure there is, but it’s characters that speak to me that I love exploring. My radar is if I can find characters and a story that resonates with me, go to that, and then just cross your fingers and close your eyes and hope that there’s a constituency big enough to support it.
I think it’s folly to try to look at the marketplace, for example, and say, well, this kind of idea is popular at the moment. Therefore, you can try it. It’s probably, at least for me, going to be tougher to pull off. I’ve noticed that the shows that I’ve had the most success with, coincidentally, whether I knew it at the time we were doing it, I don’t know, but looking backwards, were the characters probably that were most dear to me. The characters that I would mourn, for example, once the series ended.

Picket Fences, when that ended. Douglas Wambaugh was played by Fyvush Finkel, and Judge Bone played by Ray Walston. I knew back then that I was never going to be able to write that guy again unless it was derivative. That character now was gone. Because they were so real to me at the time, I actually mourned their creative passing. That’s a good thing. If you finish a project and, well, that character, I can say goodbye to and write another one, then maybe you weren’t pouring yourself into that one as much as you should. Kathy Baker, who played Jill Brock-

John: So good.

David: -on Picket was the same. Of course, I think all the characters on The Practice were very dear to me. Ally McBeal and John Cage on Ally. I miss them still to this day. It sounds a little bit unhealthy, or-

John: Yes, but that’s okay.

David: a form of schizophrenia that you believe they’re real, but at the time they were very real.

John: David, Craig and I, up until Craig started his TV series, we were mostly working on features. With features, we’re writing characters we deeply invest in, but then they get handed off to an actor and then they’re no longer-

Craig: One-night stands.

John: They’re one-night stands. They’re with us for a time, and then they pass off. It’s such a different experience when you have these characters who you have to keep writing for every week. They are part of you, and then they’re being performed by a different person. That’s got to be a strange thing. They aren’t part of you. They are your friends. They are people you know so well. You know everything that they do, and yet they are performed by somebody else. What is the conversation like with you and an actor who is on their third or fourth season playing a character when you know them really well and an actor knows them really well? What is that conversation?

David: It’s a very collaborative process in that by that point, when you’re talking about year three, year four, I’m not writing, maybe I am, but more times than not, I’m not writing the character that I originally conceived of. You’re writing the melding of that character you conceived of with the interpretation of it by the particular actor. Sometimes right out of the block, the cadence and rhythms of an actor are spot on with what you append to your page with. Other times, it’s way off, and you either recast or reconfigure.

More times than not, it’s something in between. You write a character, you cast that character. That character in the hands of the actor is not exactly what you conceived of. You start to adjust and write to their strengths and see what they bring, see the potential that they offer in the character. By the end of season one, really, actually, probably after six or seven episodes, you’re both on the same page or wavelength. That collaboration isn’t always two people in a room saying, let’s do this, let’s do that. In fact, in broadcast television, you just don’t have time for it. The scripts are coming out every eight, nine days.

As soon as one’s done, you start the next. The collaboration is often unspoken. I’m seeing what they do on screen, and that’s in my head as I develop the character. The actors or actresses are interpreting or seeing what I’m putting on the page, and they’re bringing what they bring. If you’re lucky, you would arrive at a being that is fertile for storytelling and is great for your viewing constituency as well.

In broadcast, you don’t have really much time at all to be making big notes because an actor likes the scene or wants to say those words and doesn’t want to say this. In limited series, you do have more time, so there’s probably more input off-camera, but broadcast, when it’s 22 to 24 episodes, once that bus leaves the depot, you’re off. A great amount of trust has to be put in the showrunner by the actors for those kinds of vehicles because you’re running a marathon. You can’t pull over at the side of the road and rest.

Craig: It seems to me that no matter what the format, an enormous amount of trust has to be put into the showrunner because ultimately they are parenting this thing. You brought up actors. Just looking at the cast of Margo’s Got Money Troubles. Elle Fanning.

John: Elle Fanning, who was a child actor in my first movie.

Craig: Nick Offerman.

John: Your show?

Craig: My show. So far, you’ve just taken our people. Okay, now it gets better. Greg Kinnear, who I still maintain is one of the great unsung treasures of acting. Michael Angarano, who’s a great, I think of him as a young actor, but I’m old now, and so I realize he’s not young anymore.

John: Watching your show, I think of him as a young actor, and he’s playing a dad of two kids. He’s playing a professor.

Craig: We grew up. Michelle Pfeiffer, I feel like we know her better.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: So, working with your wife, that must be quite a trip. Then some lady named Nicole Kidman. Wow. In the circumstance like this, what I’m curious about is you’ve got, well, first of all, you’re in streaming, you’re on Apple TV, you have essentially all the freedom in the world. Your episodes could be whatever length you want, you could have any amount of episodes that you want.

John: There’s nudity in the show, which I was surprised by, but it works.

Craig: Nick Offerman loves to get his pants off.

David: We all know that.

Craig: Getting his pants back on is the trick.

John: That is the challenge.

Craig: When you have a cast like this, as the father, as the show dad, do you feel a responsibility to make sure everybody’s getting enough to do, or was the point to make sure that all these characters were worth these actors being there in the first place?

David: Excellent question. The story always comes first. If you’re in a position of having to build up a role to please an actor or to make sure that the page count is what they’re used to getting, it’s not that it can’t happen, but it’s a recipe for a pitfall, if not an outright disaster. Fortunately, on Margo, the story was so good. The book was so great, such a great read for all of us. That was well established before anybody showed up, even for a first read-through.

I mentioned earlier before that, you see what you got with actors on a read-through in the first few episodes, and you’re making adjustments here and there, and then you arrive at what ultimately you’re bringing to the audience. Margo was fairly unique in that the read-through was pretty impeccable. I credit Rufi Thorpe, the author of the book, because I think all the actors and the writers knew what we were buying into. Our goal was to execute the tonal blend and the character’s emotional lives on film, what she had done in the book.

It was shocking, the read-through, how spot on Elle was in every single beat, because she had to hit a lot of different notes, from absurdity to raw emotion to comedy to drama. That script bounced all over the place. The character did as well. I’ve said it before, I felt like Elle owned this character, perhaps maybe before I even picked up my pen to start adapting it, because she had read the book. She was part of the producing team that was chasing it before we all joined forces and got it.

That was one that spared me a lot of time having to convince actors. Well, you may not see it, but you got to trust us and zig where your instinct is to zag because this is what we’re going for. Part of the job is managing. With talent like that, you’re going to be managing up, but on this book, it was so well-crafted. Again, it’s a credit to Rufi that they all showed up and said, “Okay, where are my marks?” Nick Offerman, everyone wanted to work with him.

Craig: The greatest.

David: I remember our first Zoom. I thought, okay, I’m going to have to make a strong play to get him, but I didn’t. He had read the book and said, “Let’s go.”

Craig: I could just hear him say-

David: That was easy.

Craig: -David, I’ve read the novel. It’s strong. You have quite a resume. When are we shooting?

David: Yes, and his cadence, that is a character because my instinct is maybe to pace scenes up more than they need to be paced. Let’s get to the center of a scene quickly because the worst thing any show can be for me is boring. Not terrible, not outrageous, not offensive, but boring. Don’t want to be that. I’ve made mistakes in the past of maybe pushing scenes faster than they need to go.

Craig: I get accused of this.

David: With Nick, we knew what we had in him, that you could give him a pause, and he was going to give life to it. With Jinx, we were allowed to really take our time with him. He supplied such a belly to that character that was a luxury for us writers.

Craig: Well, and I would imagine too that it’s understandable because John and I came primarily out of features, as John said, and you came primarily out of broadcast television. In features and in broadcast television, you’re always running out of time. Before you even write one word, you’re running out of time. It’s squeezed and it’s finite.

Even in the older cable days, I still argue a little bit about this with HBO, where they have this 58-minute, 30-second maximum roll, which I’m always like, “Hmm, yes,” but there’s a little more flow. I remind myself, and it seems like you’re taking advantage of this, that this new format, which people accuse of being this second screen thing, you can take your time with it. You can breathe. You actually have. Like you, I’m paranoid that it will just be boring or self-indulgent to take a pause. It’s good to know that you struggle with this too.

David: Yes, my assumption is that the viewer has something better to do or at least something good to do. If you’re going to ask them to pay attention to your product, then you better entertain them and you better not waste their time. That’s burden number one. Then if you can get lucky and, on top of entertaining them, cause them to think or even move them and stir their heart, then that’s the home run.

John: David, can you talk us through the process of Margo’s Got Money Troubles? Because there’s the book, Elle is attached to the book. It enters into your orbit. Were you writing a pilot first? Were you getting a room together? What was the process for figuring out how to make this adaptation happen?

David: You’re told that you’re going to series but I think the dirty little secret for all these shows is, yes, you are writing a pilot first because if they don’t like that first or second episode, they can pull it. I don’t know for a fact, but I’m told that HBO came very close to pulling the plug on Big Little Lives a week before we started shooting.

Craig: For budget or for creative?

David: Creative. That they just didn’t think a story about these women in Monterey and the first episode was about a kid being bullied, is that enough? That’s not much of a story. I remember having the conversation with an HBO executive, and he said, “It’s just about a kid being bullied at school.” I said, “Do you have a child that’s gone to school?” He did not. I said, “Well, if it’s your child and he’s being picked on, that story takes on a certain severity.” Our job as writers is to convey that storytelling so the audience feels the emotional stakes and the severity of the offense.

So many shows now start out greenlit because that’s how they may attract the talent pool, but there’s an off-ramp if they’re not happy with those first scripts. On Margo, I don’t think there was any pause. Everyone was pretty excited and raring to go from the get-go. The actual process for me was part triage because there’s so much great stuff on that book that you can’t use at all. The biggest challenge was there was a lot of third-person storytelling that you could easily convey in the book, but on film, it wouldn’t be as quite so coherent.

Yet, a lot of that, third-person and first-person internals, interiority of the characters were so rich. The goal is, okay, how do you get that out behaviorally? I remember my mantra for actually both Mr. Mercedes and Margo when I first started. I think the very first thing I said to myself on both was, “Okay, don’t screw it up.” The writer knows what they’re doing. The author had a plan, and it was a good one.

Craig: Don’t screw up.

David: Live up to the bar that they set. Not always that. Sometimes you get an adaptation, which is a great idea and a great springboard, but you’ve got to take it in a different direction to make it commercially viable. Margo, it was all there in the book.

John: Talk us through your writing versus the– You had a room on the show. There’s other writers. Did you write a pilot first and then get a room together? Were you writing a pilot at the same time the room was happening? Talk us through how that all worked.

David: I wrote the first three episodes. Then Eva Anderson came on, and she ran the writer’s room with the other writers. Eva and I went back and forth. She was my point man. I have never been particularly adept at a writer’s room. For example, going back to Steven Bochco, he was genius at that. There were times where Steven couldn’t break a story in his head. He would call all the writers into the room to do it together. We would not say a word. Steven would suddenly break the story. I said, “What gives with that?” He says, “Well, sometimes I need an audience to tap into my acuity, and I get my dopamine rush just from all of you being in a room.”

It turns out I didn’t really need you to break the story, but I needed you to be there. My process was completely the opposite. I can be in a room full of writers, and I can’t solve something, and I have to throw everybody out because my process is to go inside the characters themselves and let the characters speak to me. They tell me more often than not what they want to say and where the story wants to go. It’s a process that’s worked for me as a writer, but as a showrunner, it’s been very frustrating for writers who have worked for me.
Many times, a script will come in and I’ll do a rewrite, and a writer will look at me and go, “If you were going to go left like that, do you think maybe you shouldn’t have directed me to go right?” My answer, invariably, was I didn’t know that left was the correct way to go until I got into the pond myself.

It’s not a satisfying answer for a staff member trying to guess where I’m going to go. Often, I don’t know for sure where I’m going to end up. I have a general sense when I dive in, but it’s a little bit like a river. You go where it flows and you listen to it. I try to listen to the characters and listen to the story. I start off every series telling them what to say and where the story is going to go, but many series then take me over, and then the characters start directing me and the story does as well.

John: Can we talk about the engine of an episode? I think back to a Boston Public episode, and there’s a template to it. There’s a sense of, like, well, this is the kind of thing that happens in an episode of the show versus the kind of thing that happens in an episode of Margo’s Got Money Troubles are very different. The audience expectation about what’s going to be happening at the end, the sense of closure, the sense of this, and yet both of these need to have within the episode an engine that’s going to drive us through story.

Can you talk us through, first, in a classic broadcast situation, what is enough of a story engine, or are you pitching the engine as you’re first pitching the show, and then how that changes with a limited series like Margo, what you’re thinking of in terms of the engine, the motor that’s getting you through the episode?

David: With Boston Public, and this is how much the industry has changed. With The Practice, with Ally McBeal, with Boston Public, there was no script, no outline, and no real formal pitch. With Boston Public, I sat down with Sandy Grushow, who was running Fox at the time, and said, this is going to be a high school show. It’s going to be a public high school, but it’s going to be about the faculty. It’s going to explore the lives of the faculty and the adversities they face in trying to do their jobs every day.

We talked about the tone. It’ll be both dramatic and comedic. We talked about the kids will be instruments to explore these faculty members as well as the parents. There was an understanding that would be the DNA of the show, but we would then find the show in the writing. Today, it’s very different. When you’re going to pitch a show-

Craig: They want it all.

John: -the buyers are looking for such a specificity, and there’s a danger to that because you’re not letting the writers find and feel their way. If they’re living up to the notes or the outline that was a product of that goal of specificity, it can have a very creatively constraining effect. With broadcast, again, actually, the process, once you’re doing it, the science of the shows, and all my shows have been fairly multi-story format. With Boston Public, I think there were three storylines going on. With Ally McBeal and The Practice, usually two. With Picket Fences, there was one main storyline, but it was played through three different prisms.

You would take an issue or a story, you would play it through the police franchise. Sometimes the medical, the legal, and also the nuclear family. The experience of watching it would be many different stories happening, but it was really one core thematic engine driving all four different stories. In the days of broadcast with Boston Public and L.A. Law and The Practice, your main storylines would probably have about 8 to 10 beats. You would also be operating with 9 to 10-minute acts, sometimes 11-minute acts.

You were writing acts that would build and have a crescendo at 9, 10, 11 minutes with some version of at least a mini cliffhanger that would leave the audience with the idea that I’m more interested in this story than that Dodge Ram commercial that’s following it, and I’m thinking I’m going to come back and watch the rest of it. Once you’re into the streaming and there are no commercials, you don’t have to worry about those act breaks. You don’t have to crescendo as much over your 50 minutes. You can build and trust the audience to stay with you and not worry about them being distracted by another stimuli and having to earn their trust to come back again.

Craig: I wonder if this is why somebody like Sandy Grushow back in the day could say, yes, based on what you just said, high school, about the faculty, what you didn’t say, but what I will add to that is, “Also, I’m David E. Kelley, and I’ve done this before a number of times to great success.” Because the broadcast format was so rigid and repeatable, meaning, okay, it’s this many acts, the crescendo. That somebody could say, “I’m pretty sure unless David pitches me an idea that, in the simplest form, I hate it. I would be willing to roll the dice on that.” Whereas now they ask for everything because it could be anything.

That is probably scary for them, but I do think it’s wonderful freedom for us. What’s fun and inspiring, honestly, about somebody like you and the length of your career is that we can see how you are not a great writer of broadcast television. You’re a great writer. Then as you go to write movies, or as you go to write streaming series, or originals, or adaptations, you are the thing that keeps adapting to the world around you. We know a lot of writers at this point. You’re probably approaching what, 50, 45 years of this? I don’t know how many.

David: I came out in ’86, so I’m just about 40.

Craig: 40?

David: Yes.

Craig: A lot of writers around year 10 are discovered to be perhaps, I’m not going to say one-note, but maybe five notes, changing the notes and adapting to the world around you and adapting to the new formats. As you said, getting out of your lane but not so far out of your lane that you fall down on your face is in itself a rarity. This isn’t a question. This is just really a hagiography of David E. Kelley. I don’t know how else to put it.

John: Well, I do have a question because I want to talk. You were describing how you needed to write towards act breaks for broadcast TV and stuff. Within Margo, you have to figure out, okay, we have this book, and these are the things from the book we want to do, but we have to figure out which episodes do these things fall into, and you’re not going to match the book exactly. How early in the process did you figure out, okay, this is the beat that’s happening in episode three versus episode four, episode five? When did you have the shape of it? Was that early in the writer’s room? Was it before the writer’s room? When did you know the sequence of events?

David: It wasn’t terribly challenging breaking down the episodes in terms of what was going to happen in each. It felt pretty organic when I was drawing that roadmap. What was less organic, Margo was a little bit like the porridge that Goldilocks was. The process was, in the editing room, that’s where we were jumping through more hoops. A little too hot, a little too cold, a little too slow, a little too fast, a little too funny, a little too serious.

John: The tone of your show, it shifts a lot.

David: Exactly.

John: Honestly, it reminded me of Ally McBeal in the sense like this is a comedy, but there’s also some real serious, dramatic things happening here. There’s a baby at the center of it, so there’s things like Ally McBeal. Finding that right blend must be a challenge. It does feel like an editorial.

David: It is. It’s very unscientific, and it’s very subjective. In Episode 2, for example, I was worried about the first two episodes, especially with Margo, because I thought if this comes out of the gate as single mom with crying baby, will the audience really want to escape to that at the end of the day? I do think you have to offer some form of escapism, the world being what it is today, that when people turn on the television, I think the invitation or the opportunity for the smile and a laugh is important.

The first two episodes, because the character was going through a lot of emotional gymnastics, I remember in Episode 2, there was a meltdown that Margo had over frustration with breastfeeding, the baby wasn’t getting a good latch. The scene was meant to be both absurd and real at the same time. You could maybe laugh at the monologue that the character was spewing, but at the same time, feel that was a very real issue for her.

We had a subsequent scene where Shyanne, the mother, was upset and having a crisis because she was sure that the newborn didn’t like her and deliberately cried when she was being held by Shyanne. It was a form of judgment that this one-month-old baby was passing on Shyanne as a bad grandmother.

Similarly, that was also supposed to be absurd, comedic, but feeling a very real and raw insecurity of Shyanne as a person and a grandmother. In the editing room, I was worried. We all were a little bit. Both of those scenes together in the same episode was just too much. Even though we liked both scenes, but in the aggregate, the episode just might be too wrought and too emotionally draining that it would allow the audience to go, “You know what, I don’t need this kind of angst and anxiety at the end of my day.”

We scratched our heads and asked questions and worried about it, but it was undeniable that the actors in both scenes were phenomenal, Elle in her scene and Michelle in hers. We were also pretty confident that both those scenes advanced story and a character.

Craig: There you go.

David: We said, “Okay, if it’s doing that, we’re going to stick with it.” Maybe the audience might find it wrought, but we bet on story and character at the end of the day. That’s not something always in a playbook. You feel it as you go along. That was that experience. To answer your question more specifically, how do you figure it out? Margo, a lot of the figuring was more in the editing room than I think in the outline. The episodes outlined and mapped out pretty coherently and clearly as we went along. I thought for a while it would be seven hours and not eight.

When I was at HBO, we had the luxury of, because A Big Little Lie was supposed to be eight episodes, and got to the seventh and eighth episode, and went back to HBO. I said, “This really needs to be one. Seven and eight are going to be broken up.” HBO said, “Fine, make it one.” Our finale was a little bit longer, but the series was seven episodes. The business models today, we don’t always have that luxury.

Margo Apple really wanted those eight episodes. We mapped them out with eight episodes. Again, on the page, there was a coherency to it, but the real struggle was in the editing room and figuring out the tonal, the blend, and the spikes and valleys of emotion and comedy.

John: Great.

Craig: Awesome

John: Well, David, congratulations on Margo. Congratulations on a vast career that–

Craig: You know what? Just have to say, fellow Princeton tiger, there’s not a lot of us. There’s not a lot of us in this business. I would say, [crosstalk]

John: What about Harvard somehow?

Craig: Well, Harvard, it was like all you needed to do was to be a friend of somebody, and then you were on The Simpsons. That’s how easy it was as far as I could tell. Princeton was like, “Do you want to be a lawyer? Do you want to go to a hedge fund? No. All right, see you later.”

David: You know what? Princeton really wasn’t putting it on the map. I never came out of Princeton thinking, “Oh, screenwriting was on the menu.”

Craig: No, there was no, it just didn’t– it wasn’t an option. We were few and far between, but you were certainly when I came out to Hollywood, you were one of the people where I went, “Well, okay, A guy can do it from here.”

John: Absolutely. You’ll be the second David E. Kelley.

Craig: I was not, and I am not.

John: Let’s start with one cool thing, and mine actually ties into something that you may have firsthand knowledge of. This is the idea of the designated driver, which I think about as always having been there. It’s actually a relatively new concept. The basic idea came from Scandinavia and the Nordic countries, where the practice had developed earlier. It was this guy, Jay Winston, at Harvard Public School of Health, learned about it in the 1980s, looked and saw how it worked in Sweden and Norway, and adapted it for the US. The project launched in 1988. The quote was, “The designated driver is the life of the party.”

David: That’s very good.

John: They had posters for it, but most crucially, they went to writers in the Writers Guild and TV writers to try to insert this idea and this message into episodes of top-rated programs such as Cheers, Dallas, and LA Law. Do you remember anything about this, David? Does this sound familiar?

David: No.

John: No.

David: They said, “Oh, yes, we’ll tell all of our writers and then–[chuckles]

John: It did air, and it aired in those shows, but other popular shows in 1988 to seed that idea out there in the world. I think it’s a good, noble thing that I’m happy exists in our culture.

Craig: I didn’t know that it came from Scandinavia. I remember when it happened. I remember designated driver suddenly being a phrase. I remember us making fun of it. First, you start laughing about it, but then someone’s like, “Yes, actually-
[crosstalk]

Craig: -who is the designated driver?”

John: Absolutely. We all recognize that drunk driving was a problem, but it’s a solution to it. It’s basically, “Oh, here’s how we’re going to avoid us doing that.”

Craig: It was a bad thing to talk about with people who were already drunk.

John: That’s the real thing.

Craig: You could get them before they started drinking.

John: It also became a useful excuse for why you’re not drinking that night.

Craig: Absolutely.

John: For folks who didn’t want to drink, it made it good, or why you bring along that one friend you don’t really like that much.

Craig: [laughs] That was always the dark side of the designated driver.

John: If you rotate among the people, that would make more sense. Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting cultural shift that happened in part because of broadcast television of its era that it was able to get that into the world. Craig, what do you have for One Cool Thing?

Craig: My One Cool Thing is a fantastic article that is in WIRED. It’s on WIRED right now, written by Alan Levinovitz, called The Painful Truth About Long COVID. The subheader is “There might finally be a way forward for long COVID treatment if only you were allowed to talk about it.” What this article talks about, it doesn’t come down one way or the other, but what it starts to investigate is the notion that long COVID, first of all, existed before COVID.

When the flu epidemic happened, the Spanish flu back around World War I period, there were people who, for years, were basically assigned some sort of post-flu malaise is what it was called, with very similar symptoms to long COVID. What’s happened is because so many people with long COVID symptoms were essentially dismissed as lying or just being weak. The people who have long COVID have become incredibly invested in the notion that there is a hard biological underpinning, except maybe there isn’t, because they can’t seem to find one.

What people are starting to come around to is the notion that this is, in fact, a neurological symptom that is quasi-psychological. What really comes out of this article is we’re so judgmental about mental illness and not assigning it as illness. That even people who may have something that is essentially a mental illness can’t accept it because it delegitimizes them. Everybody seems to decide that if something is psychosomatic, it is not legitimate. It is. We know that.

Now, there is no hard proof that it is only neurological and psychological in nature. There is no hard proof that it is all biological in nature. Everyone is at war, but people who are proposing that perhaps there are mental health treatments for this are oftentimes facing the proverbial villagers with pitchforks and torches. A very well-balanced, fascinating article. You can’t help but come out of it primarily with an enormous amount of empathy for people who are suffering from this. Whether it is “hard biology or neuropsychology,” it’s real. Really well done, very thorough, quite long, worth the whole read.

David: What’s the article? What’s the name of it?

Craig: It’s called The Painful Truth About Long COVID on Wired.com.

John: David, I’m now desperate for you to time-travel back.

Craig: I can’t top that.

John: No, but to go back, and I can imagine the Picket Fences episode about this. I can imagine a couple, like a Boston Legal, a Boston Public.

Craig: He may have written an episode while I was talking. He’s that good.

John: He is that good, right? I saw him scribbling.

David: Well, they’re mentally disenfranchised for all our series because I’m always fascinated by neuroscience as well. There’s no such thing as a normal brain. Everyone has what we would call eccentricity and quirks. Others would call mental illness. You’re right. There is a stigma. There shouldn’t be. Everybody’s got their brain. None of them work the same way. They all have things to explore for both entertainment and fear value. I’ve always loved the psychology of people. It’s no secret or coincidence, I guess, that the psychology of characters have been part and parcel of the shows that I’ve endeavored to write about.

John: David, what do you have to share with us?

David: Well, again, I have nothing as cool as that.

Craig: It could be a cupcake. It could be anything, though.

David: Well, I will tell you, one would be a fish.

Craig: A fish.

David: A fish, yes. It’s a salmon. Full disclosure, I’m on a conservation group that’s about saving wild salmon, but the salmon itself has forever fascinated me and stirred me with a bit of awe. It’s this fish. It’s born in a river. The odds of making it out of that river are low because of all the things that can eat it, and because of the water quality and flooding, and the natural hazards that are there.

As soon as that egg hatches, it goes to the ocean and spends three to four years in the ocean, and grows and fills itself with all these nutrients. At the end of that, it comes back. We’re talking, it could have traveled maybe 50,000 miles at this point. It comes back to the very river where it hatched and comes back to spawn and gives life again.

Then, in death, in its carcass, feeds the riparian riverbanks and the eagles and the bears and the birds who eat it and then fly over the heartlands in the middle of the country and take a big dump and drop those nutrients. It’s feeding nature in the middle of the country. It all comes from this fish. That fish continues to fascinate me and to be a cool part of nature. I thought you wanted me to pick a movie or a book.

Craig: Honestly, salmon is– Also, is it not the only fish that is that color? I don’t think there’s another fish that’s that color, right?

David: It’s silver when it comes out of the ocean, and it begins to change colors and decompose. The sockeye will turn bright red once it enters the river, the freshwater. In the saltwater, it’s completely silver. It’s a silver bull.

Craig: All I know is that the delicious salmon that I have for sushi, which I know you’re like, “Please stop eating that. It’s from salmon.” I can see the look in your eyes. [laughs] When I was a kid growing up, New York and you have locks. Was that all wild salmon back then? When did it start?

David: Probably not. I was born in Maine, and we had no salmon because the rivers were dammed up. Atlantic salmon were very indigenous to Maine at that time, but I never saw one because we had dammed the rivers. We’re still in the process of now undamming rivers on the East Coast and West Coast to give them a chance to come back.

John: We have salmon elevators to get them up over certain obstacles.

Craig: I love the salmon. There are things–

David: Yes, it’s a battle, but they’re battlers. They’re warriors.

Craig: That’s actually a great, one cool thing.

John: I love it.

Craig: A fish.

John: A fish. [crosstalk] Not just a fish. A salmon.

Craig: A great fish. A salmon.

John: A great fish. [crosstalk] A big fish, in fact.

David: Nice. This is a great fish. The Chinook salmon, their nickname is King of Fish. There are nature writers who will write a line, “Okay, that’s King of the Jungle,” but that King takes second place to the King of Fish, which is the salmon, because the salmon is such an ecosystem that is vital to habitats far beyond where it actually lives itself.

John: That also feels like a metaphor for David E. Kelley in terms of a King of Fish, in terms of master of one domain, and also traveling to a new domain.

Craig: Soon, we will pick his body up, travel it across, have him take dumps on the ground below.

John: If you go back to broadcasting television, that would be a complete, or if you go back to practicing law, that would be a complete salmon journey.

Craig: That’s the river.

John: That’s the river.

Craig: It gets back to the river.

John: That’s where we started.

David: That’s the river.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptedness is produced by Drew Marquardt.

Craig: Congratulations.

John: It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: He’s also good.

John: Our intern this summer is Lauren Loesberg. Outro this week is by Nick Moore. 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 often answer. 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 Script Notes book is available wherever you buy books. You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Script Notes and give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram @scriptnotespodcast. Lauren has been busy cutting videos for our Instagram, so you can see those.

Craig: Fantastic.

John: We have T-shirts and hoodies, and drinkwear. You’ll find us 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.

Craig: Salmon.

John: salmon

Craig: Just to tell them, like.

John: Thank you to all our premium subscribers who make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on long-running shows. David E. Kelley, an absolute delight having you on the program. I can’t believe it’s been 739 episodes before we got a chance to talk with you.

Craig: It was worth it. I think we had to work up to it.

John: Yes, we did. We had to practice.

David: Thank you both. How do you guys find time to write while doing all these shows? That’s a lot of hours.

John: That’s a lot of hours.

Craig: We’re like, maybe we’ll save this for the bonus segment. The question is, how do you feel when you have so much that you know you’re supposed to be writing, and you just don’t, and you do something else instead? [chuckles]

John: We won’t talk about that in the bonus segment.

Craig: Enjoying, enjoying, I guess, is the trick.

John: Enjoying, enjoying.

Craig: How do you enjoy enjoying?

John: All right. Thank you, David.

Craig: Thank you, David

David: Thank you, both. All right.
[music]

John: We’re in the bonus segment, which was supposed to be about long-running series. We should talk about that, but I also want to talk about these other things. In terms of long-running series, I just want to acknowledge The Practice, eight seasons. Chicago Hope, six seasons. Allen McBeal, five, Boston Legal, five, Picket Fences, four, Boston Public, four. Wow, Craig is struggling to–

Craig: I’m here. I am in season three, like, huh. Now, I do write all of it basically on my own, but it sounds like David’s done quite a bit of that himself, too. Even if you don’t, by the time you get to Season 6, you’ve written the equivalent of three seasons. It’s a–

David: You’re talking about Last of Us Season 3?

Craig: Yes, Last of Us Season 3.

David: I would say what you’re doing in The Last of Us, that’s in dog years or broadcast years. Three years is probably more like seven or eight because of the storytelling you’re doing.

Craig: The size of it, maybe.

John: Well, I want to talk about that because in the main segment, I was going to get into characters. You talk about knowing characters and loving your characters, but characters in a 22-episode season, you get to know them deeply, but they can’t change greatly episode by episode. There’s an expectation that they have to be largely the same people who’s like “Craig is killing people like crazy,” and they’re fundamentally different characters from one episode to another because there’s an expectation that people are going to see every episode of Craig’s show, versus they’re going to drop in and see–

Craig: [crosstalk] It’s not serialized.

David: You’re going to drop a jaw or two in every episode. That’s a burden that you’ve assumed. That’s tough. In broadcast, the limited series, I always thought would be less work because there’s less episodes, but you’re mounting a startup all over again, which is the heart. The first five, six episodes of any series is always the toughest. In the limited series world, you’re running a sprint all the time as opposed to a marathon.

Even though Big Little Lies is technically a series now because it’s repeated and now we’re going into the third year, the center you sat in that first year, the storytelling hoops that you’re jumping through, and the expectations of the audience that you’re cultivated, that’s a bear. That’s a real bear.

In broadcast, we didn’t assume that. The construct with the audience is they knew there’d be a legal story or they knew it would be over at the end, would spend time with the characters. They certainly wanted it to be smart and funny if need be, but they weren’t expecting the kinds of plot twists and jaw-dropping WTF moments that–

Craig: You have the benefit, I think, on shows like your long-running broadcast shows to say, we have a conference room, we have an ER, we have an office. We have a high school faculty room. This is where we live. We’re not moving around a lot. We know that there is, I think, a challenge to that, which is how do we have yet another staff meeting without it feeling like the staff meeting that we had 30 times before, but there is also a great benefit in–

John: There is. The same way you can write to characters, you can write to sets. You can write to familiar places. You can think about what’s new in this scene, versus I have to establish what this even is.

Craig: You don’t have to figure out like, “Okay, now, hold on. How do we get this person over to there before that gunshot goes off and this explodes and ta-ta-ta?”

John: In a long-running show like The Practice or Chicago Hope, were you the showrunner all eight seasons, or did you hand off the reins at a certain point? In doing so, how do you even do that creatively? I can’t even imagine what that’s like to have been doing everything on a show and then pull back.

David: The Practice and Boston Legal, I was the showrunner for all of those. Chicago Hope, I was the showrunner for the first one or two years, and then turned it over to John Tinker to run from there. The challenge in broadcast television, especially your audience, their expectations, unlike The Last of Us, is they’re showing up at your doorstep and saying, “Shock us and blow us away.”

In broadcast television, it’s not. Broadcast television is, “Make it the same but different. Don’t be so different by leaps and bounds that we’re not going to recognize it, but don’t be in the same place that you were last week.” The boundaries and also the budget, logistics, and constraints that we have make it challenging, but they also make it a little more comfortable for us because we don’t have to.

If you walk into a Walmart and you see all the opportunities in different aisles, you go, “Well, how do you pick anything?” That’s what’s happening in streaming now. Anything goes, everything goes, so what are you going to find and where am I going to go? Broadcast television, there’s a reason you saw lawyer shows, doctor shows, police shows.

There was a certain convention where the characters could be themselves but with different stories week to week because it was a fertile storytelling ground, the police venue, the hospital, or the law firm. It was not as challenging in terms of plot points for us as storytellers that I think you find in the streaming world today.

Craig: You certainly would never get the note. Why are they in a conference room again? That’s not an objection, whereas in streaming, it could be. Well, why are we always in the blank? I have to say that, as much as it sometimes is terrifying to walk into the creative Walmart and not know which aisle to go to or to consider the expectations of the audience for a large show in terms of its scale, I would be pretty terrified, I think, to be that guy coming in Season 5 of something going, “I have an idea for it.” Simpsons did it. I mean, David E. Kelley did it is probably a thing.

John: Yes. We had Zoanne Clack, who came on to Grey’s Anatomy late into the show, and we were asking her, and so if you have a new staff writer who comes on Grey’s Anatomy, they can’t be expected to have watched all 17 seasons of Grey’s Anatomy. They’re like, “Oh, no, they have to watch all 17 series of Grey’s Anatomy seasons so they know what the show is, which seems impossible.

David: Oh, God, I can’t imagine.

John: I want to talk to you about, from a creator’s point of view, if you’re stepping away from Chicago Hope, you know those characters, you know what that show is supposed to be. Are you still reading every script? Did you back fully away? What is that process of untangling yourself creatively?

Craig: I want to know this because I want that job. That’s the job I want. I want to create a show and then leave. How do I do this?[laughs]

David: I had that on Lincoln Lawyer, [crosstalk]

Craig: Which is doing so well.

David: Lincoln Lawyer was the best gig by those standards because I did the first episode, turned it over to Ted Humphrey, and the best thing I did after that was stay out of his way. I’d read scripts, and I’d watch cuts and not many notes. Honestly, sometimes I would watch as a student of what they were doing. We’re not the same kind of storyteller, but I would watch it and enjoy it and go, “Okay, what are the muscles that they’re flexing and what are the targets that they’re aiming for?” I’m not good at being half in. I can either be all in or I’m better from a macro, just giving macro notes from afar, but being with one foot in and one foot out is very difficult.

John: The challenge is you risk undercutting the person who actually is supposed to be doing the thing, or people are not committing to decisions because they don’t know what David’s going to say.

Craig: You will undercut them because you will put both feet in. You don’t stay one in, one out. You just are like, “Okay, I understand you exactly. Really, what I need is maybe I’ll just get Ted. Maybe I’ll just take Ted. [crosstalk]

John: Ted’s good.

Craig: I need Ted.”

John: The other challenge is going into the fourth or fifth season of a show, we have folks who are coming in who are doing streaming shows. We talk about the start of the season. They have a blue-sky period, like what are all the things that we can possibly do? In broadcast series, was that a thing? Was there like a blue-sky week or two at the start of a writer’s room where you were talking about the big macro things, or was it always just crunched down to like, this is the episode, this is the episode, this is the episode? What was that like?

David: Well, it was neither. There was no real formula for it. What was consistent with all the shows is that they never got easy. Every episode was a bit of a bear. There was also probably deep-seated concern with, will this material or this construct even have legs? I remember in LA Law, the second year, there was a writer’s strike. It had happened around show 15 or 16.

We and the writers in the room thought the blessing of that strike would be that the audience would never tumble to the fact that we were frauds because we had no more stories to tell. We were on fuse. That strike saved the audience from realizing we had no more stories to tell. Then we got to rest and went away, and the storytelling machine replenished, and you found more stories. Where the stories come from is always a search.

In The Practice, for example, we did hit a bit of a creative wall in Season 5. The episodes, I felt, were solid for what they were, but we’d done versions of them before. That’s why we brought in James Spader. By the way, ABC had moved us to Monday nights, or they’d taken away our time slot and given it to Joe Millionaire, which at the beginning of reality television became a huge hit.

John: Oh, I remember Joe Millionaire.

David: Joe Millionaire was opposite us. I can’t really remember, but I do remember is suddenly we were getting crushed. At the end of Season 5, our numbers were bad, and we were really limping in terms of ratings, and we were going to get canceled. That was it. We were going to say goodbye.

I remember the Sunday of the upruns, because those are the days they did upruns. I got a call from Lloyd Braun because their pilots were shaking out this way or that way. He said, “Look, here’s the deal. We’re going to pick up The Practice for one more year if you want it, but at half your license fee. We can’t afford it, half the license fee, which meant I would have to, because the actors were making a ton of money at that time, which means I would have to let go, probably half the cast.
My competitive ego about it, because we were limping with the ratings, and we also maybe weren’t hitting our best creative stride at that, and I loved that show, I thought, “I’m going to take the challenge and try to save it and try to make one more year out of it.”

We brought in James Spader and William Shatner for, I think, it was year six. I’m not sure about the math on it. You can check through them, but I think it was year six. The show did very well. ABC came back and now wanted to pick it up for another year. They said, “Well, it’s your choice. We can pick it up for another year of The Practice, or you can spin it off for these two characters and do another show.” That’s another case where I said, “Okay, let the story be in charge of you.” I thought the most fertile storytelling venue was another show. We came back and conceived of Boston Legal. That went five more years back-to-back.

Craig: Incredible.

John: That’s great. David E. Kelley, an absolute pleasure having you on Script Notes. It’s so good-

Craig: And honor.

John: -to hang out with you and chat about television.

Craig: The King.

John: The King.

Craig: A fish.

John: A fish.

John: Great.

 

Links:

  • David E. Kelley on IMDb
  • Margo’s Got Money Troubles on AppleTV
  • Harvard Alcohol Project: Designated Driver
  • The Painful Truth About Long Covid by Alan Levinovitz for WIRED
  • Salmon
  • 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 Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our intern is Lauren Loesberg.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.