Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello, and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 720 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, how do you sell and produce an original series in this age of streamers and IP? To help us answer that question, we welcome back the co-creators of the new spy series Ponies, Persons of No Interest, Susanna Fogel and David Iserson. Great to have you back on Scriptnotes.

David Iserson: Great to be back. I listened to this show enough that it is still freaky to see you do the thing that I hear you do.

[laughter]

John: Last time you were here, it was Episode 361. This is Episode 720. It was halfway through. Every 360 episodes, it’s like a year cycle. You come back on the show.

David: This is how hard it is to get a thing made. It goes from script to production over the half-life of Scriptnotes’ journey as a podcast.

John: That was for The Spy Who Dumped Me. Now you’re back with another spy show, so spies are in your pocket.

David: We’re back with something that has some shared DNA in that we wrote it, and that it is about spies, but it’s a very different tone, very different feel. I think we learned a lot of things for making that movie that we didn’t bring into this show. It’s a different beast, but it is still things that we gravitate to. We shot them both in Budapest.

Susanna Fogel: Budapest. French stories–

David: About two women.

John: That’s true. It’s hilarious, but the tone is specific and strange. I really want to get into it because I was struck by sort of Ponies is a tone I’ve not seen on a show in a while, which is fun to say. I want to talk about that.

Susanna: Aw, thanks.

John: I want to talk about the series, but I also want to answer listener questions on trusting your judgment, how to tell if you’re talented, and differentiating character voices. In our bonus segment for premium members, I want to talk about taste. We did a little bit of this before we got on mic, but what is taste? How do you cultivate it, and should you even worry about taste? We’ll get into taste. Let’s remind listeners who weren’t here for episode 361–

David: What were you guys doing?

[laughter]

John: What were you doing? It’s okay. Answer and remind us who you are because Susanna Fogel, and the time since we saw you last, you went off and directed a whole bunch of things. Pilots for the Flight Attendant, The Wild, A Small Light. You directed the features Winter and Cat Person all in the time since we’ve seen you. You’re so busy and prolific. Congrats.

Susanna: Thank you. I go for long stretches of time where I’m not working, and I’m in my pajamas, so when things come out all at once, and it looks like that’s my regular density of work, I feel excited that that’s how it looks.

John: David, when we talked before, we talked about you working on SNL way back in the day.

David: Yes, that was my very first writing job.

John: Yes. Since then, United States of Terror, Up All Night, New Girl, Mad Men, Mr. Robot, Mozart in the Jungle, Run. Since the last time you were here, you also had young kids.

David: Yes, I had identical twin girls who, by the time this episode airs, will be two years old.

John: That’s incredible. As Craig and I often describe on the podcast, kids are the death of a career.

David: Sure, yes.

Susanna: When we started working on the show, they were negative six years old. This is how long we’ve been working on the show.

David: Working on this, I wasn’t married, I didn’t have kids, and I’m married with two kids. I brought my kids and my wife overseas to make this show. I couldn’t get them on camera, but they are a part of the show in that they were there.

John: They grew up in it. My daughter grew up in and around the Big Fish musical, the long journey of that.

David: Sure.

John: Every incarnation she was a part of and saw, so her DNA is somehow in that show as well.

David: Did she run screaming from this industry as a result of seeing us?

John: No, she loves it. She loves tech rehearsal, which is where they’re painstakingly rearranging lights, and actors will move two feet, and they’ll reset the lights. It’s the most tedious process. She was maybe six, eight years old during it. She would sit there at the table for hours watching it. I couldn’t believe it. Now she loves all production stuff.

David: That’s amazing.

Susanna: That’s so cool.

David: I remember when I started off in this industry, and you’d hear people being like, “The last thing I would ever want is for my kid to be in this industry.” I was talking to Vic Michaelis, who’s an actor on our show yesterday, about how all of our toddlers love musicals and how we would be just distraught if they just wanted to be in tech or accountants or just something. We just essentially just need them to be in showbiz because it’s the only thing we understand.

John: At Sundance Labs, I was there with this married couple. She was a writer, and he was a writer-director. For years, we’d see them up there, and they had young kids and like, “Oh, we want our kids to do other things.” Other kids are Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jake Gyllenhaal. Somehow, it does just rub off. Let’s talk about the genesis of this series. Where did this come from? It feels like it should be based on a book or something else, but it’s not. It’s just a thing.

David: It’s not based on a book. You can, as I did, take a deep dive into many, many books about spies in the ’70s, abouty the American Embassy and the British Embassy during the Cold War. There’s a lot of sources that give a window into what this world is. There was an idea that kept coming up when I became interested in, and just to predate even that, my interest in just the aesthetics of the ’70s and the Cold War. It came out of a trip I took in my 20s to Prague and Budapest and Berlin.

You just can see there’s a communism museum in Prague and the DDR museum in Berlin. The aesthetic of this time is such a weird version of what American pop culture looked like through this weird prism. I just was really captivated. If you come to my house, you will see I have a large mural on my wall about the second and third dogs in space from the USSR. I have weird old watches. I love this look and this feel. For me, I would read these books.

The idea that kept coming up again and again is that although maybe film and television, Cold War-era film and television made it seem like spy operations were happening with some success, the Americans and the British really couldn’t run a spy operation in Moscow. They just couldn’t. They tried to. They would be followed everywhere. I think that idea of it was a desperate time where they’d be willing to try anything was something that Susanna and I started talking about.

From there, the most ethereal way I sometimes think of writing is that sometimes it is just there. It is almost behind a wall. As you start naming a character and just finding details of it, it really took form. For us, we just started talking through these characters, and then everything became very clear very fast.

John: The logline of the show is set in 1977. It’s following two secretaries who are working at the American embassy in Moscow. They become spies after their husbands die in mysterious circumstances. The engine of the show, at least at the start, is them trying to figure out what actually happened to their husbands. That’s the logline. What was the actual pitch? What did you actually pitch to people? Did you write this first? Did you go in and pitch to Universal? How did this all come together?

Susanna: This was a really interesting and very singular experience of having a bunch of general meetings after Spy Who Dumped Me, where people were looking for us to do the TV version of Spy Who Dumped Me. We didn’t want to do exactly that. We didn’t want to do something quite as comedic. We didn’t want to do something broad. I had a general meeting at a network that is not Peacock.

David: That doesn’t exist anymore.

Susanna: No longer exists. That shall not be named.

David: It was Quibi.

Susanna: Exactly. The executive said, “Do you have anything that’s similar to Spy Who Dumped Me?” I said, “Not exactly, but David and I had been just batting around the idea of what if there were these two women in this era and they became spies, but it’s a friendship story, but it’s a little bit more grounded in terms of the tone, but also more action.” She said, “We’ll buy that.” She said, “We know we’re not the coolest place to sell a show.”

David: We know Quibi is not the coolest.
[laughter]

Susanna: She said, “I know on the downside, we’re not the coolest place to sell a show. On the upside, you don’t have to pitch it to anyone else. If we don’t do it, we’ll give it back to you, and we won’t be assholes about it.” After having pitch fatigue about trying to sell everything else and just the amount of time you waste or spend with maybe limited rewards, the idea of just getting a yes and being able to actually just go write the thing and not have to spend six months, it was such an appealing thing that we just said yes.

David: Absolutely.

John: Why is that such an exception? Because I never hear that story. It makes so much sense from both sides. From your side, you don’t want to pitch to every place. You just want to go to the one place that will actually maybe do it that feels right. From their side, they don’t want a bidding war. It’s the right idea. If it did go out further, they might lose it.

Susanna: I know. I really admired just her autonomy in saying that. She wasn’t the head of the network or anything. She just said, yes, we’ll buy that as opposed to needing a bidding war to tell her that it’s worth buying.

John: Exactly.

Susanna: We just took the yes, and we wrote it. We had a great experience developing. Then that network folded into a different network. We wrote backup scripts. We were many years spending waiting to see if this would go at that network. Ultimately, it didn’t. We reshopped it with multiple scripts and a Bible and a chap.

John: Multiple scripts that you’d written because you never had rooms together?

David: We just had one script. We had one script. Then we had figured out what the rest of the show would be. This was deep pandemic because I remember I was house sitting for my in-laws when we pitched this to Peacock. I think we only pitched around three places. Other people had heard the premise, and it wasn’t for them. We couldn’t–

Susanna: Mostly because it was an original period piece, and everyone says, “Don’t try to sell that.”

David: It was very scary because this is, again, what people tell you never to do right now. Period. End. Original ideas are both not things that people tell you to try to sell, and we pitched to peacock.

Susanna: Let’s dig into that a little bit more. You’re pitching the show, but the script is already written. At what point are they reading the script versus you pitching first and they’re reading afterward? Because I’m going through this with a project that’s already written as well. Were they reading the script first, and then you could answer specific questions about the show, or are you pitching broad strokes? Did you have–

Susanna: These details are so fuzzy for me because it’s been so long.

David: I’ve done both versions of this. I’ve pitched shows in the past and then handed them the script at the end of it. I’m almost positive they’ve read the script before, and then we pitched.

Susanna: I think because they were inheriting a bunch of ideas already, we shared those ideas, I think.

David: Yes. Then also because what we’re going to talk about is tone. I don’t like pitching tone. I think tone is a really– it is such a vague thing to pitch. It’s–

Susanna: Trying to describe why a joke is funny.

David: Try to describe something, and then also just having to find a comp, and then the comp might not be right. I think that we gave them all the script and we pitched the show. I think at that point, because this is just what television is now, we had many seasons of ideas. We pitched the first season in detail and then said, “Here’s where we would go with season two, and here’s where we would go with season three.” Yes. It was pretty elaborate.

John: The show is visually very distinct and interesting. Were you bringing visuals to the pitch to show them what it would look like and what it would feel like, or was it just talking?

Susanna: Oh, yes, we did. Part of the idea behind the aesthetic of the show is that, like David was saying, there was an explosion of color and pattern. When you see Cold War content, mostly it’s really dramatic, and it’s really dreary-looking. There isn’t summertime, and there aren’t flowers, and there aren’t people with lively patterns on their clothes. The reality is, looking at pictures of people in that time, there’s so much vibrancy to it, in an imitation of American pop culture in a way.

We really wanted to do a loudly colorful look.

John: Yes, [unintelligible 00:12:06].

Susanna: Yes, so it could still have the muscularity of a spy thing, but also the fun of just people wanting to watch things that pop, because it was actually how a lot of the world looked. Yes, that was what we wanted to show in the deck. We wanted to say, this isn’t a dreary, depressing thing. Not only do we not want the tone to be that on the page, but we also want you to know that this is going to be a fun show to watch with lots of a feast for the senses when you’re looking at the clothes and the design and all that.

David: I think for me and Susanna, sometimes you hear people use the word entertaining almost pejoratively. Entertaining is the kind of show that those are the shows you fold your laundry to. They’re not the serious, important shows.

John: They’re lean-back shows rather than lean-in shows, yes.

David: I don’t feel like that is true in the media that we grew up with, the movies we love, the television we love. It just is how film and television has become a little bit bifurcated now. I think we are always trying to lead with being entertaining, and part of that is trying to be visually bold, but also to try to be as significant as we hope to be. To not make it light, to not be soft, to have the emotions real, to try to work to the top of our abilities, but also to not bore an audience. I think being visually bold comes hand-in-hand with that idea.

John: You get the yes from Universal for Peacock?

David: For Peacock, and then went to Universal.

John: It’s always so complicated. Are you going to the studio, or are you going to the network?

Susanna: Yes. We didn’t have a studio on at our first buyer, and so we came to Peacock clean of that. We did bring on a producer in the interim between parting ways with this other Network and shopping it around. I brought on Pacesetter, who had produced this Gillian Flynn show that I directed a couple of episodes of Utopia for Amazon. I had a good experience working with her. I floated it to her and said, “Can you–” She was doing a lot of commercial but elevated stuff, and I thought that she’d be a good match. With her, she became our partner, and then we had her on the journey since then. UTB came on.

David: We went right to networks, and then the networks laid it off to the studios. When we pitched to Peacock, we pitched, among others, to Alex Sepiel, who is somebody who we just knew forever. You lived in a Melrose–

Susanna: He was my neighbor in a hipster, downtrodden version of Melrose Place when we were in our 20s, where we just-

John: Yes, we all have those.

Susanna: -had gross, slummy apartments and a sketchy landlord who was running from the law. He and I were on a trivia team together every Monday. I knew him really from way back. Every time I’ve pitched to him since, it’s like there’s a legitimate familiarity there of just we know too many of each other’s dirty secrets from that time. Anyway, having him as our executive has been really fun. It was fun to work with him because we just know him. He’s a peer. He’s the person who shares our sensibilities, our taste.

Susanna: You have this deal to be making it at Peacock Universal. You have a script written. You need to write backup scripts. Then, at a certain point with backup scripts, you get the order to finish writing everything and to go to a series. How does it work? Did you ever have a room? How did it all fit together?

David: If it were so simple. We sold this in deep pandemic, and it just took time. Basically, between selling it in whatever 2020, 2021, where we got what they call the cast contingent pickup, which happened on the eve of the actor strike.

Susanna: On the eve of the strike. It all took a while.

David: It all took a while. This ultimately just became years. We were paid at different points to do two more scripts. Then we also just were waiting around. We wrote two more after that, just betting on ourselves and assuming that the show would eventually get picked up.

Susanna: We got the cast contingent pickup as we were waiting for actor offer. Actually, we were waiting for an actor deal to close. We’re like, if the deal doesn’t close, it’s not picked up, but it probably will. Then they’re going to be rushing us so fast to get these scripts ready. We should–

John: Just do it.

Susanna: Even though we were grumbling about it, we were like, “We should just write these ourselves.”

David: I think at that point-

Susanna: We had Amelia.

David: -we had Amelia, and we were just making her deal. We just wrote two more scripts. Then–

John: There’s five scripts as you’re coming into–

David: Yes. We did do a writer’s room because we believe in writer’s rooms, but also because we had– This is a spy show with a lot of heavy plotting that we were just doing ourselves piecemeal over the course of many years. We just wanted some smart, interesting people to vet the plot, but also vet the characters. We wanted to build to a really satisfying ending and set up everything that we need to in hopes of a new season.

Susanna: We also felt like maybe if I was going to be directing the first couple of episodes, that we might get in a situation where they would send me over there to start working on crap, and we’d be separated. We just wanted to have as much of it buttoned up as we could before I left.

David: Fortunately, it didn’t happen. We had everything written by the time we started.

John: Eight episodes, right?

David: Eight episodes.

John: Eight episodes. It’s written before you go. Are you block shooting it? How are you figuring out the best ways to do that?

Susanna: Well, I want to say one thing, which I think we can admit now because it all worked out, which is that we definitely lied about having episodes four and five written when we–

David: Yes, and tell them.

Susanna: We had to be like, “We’re thinking it could be something like,” and we go through the whole process. I am glad we did it that way. It made us really interrogate those scripts. We had a lot secretly done.

David: We shot blocks. Yes, we shot two episodes at a time.

Susanna: I knew I wanted to do three or four, and we were trying to figure out– Normally, if it wasn’t a show that I also wrote, I would come in and do the first two or three.

As we were in the writer’s room, my thought was, I knew I wanted to do the first couple. Then there was a mid-season episode that I just was personally really connected to. I knew I wanted to do that. We were like, how can we be creative? I was going to do a middle block so I could do that.

Then, as we started breaking the finale, it sounded like it was so much fun that I called Jessica during a lunch break, and I was like, “I’m going to be really annoyed if someone else directs the finale because now I love it. Can I do it?”

She’s like, “Yes.” Anyway, I ended up basically being there the whole time more or less. It was fun having the experience of breaking the episodes and deciding there which ones. I got attached to different episodes as a director, too, which was nice.

John: Talk about your writer’s room. How did you pick writers you wanted to be in the room with you? Obviously, the two of you have a clear vision, a clear voice. Were you looking for people who complemented you in ways, things you weren’t particularly good at? What were the criteria, and how many writers did you end up ultimately bringing in?

David: It’s funny because we had this conversation a lot, and I’d been in a lot of rooms. I’ve learned a lot. I’ve learned a lot of what to do and what not to do. Also, it was a thing that would keep me up at night before a room started because it’s like I’ve been in great rooms, I’ve been in not great rooms. I’m just like, “Oh God, I have so much pressure on myself of making sure that my room is one of the good rooms.”

John: It’s not just SNL, but also looking through your credits, you’ve been in some challenging rooms.

David: I’ve been in some challenging rooms, and every room I’ve been in, I’ve learned a ton, but also, yes, some were harder than others. One thing that I do feel strongly about from just witnessing it in other rooms is that I am not a huge fan of bringing in specialists. I’m not somebody who’s like, “Okay, we have comedy in the show, we have a mystery in the show. Let’s bring in a really good mystery person. Let’s bring in a really good comedy person.” Eventually, you want people to be able to write the show, and you want people to write the show fully.

Selfishly, we just wanted to bring in writers who at least had a sensibility like us. We wanted to bring in people who had different experiences and different perspectives, and a diversity of types of people. At the end of the day, we wanted people to be able to execute a script that could both have the banter that is emblematic of our show, have the emotional grounding that is emblematic of our show, and be able to speak to the twist. I read a ton of samples, and I met with great people. They met with great people that I would have hired, and I couldn’t afford.

There was a lot of shaping to find the puzzle pieces. What was really exciting putting together is that a lot of the writers just still came about being able to have a sensibility that was shared with different skill sets. We had a writer who was just really good at making a map of who knows what, when, and the board. That’s just not how my mind works. It was just really helpful to see it. Other writers who just really could hook into the emotions of the friendship, drama, and in a way that felt very personal, that we were just able to use there. We built a really nice family, a very small group of writers in a very short amount of time, and all people that we care a lot about.

John: Did the two of you ever disagree in front of the writers?

David: Yes, of course.

Susanna: Yes, probably.

David: Susanna and I have a sibling–

Susanna: We’re very like, “Shut up. I don’t want to do that.”

David: Yes. It’s also helpful to have your ideas challenged and to be able to back it up.

Susanna: The dynamic of the room is like Dave has so much more room experience than I do. At the same time, within a hierarchy of a room, it takes a while for people to know that they can challenge the showrunner’s ideas sometimes. It’s maybe like a learning curve with people knowing that it’s going to go over well if there’s a meritocracy of ideas in the room, and that’s how David is wired. Until they learn that, there’s a certain fear around pushing back on stuff, even if we want the ideas challenged.

Weirdly, although I didn’t have as much room experience as many of the writers that were under us, for a while, it was like I was the only person sometimes who would be like, “No, no,” because other people are just not sure if they can do that in a writer’s room just because of how those rooms work. We really do share tastes pretty specifically. It’s very rare that we have a disagreement about how something is executed. It’s pretty amazing, actually. I’ve worked with a lot of people, but there’s always a sense of if I have to miss a meeting or miss something, I know you’re going to make the decisions I would make, which is a relief, I think, especially if I’m off directing something. I don’t know. I know you’ll catch the thing if I miss it.

David: It was helpful in casting, too. It was just being able to see. Clearly, we had the same vision in our head of who the characters were because we would definitely be like, “Oh, of course, it is this person.”

John: I have almost no TV writing room experience, so I have all these showrunners who come through, and they tell me their stories. A thing that’s always struck me as strange is that you hire writers based on how good they are at writing. You’re reading samples, and you want really good writers. David, you were saying you want writers who can write the whole show, and yet for the weeks and weeks of the show, they’re not writing. There’s very little writing. You’re just using their brain. Isn’t that weird? Isn’t that weird that the people aren’t writing more during the course of the writer’s room?

Susanna: Especially in this room, because we had written so much. We were like, “Okay, there’s two available episodes for all of y’all to do.”

David: Yes. It is very weird. Also, when I think about other rooms that I’ve been in and rooms that I had no hiring and firing power and rooms where I was just an observer in, I think that people who are incredibly skilled at the politics of a room or just how to have a great disposition and have everybody like them or have really good ideas, all really great. If you can’t deliver a script, you’re toast. Ultimately, that is what the hard part is.

I would say that what makes you good in a room is being in a room more, but what should get you in the room is being able to write the script. A lot of the process of running a show is going back to my job’s past and where I didn’t do a good job, or where I would have done differently, or where I can see my place in it. I remember in a very, very early job, a very famous producer who I won’t name, but he has a voice like this.

John: It was Alfred Hitchcock, wasn’t it?

David: It was Alfred Hitchcock. He gave negative feedback about me that his certainty does not match with his experience at all. I took it to heart, and I really tried to internalize it. I didn’t know any other way to be in a room, but feel that I had to feel strongly about my ideas. Now, running a show, you can’t just be like, “Meh, it can be this, it can be that.” You have to be certain. It is a process of just knowing that, aha, I have the solution. Also, I am the 17th person down on the hierarchy of this room. How do I do that? It takes time.

I think now I absolutely love helping other friends with their stuff, coming up with ideas because I have no personal investment other than just wanting to do it. It’s not like if you don’t listen to my idea that it’s going to hurt my heart. I absolutely don’t care. I’ve now done so many versions of what a room is and what breaking a story is and what fixing a story is that I have all of that ammunition. I only have that because I’ve been in a lot of rooms, and I’ve only gotten those rooms because I was able to write the script.

John: Let’s talk about what is so specific and unexpected for me in your show is the tone in that, first off, it’s a period show that almost feels like it could have been shot in the time. Some of that is how Susanna you chose to direct it. You’re going for that pillar box format, so rather than widescreen, it’s square screen. Obviously, everything looks right and feels right, and Budapest stands in really well for Moscow.

The camera movements and everything else, it tells you that we’re in a ’70s place without a shot. The show shot in that time wouldn’t have looked like that. It would have looked crappy and then this looks great. That is part of the tone. Also, the comedic tone between the actors and how the world is presented and how the stakes are presented is just a little lighter than the equivalent other spy show would be. How really did you know that and how did you anchor into that?

Susanna: I think something that we’ve always been interested in is if most spy movies are on plot most of the time, if you went home with those people at the end of the day, they would still call their moms and fight with their husbands. They would still have a life where they’re not acting in character as spy. I think there is a truth to that. We just wanted to shift where the lens is sometimes to that. It naturally has the other parts of a person’s personality that come forward when they’re not on the job in a high-stakes situation are by nature, lighter if their job is high stakes. We’re interested in that.

If it feels true and grounded enough, then it doesn’t feel like the tone is confused. I think sometimes with a mixed tone and what scares people about it is people don’t want it to feel like you’re in two different shows and hopefully if it all feels grounded.

John: You feel like you’re one show, but it’s a very specific unusual show to sort of be in. The Americans is a great show where you have spies who are in their home lives. The difference is they’re incredibly competent. They see attention, even like they’re the best of their game and they’re still struggling with it. Here you have two women who are new to all this. They’re fish out of water as they’re getting started in this. That is essentially a comedic environment to be in. They’re in over their heads, which is relatable but also fun, but just that’s not a thing we see so often. We saw it in Spy Who Dumped Me, yes.

David: Both of us bring a lot to our work because I think this is just how we are as people in the world. I consider myself a funny person. I consider most people I surround myself with as funny people. If I am in a really tense situation, if I’m going into surgery, if I’m going into a funeral, if I have some sort of crisis in my life, I don’t know that part of me is still, I’m putting it away. People are still making jokes. This is another lesson I learned from actually, when I was very briefly on Mad Men was that the rule of writing comedy in a drama versus writing comedy in a comedy is that in comedy, other people in the scene are servicing your joke.

In a drama, there could be a funny person. The other person’s purpose in that scene is not to set up your joke. People are funny because this is the world that they’re in. Twila, in our show, Haley Lu Richardson’s character, is somebody who uses humor as armor in her life. That is just such a true thing for so many people who have-

Susanna: Not for me.

[laughter]

David: -had really difficult lives as she has, that is who she is going to be, and that is how she’s going to deal with crisis. B is very neurotic, not like you. [laughs]

Susanna: Not like you.

David: She’s going to spin out, and-

John: She’s going to overthink, yes.

David: -she’s going to overthink when she is in crisis. These are just true things that these people are going to do, and it is still going to be enjoyable. The fact that these are also people who have jobs in an office, and also Moscow is a really weird place, particularly in the USSR, and that is funny. We are able to try to live in a world that still feels like the world. That the stakes are high and that when there is a life or death moment, it was very important to us that the final sequence of our pilot, which I won’t spoil, but that it should really, really feel extremely dangerous, but there are still jokes before them, and there’s still awkwardness within it. Also, you better be scared.

John: I want to circle back to something you raised through, but was actually such a good point. I want to underline it. You’re talking about Mad Men and how, in a comedy, the characters are there to set up the joke for someone to spike. In a drama, that would feel really weird. There’s just an expectation about how people can be funny in a drama that’s just so different than a comedy, and so just a really smart distinction there. Thank you for that.

David: Oh, you’re very welcome.

[laughter]

John: A few last things. Looking through the script, it has ad breaks, and you feel them in the show also. Is that something that was always there? Did you ever consider taking them out? Because people were watching on a Peacock. They might have ads. They might not have ads.

David: We didn’t write them with ad breaks. We were asked to put them in.

John: Storytelling power. At what point did you know who could actually drive scenes by themselves? Because in the pilot, you established that Andrei can drive scenes by himself, which was a surprise when that happened. Talk to me about when you decided who could hold scenes by themselves.

David: Perspective-wise? Behind the curtain. We added that scene of Andrei late. That was the last scene of the entire series that we shot because we were looking at the already cut pilot. We knew how scary Andrei was because we knew. Because we wrote in the script, this is the scariest person you’ve ever seen.

Susanna: We knew what would happen in episode two.

David: We knew what would happen in episode two, but we needed to have the audience feel that when we see him at the end of the episode, that we are scared to death of his presence. We cast a fantastic but unknown actor, Artjom Gilz. If we had cast a famous movie star who was famous for being a villain, then we would already know– if Christoff Waltz walked in, then we wouldn’t have had to do that. We gave him perspective. I think we just learned more and more about our characters and what they brought, and who gets their own scenes.

Dane, Adrian Lester plays him, and he’s being Twila’s boss. He is somebody who is elusive in a lot of the shows. Part of what he brings is mystery. We don’t know what his life is really like. We don’t know what his secrets are. We have a sense that he has secrets. We really wanted to build several episodes before we could see him be vulnerable and display some of his secrets, and we get a sense of who that man behind the curtain is. For the first chunk of the season, we want to see him as this all-knowing, unknowable person that he projects to be in Twila. The audience know that that couldn’t be true because no one is like that.

John: The rules of the world you’ve established. No one is especially competent. It’s not like they’re bumblingly competent, but they have very limited power to do things. Literally, they can’t turn on the power to their own building, which is established. Let’s wrap up by talking about Budapest because I think you probably knew that this was going to be shooting in Budapest or someplace like it from the start. It’s not a show where you’re forced to go to Budapest. That’s the place where you go to shoot.

Susanna: It wasn’t Budapest for Boston.

John: Yes. That’s the place you go to do Moscow. It’s a reasonable place. Talk to us about shooting there, pros and cons, things you loved, things you learned, shooting there in 2025.

David: Just to get it out of the way, they have a bad government, and they passed some really bad laws while we were there. That did make shooting there complicated. Our studio’s lawyers were really great and helpful and supportive in just trying to make sure that everybody felt safe because they passed some anti-gay laws while we were there. It was very actually moving at the very end of our production. The Pride parade, which was a thing that they banned. The people of the city did it anyway. It was–

Susanna: It came in from other European cities. It was the biggest. It was on the cover of the New York Times.

David: Multiple and it’s larger than it had ever been. It is a blue city in a red country. Our crew, for the most part, was very progressive and lovely, but it’s complicated.

John: Are our crews in Budapest drawn from around Europe, or really, it’s a Budapest crew?

David: They’re Hungarian.

Susanna: They’re mostly Hungarian. Yes. Typically, they have a homegrown film industry of their own that is a different thing, but then they really are home to many– the huge economic part of the country is the film and TV that shoots there, mostly American and UK productions. They have an incredible brain trust and really skilled, top-of-their-game people. Actually, some expats. Our sound guy on our show, who also did Spy Who Dumped Me, did The Martian, and did all that, but he’s an American guy. He went to UT Austin and was living out in LA, and someone said come do a movie in Budapest in the ’90s. Then he just stayed in Budapest and married a Hungarian and had a family there.

There’s a lot of people there that are like– There’s expats living there. Then it’s a city that’s very used to hosting people who want to be insulated in a bubble of a film. It’s not aggressively thrusting you into the culture if you want to be staying at the Four Seasons and whatever. Not on our budget. You can. It has those amenities. I think it’s user-friendly. At the same time, if you stay there more than a couple of weeks, you just can feel the undercurrent of what’s going on in that, politically and otherwise, in the city.

David: It’s also beautiful. There is so much aesthetic that we needed from our show that we had sets, and our sets were beautifully built, and we were on a stage. I would say we were probably 60%, 70% location. A lot of those locations felt like we were in time capsules. We were in these beautiful old buildings that just looked incredible, that we just simply would not be able to accomplish in another place.

Susanna: I had shot Small Light in Prague. We looked into a couple of places like Prague and Berlin. Yes, just as things developed. I think it would have been more expensive, and we would have had a lot less production value, and we would have probably had to send a satellite crew to Budapest anyway, or a place like it. We just decided not to do that. It’s the same argument or the same debate, I guess, about shooting in a state that passes draconian laws here. You’re like, well, I want to make my thing. I want to employ the people. I don’t want to punish the crews that are living there for living there. Also, do I want to make a statement, which seems important to do? I don’t know.

It’s really challenging to figure that out. We can’t shoot everything in. I don’t even know what country to name that isn’t problematic now, so never mind. Greenland. No, just kidding. Venezuela?

John: No.

[laughter]

John: It’s a challenging time overall. Congratulations on the show. I really just dug it.

David: Thank you.

John: As this episode’s coming out, it’s just about to debut on Peacock, right? I think it’s two days later.

David: Two days later, great. Although I’m sad Craig isn’t here, I like that on this episode, as far as television shows created by people who went to high school in Frield, New Jersey, about the USSR, we’re the top one on this episode.

John: This episode. Very nice. Let’s answer some listener questions. We have one here from Richard.

Drew: “I find I can look at a scene on a particular day and think it’s the worst thing I’ve ever written, and then two days later I pick it back up and think, ‘oh, that’s actually not that bad.’ Do you guys get this too? If so, how can we ever truly trust our own judgment?”

John: I rarely do I read something and say, oh, this is absolutely awful. Honestly, the reverse happens more like, well, I absolutely loved something when I wrote it, and then I go back and it’s like, “Oh, it’s actually not so–”

David: It’s bloated and dumb and degressive. I think what I can relate to is I finish something and I think I’m happy with it. It did what I needed to do, but I do want a set of eyes on it. I think for that, you just need to have a very small brain trust of people that you really respect and trust. If you have a partner, if you have a friend, somebody who won’t lie to you if it’s bad, will also be meaningful if they tell you, this is really good. You did a really good job.

I think sometimes that is helpful. I also think that it is a trap to keep going back and reading the scene that you wrote a few days ago, because if you are somebody whose head does that, who looks at it and then hates everything, you’re really going to have a hard time writing that next scene. Just try to finish a version of it.

Susanna: Yes, I would say try to finish it. Then at whatever point you feel comfortable hearing it read out loud, that’s really useful too. We’ve had readings of scripts that we’ve written just for ourselves in Dave’s garage. It’s really incredibly informative every time.

John: The challenge, Richard, is you’re always, you’re both the creator and the critic. At the time you were writing it, you were the creator, and you had this feeling about it. Then you’re also the critic, and that critic is a separate part of your brain. Maybe your critic is an asshole. Maybe your critic is just not good. David, you were saying earlier about how you love helping out a person, helping out a writer, just contributing. Maybe your inner critic is just not actually recognizing what’s good and how to improve it. It’s just seeing all the flaws. Maybe just cultivate that critic a little bit more. Maybe talking to some other people about their work and being gracious with them will get you to be a little bit nicer to yourself.

Question from Daniel.

Drew: “I am a sophomore screenwriting student at an LA film school. I can tell my writing does get better with every script, but I’m not sure if I have that innate talent or ability you guys always speak about. Mainly because with every script where I say, I think I got it, I in fact do not have it. How did you guys realize that you have this innate talent and how long did it take?”

Susanna: Well, just to speak to the first part, I just want to offer some wisdom from a book that I didn’t write called The Work of Art that came out recently. I think it’s Michael Cunningham who talks about the fact that he doesn’t believe that there is such a thing as innate talent. It’s just having a personality that is so obsessively committed to something being good that it will just keep drilling down into something over and over and over until it becomes good. That, to him, is what makes a person skillful, not anything that they’re innately born with. I don’t know that I agree with that completely, but it did resonate with me that there’s an obsessiveness that people have, who I admire, that I think they share.

David: I think this question is very married to the previous question. First of all, definitely the stuff I wrote when I was in college, I wouldn’t share it now as a reflection of my best work, but there were moments throughout my adolescence or into college or into my early 20s where I would write a scene or a line or have an idea and it would excite me. It would be like, “Oh, that’s it. This is what I’m trying to do.” I couldn’t imagine not having any version of that and still being excited about writing.

I’ve got to assume, I’ve got to give the question, give her the benefit of the doubt that you must have had some sort of moment that excited you enough to start doing it. From there, yes, you just have to keep getting better, but you may have it. Also, a lot of very talented people worry that they don’t have that talent. That is also a very real thing that people–

John: Feeling impostor syndrome at this point in your early career is totally natural and reasonable and makes sense. You don’t know what you’re doing, and that’s true. I hope that in entering film school, you’re a sophomore now, people must have told you, “Oh, you’re a good writer,” and you’ve had some external validation that, “Oh, you really know how to do this. This is good.” There’ve been some moments where you felt yourself like, “Oh, this was a good thing I wrote. I’m actually proud of this thing I did.” That’s foundational. That’s [unintelligible 00:42:14] that gets you going to the next one.

There’s this meme I saw this week about thinking of yourself as a verb rather than a noun, thinking of you as the person who writes rather than the end product. Maybe spend this next year really focusing on writing as the verb versus generating this thing and that thing and that thing and see if you like the actual process of doing it. We talk on the show so much about how writing sucks. It’s not a fun thing to do, but you make peace with it. You come to accept that it’s part of this process of getting to work that you’re really proud of. Maybe just focus a little bit more on that rather than the quality and see if you’re digging it.

Susanna: I also think there’s a lot of noise outside the world of just you and your laptop or your notebook or however you write, and that when the noise gets really loud, it can be really hard to just focus on the actual nugget of excitement that you have. I talk to friends a lot now as people talk about how hard the industry is, and there’s a ton of negativity in the air.

Whatever you have to do to trick your brain into just being excited about a thing and sitting down and doing the work, like John was saying, that’s the most important thing you can do, is just to stay optimistic and excited about whatever it is you’re working on and not let the outside voices or your own internal critic stop you from actually just producing things. Find the spark, whatever that is. I know that sounds like a cliché, but it’s really important [unintelligible 00:43:35]

John: In finding that spark, I think it’s also reasonable to say, if you decide this is not actually a thing you like, a thing you would enjoy, it’s okay to say no. It’s okay to find something else you really do love. You only have the one life, so do the thing that actually really excites you and you enjoy it. More than talking about an innate aptitude or something like you’re born with a certain talent, maybe you have a set of interests and things that you actually want to be spending your time doing, and if this isn’t it, that’s fine, that’s good. Go searching for what the thing is that you actually do really love.

David: This is probably a bigger conversation for a whole other episode of this show, but I’ve spent a lot of time lately wrestling with what is the point of this. Not that I think it is without a point, but as I am in a position to– I’m releasing something out into the world, which is very scary. I think about when I first moved to Los Angeles, when I first wanted to work in film and television, and I had this idea in my head that I wanted to manifest of sitting in a movie theater and seeing my name up there. That does not feel like what the goal is now, though I can’t necessarily pinpoint what it is.

I do like writing. I do like making things. It is also a thing that terrifies me. I think it is a really tricky thing for me, for all of us, people who’ve been doing this for decades, to make sense of why we’re doing it. If you are on the fence in your first years, that also might be a good sign that it– Also, just know that we are also wrestling with what the point is, because it’s complicated.

John: A question here from Carlos.

Drew: “A few weeks back, I partook in a pitching workshop with a former executive from a big production company. One thing this former executive said really rubbed me the wrong way. He told us to stop writing pilots. He said that today, a lot of executives will turn down series pitches if they have a pilot attached because they want to be involved in the development stage from the beginning. We should stop writing pilots and focus on just the story development, which broke me since writing pilots is what I enjoy most from series development. Is this something that’s actually happening? I know the situation is probably different over here in Mexico than on the other side of the border, but I still wanted to get your take on this.”

David: Really makes sense why this is a former executive.

Susanna: David and I both, we produce a lot of other writers. We try to really support a lot of pitches that are not just our own pitches. As a director, I take a lot of pitches out that I’m not the writer on. Really, every project is different. We’ve sold things that have a pilot. We’ve sold things that have a pitch. We’ve been dissuaded from having a pilot for one specific type of project that I just think it’s dangerous to get mired in any one dogmatic idea about how to do anything.

If you’re enjoying writing pilots and you’re writing things that you feel really represent your passions and that you’re good at, the worst thing that can happen is you get some producer that wants to take your show out and they say, “Okay, let’s send the pilot later. Let’s develop the story.” They’re not mutually exclusive. It’s such a tactical decision that shouldn’t be your problem. It should be the problem of the person who’s doing the selling and that should be your partner and not a person who’s trying to tell you that you’re doing it wrong. That’s my opinion.

David: I also think how can you tell someone, you as a beginner writer, you are a good writer and you are worth backing and gambling on if no one is able to read what you are executing. I think that, yes, perhaps for a very experienced writer who has a long track record, sure, you can pitch. I also think pitching is a scam, but it’s a scam that we all participate in because you are sitting in a room saying, “This is what this is going to be,” but you don’t–

I think I talked about this many, many episodes ago when we were last on Scriptnotes, is that I have taken out pitches that I just also needed to write the script first just so I knew what the characters sound like and I knew what the jokes were because I don’t really know any other way to do it. You’re just saying, “Trust me, this is what it’s going to be.” If you’re a writer, you should write.

Susanna: Also, if you are a newer writer and there isn’t something produced that people can look at as a sample of how you write and you’re just like, “I have all these ideas for the story,” they’re going to ask to see a writing sample. It’s such bad advice.

John: We don’t know where Carlos is at in his career, but the good thing about writing a pilot is that you wrote a script that can be a writing sample. Maybe this series, it’s not the best way to sell this series, but it’s something someone else can read and David and Susanna can staff you on their show. It’s a thing people can read.

Susanna: They’re going to ask to read something before they pay you to write something based on an outline of ideas of a show that doesn’t have a writing sample. I think it’s bad advice no matter where you are in your career, Carlos. That person should not have a career, and they don’t.

John: Let’s do one last question from Alex here. A common note I receive from coverage services is that I need to differentiate my character voices because they often sound the same. Do you have any tips for how to subtly differentiate character voices without falling into caricature-ish dialogue?

Susanna: Oh, we talk about this a lot.

John: What conclusions do you reach as you talk about it?

Susanna: Honestly, sometimes I think about my first writing class I took when I moved out to LA at 21 at Second City, sketch comedy writing class. We talked about the game of a character. It was for comedic writing, but we talk about it all the time. Each character has to have, in your mind, what is the laugh with and what is the laugh at about that person. My description of how I am is going to be different from my friend’s secret gossip about what’s annoying about me. You have to know what someone would say behind that person’s back, I think, and then write that person–

There are ways in which we all lack self-awareness. If there’s a certain game of that person, that person says things a million different ways because they use too many words to talk, or that person is really passive-aggressive generally. If you just have an idea about a person’s flaw, it can just make their writing specific. We try to do that in our show a lot, where we don’t want anyone to show up in a scene, even a side character in The Office, and not have a specific personality or a tick or a quirk. I don’t know.

David: First of all, it’s also not the absolute worst thing in the world if you have a really strong, specific voice. Yes, sure, that might be your style. It’s okay, particularly when you’re starting out, because every character is a version of you. I think the first time I really thought about this idea was Noah Baumbach’s first movie, Kicking and Screaming, because a character in it tells the other characters, “You all talk the same.”

Actually, they don’t. All those characters are really specific, and I actually don’t think you could interchange jokes from one character to another, but I think it was probably him being a little bit self-aware and self-conscious that these are all characters who are in a very similar life stage, who have a very–

Susanna: The same education [unintelligible 00:50:28]

John: [unintelligible 00:50:29]

David: You can also just look at how it looks on the page. Some people are more verbose. Some people speak more simply, but yes, you should never be able to move a joke from one character to another and have it work the same way. Everyone should have their own voice and meaning, and that was what I was talking about earlier, that I have this ethereal belief of writing that everything exists behind a wall and you have to find it, and I think that is truly characters. That is most vivid with characters. If you start writing their dialogue and you start seeing them, you start hearing them, then you are really going to get a sense of who they are and what their specificity is.

Susanna: The caricature thing, it’s okay if the first draft, they feel a little pushed or a little broad. You’re either dialing something up or down. This is such a basic thing to say, but if it seems like how people would actually talk, or you could imagine a person in your life who would talk or act the way a character is talking or acting, sometimes we do things that are a little over the top as people in life. Just as a director reading scripts that other people write and thinking about directing them, there’s a first script problem that David and I talk about sometimes where just the main character feels like the avatar for the writer.

It’s usually a person who’s more passively observing the world’s hypocrisies and they’re witty and funny and everyone around them is an idiot. I’m speaking in broad terms, but that character, to me, it’s not that interesting. I wouldn’t know how to tell an actor what they’re playing, really. I recently read a script where that was the problem and it was by a young writer. I just thought, “I bet this writer is in their 20s, and I bet this is what amount of life experience they’ve had, and I can feel that in the way it’s written.” In that case, it was a really funny script. There was just a glibness to the writing, and it felt like the writer was punching up their own best joke.

John: I absolutely hear you there.

Susanna: To me, usually those are the characters that, if it’s the main character leading you through the journey and that character is just a little bit of a cypher except for their elevated wit, it feels like a first script to me.

John: Specific advice for Alex here, I feel like maybe you’re having a hard time listening and hearing how people really are different. Assuming this is a fair note that you’re getting from multiple people, that your characters are all sounding the same, I think what you might try to do with your script is just cast it in your mind. Cast actual actors in all those places and imagine how those actors are actually saying those lines. Doing that may give you a sense of, “Oh, there’s actually so many more variables I could be dialing in here.”

If I cast this as Christopher Walken versus Woody Harrelson or– what different choices would make sense given who’s actually going to be doing these lines? That may give you a sense there because you might think, “Oh, no,” and I’m just impersonating someone else’s voice, but you’re not really. Words you’re writing in a script is not going to sound like that specific actor.

Susanna: Whoever plays the part is going to be–

John: They’re going to bring their own specificity, but if you write it for one specific actor, another actor can play that part and it will feel unique and different and it won’t sound like all the other characters. That may be a first good exercise for Alex to try.

Susanna: Real people too. If you have an uncle who is-

John: Oh, totally.

Susanna: -always drunk, I don’t know, whatever, a drunk uncle, whatever you have. You can just– basing it on someone, whether it’s your imagination of an actor or some person in your life that if you were asked in a private booth to talk about that person, you would be able to describe them, good and bad.

David: I think the other way that a lot of newer writers get into the trap of just making characters feel similar, which is another way of saying generic, is that their supporting players, their one-line parts are extremely generic. I would try to avoid too many police officer number twos and just a bunch of people that you are trying to differentiate between the characters who are important and the characters who aren’t. If everyone feels like they have interiority and if everyone feels like they have some sort of vividness, then it does sort of come through everywhere in your script.

I think there’s a lot of– Cameron Crowe does this really well. The Coen brothers do this really well. I would look at movies and just really focus on the people who are in it for one scene and are really popping as a great way to just specify everybody in your script.

John: It may also be helpful to look at some movies that you really enjoy and love, and watch them while you’re reading the script, and really get a sense of like, “Oh, it’s not just the actor’s performance. It really was the words on the page that got to that performance.” That may also remind you like, “Oh, yes, dialogue, it does start here, and characters are really found in these words I’m choosing to have them say.”

Susanna: I think also with the TV show, we were asked the other day what [unintelligible 00:55:20] about story engines for a show going forward. One thing about our show which circles back to your original question about tone, John, was that we have a married couple on the show and we sort of tried to make their marriage really specific even though they’re not the leads of the show and it’s not a show about a marriage. They’re just people in the office, but we ended up wanting more and more and more of them.

If every character has something in a dynamic or in their voice that feels like, “Oh, I want to watch that person in a million different situations,” then it tells a buyer or whoever, if it’s in a TV format, “I want to watch more episodes of those people,”-

John: Totally.

Susanna: -and it just encourages them to see more of a long life or whatever it is you’re pitching.

John: You look at The Office and-

Susanna: Yes, exactly.

John: -just how deep, and how full that room was of very specific voices, that you felt like, “Oh, you could follow any one of these people, and it would be incredibly entertaining.”

Susanna: I think comedies are a good way to study it too. I was going to recommend Jury Duty, which is so largely-

John: Love it.

Susanna: -improvised, but each person-

John: Yes, it’s so well done.

Susanna: -is so specific. You couldn’t swap anyone’s lines with anyone else’s lines.

John: No.

Susanna: That’s on the broader side. I don’t know what tone you’re writing, but yes, it’s useful to try to do that with everybody.

John: All right. It’s time for our one cool thing. My one cool thing is an article by Adam Mastroianni. I’ve linked to him a zillion times. I feel like I should be paid a referral fee here. This blog post you did was so useful for the start of a new year, called So You Want to De-bog Yourself. De-bogging, basically, you’re stuck in a rut. You’re facing a problem, a real-life problem, not a story problem, a real-life problem. What I think Adam is so good at doing is shining a spotlight on certain aspects of a situation and giving it a name so you can actually identify, “Oh, that’s what I’m doing.”

Two examples here. First off is stroking the problem, which is like, “I’ve got a big problem. Man, I have this big problem. I have this thing and this thing and this thing.” You’re not actually trying to solve it. You’re just stroking it. You’re basically just acknowledging there’s a problem here and you’re telling everybody about this problem, but you’re not actually trying to solve it. Stroking the problem is a thing I’m going to probably start using a lot when people express their issues to me. The second thing he calls out is the try harder fallacy, which is basically like, “Oh, man, that didn’t really work at all. You really need to try harder next time.” Almost never do you actually need to try harder.

[laughter]

John: You probably were trying as hard as you possibly could. You have no shortage of effort you put into it. You gave it everything. There’s no secret reserve of energy that you could have– It just didn’t work. You’re going to need to try a different way to do it because trying harder is not going to get there. It’s two of many examples in this really good post about getting out of the muck that you find yourself stuck in.

It’s for real life, but I guess it’s our characters too, because our characters are often trapped in situations. If we as writers are telling them to try harder or to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that’s probably not going to actually really work. A good post and I’ll put a link in the show notes. David, what do you have for us?

David: I have a few connected cool things. My first artistic passion was drawing and painting and cartooning and illustration. My origin story as a writer at all is because I wanted to draw comic strips and political cartoons. Anything artistic, if you don’t use those muscles, they atrophy. I’ve been drawing with my children. I realize I’m not as good as I used to be. I’m a really big New Year’s resolution person. My New Year’s resolution is trying to draw or paint or something every day, either with a pencil and paper, pen and ink or my iPad. The essential iPad drawing program is Procreate.

There are a few companies that make brushes and color systems and fake paper to really emulate some beautiful mid-century comic book style or illustration style. Retro Supply and True Grit are two companies that do that. Retro Supply also has a lot of great videos on how to draw heads and color theory. That’s really great.

Then the other thing that is keeping me honest with my New Year’s resolution is the International Society of Character Artists, of which I am a paying member, does something called caricature resolution in January. Caricature artists all over the world, from beginners to masters, draw the same celebrity every day of the month-

John: Oh, that’s great.

David: -of January. You can find this by searching for the #caricatureresolution2026 on Instagram or on Facebook. They also have an Instagram page. It’s just a really fun way to just see what different character artists are doing, and also if it’s something you want to try whenever this airs, you can catch up.

John: What was today’s celebrity?

David: Today was Bette Midler.

John: Oh, great. She feels like a natural person. [crosstalk]

David: She’s got a lot of hair, a lot of big features.

John: That’s really great. The other things you recommended, those are plugins or things you put into Procreate?

David: Yes. You can download the brush packs and the fake paper and the color systems.

John: Great. I love it. Susanna, what do you have for us?

Susanna: I saw an incredible independent film-

John: Please.

Susanna: -that I wanted to talk about. It’s this movie called The Plague. It’s about 12-year-old boys at a water polo camp in the early aughts. I watched it because I’m on the jury of the DGA first-time feature committee. This time of year, I always get a packet of movies that either are just coming out, haven’t come out yet, or I just wouldn’t have necessarily heard of because they don’t necessarily have the marketing push. I so relate to that that I feel really strongly about seeing all these movies and getting excited about them and plugging them.

This one was really incredible. Just the writing and directing was really impressive and singular and specific, but also just having known kids that age at that time, just the zeitgeist is so perfectly captured.

John: That’s great.

Susanna: The music is perfect. The performances, which are almost all 12-year-olds. Joel Edgerton plays the coach. It’s about hazing and boys at that age. It’s really exceptional, so I recommend that movie highly.

John: That’s great. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Matthew did our outro this week. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. We are low in the folder on listener outros, in part because, Drew, people are sending through outros that don’t have the boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Yes, very important. Basically, that is one of our only rules.

Susanna: That is it. That is what you need to do.

David: Can you just clip John just saying that and use that as an outro?

John: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

John: We definitely will. We definitely will. Send us through your outros. We’d love to have more of those, ask@johnaugust.com is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. The Scriptnotes book is out and available wherever you get books. Get your Scriptnotes book.

David: I bought it for a bunch of young writers, and they probably really enjoyed it.

John: Hooray. Fantastic. We just got the British copies here, which are slightly narrower than the US copies, which is lovely.

David: They write a little narrower.

Susanna: It’s so pretentious.

John: It’s so pretentious. You can find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You can find us on Instagram @scriptnotespodcast. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes with the links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on taste. Susanna, David, it’s so nice to have you back here.

Susanna: Thank you. This was really fun. Thanks so much.

[Bonus Segment]

David: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

John: Okay.

Susanna: Thank you.

John: Thank you, David. Thank you for bringing us back in here. Drew asked this question. [unintelligible 01:03:38] wrote in about Taste.

Drew Marquardt: I argue often with my friends about old movies, and I get accused of having bad taste, and I was wondering if there’s a method to acquiring good taste. Also, is there a definition to good taste?

John: All right, taste. Let’s talk about taste. My initial instinct when I thought about taste is I often refer back to Ira Glass has this piece about taste where it describes how you develop taste before you develop talent. There’s this conflict between the two of them, and it goes through things. I brought this up, and then I realized, oh, Susanna, you know Ira.

Susanna: I married him, and that is how I acquired good taste.

David: That’s your good taste?
[laughter]

John: That’s how you get good taste, is marry Ira Glass.

Susanna: Yes, I’m goal-oriented. I always strive to have good taste-

John: Absolutely.

Susanna: -and I just went right to the top.

John: I knew I liked you for that. Let’s talk about taste because [unintelligible 01:04:27] concern here is that they have bad taste. It’s like, “Well, no, you have your own taste. You have your own specific–”

Susanna: Who’s saying this person has bad taste? What’s their taste?

John: That’s crazy. Developing your taste and understanding your taste is, I think, a crucial stage of development. It’s basically figuring out what do I like, and then more importantly, why do I like it? What is it about this genre, about this movie, about these things that spark for me that I really enjoy? What is it about these things that I don’t enjoy that are elements of that? It’s worth some time to think about what are those things, and what is a unique fingerprint for you that defines what is good to you?

David: I think that you go through this journey in your life where when you were young, there’s definitely things you don’t like. You look back at this movie I loved when I was seven, and it is garbage, but it definitely fell within what you enjoyed then. Maybe that is something that as you get older, because I think the next step, once you start getting a little– if you’re listening to this podcast, maybe you’re a little bit pretentious, that you feel like there is some sort of value in dismissing other people’s tastes. Looking at other people and thinking, “I like smart things, and you like dumb things,” and that is how you place it.

Then you go through this other journey where you’re like, “Oh, well, actually, some things that are just a mass appeal I really enjoy,” or, “I like this little niche,” whatever. You feel less embarrassed about your taste. You feel about your taste as not something that you want to place against other people. It’s something that’s yours. You embrace. You want to see what you like. It’s this journey that you go through to finally just feel like you can reconcile it. I think what [unintelligible 01:06:10] is probably experiencing is perhaps– I don’t know how old [unintelligible 01:06:14] is, but maybe it’s his friends being a little bit pretentious as they start to learn about their own taste.

I think it’s just really important to just try to take in as much as possible. I think it’s a boring thing about me that I really, really love The Beatles, but I really, really love The Beatles. When you explore what makes them great, they’re very good at their instruments. They’re very good at singing. They’re very good at the technical ability, but they’re not the best at all of that. They took in everything. Bob Dylan too, just took in everything that was available when they were learning and coming up and almost had this encyclopedic knowledge of all of the music that came around it and synthesized it into their own stuff.

Then it was this ability to say, “This is what is good for us,” and give each other shit to say, “Not that line, Paul, not that line, John.” Then that is basically what made The Beatles great, was their very, very refined taste. That taste doesn’t happen without really, really taking in as much as you can and taking in things that you would never think you should take in. Every little piece of it is part of what you build and build and build to what you like.

John: Taste is a crucial factor when I’m looking to work with a person or to collaborate with a person. For a project that we were working on with the company, I needed a designer. The first criteria was just taste. I knew I would find people who were very talented who could build the thing, but also taste is a crucial thing because I can’t give you taste. I have my own taste, but I couldn’t explain why this thing needs to be over there. I needed somebody with that form of taste. Susanna, you, as directing movies, you’re working with collaborators, and their taste is so crucial. They need to be able to have an eye for what it is that they respond to and ability to communicate back to you why they’re making these choices, right?

Susanna: Yes, I think judging other people’s taste is a trendy thing to do. Words like basic, that person is so basic. It just means that they have a taste for certain things that are popular and a certain aesthetic that is popular in certain parts of the country and certain class. It’s all about– there are so many things that are coded in that too, that comment. I think, ultimately, my taste is just what I’m naturally drawn to and interested in and what’s pleasing to my eyes and ears and senses. Sometimes that’s just entertainment that isn’t necessarily elevated.

I would consider myself someone who has “good taste,” at least the taste that makes sense to me. I know when things are entertainment but not nutritious entertainment and when they’re not, but I guess that I would still consider that part of my taste. It’s not a secret that’s in a closet and my taste is only the things I admit that I watched.

John: No.

Susanna: It’s hard to even say what we mean when we say taste. I think it’s mostly coded with trying to say I’m smart, I have good taste, I have an eye.

John: It’s so weird that we use the word taste, because as a sense, it’s the only one that has a sense of revulsion. It’s like, “Oh, that’s delicious,” or, “That’s revolting.” You can imagine a thing. It’s weird that we’re describing a tongue experience for what art is supposed to be.

Susanna: There’s a value judgment, right?

John: Yes.

Susanna: It’s like asking someone what’s their taste and you can answer that question free of judgment, but then people also talk about, “Oh, that person has good taste,” as though we can all agree that there’s a bad taste. I think that’s what you’re saying. It’s like– I think for me, the experience of hiring people is I want to feel aligned with what they—obviously, when you’re hiring a cinematographer, you look at their lookbooks and their decks and they show you what you want the visuals to be. For me, it’s important to talk to them and make sure that the dynamic between the two of us doesn’t make me question my own judgment.

John: Absolutely. You might find a collaborator who, what they like is completely valid, but it’s just not the thing. If you don’t want to be fighting over lens selections with your cinematographer on the set, that’s not going to do anybody any good. Neither are you going to be happy with the choices. They have to be aligned on a fundamental quality. Come back to your show, the tone is a very specific taste. If you guys weren’t aligned on that, or if you’re trying to bring in somebody who didn’t get that, it’d be a mess.

David: I think if we talk about the word taste and just the idea of– I think what we experience making the show is that when something, and I think it’s also what is such a value of a writer being on set and me being on set when Susanna’s on set or whatever, is that I know immediately when this isn’t our show, in the same way that I would know immediately if the milk has turned. You see something, you’re like, “No,” and I don’t have to explain that.

John: It’s a gut reaction. You just know it.

David: I will have to explain it often if I will have to tell a collaborator or have a conversation with an actor or get a light changed or something, but basically something is– and it is also understanding this is not an objective truth.

John: No.

David: I understand that someone else would sit and do their version of a thing and they would want the line delivered that way or they would want this shirt on or whatever, but for me, I know that it tastes wrong.

John: Yes.

Susanna: Yes.

John: The reason why we’re using this tongue sense is because it is like an inherent thing.

Susanna: It’s visceral.

John: It’s visceral. It is. It’s a feeling like, “Oh, that’s wrong.” The Henson Company, we always talk about something is muppety or it’s not muppety, and something can fit in that world or it can’t.

Susanna: It’s an essential thing about it. It’s interesting too, casting comes into play all the time, or I guess just I’m casting something right now. There’s a very specific part, and thinking about different actors playing that part, it’s like they just either essentially are that part or they’re not, no matter how good they are. I don’t know. I guess that diverges a little bit from just a conversation that’s strictly about taste, but it’s just me matching something to a specific image of it in my head, it either works or doesn’t work, and how much can an actor interpret a part and get to where I need them to get to or are they limited by something in their innate self that isn’t quite–

John: I look at some executives who’ve gone on to careers, like an executive who went to a big streamer, and his job is in a very specific division at that streamer, and it’s like, it’s not his taste. I know it’s not his taste. This is not what he’s called to do, but this is what he’s doing, and that just seems like a prison to me.

Susanna: I have so many meetings with people like that. They’re like, “Well, right now I’m working in–” eye roll, whatever.

John: It’s like, well, I don’t know how to help you here because clearly, how can you be giving good notes on these projects when it’s not a thing you like or enjoy? How am I supposed to take your notes seriously when it’s like, “Yes, you can tell me what the algorithm or what you think your bosses want, but you would never watch this movie.” I think I’ve tried to be more honest in my career over time. There’ve been projects I’ve pursued because, “Well, of course I should pursue that,” but then I was like, “It’s not really my taste. It’s not really a thing that I enjoy.”

David: It’s what’s complicated about criticism, and we can all agree that there are just some things that are just bad.

John: There are things that are bad because they’re bad executions of a bad idea.

David: Yes, I think we can agree, except for a few maybe weird tax dodge reasons. No one sets out to make something bad, but yes, there are some things that are– but then other things are just like, “That’s just not for me.” I think it’s a very internet-brained thing. I think it’s thinking that not for me means it is not for existence, and I think as I’ve gotten further away from the part of me that just wants to dismiss people who don’t have my taste, like the 20-year-old version of me, I love that things exist in the world that are not for me.

On your and other people’s recommendation, I watched the first episode of Heated Rivalry, and I was like, “I respect that show. I don’t think I’m going to keep watching that, but I think what a well-made version of a thing that is not a thing for me, and that’s fine.”

Susanna: I think that I really applaud any well-executed version of whatever the person set out to make. I’m a big fan of that, and I do appreciate it even in genres I wouldn’t gravitate towards.

John: Totally. Yes, like slasher horror is not my thing, but I can recognize like, “Oh, that’s a well-executed version of that thing.” We talked on the show some time ago about the syllabus, what movies and genres should you probably see just so you actually have an understanding of what they are? Because there may be things you just don’t know that you love because you’ve never seen them, and so I think you do need to have– part of acquiring a taste, and going back to the question here, it’s like, “You’re talking about old movies because you’re having bad taste.” Well, it’s great that you’re watching old movies, for starters, because-

Susanna: What’s this person watching?

John: -you’re getting a sense of how we got to this place right now in cinema. If there’s things you love, great. If there’s things you don’t love, also great, but try to figure out what it is about those things. We’re saying it’s a visceral reaction, a gut reaction, but there may also be some details there that would be helpful for you to understand, like why don’t I like this? That’s good.

David: This is related to it, but it is part of my moviegoing experience in the last several years, is rewatching movies I’ve loved and feel like I have enough distance from them that I’m now watching them as a new person. I had this experience with The Graduate, which was always one of my favorite movies, and it remains one of my favorite movies in the rewatch, but I connected to it in a completely different way.

As an adolescent, I related to Benjamin Braddock, and that was the prism I saw it through, and now I watch it, and I find him insufferable and think the movie is great, and the movie is commenting on that, and understanding that if, for whatever reason, at any different point in my life, I watched The Graduate and didn’t like it, that it is also just much more of a reflection of me than it is of the piece. I think we as individuals, not we in this room, because we’re all perfect, but other people have a really hard time differentiating something that just does not connect with the version of who they are at this moment and think that it is a flaw of the piece of art.

Susanna: Somebody was saying, I can’t remember who said this, but I agree, that when you watch Reality Bites as a teenage girl, which I did. Everybody loves Ethan Hawke, and then when you get older, you’re like, “That guy–“ If your friend is dating that guy, you’re like, “Don’t date that guy.” Ben Stiller has a good job. He has health insurance. That’s who you want to be with.

John: Oh, so good. Thank you for this discussion of taste.

David: Of course. Our pleasure.

Links:

• PONIES Trailer | On Peacock January 15th
• Susanna Fogel and David Iserson
• The last time Susanna and David were on the show (Episode 361)
• The Work of Art by Adam Moss
• So You Want to De-Bog Yourself by Adam Mastroianni
• Procreate emulators True Grit and Retro Supply Co.
• International Society of Character Artists’ character resolution 2026
• The Plague (2025)
• The Taste Gap by Ira Glass
• Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
• Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
• Scriptnotes on Instagram
• John August on Bluesky and Instagram
• Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to Episode 719 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, when is good enough, not enough? We’ll discuss how you decide whether a particular occasion calls for your very best work or whether you’re wasting your time. We’ll also answer listener questions on packaging, bleeping, and when you know you’ve got it, or you don’t. In our bonus segment for premium members, every year, I come into a new long list of things to do. We’ll talk through what I did last year and why, and my list for this new year.

Craig: So organized.

John: So organized. I try to be.

Craig: Yes. No, that’s you. I don’t remember the last time I made a New Year’s resolution.

John: We’ve talked about it. I used to have not resolutions but areas of interest. Archery would be my area of interest. I would do archery for a bit. I would do Austrian white wines. The thing we do now is, Mike and I make a list of 25 or 26 things that together we’re going to do over the course of the year. We do those because we’re efficient people who knock things off lists.

Craig: It’s terrifying.

John: I strongly recommend it for people. In the bonus segment, I want to talk through what those are because the key is achievable, doable things. Not like, “Do this thing more.” It’s like, “Do this thing twice.”

Craig: Right. Something that you feel like you can actually manage.

John: Yes.

Craig: That’s good. Modest expectations.

John: We’ll also talk through a– I did a year-end wrap-up of the stuff I did, including the fact that I played, I think, 42 sessions of D&D.

Craig: Not enough.

John: Not enough.

Craig: No.

John: Never enough.

Craig: No.

John: No. Let’s get you some follow-up. Drew, help us out.

Drew: Tyler writes, “I believe the origin of bumping this is from older web forums, where threads that have most recently been replied to will appear on the front page, and threads without a reply will fall down and eventually be relegated to page two.”

John: I think Tyler is exactly right. That’s where it comes from.

Craig: I think that sounds right.

John: Yes. Basically, because only the top 10 posts are listed. You go into a thread, you bump it, and then it shows up as a new thing.

Craig: Yes. Once you reply to it, it gets bumped up.

John: Yes.

Craig: That makes sense.

John: Thanks, Tyler.

Craig: Good job.

John: Nick wrote about back issues.

Drew: Yes. We were talking about Craig’s back issues in episode 716. Nick says, “I’m curious if your recent back problem listener is okay on their feet for more than 15 minutes and could possibly use a standing desk. Has Craig experimented with a standing desk at all?”

John: I don’t think I’ve ever seen you with a standing desk.

Craig: I tried.

John: You tried?

Craig: Yes. It made it worse.

John: Oh, I’m sorry.

Craig: Well, because my problem is standing.

John: Oh.

Craig: I recently received a little bit of treatment, feeling better. The thing about back issues is that it’s one of those things where everybody has advice.

John: Oh, for sure.

Craig: Everybody. Everybody’s back is different. Everybody’s problem is different. It’s just part of growing up. You know what part of growing up is? Part of growing up is getting back problems, giving back problem advice, realizing it doesn’t matter or work, and continuing to have back problems. You have to get to the other side of the advice stage. That’s when you know you’re really getting old.

John: Yes. I use a standing desk. I like it. I try to move between sitting and standing over the course of the day. I will do unimportant stuff like emails and all that kind of stuff. I’ll just do all that standing up, which is just great. Then what’s nice is psychologically, then if I’m lowering the table and sitting down to actually do real writing work, it feels like a change of state.

Craig: [crosstalk] Like you’re locking in. My version of that is to walk. Walking makes my back feel better always. I’ll take a long walk. Walking is also good because that’s where I could figure out what it is that I exactly want to write. There’s something about the movement that is– My thing is shower, walk, something that gets me out of my brain and therefore into my brain, if that makes sense. Standing is uncomfortable.

There’s a lot of people in our production office that the standing desk is now considered a chair. It’s too easy. Now there are people with the treadmill desk. There are people with the bouncy ball, keep yourself balanced desk. I just want to slap everyone.

John: I think the bouncy ball thing largely went away. You don’t see that as much. Are you still seeing it in your offices?

Craig: As I walk down the hall towards the elevators, there’s one room that has a full Pilates reformer in it.

John: Incredible.

Craig: Yes. Now that may be some sort of punishment.

John: Yes. It does look like a rack. [crosstalk]

Craig: I don’t meet out punishment on my production, but I know that somebody surely does. That may be where the bad people go.

John: Aline Brosh McKenna famously had a walking desk for a while. She had the treadmill on her desk. I think that got incorporated into Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. I think literally, they may have taken her standing desk and just moved it over to one of the chairs there.

Craig: It is both admirable and frightening. There is something too efficient.

John: There is. We have a treadmill in the gym. I will set it at a low speed and just do very unimportant, email-y work on my iPad. We have a little keyboard that’s sitting up there. I will do some stuff like that, but I don’t have it on my main desk.

Big follow-up here, so this would be more of a topic. On episode 716, we had Mike Makowsky on. One of the things he talked about was how much he wanted text blocks and screenplays to be exactly even on the left-hand and right margins.

Craig: Yes, which is startling because that’s a neurosis even I don’t have.

John: Several readers wrote in to say that they felt seen. I think we have a little more of a conversation about things we said in that episode.

Drew: Jordan in Australia writes, “I just wanted to say to Mike that he’s not alone. I have an almost overwhelming compulsion to make the lines look neat on the page. Like Mike, though, I don’t consider it a problem because it makes me focus on the exact function of each word and line rather than accepting something as good or close enough that I can leave it. If push comes to shove and I think the result is worse or that something really just can’t be changed, I’ll put up with widows and orphans. Otherwise, I like that this compulsion helps with focus and attention, especially given my ADHD.”

Craig: It strikes me that when it comes to mental behaviors, people feel a need to justify all of it as if it mattered. It’s like saying, “I have red hair.” Let me give you the reasons why I think it’s actually okay. You don’t need to because it’s there. It’s not changing. That’s what you are. You’re a redhead. This is how your brain works. Don’t even bother justifying it. Let’s say it’s not helpful. Let’s say it’s actually harmful. So what? That’s how your brain works. We’re not perfect.

John: Yes. The last word of this response was ADHD. I want to talk about the medicalization of behavior, which I think is an aspect of what we’re going to be talking about here today, too.

Craig: Yes.

John: Go for it. Chris in Germany.

Drew: “I was blown away by the part where Mike had to explain his writing OCD. I have the exact same experience when I write. To me, these even blocks of text provide some sense of comfort through stability and order. It’s more important to me that the single lines in a block are the same relative to each other. Blocks on a page can differ. I would rather incorporate an intentional mistake than have the consecutive lines at different lengths. This sometimes blocks me, and it surely always slows me down. Best practice is not to look at the screen while writing. I really wanted to let Mike know that he’s not alone here.”

John: Again, I want to be supportive and say, what works for you works for you. Also, when you say, “I would rather incorporate an intentional mistake,” that’s making me wonder whether it is actually really working for him. That’s the balance I’m trying to find here.

Craig: I don’t know why I didn’t mention this to Mike, but I wonder if, for Mike, Joran, and Chris, just going into alignment and setting it to the justified thing, where it automatically makes it all the same length.

John: Yes. I wonder if that might be– It’s not typical screenwriting, but it also–

Craig: No, but neither is this.

John: Neither is this.

Craig: You wouldn’t have to think about it so much. It would just do it automatically. I’m sure that is a setting, justified.

John: Justified, yes.

Craig: Justified. It’s interesting because we get a lot of acronyms for these things. People, again, they want to assign a problem to this. It’s ADHD, it’s OCD. I’m not saying that Joran doesn’t have ADHD or that Chris maybe doesn’t have OCD, but that’s not relevant. It’s not necessary to pathologize it, nor is it necessary to celebrate it. It just is.

John: Yes. You can acknowledge it without pathologizing it.

Craig: If you get to a place where you think, “I wish I weren’t doing this,” now we’ve got a thing. Now think about how to stop. If you’re not in that place and if you don’t know how to do this otherwise, I think I’ve mentioned on this show before, if I lost my hands, I probably would have to quit writing because I think through typing.

John: You think with your fingers.

Craig: That’s how I write, through typing. I can understand this limitation that people feel.

John: I want to just acknowledge the synchronicity, the rhyming between justify and justify. These writers want to justify their margin, but they also want to justify their actions.

Craig: That’s a theme.

John: That’s a theme.

Craig: That’s a theme.

John: Let’s wrap up with Olivia here.

Drew: “I sincerely enjoyed Episode 716. However, I did want to flag something that kept coming up. Being OCD was said at several points during the podcast when referring to the look of a screenplay page. As a writer with OCD, I feel an obligation to speak on this. OCD is a deeply debilitating mental illness without treatment. For someone with OCD, the idea of needing a script page to look a certain way would feel like a life and death decision, not just an aesthetic choice or process preference.

Also, there is so little accurate OCD representation in the media that I feel it is incredibly important for writers listening to be aware of how something like I’m so OCD or you’re so OCD can come off. Not trying to censor anyone, but I think it’s a conversation worth having.”

John: I want to first acknowledge where Olivia is right, is that per the DSM, OCD can be a debilitating, pervasive life or death situation. It can feel like it is a life-or-death situation. That’s not quite what Mike was describing there in the experience. I don’t want to diminish or trivialize a person who has a diagnosis of OCD, and that was never our intention behind this.

Craig: No, but nor would any reasonable person think so. I say this as somebody who has a kid with actual diagnosed OCD, medicated, and so on and so forth. OCD is a pretty broad diagnosis. For a lot of people, it’s the O that is far more common than the C. We think of compulsive behavior as a hallmark of OCD, but obsessive thinking, cycling thoughts, is just as prominent, if not more so. There are people that have very severe cases and people who have very mild cases.

It is a useful term to describe behaviors that we feel we are not necessarily in control over, or thoughts that are pervasive and unwanted, or cycling. There is no value. I say this as somebody who is deeply invested in promoting both the destigmatization of mental health issues and support for mentally ill people. I say this as a parent who’s gone through this. This doesn’t help. This whole thing of, “You’re not allowed to call yourself or your problem this, you have to be as sick as I am to call yourself that,” does not help.

There are people who have mild schizophrenia. It doesn’t help to tell them you’re not, or to even say, “Stop saying schizophrenic when you really mean splt–.” It doesn’t help.

John: It’s a whole different podcast to go into when it comes to the DSM and things that are in there. Whenever you talk about there being a spectrum of something that always creates an issue where resources are being directed towards people who have very mild occurrences of a thing versus severe occurrences of a thing, that’s way beyond the scope of this podcast. We are a podcast about words and language. I want to talk about the words and the language here because, really, what I think we’re getting into is that there’s a DSM definition of OCD, but there’s been semantic drift.

The meaning has changed and broadened, which is a very natural thing that happens in language. The word nostalgia used to mean PTSD. It used to mean–

Craig: The pain, algia, is pain.

John: Yes. That changed over time. Nostalgia doesn’t mean that same thing anymore. It’s understandable why the term OCD, which had a stricter clinical definition, has broadened to mean picky, fastidious, that kind of thing. It’s in that same space as that original idea, but it’s not that same original idea.

Craig: Exactly. I don’t think it would be helpful for somebody with clinical depression to hear someone go, “Oh my God, I woke up today, the weather was so bad. I was so depressed when I saw the weather outside.” It would be unhelpful for them to scold that person and say, “You’re not depressed. This is what depression is.” We all know. We actually know. We know the difference. The thought, I guess, is that somehow your validity as somebody suffering is being diminished or stolen, like stolen valor. It is not.

Nobody is diminishing anything by this. That’s why, by the way, you see what I just did? I used the phrase clinical depression. We figured out a way in language to discriminate and get it back. Clinical OCD might be a nice way to describe what you have if you have diagnosed, serious obsessive compulsive disorder, per the DSM, per your psychiatrist, maybe you’re on meds, as opposed to somebody who’s like, “I just get very OCD when I see a pillow out of place on the bed.”

Olivia, I hope you don’t think I’m being too hard on you here. This is important because I actually want people to feel free to share their understanding of their mental health without feeling like they have to hit some target that someone else is setting. I don’t think you would want somebody with even more severe OCD than you telling you, “You’re not really OCD.” That’s the problem. Anyway, I’m going to suggest the use of the word clinical.

John: Clinical is very helpful here. As we’re having this conversation, I’m realizing that over the course of these 15 years of doing this podcast, there have been terms in which we’ve been such sticklers on trying to defend, like begs the question, where we feel like, “Okay, we’re losing the actual meaning of begs the question by–”

Craig: I will never, ever, ever quit.

John: I hear that there is something inconsistent in our approach to certain terms that we’re trying to do that.

Craig: That’s just fun.

John: That’s just fun.

Craig: That’s just fun. Did you see BJ Novak? I don’t know who it was that he corrected. Maybe it was Andy Cohen. He was on a New Year’s Eve broadcast or something, and I think it was Andy Cohen, said something about there are going to be less rats in New York and [crosstalk].

John: He said fewer rats.

Craig: It’s just gorgeous.

John: It’s gorgeous.

Craig: Way to go, BJ.

John: Another term which occurred to me was that narcissist used to have an actual definition.

Craig: Oh, yes.

John: If we can’t say narcissist– you could say clinical narcissist. Someone who has a definition of narcissist, so helpful for distinguishing between just behavior we find [unintelligible 00:15:02].

Craig: Now that I’m thinking about it, we do this with every single mental illness diagnosis. We call people schizophrenic when they’re not, depressed when they’re not, anxious when they’re not. PTSD is now thrown around wildly, wildly. “I went to a restaurant. Oh my God, I saw PTSD from that waiter. He brought me the wrong thing.” It is analogizing. It’s instantly analogizing, because it’s talking about extreme forms of everyday mental processing. Yes, narcissistic, histrionic, dramatic. I’m now struggling to think of one that we don’t use.

Drew: Hysterical.

John: Hysterical.

Craig: Hysterical. You’re really not supposed to use that one. All of it. Every single word.

John: We’ll put a link in the show notes, too. There’s a sociologist, Nick Haslam, who coined concept creep, which is basically how you have a concept that just the edges of it bleed out into ways that– Trauma is one of the things he talks about there, which had a definition, which now we understand it’s broadened.

Craig: [laughs] Every time someone says trauma, I now think of the Jamie Lee Curtis supercut of her saying trauma. Have you seen this?

John: I know. It’s incredible.

Craig: It’s incredible.

John: It’s from Halloween? Where was it from?

Craig: It was from Halloween. When she was doing the press tour for Halloween, she was talking about how her character had to deal with–

John: Such a choice to tip to you and the trauma.

Craig: Yes. She went, “Trauma,” and then it’s just her saying the word trauma in 80 different– It was the Madame Morrible Wicked Witch of its time. Do you know what that is?

John: No, I don’t know Madame Morrible Wicked Witch.

Craig: Oh my God, you know what this is.

John: Oh, yes. I’m sorry. Just incredible. Love it so much. Let’s get to our marquee topic here. We can turn away from formatting on the page to the actual words themselves because so often on our show, we’re talking about getting things just right and making sure everything’s perfect. We do the three-page challenges where we’re really obsessing about the word choices, how we’re seeing the world through the words you’re choosing to put on the page.

Craig, last week, you were talking about there’s times where you will hold off delivering something because something’s just not right. You know it’s not right, and you don’t want it out there in the world when it’s not right until it meets your goals and expectation. I think the expectation there could be that in a perfect world, everything you write would be flawless. You would give them a flawless version of everything. That goes from the senior shooting this afternoon to that email to your landlord, but it’s not a perfect world. There’s not a limited time.

In many cases, it just doesn’t matter whether it’s the perfect version or not. I want to just try to find a rubric for figuring out when is it worth perfecting a thing, to finalize a thing, to polish a thing, and when is good enough, and making those choices.

Craig: I’m going to use a word now for mental health.

John: Which is?

Craig: Triggered.

John: Oh, sure. Yes.

Craig: Which I am not. Extending the use of that word, I have perfectionist issues.

John: I think you do.

Craig: I struggle with this all the time. I do know the difference between there’s something fundamentally wrong with this, and this is in a place where it’s on the putting green. It’s going to get into the hole, but I actually want people now to look at this, to gather opinions and thoughts, because it’s generally what it’s going to be. I do know the difference between that, but I will struggle writing emails, texts. I can’t leave the broken word in there. It’s a problem for me.

John: I hear you. I want to go to your process here because you talked about how Jack, who works with you, she’s your accountability buddy. Basically, you’re sending her pages. My expectation is, you have a relationship where you can send her things knowing it’s not quite perfect, because it’s part of the process is her looking at it to make a thing better.

Craig: Absolutely.

John: Same with Drew for me. It’s like, I will send stuff to Drew so he can take a look.

Craig: I won’t read the editorial commentary, but a few typos. Page six, you write in here twice in one sentence. Page nine, bottom. “Aileen about putting the bandage.” That doesn’t make any sense. Aileen. Bottom. She with two Es. Bottom, “Tracking the sound as rises up the–” That’s horrible.

John: Yes. She’s a safe person for you to share it with.

Craig: I don’t proofread for typos. It’s actually not bad for– It was about 16 pages.

John: Sure.

Craig: Actually, a typo here and there does not flip me out. For scripts, it’s more about a quality thing.

John: Yes. Example from my own life. My daughter’s in college, and so she’ll sometimes send me a link to an essay she’s written for her class. I’ll read through it, and it’ll be good. It’s solid. She’s gotten to be a really good writer. It’s fascinating to watch how much better a writer she is year after year after year. It’s a huge improvement. I’ll notice that, “Okay, you missed this argument, or that point didn’t really land, or that conclusion’s not entirely supported.” She’s like, “Uh-huh, uh-huh.” and I was like, “But does it actually matter? Because one person is going to be reading this essay.”

Her instructor’s going to be reading this essay, and no one’s ever going to read the essay again. At some point, you have to make a decision. Is it worth the extra hour of time to improve this essay on a thing you don’t care about that no one will ever actually see again, or should she be doing her work on the other nine assignments she has? Those are choices a person makes in their real life, and a person who was so perfectionist and obsessed about making every last little thing as perfect as it could be would drop other balls because they’re spending too much time on one thing.

Craig: That’s the real problem. There’s a livable, supportable, quasi-perfectionism because there is no perfectible you, as Dennis Palumbo says, where you value doing your best. I would put it under that category. Yes, if I can take another 30 minutes, and I have 30 minutes to make this better, I should. That’s a good value to have. If you find yourself incapable of letting something go to the detriment of other things, well, then you really aren’t involved in modest perfectionism. You’re just doing poorly because a bunch of things aren’t going to get done or aren’t going to get done well.

What is very hard for me, I will tell you what makes me panic the most, and I have explained this many times to the people I work with, and it is particularly an issue when I’m directing. If I feel like I don’t have a sufficient amount of time to do my best work, I then start to feel like I’m dying because the gap between what I can do and what I’m allowed to do is too big, and I feel sick. If I have the time I need, and it’s not an unlimited amount of time, hit my satisfaction thing, and I can’t explain why that is. Probably has to do with some trauma [chuckles].

John: Yes, but you also have 30 years of experience of knowing yourself, knowing your habits, knowing how your work gets done. That’s reasonable. I get that, and I feel that too. There’s times where I’m not panicking because I know I can actually do this in the time, and if the time suddenly becomes too short, then I do start to worry.

Craig: It is also interesting how if you know going into something, before you even start contemplating what you want to do, that there’s only this much time. That’s great.

John: Weekly assignments. We’ve definitely done that, where it’s like, “I know I can’t fix everything. I can move this from this to that.”

Craig: Then it’s just, “Hey, let’s do– Everything’s getting better. We’re just making it better as we go,” and everyone will be shocked by how much you can get done anyway. I don’t panic over those situations, but this is a hard thing to figure out. I wonder whether it’s, “Okay, is good enough good enough,” or is it really about learning how to manage and prioritize the time you have to deliver the quality you can?

John: Yes, that’s fair. Let’s talk through some– I call it a rubric, but basically some decision points you’re going to have about whether you’re giving everything you have to this thing or you don’t need to be doing that. Audience, public versus private. We just went through this with Jack because it’s a private audience. You’re not embarrassed by typos in anything you’re sending to Jack because that’s the relationship you have. She’s meant to be looking at that.

Craig: Exactly.

John: If you’re sharing it with one close friend, you may be a little more concerned about those typos, but you’re not going to obsess about them. If something is public, it really does represent you out there in the world. We’ve often talked about how this is the manifestation of you out there in that space, and you want to make sure that it’s the best version of that. That’s why we encourage people to put their work out there so people can read it and do stuff. At a certain point, if you have older stuff of yours that isn’t really you now, pull it away.

Craig: Yes, if you can, and if you want to. We’ve talked about the illusion of intentionality before, the presumption that everything we see on screen is there because it’s exactly what we wanted to be there, when in fact, half the time, it’s what we got. That can haunt you because if you do put something out and you just didn’t have enough time and it wasn’t quite what you wanted, no one will know or give a damn. They will assume that’s exactly what you wanted, and you will be judged by it, and it will last until the end of written history. [laughs]

John: One of the actors, when he had a rivalry with Connor Storrie, there’s videos that came up. He became famous very quickly.

Craig: I saw this video.

John: He was a kid. It was this young little kid who’s like, “I’m an actor boy, da, da, da. I’m going to be famous and all that stuff.” What I appreciate about him is that he’s like, “Yes, I could have taken him down, but I’ve learned to love that kid.”

Craig: That’s the most healthy thing of all. By the way, that video was adorable. Of all the videos that you could make as a– he seemed like what? Maybe he was 14 or something.

John: Yes, or even younger, maybe.

Craig: Yes, 12. Of all the videos you could make of yourself at 12 or 13, that was the least objectionable, most wholesome, cute, and correct prediction of what you might be when you grow up. Oh my God, I’ll tell you, that hockey show, now my wife is obsessed with the hockey show.

John: Of course.

Craig: Jessica is obsessed with the hockey show.

John: My one cool thing that’s a spoiler, let’s just say there’s a woman who goes through and does– She’s a cinematographer who does breakdowns of it, and it’s phenomenal.

Craig: This hockey show is–

John: It’s great.

Craig: I’m putting it on my list.

John: We talked about audience, public versus private. Next, I would say–

Craig: I’m just thinking about them listening to this, going, “Hockey show?”

John: Hockey show.

Craig: “Hockey show, Craig? There’s a name for it. It’s a phenomenon.”

John: The hockey show.

Craig: “Dude, we didn’t call your show Mushroom Show.” Sorry. What’s it called again? He did Rivalry.

John: Yes, exactly. It’s a hard thing to say.

Craig: Rivalry is a tough word.

John: It’s a hard word.

Craig: Rivalry.

John: English doesn’t do that a lot.

Craig: L to R is tough.

John: We talked about audience, public versus private. Next, I would say, what stage is it? Is it a proof of concept versus a final? One of the things I admire so much about Mike Birbiglia, and this is true of a lot of stand-up comics, is they will just test and try material all the time. He’s going out, and he’s doing a stand-up, he’s trying new jokes, he’s seeing how they work, he’s recording the show, and he’s hearing, “What did I do? What was the reaction?” That is so important.

He’s not afraid to try a joke that’s not really formed, so he can figure it out. Even today, we have video cameras up here because we are testing a proof of concept to see how we’re going to do this show on video, if we ever decided to do it on video. No one’s ever going to see this. This is just a proof of concept.

Craig: Great.

John: I love that.

Craig: I didn’t put my face on this morning.

John: You didn’t have hair and makeup this morning.

Craig: My grandmother used to say that. “I have put my face on.”

John: There’s a product we’re launching next month or two.

Craig: Cosmetic?

John: Exactly, a cosmetic product. This is for you.

Craig: It’s a concealer.

John: It’s a software thing we’re launching. In trying to figure out how to do this, we were really clear about what is the scope of the minimum viable product. What is the simplest version of this that is useful, that we can see, that we can test, because we know that there’s things we’re not going to understand until we actually have a thing that we can try.

Craig: It interacts with the people on the other end of the relationship.

John: Third criteria here is context. What is the expectation of the person getting the message, or on the other side of this thing? I would stack this up from lowest expectation to highest expectation. A text message, your expectations of perfection in a text message are not as high.

Craig: They’re incredibly high.

John: For you, they are. For an email, incredibly high.

Craig: Incredibly high.

John: A tweet or a social blog post.

Craig: I don’t do those anymore.

John: A script, much higher.

Craig: The highest.

John: I would say for a book, even higher, higher, higher, because the number of times we had maybe six different proofreaders of the book and different editors going through it, we still missed the Star Trek deck versus bridge, but we got rid of so many typos. People who have the galley copies, even after we went through a bunch of those things, we still found typos in those.

Craig: Those will be worth more.

John: Absolutely, collector’s items.

Craig: Yes.

John: I think as you go up this chain, unless you’re Craig, the expectations of perfection increase.

Craig: Don’t be like me.

John: Don’t be like you.

Craig: Don’t be like me. I do think about this sometimes, how it is a waste of time, but also it makes me feel good.

John: Yes, I get that. After we get through the criteria, I want to go through the pros and cons of maybe you should obsess a little bit. I don’t know. Obsess is a loaded word, but maybe you should focus in on a little–

Craig: No. We can use these words. I’m giving us permission.

John: Focus in on these things. What we’re reading off of the Workflowy has a very low expectation of polish. There’s just typos all over it, which is fine.

Craig: It’s pretty darn good, though. I have to say the Workflowy generally is really good.

John: Some of those words missing. No one’s going to read it other than we’re going to look at it.

Craig: Right. I never look at this and think, “Oh, John doesn’t care. It’s sloppy. Drew doesn’t know how to spell.” It does exactly what it’s supposed to do. It’s an outline.

John: It’s an outline.

Craig: It’s fine. I think this is a perfectly good way of doing things.

John: You just said, “Is it worth it?” That, I would say, is the cost-benefit analysis. If you were to refine and optimize this thing, is the value you would get out of that time and effort really worth it for doing the work? The flip of that is you might satisfy this. You might compromise if the expected outcome is lower than what you would have put into it. It’s basically like you’re spending mental money to do a thing or time to do a thing, and is it really worth it to try it?

Craig: One of the interesting things about our brains is that we apply values to these things that are actually disconnected from reality.

John: Yes, we do.

Craig: I think, “Okay, I look at an email, it’s a mess, it must be correct to a point that I decide, ‘Ah, this is good.'” Somebody else out there would look at it and say, “Oh, no, there’s 12 more layers of good that need to occur. To that person, my value system is broken, and also, I just don’t care enough. When I got to the point where I thought it was correct, I believe that I indeed had exhausted everything. I’d done everything I could to make it great, and neither I, nor the person who wrote the shabby email, nor the person who wrote the hyper-perfect email are correct.

It is all disconnected from any metaphysical value. It is just perception. It’s just what makes our minds go click happy. There are people whose minds never go click happy when they correct a typo, ever. Most people commenting on YouTube videos don’t seem to care.

John: Absolutely. Mashing keyboard, yes.

Craig: Yes. What’s the famous one? How is Babby Made? Do you know that one?

John: Yes, absolutely.

Craig: How is Babby Made? Here’s how babbies are made. I try to just keep it in the realm of either I feel good, or I don’t feel good. I don’t really understand why my feel-good is set where it is. I assume it’s some combination of just innate mannerisms and trauma. I’d love that.

John: There are times where I realize I have spent half an hour on this email that a person will spend 10 seconds reading.

Craig: Oh, yes. I don’t care because that time feels good. It feels good. Yes, there’s just something about it, but that’s why we’re writers.

John: That’s why we’re writers.

Craig: Honestly.

John: We shouldn’t put everything down in the trivial email category. On this show, I think we’re constantly talking about how important it is actually to perfect and polish the scripts that you’re doing to deliver. That’s why we obsess of the three-page challenges. Yet there are still things, even in the course of a 120-page script, that are probably not worth obsessing over and perfecting to a degree that there may not be any benefit to that tertiary character who appears in one scene.

Is that exactly the right name for them? Is it a name that we’re not even going to actually hear a person say aloud? We could spend another hour figuring out the better name for it, but is it going to improve the final product?

Craig: Things like that come down to, “All right, this is the tiniest pebble in my shoe. Do I need to unlace my shoe, take my shoe off, get it back on?” No, unless I’m about to walk a long time, in which case it’s going to make me insane. Sometimes a name is like a pebble. Then I’m on page 30, and that person comes back, and I’m like, “Oh my God, I can’t believe I’m typing this stupid name again. I can’t. This name is not right. That’s not who they are.”

We can only do what we can do because what we do, as writers, creative artists who are building stuff out of nothing but words, is a mental exercise that is deformed and then beautifully reformed. It’s a mess in there. It’s a mess. If the biggest problem we have is justifying the margins, dwelling a little bit too long, I guess what I’m saying is, if it’s bothering you that it’s not good enough, fix it. If it’s not, don’t. I think that’s really what it comes down to.

John: I’m going to put an asterisk there because if a trivial thing is bothering you so much that you’re not getting work done, that you’re actually not going to be able to be a screenwriter, then there’s something to change there.

Craig: Then you need therapy. It’s not going to happen because you go, “I shouldn’t be bothered by this.” Yes, you shouldn’t be.

John: John’s the wrong name for this character.

Craig: Yes, but you are. What are you going to do?

John: Last criteria, I would say, which is closely related to cost-benefit, but stakes. How much does it actually matter? If it’s the best version, the worst version, does it matter at all? What is the upside of success? What is the cost of failure? For a lot of things, it’s incredibly low, and yet some emails actually are very high stakes. You understand why you’re putting all your effort into it. A text to my brother, it’s just like the stakes aren’t that high.

Craig: The stakes are not that high. I think sometimes of Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone, which is worth rewatching. It’s one of the greatest pieces of video that exists, as far as I’m concerned, because it is a living document of a moment that changed the world. It’s a presentation. Basically, it’s just a big PowerPoint, is really what it is. It’s a fancy PowerPoint, and it’s spot on. When he needs something to pop up, it pops up. It has been timed out. He has planned it out. He has his stuff memorized.

It is thought through down to the tiniest bit, and it works great. Then, if you would, after you watch that, watch the video of Elon Musk introducing the Cybertruck in which he insists that the glass is shatterproof and bulletproof, and has a guy throw a heavy weight at it, and it absolutely shatters the glass.

John: That is incredible.

Craig: Did they not try that first? It is so sloppy. When the stakes are high, perfect it.

John: Let’s talk in that general sense of over-optimization or over-satisficing. Satisficing, I’m using this being like, “It’s good enough.”

Craig: What is satisficing?

John: Satisficing, you never ever heard that term?

Craig: No.

John: Satisficing is basically choosing the first acceptable alternative.

Craig: Oh, it’s a blend of satisfy and suffice.

John: Oh, you hadn’t heard of satisficing?

Craig: No.

John: I think satisficing is a really good word. You do it all the time without realizing it. It’s like, “Which chips do you want?” “The first one that works, do.” I’m often doing that on a menu at a restaurant.

Craig: You’re satisficing.

John: I’m like, “That’s good enough. I’m going to be happy with it.” I might be happier because I didn’t spend a bunch of time worrying about the choice.

Craig: Got it. Satisficing, I like that.

John: I think there’s a danger to satisficing when you shouldn’t. Let’s talk about over-optimization first. This thing’s all what I’m thinking, but you can add to it. We said you might miss opportunities because you’re so busy futzing with something. Basically, you’re not doing other work. You’re missing out on other chances.

Craig: If you are in a spot where, think of the time you have, think of the goals, think of the stakes, plan it, you know you need a certain amount of time to do this, and this is really important, don’t eat into that time.

John: No.

Craig: If you have extra time and you want to sit there and–

John: Love it.

Craig: Great, go for it, but you got to know your time.

John: You may simply never finish it. Time may just extend out forever. You can also burn out on a project because I feel like you have a certain amount of time in which your brain is willing to commit itself to a project, and if you’re just stuck in the middle of it for too long, you can just burn out.

Craig: It’s true. I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned this on the show. Alec Berg and I were talking once. He was cleaning out his place when they were moving, and he found this box of these old scripts that were printed out from when he had just started in the business, so 1991. It was like he didn’t remember any of it. He was reading another him.

John: That’s great.

Craig: He read it, and his thought was, “This is not anywhere near as good as I am now. There’s a freedom to it. It is unburdened by the curse of knowledge, self-expectation, perfectionism, the echoes of failure.” Until you get burned, you don’t know what burned is.

John: There’s a self-defense you can write into your things because you know all the things that are coming, so you’re anticipatory doing stuff.

Craig: Yes, and because you know what it feels like to write something that wasn’t good enough, so you can’t let yourself do that. If you go too far down that road, then you can paralyze.

John: I think one of the real issues with over-optimization is you can get locked in on a bad idea. You might have written a scene so beautiful and so perfect that you can’t touch it again when a note comes that you actually do have to address. You wrote this thing for a location that you no longer have. It can be so tough because you’ve spent so much time and energy on it. You’re so invested in this one version of it.

Craig: Yes. I get caught in loops sometimes. Recently, I got stuck in a loop on something and wrote and then realized, “Okay, this doesn’t belong here. I’m moving it to a different place,” for an episode, in fact. I was lost in that loop for a while. There is a slight panic that kicks in of, “Uh-oh.”

It’s like driving across country. You have plenty of time. Let’s say I’m going to give you a week to drive across the country. On any given day, you can either drive all day or you can not.

Along the way, you have to sometimes experience those days where you pull over, and you don’t drive much. Then you just know on some other days, “Here we go, wake up, don’t stop.” That’s part of the sweet misery of what we do.

John: This last point with over-optimization, I’d say it’s really perfectionism in general. You may be trying to control things that are out of your control. I definitely see that with screenwriters. They will make something so flawless and perfect because they actually want this movie that’s in their head to exist in the world. You have to recognize that that’s not within the scope of your power. You’re doing everything you can to communicate what this vision is you have for the movie, but you cannot will it into existence just through the words you’re typing and through all the refining you’re doing there.

Craig: It’s absolutely true. There’s two mes. There’s the me that writes the script, who is fastidious and a perfectionist. Then, when I’m directing, at some point, I’ll go, “Why don’t we do this?” and then the script supervisor will say, “Just in the script.” Then I’ll say, “Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Actually, that would be better because I’d already–” but the me there, it’s like I didn’t write it. It’s a disconnection.

John: Director Craig is constantly compromising. There’s always shots that are on your shot list you’re never going to get to.

Craig: That’s so true. It’s so true.

John: I would say give writer Craig a little of that grace.

Craig: No, writer Craig is better than director Craig because writer Craig thought it all through. Director Craig needs to pay more attention, just like all directors do, to the script. That’s really what happens is that I end up thinking to myself, I’m doing the thing that would make me angry that directors would do, where they would focus on everything in front of them and forget about the bigger picture or all the details on the page.

John: Except that director Craig is dealing with not just what writer Craig delivered, but also the realities of what’s in front of the camera and behind the camera.

Craig: That is all true. That is all true. You know what? Maybe Craig should just give himself a break.

John: I think that’s what we’re coming down to.

Craig: All right.[00:39:38]

John: Let’s talk about the dangers of oversatisfying, because, in the initial example, I was talking about how–

Craig: Oversatisfying.

John: Sometimes it’s like, “That’s good enough.” I was talking about how an essay you’re writing for a class that you don’t care about, that you’re never going to read again, maybe it’s actually not worth perfecting. If you were to do that too much, that’s just laziness, basically. You might lose your sense of taste. You’re not used to seeing your best writing, so you might not always be able to hit your best writing. You might forget what your best writing even looks like.

Craig: You may also find yourself getting passed by people that are not faster than you. It’s just that you’re not running as fast as you can, and this will become an uncomfortable feeling. When I say passed, I don’t necessarily mean, oh, they’re going to make more money or something, but they’re suddenly achieving things that you wanted to achieve that you’re not because there is value in pursuing the best you can do. You won’t get there. Pursuing it as a value is a positive thing. If you have the time to make the essay better, even if it doesn’t matter, take the time to make it better. It will make you better.

John: I think that was one of the good things about blogging when I was doing it more often, is that I was basically refining and perfecting those arguments, and it’s learning how to think and how to express those ideas. Writing is exercise, and you’re building mental muscle strength to do that. We’ve also talked about how you might say like, “Oh, it’s private,” or “No one’s ever going to read this,” but you don’t really know that. Things will be out there in the world, and it’s still going to be potentially seen by somebody. I think you’ve stressed this in terms of your collaborations is you are setting an example for everyone else you’re working with. If they see that you’re delivering 75%, why should they give you 100%?

Craig: Oh, boy, is that a thing. I talk to people on the crew about this because they are always working on something. I work on a show. They work on shows. Some of them do say there is a thing where you are on a show, and you can just tell that the people who made it sort of care, then it’s a 70% vibe that they’re like, “It’s a job. Got to do it. I’m supposed to do it. Nobody really cares about the show, but we’re working.” Then you don’t necessarily– why beat yourself up? Why lay it all out there? It’s part of the culture of anything is, “How serious are we taking this?”

John: Now, let’s wrap this up with a conversation about vomit drafts because neither you or I are vomit draft people, but many of our listeners and also friends or colleagues of ours really believe in just like you’ve got to get something on the page first, and then we’ll have whatever you do to get something out, and then you can edit and refine it. I want to talk through the pros and cons and arguments for that, and why people may want to consider it, but also what our concerns were that– the pro arguments for the vomit draft were you just get the thing out as quickly as you possibly can. You don’t censor yourself. You don’t edit yourself. By suspending that internal critic, you’re actually just able to explore, to find out about stuff.

Some people really cannot see the movie until they can have a thing on the page that they can see. They make discoveries along the way. You can’t edit what doesn’t exist. A natural part of the editing process, sometimes that’s writing the whole thing. Kevin Williamson famously vomited-drafted Scream and just wrote it all in a fugue state.

Craig: Awesome.

John: It’s awesome. It’s great. The con arguments I would say is that I watch these videos where, if you’ve seen bricklayer videos or when you’re building something up from the base, if that first foundation isn’t strong and you’re trying to build something up, it gets wonky and crazy, and so it’s going to collapse and fall over. It can compound the fundamental flaws of something is that if you start writing without a plan, without trying to make sure every scene actually really works, it could just go 19 different ways haywire.

Craig: It’s hard for me to criticize people who do this because they must do it for a reason. It’s not how my mind works. I can certainly see the pluses and minuses of the not vomit draft. We’ve talked about a lot of the minuses. It is meticulous. It takes longer. You can find yourself mentally strangulated as you go. You can feel trapped. Sometimes you don’t finish.

John: No.

Craig: On the plus side, though, there is an enormous amount of intention and thought and cohesion. The thing about the vomit draft that scares me is what I would imagine to be just a general lack of cohesion. I’m not sure how you can vomit page 70 in a way that is reflected and made somehow inevitable and yet surprising based on what happened on page 20. It feels like it would be very much and then, and then, and then, and then, and very dialoguey or very actiony. There are dangers there that I can imagine, but I’m only imagining them because I’ve never done it, and I don’t know how to do it, and I’m never going to do it.

John: I’ll say, over the course of the podcast, we’ve talked with alternative strategies that I think are trying to do some of the things that a vomit draft does. When I don’t want to write a scene, I will write a different scene in the movie, but I’ll write a really good version of that, of a different scene in the movie, because I know what the scenes are in the movie.

Craig: Sure.

John: Katie Silverman, she’ll do basically a vomit draft, but with things that are not in the movie, she’ll just have the characters start talking so she can fully understand the characters and what the world feels like. That’s great. Maybe a thing people want to try independent of a vomit draft-

Craig: It’s a good exercise.

John: -is basically just getting stuff, words down on paper. I would say the other thing I noticed about vomit drafts is it’s so easy to fall in love with that first draft. The emotional attachment to the thing you did, and you have a sunk cost fallacy, but also you can fall in love with the temp music. You’ve all run into this, which is just like it’s working and it’s feeling good, and so you don’t want to change anything up.

Craig: Yes. What you do is you attach the feeling of success that you had as you were barfing to the barf, but other people just see barf. They don’t see or experience your feeling of purging and relief. That is important. That’s one positive thing that comes out of the meticulous plan draft is you don’t have that. You don’t get overattached to things. Everything is interrogated, examined, questioned, acid-tested, and so on.

John: I guess my final advice here is with vomit drafts and the good enough, not good enough, is if you’re struggling to get started, if you’re struggling with blank page anxiety, getting words on the page is probably a good first step for you, whether that becomes a full vomit draft or just like the roughest sketches of a scene. Alina often describes it as like walking into the ocean and letting the water get up to your ankles. It’s like, oh, suddenly you’re swimming.

Maybe vomit draft if you are often abandoning projects before you complete them, because I think sometimes we talk about burnout and that perfectionism burnout, like you just– the joy of completing a thing may be useful for you, and so the vomit draft may be the way to get there.

Craig: It’s worth trying, right? If one method isn’t working, try it. What’s the worst that can happen? You stop. It doesn’t work. You don’t get past page 3. I don’t know, but try things.

John: If you’ve tried vomit drafts and you’re not happy with them, I think the reason may be because you’re done with– the vomit draft, you can feel like, “Well, I’m done. I want to go on to the next thing.” You may have green pasture envy where it’s like, “Oh, I want to do this other thing instead.” You never actually go back and edit and finish that thing. That may be a reason why you actually need to scene by scene really do the best version of each of these scenes and really perfect a thing because then you’ll actually have the experience of what it feels like to have a really good script that you’re proud of.

Craig: Maybe people need to try both.

John: Yes. I’m surprised we got you there, Craig.

Craig: Yes. Give yourself a chance to see if– the whole concept of vomit draft is vomit. You’re not being held. It is vomit. Everybody knows this isn’t what we’re shooting. If you are maybe somebody that tends toward that too much, try the other method. Try meticulous planning.

John: I want to acknowledge that this is exactly counter to the advice that Scott Frank gave. It’s like, “Don’t move until you see it.”

Craig: That’s for me.

John: That’s for you.

Craig: That’s how I think. Don’t move until you see it. I know that that’s what works for me. Scott, God bless him. Scott’s way is the way that everybody must do it. I love that about Scott, but I am more interested, I suppose, in results because I know that great writers write differently. I’m pretty sure that– I know Scott and I don’t write the same way because he writes these very, very long drafts that he expects will be cut down.

John: There’s really not vomit drafts, but they’re more expansive than the form will actually allow.

Craig: They are unfettered by the restraints of the medium-

John: Yes, they are.

Craig: -which is awesome because it means that everybody can go through and say, “Okay, story, characters. This moment, this moment, this moment. Now, this is too big. We asked you to build a 12-seat plane. This is an incredible jumbo jet. How can we get all the best parts of the jumbo jet into the 12-seater?” and then he does. Point being, we all have our ways there. Find your way there. If your way there currently is not working, try a different way there.

John: Let’s answer some of your questions. We have one here from Alan.

Drew: ”Back in 2019, there was a huge fight between the WGA and the talent agencies over packaging. After everyone fired their agents, the agencies eventually signed an agreement that went into effect in June of 2022. Now, two and a half years later, has there been any real on-the-ground change, or have agencies found ways to work around the agreement and still offer packages to studios?”

John: Craig, I’m curious what you think about what has happened in two and a half years.

Craig: I don’t think that the agencies have found significant ways to work around the agreement. Here’s what happened. It definitely accelerated the shrinking of the number of agencies available to us, so conglomeration occurred.

John: Do you think that would have been different without the agency deal?

Craig: Yes.

John: Do you think there would have been more small agencies or what would–

Craig: Oh, I think ICM would still be there because what happens, once you took away a big part of what their income was, they were now exposed and vulnerable. We lost some diversity of agencies. CAA and WME arguably got more powerful. It’s almost like we were in a fight over what a beach should look like, and then a tsunami came, so it’s hard to tell.

John: There’s no counterfactual. We can’t know what the world would have been like if the agency campaign hadn’t happened. If agencies could still package the way they were packaging before, which we see, for newer listeners, we don’t understand, packaging is when you put together a writer with their script and a director and maybe some stars and sell that to a TV production company, sometimes a movie studio, but really it’s a TV thing. Agencies would do that, and then they would take a fee, and rather than charging their clients commission, they would take a percentage of the budget on every episode of a thing.

Craig: Which meant that they were essentially incentivized by the companies, not their own clients, and that was part of the problem.

John: Packaging still happens, but now they only get the commissions on their clients rather than a fee.

Craig: What we were hoping would happen might have happened, but shortly after that, the streaming wars accelerated dramatically. The massive television bubble began to burst, and huge tectonic changes occurred in our industry to the extent that I don’t know what this did because, like I said, it’s been tsunamied over by–

John: It wasn’t the biggest change in the industry by far.

Craig: No.

John: Much bigger things affected stuff, and so we can’t know quite what’s there. Also, the agencies themselves, we talk about CIA and WME, they entered into a lot of different spaces, and they were already starting to move into different things, representing sports, music, and other things, but just stuff that seems to have nothing to do with us. I think one of our concerns going into the campaign was that they weren’t prioritizing the actual needs of their clients, and the way they make their money isn’t off of us. That’s the big agency that is still kind of true. The money they’re making in the entertainment industry is off of us.

Craig: Yes.

John: That’s good.

Craig: That’s why they fight over clients tooth and nail. They would certainly argue that we are valuable to them.

John: I would say that as we started in the industry, the fighting over clients was a much bigger part of the story and drama of Hollywood, and it really isn’t a big deal now.

Craig: Well, because people don’t go anywhere because there’s fewer places to go.

John: There are fewer big places to go. It’s true.

Craig: When we started, there were CAA, UTA, ICM, William Morris, and there was Endeavor, and there was Gersh, which still is in Paradigm, and– what’s the artists and whatever? Anyway, and now it’s like there’s WME, CIA, UTA, then there’s a tier below, and then there’s nothing, and you don’t get moved around a lot because you don’t move– Even the agents don’t move around a lot anymore.

John: The other thing which changed, which had started before this, but certainly accelerated during it, is writers and directors and actors who just have managers who don’t have agents at all anymore, or who are also British people who have their UK agent who’s really up-prepping them in the US as well. I’ve seen that change happen.

Craig: Yes, the management thing is a big one, and management is worse. We were fighting the agencies over packaging. That’s all managers do. That is literally what they do. They exist to be producers on projects, which you can’t be as an agent, to not charge their clients commission, instead get all their money from the production. I don’t understand why–

John: As you’ve talked about, coming out of this, I signed a manager for the first time, and what’s been helpful as a highway manager is to have a person who can talk to anybody, who can call anybody because there’s no vested interest in their own agency. They have relationships that are different, which has been really, really helpful.

Craig: Yes, it really just comes down to who do they work for in the end.

John: Then they’ve been working for me.

Craig: That’s good.

John: The other thing which did change in the agency campaign, which is worth acknowledging, is that agencies now have to send every writer’s contract through to the guild, and so the guild has so much more information about every writer’s deal. To know how many weeks was this writer employed in this room, how many one-step writers have deals, that’s actually been helpful, even though, theoretically, all writers were supposed to send in–

Craig: We were supposed to per– yes. My question is, what are we able to do with all that data, exactly, other than look at it?

John: We can make choices in the negotiating cycle about what we’re going to do for things. The other thing we’ve done is WJA enforcement, contract enforcement, which is something I don’t know you like. We now know this writer had a guaranteed step and was not paid for this step. What happened here? We can actually proactively investigate these things.

Craig: I’d love to ask their lawyer, first and foremost, “Hey, why didn’t you do your job?”

John: Exactly.

Craig: That’s kind of crazy.

John: Yes.

Craig: I guess the long answer, short, Alan, for me is hard to tell what impact this has had. I think there have been positives and negatives. I do know that quite a few people were upset because, once this ended, and you could go back to your agent, their agent said, “No, we’re good. We don’t want you back.” I think a lot of those people were not being well-served by that agent to begin with, at that point, then.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: I think they were just hearing from their long-distance girlfriend that it was over and that it was better because now they needed to find a representative that actually cared about them.

John: I think the overall goal of aligning incentives on a purely logical level happened, but what impact did that have on individual writers’ careers? Harder to say.

Craig: You know what? It just occurred to me that, maybe, the real value that we got out of that was that, regardless of what the companies thought of what we did, it appeared that we were committed to doing stuff, and that there was a unity there, and there was some sense of aggression. Now, did that ultimately matter? No, because then they said, “Fine, go on strike anyway,” and then we did. Maybe it was just even for our own internal sake that we thought, oh, we could do a thing and not fall apart, [unintelligible 00:58:19]

John: Then after that, we did the strike, and we did not fall apart.

Craig: We did not fall apart, yes.

John: Let’s answer one more question on bleeping. Moose has a question about bleeping.

Drew: Moose writes, “I’m an audio professional. I noticed that in episodes where someone drops a naughty word, you have the disclaimer at the beginning, and I’m wondering why you just don’t bleep out the offending words.”

John: How the sausage is made here, Craig and I don’t swear on the show if we can help it. We won’t–

Craig: I did today once.

John: Sometimes, if it’s a very easy lift, Matthew just snips it out, and you never notice it was there. Especially when we have guests on, and they swear, it’s just hard to take that stuff out. We want it to be authentic to what the experience was to have it in person.

Craig: We’re adults.

John: We’re adults. We’re making this podcast for adults, but also, your kids can be in the car, and so we’re just mindful of that. That’s why we put the little warning on, if there’s going to be some bad words.

Craig: Just culturally, it is so much different now than it used to be. When we were kids, saying the F-word was like, “Oh my God.” You would get sent to the principal. No one seems to give an F anymore. It’s like we have friends with younger kids.

It’s like language is not– because of the internet, I think, it’s just become less taboo. Context. There are words that we used to throw around that you wouldn’t get sent to the principal for, that now you do get sent to the principal for.

Also, context, if you’re using words in a sexual manner or something like that. Bleeping sounds stupid, mostly, is the answer.

John: I always notice bleeping. It’s not actually a big tradition of bleeping in podcasts. It’s not really a thing.

Craig: No, because we’re not on the air at CBS.

John: No, no.

Craig: It just doesn’t make much sense.

John: No. I agree. Let’s do our one cool thing. My one cool thing I mentioned earlier on, it’s a cinematographer. Her name is Valentina Vee. She is an L.A. or New York-based cinematographer and director. The thing she’s been doing recently is going through a show, in this case, Heated Rivalry, and talking about the specific choices that the director and cinematographer are making as they’re composing scenes. Things from blocking to locations to camera placement. Going through this, this is the sense I had while I was watching the show, but it’s really clear.

They have no coverage. There’s basically not a shot that they shot that’s not in the show, and so often, they’re basically just staying on one side. The camera’s never coming around to the other side, which is because they had an incredibly limited budget, and they had to maximize the value that they got out of that. These are directing choices, lighting choices, but fundamentally, they’re also writing choices.

That’s why I really encourage people to watch these videos that she does because, again, you’re seeing that the scenes are written in a way that they can be shot from one side, that it’s really about one character’s perspective. Therefore, it’s not important that we see the other people who are talking off the screen because it’s really about this one character’s reaction to what is being said.

Craig: One of my favorite things to do. I try very hard to cover things. I like options. I love an option, but as I talk about with my editors all the time, just because we have it doesn’t mean we have to use it. We don’t have to use any of it. We can just use one shot if we want, if it feels great, and we just want to stay there. Staying with somebody is terrific. Editing too much just because you have it, it just turns into ping pong, tucking head theater, and there’s no pace to it.

The question is, who do I want to be with right now, in this moment? Who do I want to be with? Who do I want to be looking at? If you know that you have limited time and limited coverage, get one shot right, and then just nab something fast just to give yourself some little hinge bit.

John: My suspicion is they didn’t even have time for [unintelligible 01:02:08]. In some cases, they’ve really boxed themselves in where they had no choice other than the master that they had, and it works really well.

Craig: When we’re shooting things in tight situations, there’s a shot that she does here where she has the two of them. They’re sitting in profile, sort of a mini master kind of thing, so we can see both of them. They’re looking at each other, and they are sitting against a mirror, which creates depth that isn’t there. If you put them against the wall, it’s a dead shot, but that creates depth. The problem is the mirror will also see the camera. Well, that’s an easy one for us. As long as they are not moving in front of the camera, you can paint it out, especially if the background sort of drops away.

If you have money in post to get rid of these things, getting the camera– I will tell you that because we’re a handheld show, the amount of times we have had to paint out one little bit of camera as it bobbed in because we really liked this shot, it’s just that as they were moving, A camera saw B, and then B goes, “Oh, shit,” and gets out of the way, but that’s okay.

John: It’s fine.

Craig: That’s okay. We do split screens. We do paint outs. We do blow-ups. There’s a billion ways to handle it. It’s more important to get the work in than it is to– and this is actually good enough, “Okay, do we have an eraser to erase this thing later? Then don’t worry about this. Just get this,” right?

John: Because the priority is, are you getting the performance or getting the shot overall? You can fix the other stuff.

Craig: Performance, shot, feeling. If I love it, if I feel something, if it’s making me cry, I don’t care if I can see the reflection of a crew person over there, I’ll get rid of it. One way or the other, I’ll get rid of it. It is so worth it. That is what people connect to. Obviously, people are connecting to Heated Rivalry, AKA the hockey show, in a profound way, and that means they did a great job with the time and resources they had.

John: What I like about this, she was not the GP on this show. She’s just breaking down shots she’s seeing from it, so she’s able to scribble on the screen and show where a camera was and stuff that was happening. It’s such a good example of a thing you can do in video that we just can’t do as well in audio because you were just describing a thing, but in a video, to actually draw and show is just so much more helpful. I just like that people are out there using the medium in ways that we don’t know how to use yet.

Craig: Yes. I think people are interested in the silly tricks. I think there’s probably a good video that I should do. After this season, I think what I’ll do is take a little time with one of my editors, Tim Good, and we’re going to put together a video called All the Tricks We Use because the tricks that you can use in editing are incredible and so helpful, and very helpful to know when you’re shooting because there are times where I will watch a take and think, with trick number seven, I can get rid of the flaw in this take because the rest of it was great.

John: Exactly.

Craig: Knowing what you can do is a big part of it.

John: It’s not all just VFX. An example that she points out is that there’s moments in the show where they just go to silhouette and where you’re not seeing actors’ faces, but it’s not important for the scene because it’s a physical comedy, but you don’t actually need to see the faces for it to work. By going to silhouette, there’s no crowd. The amount of extras they have is incredibly limited. They’re making shots so you wouldn’t see those people out there.

Craig: Yes. When you look at sports movies, always look in the stands, look in boxing, who’s out there. Boxing, in particular, it’s a ring that’s overlit and then a crowd that is underlit in total shadow because there’s no one there.

John: If the audio is creating the crowd.

Craig: When you watch actual boxing, the entire place is lit up like a Kmart. No one knows what a Kmart is. Walmart. It’s lit up like a Walmart. In movies about football and baseball, you’ll get a couple of select shots where they’ve either licensed the footage or they’ve done some CG people. Then it’s just 18 people at a time and in close-up.

John: The mastermarks are still good.

Craig: Yes. Everything. It’s all the product of many meetings.

John: We love it. Craig, what’s your one cool thing?

Craig: My one cool thing this week is a game, as it often is. This is for– well, I played it on iOS on my iPad. I’m a big fan of the Rusty Lake games. One of the things about those games that I love is how freaking weird they are, sometimes deeply disturbing.

John: They’re specifically weird, yes.

Craig: Yes, they’re very strange, surreal. I came across a game– there are a lot of knockoffs. I thought for a moment, “Oh, I think maybe this is going to be a Rusty Lake knockoff. I’ll play a Rusty Lake knockoff. I don’t care.” It was not a knockoff. The game is called Birth! It is made by an independent game designer named Madison Karrh. That’s K-A-R-R-H, which already I love. That’s because the spelling is gorgeous. What she’s done is made a fairly satisfying puzzle game. The puzzles are sometimes too easy, sometimes they’re tricky, but they’re beautiful-looking and so deeply weird. The entire thing is so deeply weird. When you get to the end of it, it’s also so sweet and satisfying. It’s art. It’s art. It’s a lovely game and also fun.

I run into a lot of these things. I’m just going to whisper about this because I don’t want the people that make these games to hear it, John.

John: All right.

Craig: There are like 5,000 games that you can get for your iPad that are about grief. They’re not really games. They’re just somebody talking about– it’s just a very obvious metaphor for grief. They’re games, and they’re not fun.

John: Same way that there are joke aways. There are things that have the structure of a joke, but they’re not actually funny because they’re like– you know.

Craig: Yes, they’re really just trading on sadness or whatever. This is a game.

John: Good.

Craig: It’s fun to play. She did a great job. Excellent work, Madison Karrh. Birth! Well worth playing.

John: Very nice. That is our show for this week. The description is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: I don’t think so.

John: Our show this week is by Eric Pearson. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You can 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.

We have T-shirts, hoodies, and drinkwear. You’ll get those at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes with the links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers, especially the folks who’ve just signed up new for the holidays or new for 2026. Thank you. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on 26 for 26.

Craig, thanks for a perfect discussion of perfectionism and when good enough is good enough.

Craig: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, in the outline here, I have a blog post I did called What I Did in 2025. I thought we might just review that first because I recognize that I’m not a person who remembers things. I don’t remember when things happened. Mike knows all that stuff. He can remember exactly what happened when and how things worked. I’ve been better at journaling this year, but I took a day and actually just went through what did I actually do in 2025? It was a lot.

This was the year I went to Egypt, Jordan, Dubai, and Mexico. We had the Big Fish 29-hour reading in New York City. We released Highland Pro. I got third place in Rachel Bloom’s Spelling Bee.

Craig: Pretty good.

John: It’s pretty good.

Craig: That’s a big deal.

John: We had two No Kings [unintelligible 01:10:43] tests, I did a half-marathon, went to Australia. I would say, overall, 2025 was a very shitty year for the world, but I had some good, fun things happen locally and personally, which was nice.

Craig: You say I never do this.

John: It’s the first time I’ve ever done this.

Craig: I just don’t look back. I mostly have feelings. I think about the feelings and moments and things, and there are these moments that stick out. I don’t really look back much. I’m all about right now and tomorrow.

John: I’m not generally a looking-back person, but I’m also a forward thinker. The second part of this conversation is, the last couple of years, Mike and I would do a 24 for 24, 25 for 25, 26 for 26, where we would basically share note and–

Craig: You know this is going to get tough. You see where this is going. This is going to be hard for you guys.

John: Oh, yes.

Craig: The older you get, the more crap you have to do.

John: Yes. It’s a lot of stuff. This year, we had to find one extra thing, but it’s going to be a creep every year. It’s a fun thing. Basically, we have shared notes in Apple Notes. It’s like a checklist of things we mean to do over the course of the year.

Craig: I like that.

John: What’s different about this than a New Year’s resolution is they are specific things you want to do, and they’re not all laborious chores. We’ll go through some examples here. One of the things we need to do this year is sort and rationalize what we’re going to do with all our CDs and DVDs that we’ve not looked through in years. Do you still have all your DVDs and CDs?

Craig: No.

John: What did you do? You just got rid of them?

Craig: I have no idea where they are. It doesn’t matter. They’re gone. It’s gone. It’s over. They may exist somewhere, but I don’t know where.

John: Drew, do you have physical discs?

Drew: I have DVDs and Blu-rays. I have some CDs, but they’re just left over from when we bought CDs. I don’t even think I have the ability to listen to it, actually.

Craig: You can listen to it through your DVD player.

Drew: Probably.

Craig: I think so.

Drew: For a minute, my DVD player was broken, and I had a, “Do I just get rid of everything?”

Craig: I have a DVD player. I never use it.

John: For a while, we were playing Blu-rays through our old PlayStation, but then that gave up the ghost. Stewart gave our daughter some Blu-ray DVDs. She wanted to watch them. We didn’t have one, so we had to get a little cheap Blu-ray player, and then she didn’t remember to watch them.

Craig: Children.

John: Basically, we divided things into three categories; stuff around the home, stuff around L.A., and stuff that’s out of town [unintelligible 01:13:13] anywhere. We were revamping the room that we’re currently in, which is going to be our reserve recording studio. We already did the soundproofing. The wall behind you, Craig, looks crappy on camera because it’s just too blank and bare, so we’re going to introduce different stuff to that.

Craig: What are you going to do?

John: I’m not sure. We’re going to bring in somebody to help us figure that out.

Craig: You know I’m not going to be here, right?

John: No. When do you come back from–

Craig: Okay. My heart stopped for a second. I’m like, “Wait.”

John: While you’re gone, some of the time, there’ll be famous people who’ll come in. We’ll record some of that stuff.

Craig: Love famous people.

John: While you’re gone.

Craig: They’re famous for a reason, you know.

John: We’ll do three game nights. We love having people over for game nights.

Craig: Amazing.

John: You love game nights.

Craig: We love game nights.

John: We’ll do some pool parties. Around town, three restaurants in unfamiliar neighborhoods. Often, our food-related thing was three new cuisines, like ethnic cuisines, but we basically run out of ethnic cuisines. We got to Bangladeshi, and it’s like, “I think we’re good here.”

Craig: Near the end.

John: “We’re near the end.” Two escape rooms. I need to make it back to Catalina.

Craig: Sorry, you said two?

John: Two.

Craig: No, no, no, no, no.

John: Got to do more than two.

Craig: Got to do more than two.

John: We only did one escape room this entire year. We did the new one as– the downtown.

Craig: Here’s an extra one cool thing for you. Melissa and I did this with our friends Cle and Mia. There’s an escape room up in Santa Clarita.

John: I’ve heard. They have a–

Craig: It’s called Appleseed Avenue. Fantastic. Must do. Must.

John: Drew went with us to the one we did this last month. What was it called?

Drew: It was The Lost Cat?

John: It’s downtown. What I liked about it, the general concept is this old woman has lost her cat, and you find her cat.

Craig: Did it.

John: Did it. Good and solid.

Craig: It was cute.

John: Cute. Good time.

Craig: It was cute when the stuff fell down. That’s fun.

John: Love it. Then some out-of-town stuff. We’ll do another half-marathon. We’re going to visit one new country and then see some concerts and some shows. What I’m stressing here is that some stuff is work. We’re basically dealing with our CDs, DVDs, repainting the kitchen chairs, tuning the piano. Most of it is just like– inertia will just keep you on the couch and not doing a thing. Their challenge is for yourself to actually just get out and do your thing. It doesn’t feel like work. It scratches that check-off span of the list to actually like, “Okay, we’ve got to see a concert. What concert are we going to go see?”

Craig: I love doing nothing.

John: You love doing nothing.

Craig: Oh, my God.

John: You love playing a game. You love playing a little rest-your-leg game.

Craig: Doing puzzles, playing games. It’s just joy. That’s the thing. Follow your heart. I’ve never been a checklist person. I’ve never been somebody who’s like, “I should do blank.” If I hear the word should in front of something, I’m like, “Do I want to?”

John: You’ve got to recontextualize. “I want to do this thing. I want to remember that I want to do this thing.”

Craig: That’s the thing. Do I actually want to do this thing? I’ve really gotten it down to, I just do the things I want to do, and I don’t do the things I don’t want to do.

John: You prioritize D&D, which is nice.

Craig: Because I want to. That’s the beautiful part.

John: Looking at the blog post here, I misspoke in the main episode. We actually played 39 sessions of D&D because I did miss a few.

Craig: 39. Solid.

John: It’s a lot. Craig, you are going to be off shooting a new season of the show.

Craig: Yes.

John: What other, I don’t want to say goals, but what else do you envision for your 2026? What do you think would, at the end of 2026, just like, “Yes, that was a good year.”? What are some things that would have happened?

Craig: If I am alive at the end of 2026, I will feel great. This is going to be a difficult production because of the size of it and the things we have to do. It’s going to be tough, and the length of it. My goal is alive. I want to try and make sure that my blood sugar stays– my big task is keeping my blood sugar at a healthy number, which I’ve been able to do. I keep my eye on that, and I continue to reflect on some of my mental health pluses and minuses.

John: Sure.

Craig: I’m looking forward to working with the people that I have worked with before that I love, and some new people that I know I’m going to love that I’ve met, and I’m very excited about. Then there’s just the adventure aspect of it. It’s an adventure. That’s the thing. This list of doing stuff, I’m going to hike, stay up all night, see a forest fire, do this. There’s going to be 200 things that I’m going to do because of the show that’s like, “That’s my living.” When I say see a forest fire, we don’t actually have fire. I don’t know why I said that. We’re not lighting a forest on fire, don’t worry, but we are going to do some crazy stuff. That’s where all the living comes in.

That’s my big goal, and to keep playing D&D throughout it all because–

John: Absolutely. You’re starting a whole new campaign for it, so I’m excited.

Craig: Starting a whole new campaign. It keeps me sane. It’s my thing. It’s what I’m allowed to do for me. Everybody knows it. You got to carve out some stuff.

John: You’ve got to carve out some time.

Craig: You’ve got to carve out time.

John: Basically, be yourself. One of my nervous breakdown during my TV show is basically I existed only for the show, and I was stuck in this impossible place.

Craig: I exist almost entirely for the show, and then I carve out a little bit.

John: Nice. Craig, felicitations on this past year.

Craig: Likewise.

John: I hope it’s a great upcoming year.

Craig: I think it’s going to be a fine year for the two of us.

John: I hope so, too.

Craig: Drew, Happy New Year.

Drew: Happy New Year. I thought you were going to say, “Maybe not for you.”

Craig: What a horrible way to start 2026.

Drew: Good luck.

Craig: For Drew–

John: You’re fired.

Craig: Yes, you’re fired.

[laughter]

Drew: I knew it was coming. Thanks.

Craig: Thanks, guys.

Links:

• Jamie Lee Curtis says “Trauma”
• Concept Creep: Psychology’s Expanding Concepts of Harm and Pathology by Nick Haslam
• Young Connor Storrie on YouTube
• Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone
• Elon Musk announces the Cybertruck
• Valentina Vee on TikTok and Instagram
• Birth by Madison Karrh
• John’s What I Did in 2025
• Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
• Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
• Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
• Scriptnotes on Instagram
• John August on Bluesky and Instagram
• Outro by Eric Pearson (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: Okay. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to Episode 718 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, you may have heard us discuss industry euphemisms, but really, no worries if not. At the end of the day, we’re bumping this just in case you got buried. Whether you’re coming up for air after the holidays or just getting your ducks in a row, we want to be respectful of everyone’s time as we discuss stock phrases that are endemic to Hollywood. We’ll also run down the numbers on Scriptnotes, both the podcast and the book. We’ll answer listener questions, including what’s the deal with video podcasts?

Craig: What is the deal?

John: In our bonus segment for premium members, how do you deal with a difficult collaborator? We’ll talk about that. We have no experience. In theory, what would it be like to deal with a difficult collaborator, Craig? In theory, in theory.

Craig: No, it’s entirely theoretical.

John: It’s all entirely theoretical. This episode, we’re recording on December 14th, but it’s coming out enough later that there was news, but the news is going to be so outdated by the time we actually air this episode. Disney made a deal with OpenAI to license characters and give OpenAI $1 billion.

Craig: Yes, notice that.

John: Notice that. Paramount is now doing a hostile bid for Warner Bros. We don’t know how this is all going to sort out.

Craig: That won’t have changed by the time this episode comes out. That’s going to take a while, yes.

John: It’s going to take a while. Everything’s going to take a while.

Craig: Everything will take some time.

John: Yes, I’m not delighted by any of this news, frankly.

Craig: No. In general, we don’t want fewer entities that pay for our work, but it’s happening.

John: It’s happening. On the whole, I’m not excited by companies that distribute our product, making deals with AI companies to train models on our stuff. Don’t love that.

Craig: I really don’t like that. It’s interesting. I was reading about this. Disney, I think, probably is looking and saying, “Hey, people are going to be using this to take Iron Man and do stuff. We want to just get paid for it. What we’ll do is we’ll just let you have Iron Man.” It’s a little bit like the music industry saying to Spotify, “Okay, we’ll let you have it if you just give us $0.04 a track.” That feels like what’s going on here.

Now, one thing that I thought was amusing was Disney said, and OpenAI said, that there will be, of course, restrictions on the kinds of things you can do with their characters. No, there won’t. No, there won’t. People are going to get around that, and there’s going to be some pretty messed up Rule 34-type stuff out there. That’s just inevitable.

John: Inevitably, like the non-licensed versions, that stuff that’s not on Sora, there’s going to be wild stuff that’s happening there, too. I can understand if Disney wants to have some sort of walled garden where they can theoretically control a little bit of it all, but I just don’t think it’s great for the business at all. I think it’s too early in this process for people to start making these giant deals on their licensed characters. It’s the fact that OpenAI and these companies already stole a bunch of this stuff and adjusted it, and we’re spitting stuff out.

It’s complicated, and we won’t get into it today. Instead, we’ll do some actual follow-up on something we have a definitive answer on, which was way back in Episode 620, we talked about this producer named Carl Rinsch.

Craig: Oh, my God, Carl Rinsch. I remember this guy.

John: Yes. Basically, he was a filmmaker who had done other movies beforehand, and basically was making a movie for Netflix, and basically kept asking for more money and more money and more money. Sorry, it was a series, not a movie. We talked about this guy who was just like, they were now suing him for all this money they’d taken from Netflix without actually delivering a movie. Now, there was a verdict. Drew, talk us through what we learned.

Craig: Yes. I assume the verdict is true.

Drew Marquardt: He’s guilty-

Craig: Of course, he’s guilty. Of course.

Drew: -for scamming Netflix out of over $11 million over this series, and he faces up to 90 years behind bars.

Craig: Oh, my God. [laughs]

John: He won’t serve 90 years.

[laughter]

John: That’s crazy.

Craig: I don’t know how old this guy is, but he’s probably, what, 40 or something? 45?

Drew: Probably somewhere in there.

Craig: I just like the idea of this dude being that 90-year-old in prison, and people are like, “This guy’s been here forever. Why?”

John: He must have done something absolutely horrendous. He took a bunch of money from Netflix.

Craig: Yes, he just didn’t– he did not do–

John: He didn’t deliver.

Craig: He didn’t deliver on a series. [chuckles] What do we think he’s going to serve? Two years? One?

John: Yes, it’s tough. Trump can’t commute this because it is a civil suit.

Craig: Well, is this something that was on his radar? [laughs]

John: No, but things are often not on his radar. He’s often trying to pardon people he has no ability to pardon, so we’ll see. It’ll be much less than that. He did a bad thing. You should pay money if you did a bad thing.

Craig: The last time somebody with a name like Carl Rinsch was sentenced to 90 years, it was at the Nuremberg trials.

[laughter]

Craig: This guy’s got the most German name. Carl Rinsch.

John: Carl Rinsch.

Craig: Yes, Carl Rinsch. You shouldn’t have done that, Carl. I don’t know what to say. It’s not like Netflix is going to miss that money or anything, but you can’t do that.

John: You can’t do that. No, it’s bad. I guess the interesting angle on this story is every producer, every filmmaker is selling smoke for a long time. It’s that delusional ability to say, “Oh, no, this is really going to happen.” You respect that. That’s the chutzpah. That’s the ability to hustle and get things made. You cross a line at some point. Where is that line is an interesting thing to explore.

Craig: I think the general magic trick is to get somebody to give you money. All the tricks are there. Once the money comes, then if you are a producer, you have to then mush everybody together to get the next thing, to get the script, to get the green light. If you do nothing, which is not normal, [chuckles] then you go to prison, apparently, or give the money back. I don’t know.

John: Famously, the producers is about that. That’s the funny comedy version of this is this was not a comedy, apparently. You can imagine the comedy version of this.

Craig: Even the producers put a show on.

John: They did. They put on a show.

Craig: They just wanted it to be a failure. This guy didn’t even do that. He apparently–

John: He represented himself, which is always–

Craig: Oh, no.

John: That’s also the comedy.

Craig: Our good friend, Ken White, who is a former federal prosecutor, now a defense attorney, shows up on all sorts of podcasts and things.

John: He came on our show to talk through legal stuff.

Craig: Exactly. There are a couple of things that just make his eyes roll in the back of his head in anger. One of them is people representing themselves. His feeling is like 90% of the lawyers you get can barely represent you. [laughs] You need a good lawyer.

John: A doctor shouldn’t perform surgery on himself either.

Craig: No, no.

John: You hear stories of the doctor who was isolated in Antarctica that had to do surgery to himself. That’s why it’s so rare because there’s talented people around you who should do that.

Craig: This guy isn’t even a doctor. This is a patient doing surgery on himself. [chuckles] It’s just idiotic. Don’t do that. No pro se, please.

John: No. We have two bits of feedback and follow-up on the Scriptnotes book, including a mistake that we made that none of our many readers caught that made it through into the book. What did Anthony say?

Drew: Anthony said, “Loving the book, such a wonderful distillation of your show. This is such a silly quibble. I almost didn’t send it, but as a lifelong Trekkie, I couldn’t let it go. On page 32, in the section at the bottom titled, Does This Story Travel or Stay Put, you illustrate your point with several iconic sets around which several popular shows are anchored. For Star Trek, however, you call it the ‘deck’ when it should more accurately read the ‘bridge’ of the Starship Enterprise in Star Trek.”

Craig: Oh, yes. The Enterprise does have decks, but that space is the bridge.

John: It’s the bridge, absolutely.

Craig: Well, I don’t know about you, John, but I think it’s time to end it all. That is so embarrassing that we need to just–

John: We need to call back every issue-

Craig: Or die.

John: -or every volume that has been sold of the Scriptnotes book, and just bring it back.

Craig: Hey, second edition, right?

John: There will be a second edition at some point. We can probably fix that in the second edition. What I’ll say is that if you have the book in front of you, flip to page 32. Please carefully cross out the word “deck,” write in “bridge,” and then at least you fixed your one personal copy.

Craig: Anthony, I appreciate this. You’re absolutely right. The good news is people who love Star Trek are notoriously flexible. These things–

John: Yes, absolutely.

Craig: Anthony is the nicest person in the world, by the way, because I feel like 90% of people would have just thrown the book across the room in anger. Thank you, Anthony, and we’re sorry.

John: It has sharp corners. It’s not that heavy, but it has sharp corners. You could have hurt somebody.

Craig: Oh, absolutely.

John: Another bit of follow-up from Charles.

Drew: “I heard Craig speculate that the new Scriptnotes book is maybe the only book that exists about how to write screenplays for movies or TV that is written by two people or a person who’s repeatedly done that job for decades. While he’s correct that most are by people who have never repeatedly held the job, there is a book on screenwriting written by not one, but two people who have repeatedly done the job for decades. Might I bring your attention to Writing Movies for Fun and Profit: How We Made a Billion Dollars at the Box Office and You Can, Too! by Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant.”

Craig: Absolutely right. Lennon and Garant are great.

John: Yes, they’re really lovely people.

Craig: That’s true. I forgot. I forgot. It’s a great book, though. That’s a really funny book, too. It’s different.

John: It’s a very different book.

Craig: It’s a very different book, but it’s very funny. Everything that–

John: It’s much more memoir-y than ours is.

Craig: Yes, but those guys are hysterical. Love those guys. That’s awesome.

John: Cool. All right. Let’s move on to our marquee topic. This was suggested by none other than Megana Rao.

Craig: Then it’s going to be good.

John: Our beloved producer from the past. The framing for this is sometimes in Hollywood, in this industry, you say a thing that covers over for what you actually want. It’s a euphemism or it’s a stock phrase that everyone knows the meaning of, but it gets away from saying the actual harder thing that you don’t want to say. Megana’s first suggestion for this was, “No worries if not,” which is a thing you say in an email which gives the other person out because it’s the end, so you don’t come across as too demanding.

Craig: It’s not passive-aggressive. It’s just–

John: It’s just submissive. It’s like a dog rolling over on your back.

Craig: It’s weasel-wording because “yes worries if not,” really. Yes worries. Why would I have asked you? “Yes worries if not,” it’s actually a very useful phrase if you’re asking somebody that works for you to not come off as too pushy about something. They understand if you’re asking for it and you do it. “No worries if not” is a nice way of just saying, “But I’m nice.” [chuckles]

John: I probably used versions of this for something with Drew saying, “This would be my preference, but if the other thing happened, that’s also okay.”

Craig: That is much clearer than this. This is, yes, “No worries if not” is, “I worry.” I immediately start worrying if someone tells me to not worry.

John: “No worries at all,” I think, is an Australian phrase that came over to California. The “no worries if not” probably is a morphed version of that, which is a specialized version. Drew, I proposed this to you on Thursday or Friday, and then you came up with a whole list of– I think you crowdsourced from your friends, a whole list of these industry terms.

Craig: Fantastic.

John: Drew, if you could read us the term, and then we’ll have a little discussion about what it actually really means and what the use of it is.

Drew: We’re playing phone tag.

John: Yes. Sometimes you’re just actually calling what it is. Basically, we keep going back and forth, but also there’s sometimes a little bit of a password. I feel like, I think you’re dodging me or there’s a reason why we’re not connecting here. Because we’re playing phone tag, I’m now just going to tell you in an email what it is I actually want.

Craig: I only use we’re playing phone tag so that the other person knows that I called them back because sometimes I just wonder, okay, I get a call from somebody, I miss it. I call them back, they miss it. They call me the next day, I miss it. Now, I’m like, “Did they know, or is this a second call because somebody didn’t tell them?”

John: Sometimes you forget like, “Did I initiate this? Did they initiate this? Did you already have your answer?”

Craig: I just want them to know I was trying. That’s all. I tried.

John: Next up.

Drew: “Bumping this.” These first ones are for emails, so “bumping this.”

Craig: “Bumping this.”

John: I had to do a “bumping this” this week when I’ve not gotten a response back on a thing, and I do need a response, and so, like, “Hey, bumping this because I need to know this thing.”

Craig: Bump has become this multi-purpose word. It wasn’t around when I started, but then somewhere along the line, this “bumped me” became a thing in notes, like meaning I was reading, and then, suddenly, I was jarred and did not like something or did not understand something. It bumped me. Then “bumping this” also became– I think it might come from programming or something, like bumping something.

John: Like push and pop. It’s like if we’re at the top of the stack.

Craig: Exactly. You’re bumping the stack. This then became like, “I’m bumping this,” and I will get bumping this– I receive bumps constantly like just, “Remember the thing?” It’s actually a nice way of saying, “You never answered my question.”

John: Which is related to the next euphemism here.

Drew: “In case this got buried.”

[laughter]

John: There’s a little more passive-aggressive about that. It’s like, “Here’s the thing you didn’t see.” Actually, though, just today, Craig and I, you had an exchange. You’d send a long email with stuff for the next D&D campaign. Had I actually read the email fully and carefully, I wouldn’t have made the mistake that I made.

Craig: You know what? It got buried. [laughs] No, but that’s why “in case this got buried” is definitely passive-aggressive. That is just saying, “Oh, I’m sure you have so many emails, but–”

John: What’s fascinating about it is it’s passive-aggressive, but it’s also giving them an out.

Craig: That’s the passive part.

John: That is the passive part, yes.

Craig: Yes, but it’s aggressive.

John: Yes.

Drew: “Got caught in my outbox.”

Craig: Oh, please. I’ve never heard that one. If I ever do, I’ll be like, “Oh, please.”

John: This has happened to me once or twice in real life where it’s like, I see a draft that I actually just never sent. I did reply to them, and I realized like, “Oh, no, it actually never went through because it’s just how stuff got threaded.”

Craig: I would believe, I guess, if somebody phrased it as, “I literally never hit send.” It’s been the emails behind a window, another thing. I would get that “caught in my outbox” sounds a little fishy.

Drew: “Coming up for air” after Sundance, holidays, whatever.

Craig: Yes, “coming up for air.” I use that one constantly. Constantly. “I’ll be coming up for air.” When did that start? I don’t even know.

John: I don’t know. I’m sure we could do a Google Ngram search for when stuff actually started appearing in texts. It’s related to a concept of submarining for me, which is submarining where you just immerse yourself so completely in a project, in a relationship, or whatever. It’s just like you just disappeared off the face of the earth. You do come back up for like, “Oh, wow, the rest of the world is still out there. I haven’t dealt with all these things.”

Craig: Yes, there are these times where you are plunged into some process. Sometimes it’s production, but sometimes you’re doing promotion stuff or you’re writing a draft. You have to just focus on that thing, but you tell somebody, “At this time, I’ll be coming up for air, and then we can sit down. It’s just not a great time now because I’m stuck doing all this stuff.” That’s a perfectly fine euphemism. It’s not even a euphemism.

John: It’s a stock phrase. It’s a thingy.

Craig: Yes, it’s a stock phrase, yes.

John: I remember, I think back when I was in Stark. I was interning for somebody, and another friend was interning someplace. We’re talking about this filmmaker who said, “Oh, I won’t be able to do any of that stuff because I’ll be doing award season promotion stuff.” I’m like, “Really? You really think you’re going to be busy doing that?”

Craig: It’s presumptuous.

John: It’s presumptuous, yes. That filmmaker was actually correct, and I just had no sense of, like, “Oh, you’re going to lose multiple weeks just doing that promotional stuff.”

Craig: It’s insane. It’s a job. It’s a job. Oh, boy. I can’t say that I enjoy the job, but I’m not supposed to. The actors, I think, are better at it. Also, just more people want to talk to them because they’re actors, and it’s fun, and they have more practice with it. It does blow my mind how busy it is. I am often reminded by the women that I work with that it is busier for them because these events, like hair and makeup, which I always– There’s a lovely woman named Sue, who does my makeup for these things. That means just take the massive shine off his bald head and try and help his eye bags a little. It’s hours in makeup, hours in hair sometimes for the women–

John: For these women, not for you.

Craig: Correct.

John: You’re not spending hours to make that up.

Craig: No, and I have no hair.

John: Exactly. Makes life easy.

Craig: Yes, so they’re waking up early, and then there’s four hours of this stuff. Then they go to do the event, then they got to take it all off. It is a job. It’s nuts.

Drew: “Just needed to get ducks in a row on our side.”

John: “Here’s why you have not heard back from us. We know we need to respond to this thing, but we have not responded to this thing. We’re acknowledging that it’s taken a while.” Likely, in my experience, it’s just like there’s a higher-level person. There’s a boss who hadn’t read it. The lower people knew what their opinion was, but they couldn’t actually say that until the higher-level person did this. I just turned in a project last week, which I know I will not hear anything back from until after New Year’s, which is great and normal, but it’s all waiting on the big boss to read it.

Craig: I will typically hear people say, “Just give us a few weeks to get our ducks in a row.” “Our ducks in a row” means get the sign-offs from the people that need to sign off. I don’t know why “ducks in a row” is the euphemism we use, but it’s better than saying, “Just give me a few weeks. I’m not powerful enough to say yes.”

Drew: This next one’s a very assistant one. When you’re sending avails out, you say, “Let me know if any of these don’t work, and I’ll see what I can open up.”

John: I love that embedded in there, Drew used the word “avails,” which is, I think, a specific LA term as well, which is availability. It’s like when are there openings in a person’s schedule. Craig’s avails are very limited. Drew is always checking with Craig’s assistant for when he’s available to do things. I get busier at times, too, and so my availabilities are limited.

Specifically, the phrase that you’re putting out here, “Let me know if any of these avails don’t work. I’ll see what I can open up.” What are you really covering for when you say that?

Drew: It’s basically, “My boss has more free time than I’m telling you that they do, but I’m just giving you limited windows to make us seem busy.”

Craig: Yes, there are these three moments that work for next week or literally any other moment, yes.

John: Sometimes you open with misleading specificity, like, “How about 3:30 on Wednesday?” It turns out, really, the whole day is free.

Craig: This also may be code for, “My boss is busy. These are the times he is available, but your boss is more powerful than my boss, and he will move stuff for you.” It’s a nice way of indicating, “Okay.” I like this whole quiet assistant code. It’s interesting.

Drew: Along those lines, “Something came up that won’t be able to move.”

Craig: Oh, yes. No, that’s a a court case, probably.

[laughter]

John: Also, it’s vague enough. It’s like, “Oh, my God, is it the person having surgery?”

Craig: I went to the personal immediately. I’m like, “Okay, this is not work stuff.” That’s the end of that. Won’t be able to move. Okay, that’s not happening there. Oh, this next one.

Drew: “We’re waiting to hear what the team thought.”

Craig: I’ll tell you what the team thought. The team thought, “No.”

John: Drew has written down here, “Slow motion pass,” and that’s what it is. It’s just like, “We’re passing, but,” duh-duh-duh.

Craig: “We’re waiting to hear what the team thought.” Either you have no idea because you’re so low on the totem pole, and that means that they don’t care what you think, or you’re pretty high up on the totem pole and you just want to blame your team for passing. Either way, it’s not good.

Drew: “Let’s keep in touch in the context of a pass.”

Craig: Oh, no.

John: It’s no.

Craig: We can still be friends.

John: Yes, absolutely. We don’t hate you. It’s just that it’s not for us.

Drew: “It’s not quite right for us at the moment.”

Craig: I love the “quite.” “It’s not quite right for us at the moment.”

John: We all know what it means. Again, it’s a kind pass.

Craig: That means no.

John: Yes. Rarely are you going to hear a harsh pass where they hated it. They’re never going to say that. Your reps are never going to tell you that. Sometimes the real answer is like, “No, absolutely not.”

Craig: They didn’t like it. They didn’t like it. They didn’t like it. The end.

Drew: Or, “They didn’t spark to it.”

John: Yes.

Craig: Yes, they didn’t spark to it. Just the spark. Ding.

John: Here’s one that I added. “We’re looking for noisy projects.” Have you heard “noisy” is a good term?

Craig: I have heard noisy, yes.

John: Craig, tell me about what noisy means to you.

Craig: Noisy means something that gets people buzzing either in town or in the trades or people in social media like, “Zzzz.” KPop Demon Hunters was incredibly noisy. There are also things that get announced as development projects that are noisy. Then often what happens is years go by and the noise never turns into anything. They like stuff that gets people chattering.

John: Yes. The chatter doesn’t have to be entirely positive. It can get people upset, and that can also create some noise. Just anything that feels a little provocative or not safe and down the middle of the road is good. We’re recording this before Wuthering Heights has come out. My anticipation is it’s a noisy title. Whether people like it or hate it, it will get attention because of just the noise around it, which can be really nice.

Craig: Yes, yes, yes.

John: Drew, help us out.

Drew: “We’re not the right place for it.”

[laughter]

John: What I like about this is, “Basically, that’s actually a pretty good idea, but we just can’t do it.” I think it’s sometimes a nice thing to say, which is not really accurate. Sometimes it’s actually true. It’s just like, yes, that’s a movie that someone else could make, but it’s not for us.

Craig: Really, that’s like saying to somebody that asks you out, “I’m not the right person for you,” meaning, “I’m not right.” They don’t like it. There are so many ways of saying, “I don’t like it.”

John: Yes, but if you’re pitching an A24 movie to Imagine, that’s the–

Craig: Okay, but you won’t even get through the door, right?

John: This is real talk here. When I will go out with a project, like there was a Mattel project that I was attached to, and so we would make our list of, like, “Here are the places that seem like a good fit.” A lot of other places would want it because they wanted to be in businesses with me, which is lovely and flattering. If I end up pitching these places, it’s like, “You really aren’t going to do this movie.” It was just wasting people’s time. That’s why I wish we’re not the right place for it. It was more obvious at the start.

Craig: If somebody is like, “Look, I know you’re pitching something that is a Mattel thing. We don’t make things like that, but we want to hear the pitch anyway.” They really can’t then say after, “We like it. It’s just we’re not the right place for it.” No shit. We all said that, but it’s more like when they are the right place for it. [chuckles]

John: I think a 2026 goal for me, which maybe based on other stuff that I’m working on, but it’s just to be a little bit more brutal about like, “No, I’m not even going to do that meeting on that Zoom because there’s no point to it.”

Craig: There’s no point.

John: There’s no point.

Craig: There’s no point. Then this next one.

Drew: “They liked it. They just didn’t connect with it.”

Craig: Yes, they didn’t like it at all. [laughs]

John: They didn’t like it, no.

Craig: “I like it. It’s just that I don’t like it.”

John: I also hear like, “I wanted to like it, but I didn’t.”

Craig: They always want to like it.

Drew: “It didn’t fully land for us.”

Craig: Right. If a plane doesn’t fully land, that means it crashes in a fireball. [laughs] It didn’t fully land.

Drew: “We’re looking for something camera-ready.”

Craig: Oh, please. No, you’re not. Nobody knows what that is. Get out of here.

John: You know what camera-ready is? It’s a script that’s already written. It’s not a pitch.

Craig: You’re looking for something camera-ready. It’s a script, a budget, a schedule, a cast, a crew. I mean, please. “We’re looking for something camera-ready.” Yes. Oh, God. Dumb.

Drew: “Well-told.”

Craig: Oh, well-told.

John: Well-told. Oh, my God. I’ve gotten a couple of well-tolds. I just want to just turn off the Zoom-

Craig: -and commit seppuku. Well-told is what they say after you pitch them something. They don’t want it, and they were bored. They say, “Well-told.” You did a good job putting all those sentences in the air with your mouth full. “We don’t like them, but well-told.”

John: To me, that is like you just saw your friend’s play and it was awful. It’s like, “You were up there on stage. Wow. It was great to see you up there on that stage. Well-told.”

Craig: Well-told. Oh, yes, like, “You did it. You did it. Yes, well-told.” Oh, this next one is– I don’t know. This next one is– yes, it’s bad.

John: It’s bad. It’s ambiguous. It’s not always bad, but let’s–

Craig: It’s mostly bad.

Drew: “Let’s revisit after the holidays.”

Craig: Yes. Which holiday? Christmas 2000-and-never? That’s just like if you want something, and here’s what happens. All this stuff gets put in context once you do something that people want. Suddenly, there’s nothing that could be faster. They were like, “Well, there are three people that want this. They want it now. They want it two minutes ago. They don’t want to wait until tomorrow. Here’s an offer. It’s on the table right now, and if you turn it down, it’s gone forever.” It’s never, “We really want this. Let’s just not do anything about it for a while.”

John: The situation where it’s not a pass, where it’s like if you’re talking with your reps about a project to take out or stuff like that, like, “Let’s revisit after the holidays,” yes, that makes sense. Going out after director, that’s a thing that’s an absolutely valid thing because you don’t want to approach people generally this week in December. It’s just like everyone’s busy with other stuff.

Craig: Yes, and just fair.

John: Yes.

Drew: “I’ll defer to the team.”

Craig: What does that mean? What does that mean?

John: What does it mean, Drew?

Drew: You have a disagreement about a thing, but you don’t care enough to fight about it. You’ll let other people make the decisions.

Craig: Oh, “I’ll defer to the team.”

John: Yes, but the fact that you’re actually saying it out loud means that you are stating that you have a disagreement with it. It’s sometimes a useful piece of information, but yes. I haven’t heard it yet. Now, my ears will be open for it.

Craig: Yes, for team deferral.

Drew: “I want to be respectful of everyone’s time.”

Craig: [laughs] That means–

John: I’ve said this on Zooms, too, where it’s like, “This is going on a little long. We need to be done here.”

Craig: Yes, “I want to be respectful of my time.”

John: Yes, and often you’re saying that because there’s people who are on the East Coast or in London, and it’s 2:00 in the morning. It’s like, “Let’s just be done.”

Craig: Or not, or everyone’s in Los Angeles, and this is boring, and it’s too much. The phone version, well, yes, because that feels like a Zoom thing. The phone version that blew my mind the first time I heard it was, “Well, I’m going to let you go.” Well, I’m going to let you go. “I know you have been dying to get up this phone call. I’m going to let you get off the phone. Really, you weren’t dying to get up this phone call. I am. I’m hitting eject.” It blew my mind. I was like, “Oh, thank you for this lovely gift.”

John: My friend Erin Gibson will make fun of me because I have this thing where we’ll go to lunch. At a certain point, “Okay. Well, this was great.” She’s like, “Wow, you just stopped the lunch.” It was like, I’m done. I’m just trying to acknowledge the fact that this lunch is over, and we don’t need to keep dragging it out for another 15 minutes to think about it. This was great, and I’m stopping it.

Craig: I think the problem, if I may, is the tense. “This was great,” as in I unilaterally decided it ended before I said that statement. You get no participation in it. [chuckles]

John: Craig, correct me. How would you end the lunch?

Craig: I would say “has been” instead of “was.” “This has been lovely.”

John: Realistically, I was doing it. The constant presence of–

Craig: Sometimes I like to go, “Okay, I’ve had the best time. What are you doing next? What are you doing next today? Tell me what you’re doing next,” and then you–

John: Thinking for the future.

Craig: Obviously, talking about what’s coming right after this lunch gets everybody generally motivated to GTFO. What you do is nothing compared to what our friend Derek does.

John: Tell me.

Craig: Let’s say Melissa and I are out to dinner with Derek and Christy. It’s never the wrong point. It’s a point where he would just go, “Okay, I’m done. We’re going. Let’s go. Christy, we’re going.”

[laughter]

Craig: We’ve been at their house where like a bunch of people, like 10 people, and then Derek will go, “Okay, it’s over.” [chuckles] Christy is always like, “Derek. Derek.” He goes, “What? They’ve been here forever. It’s over.”

[laughter]

Craig: It’s actually awesome because we all know that he just is going to pull the plug, and that’s that.

John: I respect that. A little candor, a little honesty there.

Drew: I prefer the clean break.

Craig: Yes, it’s the opposite of the Irish goodbye.

John: Yes, exactly.

Craig: Oh, I have the best Irish goodbye. You know my ghost strategy?

John: Tell me.

Craig: I love to ghost. That’s my favorite thing. I’m at a party. In my mind, I’m like, “It’s time. It’s time for the ghosting.” I’ll start moving towards the door. I’m hoping that, at some point, and usually do, somebody’s like, “Are you leaving?” Then I go, “No, I don’t. I’m not Irish goodbying. I’m heading to the restroom, but I’ll be right back,” then I go.

John: They’re worried about you. “Craig, he said he wasn’t leaving, so something’s wrong.”

Craig: I say I am not doing it, so then if they don’t see me, they’re like, “Well, no, he didn’t leave. He said specifically he wasn’t going to do that. He’s somewhere.”

Drew: Diabolical.

Craig: Yes, but I’m gone. You know where I am? In my bed.
[laughter]

John: No, Craig actually does. He says that, and then he goes to the bathroom. He locks the door on the bathroom and then closes it. It seems like he’s locked in the bathroom. Everyone’s like, “What’s happened?” Meanwhile, there’s a line forming.

Craig: Yes. No, I lock the door, climb out the window. There’s not enough bathroom windows to climb out of. That is the air duct of– yes, there’s not supportive vents, and there are not bathroom windows to climb out of. What a shame.

John: It’s tough. Let’s get back to our passes here.

Craig: All right.

Drew: “A project’s too small.”

Craig: That’s crazy, but sure. I get it on some point.

John: I get it, yes.

Craig: Then you probably wouldn’t be pitching to a place where the project would be too small.

Drew: The next few seem to be from spec pilots or something, so like, “Not enough of a hook.”

Craig: Okay. Just the idea’s not grabby. All right.

John: Not catchy.

Drew: “Needs more of an engine.”

John: It’s boring. The story doesn’t go anyplace. It’s just like you’re stuck in one gear.

Craig: You’re not going to be able to write 20 episodes of this. You’re going to write two and then run out of stuff.

John: Yes.

Drew: “Too slice of life.”

Craig: What the hell does that mean?

John: I think it’s not story-driven in the sense of like there’s not a compelling thing that’s moving you along. It’s a hangout.

Craig: This is fascinating to me. That implies that there have been a lot of people writing stuff that has been two slice of life-y. I’m curious why. Is it a generational thing, where a certain cohort enjoys a slice-of-life story?

John: I wonder.

Craig: I don’t recall this being a thing.

John: I’ve never seen that as a note.

Craig: Yes, exactly.

Drew: I have a feeling probably a lot of stuff that’s geared towards younger people tends to be 20-somethings hanging out. Maybe that’s a nice way to say nothing’s happening.

Craig: I think maybe they should look at a little movie called Go, where things happened. You could argue that After Hours is a slice-of-life movie, but it’s tense. Stuff happens. It’s not just like doopity-doop. There were, but I will say there were some slice of life-y. Reality Bites was slice of life-y back in the day. The attraction of the movie was, “Look, it seems legitimate for people your age, right?”

John: Fast Times at Ridgemont High, yes.

Craig: Fast Times was actually quite slice of life-y. That’s true. That’s true.

John: Listen, comedy is on television like Friends.

Craig: Well, sitcoms are slice of life.

John: Everybody Loves Raymond, slice of life.

Craig: Yes, because it’s just the situation happens that week. That’s all. It’s the same. There have been slice-of-life movies that are good. I guess maybe the problem is it’s a pretty narrow target to hit. You’re Cameron Crowe. Yes, I could see you hitting that.

John: Indies tend to go more towards the slice of life, where it’s just a little small.

Craig: Sometimes, that can drift into self-indulgent or boring. That’s a nice way of saying this was bad.

John: You have one thing here as studio speak.

Drew: Yes. Aline’s assistant gave me this one because they tend to go out with very female-centered projects, and they will get the note back that the studios are looking for more “male-entry points,” which means–

John: I love this as a term. Incredible.

Craig: I need to talk to my wife about the male-entry points. This is the worst–

John: I just talked about Heated Rivalry, which was full of male-entry points.

[laughter]

Craig: That’s right. By the way, ever since you talked about Heated Rivalry, it’s one of those things where you buy a car, and then you see that car.

John: Oh, yes.

Craig: It’s been everywhere.

John: Everywhere.

Craig: Suddenly, on all the conglomeration sites I go to with news, it’s like– and then there’s this specific thing of why women are obsessed. Straight women are obsessed with this show. I started reading about it, but you were the first to mention those male-entry points.

John: Thank you. I’m flattered. I snuck in there because it was about to blow up as a meme.

Craig: Well, listen, gay culture is always right there in front of everything. Male-entry points on that show, yes, apparently, very important, but they’re important for all men.

[laughter]

Craig: It’s not just gay men, straight men. We’re all looking for entry points. This is the most horrible phrase possible for what it actually is intended to mean, which is, Drew?

Drew: That we want more male characters so that men will watch.

Craig: Just say that male-entry points, you’re taking something that’s already a little bit, “Eh,” and making it so much more, “Ugh.” Just say, “Yes.”

John: More dudes.

Craig: “We want our stuff to appeal to both genders equally. This feels a little lopsided.” That’s fine. That’s a perfectly fine thing to say because audiences have demographics. Male-entry points? Oh, yes.

John: It also feels like Netflix thinking about, “What are we going to put on the tile on Netflix as you’re scrolling through it?” As a gay man, my tiles on Netflix look entirely different than your tiles just because if there’s one hot guy in the show, if it’s the 19th character, that’s who will show up on my tile.

Craig: [laughs] I have to look and see. Do you want to see what shows up on mine? Because I don’t watch Netflix that often, so I’m going to it right now.

John: We can share screens and see. I rarely see Netflix on my computer, so let’s see if it actually holds up right.

Craig: Okay. Let’s see. All right. This is fascinating. Actually, I have cool tiles. I’ll share the screen here.

John: Excited?

Craig: Yes, so this is actually like a–

John: That feels pretty normal, yes.

Craig: It’s very normcore.

John: Listen, Schitt’s Creek has Annie as the lead character rather than–

Craig: Oh, so they do stuff like that even though–

John: Oh, yes.

Craig: Oh, interesting. Interesting. Okay.

John: Any situation where you’re not seeing maybe the main star but a supporting person is interesting.

Craig: Right, because they’re like, “You’ll like this pretty lady.” Oh, that’s interesting. This is not a bad collection. Well, they’ve got Man vs. Baby with Rowan Atkinson. I guess I would probably like that. [chuckles] They probably would like these things. Maybe I should watch more of these things. All right, so that was mine. Let’s take a look at yours.

John: All right. Let me share my screen here.

Craig: Your collection of hot guys. Oh, this is not that different from–

John: It’s not that different. We have the same tile for The Diplomat.

Craig: For Man on the Inside and Nobody Wants This and Wednesday. You have the baking show. Oh, but your Frankenstein tile is different. Your Frankenstein tile, I think there’s some hot guys in the extras here. [chuckles] Mine just had the monster. [chuckles] You have Rowan Atkinson also, but you have KPop Demon Hunters. I got to say, it’s not–

John: It’s not radically different.

Craig: It’s very, very similar. It’s very similar.

John: Nothing that’s showing up here, but there have definitely been times where it’s like, “Well, that’s absurd that they’re showing me that as the tile for this movie that person is barely in.” Now, there’s nothing that I’ve been scrolling through here that says like, “Oh, well, this is clearly just hot men.” What have we learned in our analysis of our discussion of stock phrases in Hollywood? Why do we have them? What good do they serve?

Craig: Well, they are illuminating about our business because I think in other businesses, people are far more curt and direct because we have a lot of personalities and because it is a little bit of a, “I don’t want to date you now, but if you get hot next year, I might want to date you then.” Everybody is shining everybody on. Nobody wants to say, “No, no, no.” They just want to be careful.

John: Yes, we’re a freelance business. You’re constantly looking for your next job, looking for the next thing. You’re constantly dating, and so you don’t want to preclude any opportunities. You’re trying to maintain relationships while also getting stuff done.

Craig: There’s a guy who is a partner at a prominent production company that will not be named. There was something that I had pitched them many years ago. Oh, no, sorry, I hadn’t pitched them. It was a script I’d written that I didn’t even know they got. This guy loved it, but wasn’t the right for us, but loved it. Years later, there was something I was doing that he wanted. He was like, “Remember, I loved that script.” I was like, “The one that you didn’t give me any money for?” That’s the thing. It’s like everyone’s always hedging their bets.

Nobody wants to be mean to anybody. That person could be your boss tomorrow. That’s how Hollywood works. Everyone’s careful, which can be frustrating at times because sometimes you just want the truth.

John: It’s not the extreme cliche of a Japanese culture, which they will never tell you no. It’s not that at all. You do have to learn what the things really mean. There’s an idiomatic quality to it. If you are coming into this from a foreign language or you’re neurodivergent, you may have a bit of a learning curve figuring out what’s actually really happening here. You may need to ask some people like, “Wait, what does that really mean?” Because you could make wrong assumptions.

Craig: Yes, absolutely. That’s a great point about neurodivergence because Hollywood has a lot of not neurodivergent people. Particularly in the area of producers and executives, those people often have outstanding social skills. They are really sharp and instinctive. They are slippery.

John: Yes. They’re also sometimes really good at managing up. You see, how does that person have their job? Because they seem actually terrible at everything I see them do. They’re really good at managing their bosses and understanding what their bosses want to hear and they can deliver that.

Craig: There is, I’ve always said, one of the great unheralded skills in Hollywood is the skill of not being fired. There are people that I think, literally, their only skill is they know how to not get fired. They’re still there. It is a thing. If you aren’t somebody that’s particularly well-attuned to subtleties and all those things, then, yes, you can be very quickly confused by or outclassed by these people in these meetings.

I’m thinking of one screenwriter we both know in particular who’s incredible, amazing, a legend, and so on the spectrum. I have seen him in meetings. I’m cringing. I’m like, “Oh, my God.” I just want to go over there and help because he does not have meeting skills at all.

John: That’s the case where you’re going to need to find reps and other trusted people who can actually help you interpret and really understand what’s going on, versus me at my point in my career, when I get on a phone call with my reps or even just emails with my reps, I can be very honest about, like, “That felt like a pass. That’s this.” I’m ahead of even where they’re at because I just know how things fit together. I know that this project feels great right now, and it’s going to get really bumpy in about a month when this thing happens. I know we’re not hearing back from this because of these other things, and that just comes with time and experience.

Craig: You will get better at it over time, no question.

John: All right, let’s talk about some numbers. I was listening to a podcast called Search Engine, which, Craig, you don’t listen to podcasts, but Search Engine is a really fun podcast that explores different topics. A fun thing they do for their premium subscribers is they do an annual meeting, kind of like how you have a shareholder’s annual meeting. They talk through this stuff. They have a Zoom, and they have a Q&A, but they make a presentation about how the year went, how things are going. Maybe in a future year, we’ll do that.

I thought on the episode today, we might talk through some of the numbers behind Scriptnotes, both the podcast and the book because I’m a big believer in transparency, letting people see how stuff actually works. Craig, we just passed 15 million downloads all time for Scriptnotes, which is absurd.

Craig: Wow, that’s crazy.

John: That’s crazy. 15 years?

Craig: It took us a long time, [chuckles] but still, that’s insane. 15 million downloads, wow.

John: 1.6 million downloads in 2025. We average 25,000 to 30,000 listeners per episode. Of those, between 2,000 and 3,000 are premium members who are paying money.

Craig: That’s information that I didn’t know. I don’t think that’s a lot compared to these big podcasts and everything. It’s just a lot in an absolute sense.

John: I remember many, many years ago, we were trying to understand our numbers. It was like, we’re Bon Jovi of podcasts. We’re filling a stadium. That’s kind of true, but it’s also–

Craig: It’s a small arena.

John: It’s a small arena.

Craig: Yes, it’s an arena, but you know what? Madison Square Garden, right? I think you got 30,000 people, you can fill MSG. It’s pretty good. It’s important to remember that there are a lot of people listening to it. That’s good. It reminds me to say fewer stupid things.

John: Our most-listened episode of the year was 673, Structure and How to Enjoy a Movie, which was just a crap episode, which is great.

Craig: I like that stuff.

John: Our all-time highest episode is the one with Christopher Nolan.

Craig: Of course.

John: Which was only about double the typical numbers of– It wasn’t like a giant spike outside of everything else. We have 4,500 premium subscribers. Those are the people who are paying us.

Craig: That’s great. Thank you to all of those people. That’s awesome.

John: Which is great. January is always our biggest month for premium subscribers, so thank you again for people who do it.

Craig: Oh, because it’s a Christmas gift?

John: It’s a Christmas gift to themselves or other people who bought it for them, which is awesome. Craig, you’ll remember that I think, last year, we were harping on people like, “Don’t do monthly. Do annually because it saves you so much money.” We bumped up the monthly to nudge people to do the annuals, and they did, which is great.

Craig: Great.

John: Everyone knows we zero out the budget every year. We’re not a nonprofit technically, but we’re just a corporation that deliberately does not want to make any money. We’re an LLC.

Craig: We’re a for-profit company that hates profit.

John: That’s what it is. At some point, we could probably do a B-corporation where we’re not–

Craig: We could convert to a 501(c)(3) kind of thing, right?

John: Yes. We talked about that with the lawyer people, and it’s like the amount of paperwork involved to do that is just–

Craig: We don’t receive a lot of tax-deductible stuff. It’s more that we just give it away when we hit the end of the year.

John: Before we started recording, we talked about how we’re giving away money that’s left over at the end of the year. We’re going to be supporting Pay Up Hollywood and their annual survey, and also Entertainment Community Fund, which we’ve often supported over the years. They help out with basically everyone in the entertainment industry, not just Hollywood, but also Broadway and other artists, musicians who need help. This last year, of course, we had the fires, and they were involved in helping people recover from the fires.

Craig: That’s great.

John: Everyone throughout. I’ve actually toured their buildings here in Hollywood. They have low-income housing for artists, and it’s a great organization.

Craig: Yes, this makes me feel good. I do want people to know because when we say 4,500 premium subscribers, they are paying us. Of course, just so people understand, we use that money to pay for our staff and to make the show. When there is money left over, and there is, we donate it to good causes.

John: Yes, which is nice. We also had a book this year. Our book, we hit the USA Today best-sellers chart, which is certainly not a given.

Craig: Okay, but I do love how we hit it, though. It’s perfect. It is not the top 10.

John: No. USA Today lists the top 150 titles each week.

Craig: 150. We came in at?

John: 149.

Craig: Boom.

John: 149, baby.

Craig: Suck it, 150.

John: The USA Today list is basically all books. Kids books, and because it was December, a ton of Christmas books are on that thing. We came in above the most recent Harry Potter Christmas book. Excited about that. We came in below the D&D Player’s Handbook, which felt so wonderful and so appropriate and correct.

Craig: Never want to overdo that.

John: One of the other big titles of the week that we came out was Olivia Nuzzi, the journalist, had a book about American Canto, which was the RFK Jr. stuff. We beat her.

Craig: Oh, really?

John: Yes. She sold 1,200 copies, and we sold 3,129 copies our opening week. We crushed that book. It was a good reminder that just because something is in the news, it doesn’t mean it’s actually selling any books.

Craig: Listen, this book business is tough. I always felt this about the book that we’ve done here is the kind of thing that just will hopefully be an evergreen and it just, over time, people– Not because we want to make money, because we don’t. It’s because I think it’s helpful. I think the book will help people. I do.

John: I think it will. Of the 3,129, the vast majority are the hardcovers, 2,400 of those, 300 e-books, 350 audio books. These are just the North American numbers. It’ll be a long time before we hear the UK numbers and the other places that we’ve sold. It’s a great start. You were on the email chain with the publishers. They’re happy with the start of this. It’s not like the runaway greatest hit bestseller of all time.

Craig: It was not going to be. [chuckles]

John: It’s a super strong launch for this book. We’re on a track to earn back our advance at some point. Around 13,000 copies sold. We’ll have earned back the money that they already paid us. Drew, we have some books that they’ve sent us that are currently under your desk. I want to make a pitch for what to do with those books because, obviously, we want people to buy books for themselves, which is great. There’s also probably a lot of school libraries, community libraries that also need books who don’t have the money to buy these books.

If you are a person who runs a local library, a school library, probably junior high school, or I don’t think a grade school library is going to be appropriate for our book, write to Drew, ask@johnaugust.com. Let us know what your library is. Provide some proof that you actually are this person who is responsible for obtaining books to these libraries. We’ll see if we can send you one of these books that we have here in the office because–

Craig: I honestly feel like if somebody takes the time to pretend to be a library, I think they’ve earned a book.

[laughter]

Craig: That’s kind of cool, yes.

John: We can send them to US libraries. Because of tariffs and customs and everything else, it’s going to be crazy if we try to send this overseas. For stuff here in the United States, we can send them to libraries because this is a book that I would have gotten out of my school library if I had been there.

Craig: Sure, of course. Cool.

John: Craig, any feelings about the numbers, any surprises, anything that you’re still sorting through?

Craig: I don’t know anything about the book business, so I don’t know what any of this means. I do think eventually we’ll earn our advance back. [chuckles]

John: Yes, we will.

Craig: Which is just, you know, otherwise I’ll feel bad.

John: Which is really rare, honestly, for a book to earn its advance back.

Craig: Then why did they make– Then, I don’t understand.

John: Here’s the math behind things, and I think this is the general stuff. I’m pretty sure our contract is similar. There’s the list price of the book, so that it’s $32 for the Scriptnotes’s book. Of that list price, we get $3.20. We get 10% of the first 5,000 copies. The next 5,000 copies we get at 12%. After that, we get at 15%. It’s that $3.20 that we’re earning on that story now that has been paid off our advance.

Craig: That’s the recoupable part. They’re going to make money is the point.

John: The publisher is still making money.

Craig: They’re making money.

John: They’re making money.

Craig: Got it.

John: The bookstores are making money, too.

Craig: Yes, good. Then I’m happy. I just want everybody to be happy.

John: An interesting thing about our book, it was something like 50% of our sales were Amazon, but a lot of them were not Amazon, which I think is also great too. Just the people buying through other places, including local bookstores. We’re excited about that.

Craig: Great.

John: If you still want a signed copy, there’s a place you can order called Premier. Drew, help me out here.

Drew: Yes, Premier Collectibles. I can put the link in the show notes.

John: Premier Collectibles has ones that Craig and I signed. If you’re in Los Angeles, you can also just go to Larchmont. Chevalier’s Books has a few left that we’ve signed on the day of our live show. They’re there if you want signed copies from me and Craig. Let’s answer some questions. Let’s start with this first one about video podcasts.

Drew: Keeping an Ear Out writes, “My question’s about the explosion of video podcasts. I heard that this terminology took off because studios wanted to make videos without signing contracts with IATSE. Is that true? More largely, what’s going on with the guilds in podcasting? Do any guilds cover digital content, and for what kind of labor?”

John: A couple of things. First off, there’s now a term called “audio podcast,” which we always thought of like podcast, of course, it’s audio, and then a video podcast is a separate thing, but now you actually have to distinguish it. Currently, Scriptnotes is an audio podcast. We may do some video stuff down the road. You look at some of these podcasts with video podcasts, and they’re not that different than a lot of talk shows would be or a lot of other broadcast shows. Now, Netflix is buying some of The Ringer’s shows and moving them over to Netflix.

Video podcasts are in this interesting space where it’s like just TV, and so why shouldn’t it have the same kind of rules as TV? I can tell you that some of this stuff is already being covered by the guilds. The Pod Save America podcasts are covered by the Writers Guild East. Whenever there’s a new market, you’ve got to figure out how are we going to handle it or treat it because you don’t want to come in with a heavy hammer and smash everything down before there’s even a viable economic model.

You also don’t want it to mutate into this thing that replaces what you’re actually really doing, or that existing programs get reclassified as being video podcasts. Rather than talk shows or things where we already have Appendix A protections for. We’re going to see what comes in this space.

Craig: Yes, I’m not sure what’s going on with IATSE here. I don’t quite understand how they go about organizing and doing things. The WGA, for instance, in this case, they have an organizing department. The point of the organizing department is to go to podcasts that are prominent. I think somebody said once, the Writers Guild looks to represent anyone who writes things that move on a screen. This moves on a screen. Let’s organize these shows. We can create contracts. The Writers Guild is not about coming in and saying, “Yes, you have a podcast, and you employ a writer. You have to sign the same terms that we sign with Apple and Paramount.”

John: Jimmy Fallon Show.

Craig: Yes. We have the ability to create separate agreements. We do. We also have an agreement with news writers. We have an agreement with daytime writers and all that. I think, yes, this is something that the Writers Guild could certainly do. IATSE can absolutely shut stuff down if they want. I don’t know if you can get around IATSE. At some point, they’ll come for you. When they come, they do have a hammer, a big hammer. Nobody wants to mess with that.

John: Really, you look at a show like Last Week Tonight, John Oliver’s show, which is terrific and great. It has a big writing staff and big production staff. They are able to create an amazing show every week. You compare it to some of the video podcasts, which are also creating a show every week. They may not be quite to the same scale, but they do similar things. This question of, shouldn’t they be treated the same, is correct. Also, the business model behind it is different. That’s why you need to make a separate way of thinking about the deal.

Craig: Yes. We look at the delivery system compared to the work itself. Is this being delivered through television? Is it being delivered through theatrical? Is it being delivered through the internet? Is it being delivered through– Everything can get its own thing. The Guild is not ignorant of the differences. I think, in a case like this, this is a good area for the– I don’t know what the Guild’s organizing department has been doing lately, but this would be an interesting spot to go.

John: This is the thing that the Guild’s organizing department is going to be focusing on. The East already started. We also talked about verticals a few minutes ago. That’s another thing, which is the Guild’s are now looking at how we’re treating those. WGA is, SAG is, thinking about how are we handling this thing? Because, clearly, we can’t just apply normal TV terms to it because there’s not enough money there for that to actually make sense, but you want to have some protections. You want to have ways that this area can grow, but also that people can make a living at it. Let’s answer one more question from Nicole.

Drew: “I have a couple projects that my reps are reluctant to send out anywhere because I created each of them with another person. Their argument is that they’re trying to sell me as an individual, and if I want to partner with someone, then they need to be able to sell us as a true writing partnership with our own joint samples and shared career track, and I need to commit to that forever. This isn’t really something I’m interested in, and my partners on these projects aren’t either. I’m not doing this willy-nilly.

In one instance, my TV concept is about a person with a disability, so it felt important that I develop it with a friend with a disability who’s also a TV writer with credits. Are my reps right, and it’s not worth trying to sell projects as a one-off partnership? Am I never allowed to work with my friends? Is there something I can do to make these one-off partnerships more appealing to my reps or to execs, and what’s the best way to proceed here?”

Craig: I think your reps are right.

John: I think your reps are right.

Craig: Look, these things aren’t dead. If you don’t want to have your career work as a team, and you want a solo career or the ability to join up with anyone at any time, you need to create your own career first. If you sell something as yourself, it goes well, you can always go back to the people that have paid you and said, “By the way, I’ve written a script with this other person. Take a look at it,” and they will. Okay, but first, you got to get going as yourself, and I’m guessing, based on this question, that you’re not necessarily at that place yet.

John: Yes. Nicole already has reps, which is great. I’m reading this letter saying that they signed you as an individual, and now they’re trying– You have this thing you wrote with somebody else. Like, “I don’t know what to do with this because we’ve been trying to sell you as an individual, and now we take this thing out, it just becomes weird and difficult.” I get it. Remember, reps want to be able to sell you to people and then give a consistent story about, “This is what she writes, this is the kind of thing she’s referring for. This is the kind of show they’re trying to staff her on.”

It’s confusing if they’re now trying to sell a thing which is written with somebody else.

Craig: Because then you are going to want to sell something by yourself, and people will ask, “We don’t know if Nicole’s good by herself.” It could have been the other one.

John: It’s the same with writing samples. If they read this thing that you guys wrote together, they’re like, “But did she really write it?”

Craig: Exactly.

John: Craig and I both know writing teams who’ve split apart, and they need to start writing something separately that is just their work, so people can read it as just their work.

Craig: Absolutely.

John: All right, let’s do our one cool thing. My one cool thing is a Substack written by the artist Charli XCX.

Craig: [sings] I don’t care. I love it.

John: Exactly. Craig, I’m impressed you know Charli XCX.

Craig: Of course. How dare you?

John: I am so sorry.

Craig: I barely. What I just did is pretty much the sum total of my Charli XCX.

John: Charli XCX of Brat. She did the music for the upcoming Wuthering Heights.

Craig: Brat Summer.

John: Brat Summer. Smart artist. She has a Substack, which is just her writing about the things that are on her mind. I just feel like more famous people should do it because it’s a chance to have it unfiltered, like, “This is exactly what I think, I don’t have to go through a journalist to put it out there.” Yes, it could be a blog. A Substack is just a common format for this kind of newsletter. I dig her for doing it. I think it’s a smart approach for this because it’s just an unfiltered, “This is what I think about, that one we’ll link to, is the death of cool.”

It’s like her opinion on how much she values cool in a way that is felt a little, I don’t know, she’s ambivalent about it, but also willing to acknowledge that, like, “Yes, I really care about being cool.” I really like that she’s actually just taking the form and just writing in it.

Craig: It’s blogging, right? This is sort of–

John: Yes, you and I both started as bloggers.

Craig: It’s like a very early 2000s thing that people are doing now. This is a new thing. [laughs]

John: This is a new thing?

Craig: No, it is not. It is an old thing, but this is very bloggy. I’m looking at it. It’s like, the blog is back, basically.

John: The blog is back.

Craig: Which is good. It means–

John: It’s not a visual medium. It’s not–

Craig: It’s words.

John: It’s just words.

Craig: Thank God.

John: Give her credit. She gets to string together words that communicate what she wants to say, which is nice. I don’t know. It gets more of us reading things versus just scrolling Instagram. I’ll take it.

Craig: Yes. Complete thoughts with nuanced arguments.

John: Yes.

Craig: Twitter just killed blogs. It just killed it. Now it’s back because Twitter died.

John: I’m glad for that.

Craig: Yes, yes. Dead bird.

John: Dead bird.

Craig: All right, well, that’s a good one. That’s a good one.

John: What are you looking for, Craig?

Craig: Oh, baby.

John: I see the trailer here, and I’m excited. I didn’t know about it, so [crosstalk]

Craig: At the Game Awards, which were held just a few days ago, the Game Awards are an interesting award ceremony because it’s like, I would say, 50% awards, 50% trailers and announcements. It’s like if the Oscars weren’t run by the Academy but rather just by all the studios. [laughter] The thing is, that’s why it’s an awesome award show, because really, it’s like the Super Bowl, where it’s like, “Okay, the game’s great, but show me the ads.” There was a trailer for the new game coming from Larian Studios. Larian Studios, which made our beloved Baldur’s Gate 3.

They had a prior franchise to Baldur’s Gate 3 called Divinity, and in fact, Baldur’s Gate 3 is built on the Divinity platform. They’ve announced essentially what looks to be a reboot-ish start, but not like going back to the start of a new story, but like with a different level of polish and accomplishment because of technology. The trailer is insane. Now it is not a game play trailer. It is very clearly like a very highly rendered cinematic sequence.

John: [crosstalk]

Craig: I’m going to tell you.

John: It’s giving Wicker Man, it’s giving–

Craig: It goes so crazy. [chuckles] I loved it. I loved it, and it was disturbing and beautiful and ugly and gross and amazing. I cannot wait to play Divinity, and I suspect I’m going to have to wait for some time. This was the first time that they announced that this is what they were doing. They’re saying it’s going to be bigger than Baldur’s Gate 3 in terms of the amount of content, which is mind-boggling to me.

John: Absurd. Will we ever get Grand Theft Auto, or will they keep kicking the can?

Craig: Oh, of course.

John: They’ll keep kicking the can.

Craig: No. I think they’re married to September 26th. They’re saying November 19th, 2026. I think they have to hit that. They have to. They can’t miss Christmas. They’re going to–

John: It’s true, it’s Christmas.

Craig: They have to.

John: This is very helpful.

Craig: In my mind, they are saying November 19th because they probably feel like they could absolutely be done by July. I mean, like, at this point. Either way, by the way, they could release it on the worst release date of the year, and it doesn’t matter.

John: Oh, yes. It doesn’t matter.

Craig: It will make $14 trillion.

John: It will break the internet.

Craig: It is going to break everything, including me. We should be well-wrapped in terms of shooting by then.

John: You’re going to just submarine into some GTA?

Craig: No. I have to do quite a bit of post-production, but still, honestly, yes.

John: AI can do it by then.

Craig: Oh God, how dare you? I can hear my editors screaming at you right now.

John: Oh my gosh. That’s the worst. That does look like an incredible trailer, so I’m excited to–

Craig: To tuck in and enjoy it fully.

John: Such smart people. We wanted to have the Larian folks on the show at some point to talk through the-

Craig: I would love to.

John: -storytelling of that. We’ll see if we can find time to get them on.

Craig: I would love that.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You will find transcripts at johnaugust.com along with a signup for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You’ll find the clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow.

You’ll also find us on Instagram at Scriptnotes Podcast. People have been sending through their book purchases on Instagram, so Drew reposts those when we see them on the stories. It’s great to see the book showing up in all different places. Craig, I don’t know if I’ve talked about how the book in the UK is a little bit narrower and embossed and shiny.

Craig: Yes.

John: It looks nice.

Craig: People in England deserve something nice.

John: They do. They need to have their own special kind of thing.

Craig: As well as Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. I think I covered them all.

John: All the Commonwealth countries basically get the UK version. Oh, so Canada gets our version. We have t-shirts, and hoodies, and drinkware. You’ll find there’s a Cotton Bureau. You’ll find show notes with the links to all the things we talked about today in the e-mail you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you again to our 4,000 or so premium subscribers. You are superstars. Make it possible for us to do this each and every week. Get signed 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 Difficult Collaborators. Craig, Drew, thank you so much for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, we have a question from a writer abroad.

Drew: “How do you tell when a difficult collaboration is simply part of learning this industry and when it’s crossed over into something harmful to your creative spirit? How do you move forward without letting an experience like this make you smaller?”

Craig: Oh, dear.

John: Oh, dear. We’ve talked about this on many episodes, particularly about the mentor relationship or people who are like just bad behavior, or producers who are not even predatory, but just they’re crossing lines consistently. We’ll say this is a little different than the mentorship because this is a collaboration. This is somebody you’re supposed to be working with on a regular basis. I’ve had difficult collaborations where filmmakers, directors, who just like, “We just work at very different speeds.” Some of them have ended up being fruitful, and we got through it.

Some of them ended up badly. It’s a tough thing. I know, Craig, you started off with a writing partner. You and I both now write alone. I feel like I’m not a great creative roommate as a writer. The times I’ve tried to write with other people, I’m just a little controlling and demanding. Sometimes I’m the difficult collaborator, but in general, like, what are some things you’ve learned over the last 30 years doing this about collaboration and that instinct of like, “Oh, this is not working well?”

Craig: Collaboration with a director or a collaboration with a producer or a collaborator is different than collaboration with a writer. That is a very specific thing. I don’t know what the nature of this collaboration is that the writer’s asking about, but we can talk about, yes, I have had moments where I’ve written with other people that I enjoyed. I enjoyed writing with Todd Phillips. That was fun. Mostly, I just want to write by myself alone, to the extent that even though we do have a writer’s room for The Last of Us, I write the scripts. That’s just how I like to do it.

I know that, and I think if you know that about yourself, then it’s incumbent upon you to then avoid situations where you find yourself not being able to do that. When you are in a situation that you can’t avoid, the difficult collaboration comes in two flavors. One flavor is like what you were describing. I move at a different speed. Creatively, I think differently. We don’t agree on tone or all those things. That’s solvable by just one person saying, “I’m going to do it this way, the end.” Or you muddle through with this mush, and it just doesn’t work.

That’s a per-project thing. There’s really nothing you can do about that. That’s just, I’m tall, you’re short, that’s that. The ones that have really messed me up a little bit, and I feel like this is maybe what our questioner is wondering about, are the ones where it’s more of a personal problem. Where there is something that’s upsetting you as you work with somebody. You have a meeting, you work on something, you go home, and you don’t feel good. That’s a tougher one. The writer says, “Harmful to your creative spirit, how do you move forward without letting an experience like this make you smaller?”

There are times in this business where it will be harmful to your creative spirit. It will make you feel smaller. You will struggle with that. Maybe the value of those moments is just, “Okay, I just had the measles. I’m not going to get measles again. Not for a long, long time.” There is a difficult immunization that occurs through infection. It’s hard to recognize certain flavors of trouble until you’ve experienced the trouble.

John: Let’s talk about power. Because a lot of times, what’s really coming down here is who has the relative power in the relationship. In cases where you are a staff writer hired on in a writing room, and there’s a showrunner, and that showrunner has power. That showrunner is also making all the decisions. You can say, “It’s a difficult collaboration.” Yes, it is a form of collaboration, but you are really working for the showrunner. It’s understandable why you might feel frustrated. You might feel like this is difficult. You might not be having a good time in that space.

In terms of the creative process, ultimately, that showrunner is going to be making those decisions, and you have to give yourself some grace of, like, “I don’t have power or control in a lot of these things. That’s just what it is.” I was scrolling through Reddit screenwriting earlier this week, and this writer was complaining that there was a staff writer on a show, and they turned in their script. They didn’t give a lot of notes and feedback on it. The next time they saw the script, it had been really vastly rewritten, and they felt like, “Oh my God, this is so awful.” That’s the nature of the process that you’re in right now.

Craig: That’s normal.

John: That’s normal. Sometimes understanding what normal is, is part of that. Power could also be where you’re much more powerful than the other person you’re collaborating with, which has been some of my situation where I have tried to write with other people, where it’s just like, it wasn’t difficult from my side, but I’m sure it stuck with the other person because it’s like, I would just do whatever I was going to do. Where I suspect this person may be coming from, it’s like, they’re at a similar level here. It’s not clear who’s actually driving the car.

That’s one of the real frustrations, where it’s just like, you both are trying to pilot this thing, and you’re just disagreeing on how to do it, where you’re going. It’s sort of the couple’s therapy of it all, is figuring out how do we get this to work?

Craig: If the primary issue is this person has strong opinions about creatively why something should be this way, and you have opinions about why it should be the other way, in those circumstances, I try to default to the other person’s side, in the sense of like, “Okay, you feel strongly about this. Let’s dig into why, because you may convince me.” I want to be convinced. The whole point of a creative partnership is we are more than the sum of our parts. If I can understand where you’re going with this, maybe we’ll agree, and then we work in sync, or I learned something from you.

That’s potentially valuable. If they have the same attitude toward you, this could be quite fruitful. If they don’t, now you’re crossing into the other issue, which is the issue of personality. It can be incredibly difficult when the personality is such that it’s hard to describe in any other way than when you finish a session, you feel angry. You feel quietly resentful. You feel unheard. You feel insecure. You feel whatever it is that you feel. It may not be the other person’s fault. It may just be the symptom of a mismatch that you’re not meant to be collaborating with this person.
Sometimes, this is something that I still try and work on, is the toxic positivity thing of, like, sometimes in an effort to make something work. In the past, I have been in situations in the past, not recent past, but where I was to go along to get along, and the work suffered.

John: A mutual friend of ours had a very difficult collaboration on a project they were working on. I was hearing the backstory of what was going on behind the scenes, and I was full of sympathy. It’s like you’re both parents of this child, and you want the child to succeed. Sometimes, in those difficult marriages, you do have to suppress some of your instincts to just run away because you both want this child to succeed. It’s finding ways to acknowledge the actual frustration of this moment that you’re in and this contentious relationship.

Also, for the good of the kid, not letting it erupt and damage everything else until you can get through it. Then you can go your separate ways and be honest about what you loved about the experience and what was actually not great about the experience.

Craig: There have been times where it does feel like, okay, after every session, there’s some sort of personal discussion that needs to happen. That is sometimes unavoidable because of the nature of who we are. We are creative people. We’re weird. Our minds are doing this weird thing. It’s unlikely that your weirdness and another person’s weirdness will mesh so beautifully that, A, the work is better when you’re together, and B, you aren’t having personal issues of any kind with the person. Now, writing partnerships that work like that lasts. Thinking of like Harry Elfont and Deb Kaplan, or these people.

John: Dan and Dave.

Craig: Dan and Dave.

John: Benioff and Weiss. They will argue to death about a lot of things, but they’re still all writing together.

Craig: Right. It’s not possible that one of them walks away every single time, going, “I feel bad. I feel resentful. I feel angry. I feel unheard,” whatever it is. Their arguing is good arguing. It’s productive arguing. It’s not personal. Or even if it is personal, it’s personal in a way that’s like brothers, but we are secure enough in our love for each other that tomorrow we’ll be fine. I remember Johann Renck, and I had this thing of, like, because we loved each other, and we would fight all the time. It was such great fights. Very early on, we were like, “Let’s agree to agree.

If we fight, let’s fight. When we get to the end of the fight, we agree.” If you’re like, “Okay, you know what, I’m going with your way,” you don’t go with my way, and then walk away like, “I’m not doing that, actually,” or, “I’m angry.” You’re like, “Oh, okay. You know what? We’re doing it your way.” It worked. I think it worked because we loved each other and because we also had faith that the other person was persuadable. It’s when you feel like you’re in a deal where somebody’s not working in good faith with you that you lose confidence that, really, maybe this can function in a way that is fair and reasonable.

John: A perfect example from my own life was my very first TV show that I created and executive-produced. It was called D.C. It was for the WB Network. It was a partnership, a collaboration between me and Dick Wolf of Law & Order. Anyone should have been able to say, “Oh, this is not going to work. This is going to be disastrously bad.” It was. It wasn’t a good collaboration because of the power imbalance. He was so powerful, and I was the creative person trying to do all this stuff, but also didn’t know what I was doing that it was awful.

I ended up getting fired off the show and having a nervous breakdown. It was bad on almost all the fronts. The reason I bring it up, though, is in time as I pull back out, it just feels like a war that he and I were both in. I have no animosity to him. It was a bad idea for us to be collaborating on this project.

Craig: Mismatch.

John: We never actually made peace. We never spoke after I was fired.

Craig: You don’t need to.

John: We’re both fine. We’re both doing just fine.

Craig: It’s not like your paths are going to cross again. You’re not making procedurals for Dick Wolf. That is a mismatch. That can happen. I’ve been in mismatches. I’ve been in mismatches, and you muddle through. The thing about running a show is you cannot be in a mismatch. You will die. If there is a mismatch, it will express itself. You just won’t be able to make a show. Scott Frank often says, “Good process, good result, bad process, bad result.” It’s not always the case, but I do think if you don’t have some sort of healthy partnership, it’s hard to make something at all.

It’s hard enough even if you have a good one. I didn’t know you back then, but if I did and you were like, “Hey, I’m going to be making a show. I’m going to be running a show for the first time, and it’s for Dick Wolf.” I would have said, “Amazing,” but in my mind, I would have said, “Oh, no.” [laughter]

John: “Oh, no. That feels fraught.” Over the years, I’ve remet writers who are working on Law & Order in those same offices, and they’re like, “I used to just hide in my office because you and Dick would be shouting down the hall at each other.” Can you imagine me shouting in a hallway, Craig? That’s where I was at during that time.

Craig: No, sir. I can imagine you finding a janitor’s closet and crying in there. [laughs] That’s what I would do.

John: There was some of that, too.

Craig: That’s what I would do. I don’t shout down the hallway either. Our friend Derek, who made all the Chicago Fire and all those, he has some great Dick Wolf stories. They’re not bad stories, by the way. I don’t want to imply that he is, but he’s a big personality.

John: He had some power in that situation.

Craig: Derek actually is a great– I could say that is a match. The stories are fun. Dick Wolf is a fun character in his stories, but he’s certainly larger than life. There’s no question about that. Larger than life.

John: Wrapping all this up, you’re going to have situations where you have difficult collaborators. When you have choices about your collaborators, like Craig does in terms of hiring department heads, you’re focusing on the people who it’s going to be a fit. It’s going to be a marriage, and you can make that work. Other times, you’re going to be assigned. It’s like a roommate that’s assigned to you, and you’ve got to make it work and get through the semester. Then learn what you’ve learned.

Craig: Yes. One of the interesting things about being, what you said, in power, when you have power, then you are in a million collaborations, and you do have the ability to end them or continue them, promote them. That is also a tricky thing to recognize there’s something wrong and end it. It’s hard. We’ll call that a good problem to have, I suppose. For our person who’s writing in, I would say you are experiencing something that John and I have both experienced multiple times. The hope is that each time it happens, you at least learn, “Okay, that is a flavor I do not like. I don’t like that flavor of ice cream. Let’s not get pistachio. Oh, let’s not get French vanilla. I don’t like that one either.”

John: You recognize the patterns. You recognize off at first, being like, “The vibe is wrong, and I should trust my instinct there.”

Craig: Trust your instincts. It’s so hard because everyone else has no interest in your instincts. You just got to trust your instincts and trust them in defiance of whatever looks right on paper is nonsense. It doesn’t matter. I’ve talked a lot about when we chose a composer for Chernobyl, and Jóhann Jóhannsson died. We had to replace this incredible composer because he died. We went with Hildur Guðnadóttir, who had scored Sicario 2, and that’s it, but had been working with him and was like his protégé.

There were a lot of composers who– and on paper, she was the least qualified and the weirdest possible choice, but our instinct was that we loved her. Sometimes you just got to go by instinct and let go of what looks good on paper.

John: Thanks, Craig. Thanks, Drew.

Craig: Thanks, guys.

Drew: Thanks.

Links:

• How Disney’s OpenAI Deal Changes Everything by Steven Zeitchik and Julian Sancton for The Hollywood Reporter
• Guilty! Director Who Scammed Netflix Out Of Millions Faces Decades Behind Bars by Dominic Patten for Deadline
• Writing Movies for Fun and Profit: How We Made a Billion Dollars at the Box Office and You Can, Too! by Robert Ben Garant & Thomas Lennon
• Down to Puck: Why Women Are Going Wild for ‘Heated Rivalry’ by Seth Abramovitch for The Hollywood Reporter
• Search Engine annual meeting
• Order a signed copy of the Scriptnotes Book!
• Charli XCX’s Substack
• Trailer for Divinity by Larian Studios
• 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 (now with fewer emails!)
• Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
• Scriptnotes on Instagram
• John August on Bluesky and Instagram
• Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello, and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 717 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. While this is, in fact, Episode 717 of Scriptnotes, it’s also Episode 277 of The Screenwriting Life, a fantastic podcast hosted by Meg LeFauve and Lorien McKenna, where they also talk on a weekly basis about screenwriting. Craig and I went there to talk about the Scriptnotes book, which is out there in the world. They’d read it, they’d loved it, but we also had a good, deep conversation about lots of other things related to writing and the craft and the process.

It was a really good conversation, a great chance to talk with other pros about this business that we all love. If you don’t know them, Meg LeFauve is the co-writer of the Inside Out movies, as well as The Good Dinosaur and Captain Marvel. Lorien McKenna is a writer on shows like Curious George, and a former story manager for Pixar. If you enjoy this episode, give them a follow, The Screenwriting Life. I’ll put a link in the show notes. It’s a great show for anybody who listens to our show to also listen to. One of the things I really appreciate about their show is that they talk every week.

They open up with a segment where they talk about the writing they did that week, where their successes and failures were, and their challenges. That was just great. Take a listen to this episode, and if you like them, give them a follow as well. Most of the episode is that, and then we’ll be back at the end for some boilerplate, some follow-up. In our bonus, for our premium members, we’re going to talk about the career, the life of Rob Reiner. I knew him. I knew his wife, Michele. I knew way too much about the places where this tragedy happened, but I also want to celebrate the incredible things he was able to do and to share some personal reflections on Rob Reiner. Enjoy this episode, and we’ll see you here at the end as we wrap stuff up. Thanks.

[music]

Meg LeFauve: Hey, everyone. Welcome back to The Screenwriting Life. I’m Meg LeFauve.

Lorien McKenna: I’m Lorien McKenna.

Meg: Today, we have a truly special show. We are talking to John August and Craig Mazin, the duo behind the Much Loved Scriptnotes podcast, which has been running for 14 years.

Lorien: John August is a screenwriter whose credits include Aladdin, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride, Frankenweenie, and the first two Charlie’s Angels movies. In addition to his work in film, John wrote the Arlo Finch middle grade novel trilogy and earned a BAFTA nomination for his script of the Broadway musical Big Fish. Through his company, Quote-Unquote Apps, John makes utilities for writers, including Highland and Weekend Read, along with a writer emergency pack, which is used in 2,000 classrooms nationwide. He was also a member of the 2023 WGA negotiating committee.

Meg: Craig Mazin is a multiple Emmy award-winning co-creator, executive producer, writer, and director of such shows as the smash hit HBO series The Last of Us. Record-breaking and critically acclaimed, season one became the most watched debut of any series for HBO. Previously, Craig served as creator, writer, and executive producer of the HBO limited series Chernobyl, for which he won two Emmys, a Golden Globe, a BAFTA, a Peabody, and awards from the Writer’s Guild, the Producer’s Guild, the Television Critics Association, and the American Film Institute. Currently, Craig is executive producing the upcoming HBO Esports drama Damage alongside writer, director, and executive producer Celine Song.

Lorien: Together, John and Craig have released a brand new book, Scriptnotes, a book about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters, which distills more than 700 episodes of podcast conversations, craft principles, and no bullshit wisdom. John August and Craig Mazin, welcome to the show.

John: Oh, we’re so excited to be here.

Craig Mazin: Thank you.

Meg: All right, so the first thing that you guys have agreed to do with us today is Adventures in Screenwriting, or How is Your Week? We’ll let Lorien kick it off. Go ahead, Lorien.

Lorien: My week this week was actually really good. It started out really shitty because I’ve been so busy. What is it, Meg? The busyness is the–

Meg: The highest form of laziness.

Lorien: Highest form of laziness. So busy, so stressed. I have a project due on Monday, and so all those self-doubt, fear, all those icky things came crashing in. I had the panic moment of I have to burn it all down. Instead of that, I talked to my therapist, and we made a big list of all the things I’m doing. I have to say no to a lot of things, which is good, and prioritize my time and energy so that I’m focusing on the right things. I did that, and I feel more in control and more powerful in the right ways. I have a good plan for the end of this year and into the first quarter of next year. It’s been a good week. It sounds horrible, but cathartically speaking–

Meg: It’s a good week.

Lorien: Craig, how was your week?

Craig: It wasn’t that different from yours. My guess is if our weeks are defined by the anxiety that we experience, and then the panic that we have, and then the burn it all down, and then the, “Wait, I’m a genius,” and then, “Wait, I’m an idiot.” That’s pretty much my week every week. I’m up here in Vancouver, and we’re prepping the third season of The Last of Us. I spend my week with forced busyness. I don’t want the busyness, but they force it on me. I try, and have them divide my day. Okay, mornings are meetings, scouts, all of that stuff, and then afternoons are writing. The problem, of course, is sometimes I just don’t want to. Also, sometimes it just doesn’t happen.

The script that I’m in right now is a tricky one because it’s middle-ish, which is always hard, but there were some nice breakthroughs. I’ve just been sitting with a lot of discomfort, as my wife says, but I also had a lovely moment this week. While I was peeing, it’s not about the peeing itself, but I was peeing, and I had an idea. [laughs] It’s so amazing how often this happens where I just need to remove myself from civilization, go into a bathroom, or a shower, and then suddenly, I have an idea. I had an interesting idea that scared me. I wanted something scary, and I went, “Oh, my God, that’s scary.”

Meg: Congratulations on the pee breakthrough.

Craig: Right?

Lorien: All right, John, how was your week?

John: My week was really good largely because I turned in something last Friday. It’s weird how 30 years into this career, you’d think I would get over the joy of turning in a thing, but it just feels so nice to have a script off your desk and for not to be consuming all the brain cycles. Especially that last week where you’re trying to make all the last little pieces fit, it was a rewrite, so it wasn’t the first time through, but there were a lot of notes I was trying to incorporate. I wanted this to really reflect both what I intended, but also what the filmmakers needed to do. I had made a plan for turning it on Friday, and I hit it.

Friday morning, it was just done. It was ready to go. Drew approved it, sent it through, and I had that relief of having a thing off my plate. This week was really fun because I could just do the other stuff that kept getting delayed, and deferred because I was so busy working on that script. The main thing I was writing this week is I have to prepare for a speech for next month. It was really a chance to think through like, what do I actually think about this? What am I trying to communicate? How am I writing for my own voice? That was a fun thing to be working on. Craig and I had finished the first round of promotion for the Scriptnotes book.

It was just a chance to revel in people reading the book and enjoying the book. It was just a dream week. It was also nice to get all this stuff done before the holidays and have a sense of it’s just not looming over me. I’m not expecting any notes until January. It was a very good week for me.

Meg: Perfect. It’s perfect. It’s the perfect timing. We can’t wait to talk about the book.

John: Tell us about your week.

Meg: I will tell you about my week because it actually has a question for you guys. My week has a question, so we’re just going to dive in.

Craig: I love a question week.

Meg: My week was I’m writing a script for a studio with my partner. I’m in there doing the draft, and I’m ready to send it back to my partner because I think we’re done, and I realized, well, wait, I should go check those notes they sent us. Meaning, we had done verbal notes, and then we had taken off on the verbal notes. They were great notes. We were so inspired. We’re cutting out characters. We’re cutting out subplots. It was so fun, and challenging. Then I read the notes, and I was like, “Oh, shit, there’s more stuff in here.” There’s a big thing in here that I did not– By the way, they might have said it on the phone, and I just didn’t catch it, or in writing the notes, it came out.

Who knows? Nothing bad to the studio. I should have read the notes before taking off because in the notes, it says that the main relationship, they’re just not really connecting to them as a couple.

John: That’s a big note, Meg. [laughs]

Craig: Yes.

Meg: It’s a big note. It’s a really big note. I think a lot of the other notes are actually symptoms of this because now that’s a problem, that’s a problem. Maybe they are problems because you’re not emotionally connecting to the characters. Because I came from the Pixar school of thought, I’m like, “I have to blow it all up.” I have to blow up the whole thing because at Pixar, if you get a note like that, we’re starting over. Just [onomatopoeia] like, “Breathe, outlied.” I got very overwhelmed, called my writing partner, overwhelmed him, which was not the smartest thing to do because poor guy driving in the car, and I’m like, “Oh my God.”

My question to you is, short of blowing it up, let’s say I’m not going to blow it up because that’s, in a way, easier to just go, “Fuck everything, let’s just start over.” Somehow, to me, that’s easier because I can start blue-skying again.

Lorien: It’s a burn-it-down philosophy.

Meg: Sometimes, a lot of times, you do have to start over, so I’m totally in for it and up for it. If you guys get a note like that they’re not connecting emotionally to a character, where do you guys go?

John: I go to the first from where we first meet them. I think that so often that is a symptom of they did not meet the character in a way that they were ready to engage with them and to click with them. Something was not setting their hooks of curiosity correctly as we were first meeting this character, and that’s why they’re not seeing themselves in their situation. I fully hear the burn it down start all over again, but that’s definitely not my go-to reaction. It’s something in those first few scenes where we get to know this character are not inviting them into the story.

Craig: I will sympathize with you. The overwhelmed feeling is the worst, and it doesn’t help, but it’s so natural. It just comes and you feel like you’re drowning. It feels like, “The work that I would need to do to make this good is impossible to do in the time I have. What do I do? Oh, my God, oh, my God, oh, my God,” but of course, if you could come back from the future and hand you the script that is finished, that does fix everything, it would only take you a day or two to write it after you read it, right?

Meg: [laughs] I love that.

Craig: If you know what to do, you have the time. In a situation like this, the first question I have is, this is about a central relationship. Which of those characters is the “protagonist”? One of them is, I assume, the protagonist. Why does that person need to meet the other person? It just goes to the question, what is this movie about? What’s the point of all this? If I know what the movie’s about, and I know what the point is, and I know what the problem is with this main guy, and I know what this main character needs to be at the end, which presumably is different, why is this other person the perfectly best person to send in? Why does God send this person? [laughs]

It’s a reflection, in a way. It’s what they needed to get. If you think about it like that, then suddenly, you don’t have to wonder, how do I make people care about this? You’re just going to care because you understand inherently this person’s poking right at the thing that our hero didn’t want poked.

Meg: That’s really interesting because I think what’s happening is, normally, in the past, I’ve written transformative characters that have to meet the person that’s going to poke them, help them change, help them change their view of life and themselves. These are characters who are more claiming their power. Meaning, think about Titanic, they’re not wrong, but they need each other in order to move right to the next place. Their transformation is more a claiming of who they are, and Moana’s a claiming character to me. She’s singing her song. She’s right. Her song is right. She needs to go. She’s just full of doubt, and her how is wrong.

Craig: Who does she need to meet?

Meg: Okay, you’re right. Darn it.

[laughter]

Craig: This is my point. Kate Winslet knows that she should be an independent woman who doesn’t have to marry this guy, except she’s on a boat, and she’s going to marry that guy. Who does she need to meet? What’s so delicious is that when she does meet Leonardo DiCaprio, she’s just giving him the arguments that her mother gave her. “I don’t like you. You don’t live right. I shouldn’t be with you. You’re gross. Fuck off.” We know that she’s just, okay, you’re literally afraid to do the thing. You’re so afraid you’d rather die than actually stand on your own two feet, and here comes this rakish fellow. Perfect, all handsome.

John: I love the story, class, and discussion that we’re having here, but I want to get back to, Meg, your initial comment, which is basically that you went back to these notes, you realized like, “Oh, they had this thing here which we didn’t address in this,” but at the same time, you had a call with them where they’re highlighting their main note wasn’t about this relationship. Going back through those notes, that moment of doubt was–

Meg: Yes, literally in the middle of a paragraph.

John: In the middle of a paragraph. Here’s what I’m saying is that I am skeptical that you, Meg, with all your experience, have actually done something so disastrously bad in this relationship. While it may be useful for you to think about “How to do this thing better?” I doubt that you’ve done a bad job. I doubt that it’s actually a crisis. Because if there was a crisis, these people, their notes would have been about that. That would have been the giant red flashing lights there, and it was not. I want to both honor and acknowledge that, yes, it’s so great to be thinking about how are we maximizing this relationship, and do we have the right people, but also you can rip apart things that are working beautifully with the false goal of improving something.

Meg: All right, so you guys have to come on the show every week and talk to me about my writing. [laughter] Number two, my poor writing partner basically said the same thing, and I yelled at him.

John: I see.

Meg: I was really overwhelmed. I was like, “You’re not listening,” that kind of thing.

Craig: I get that because you have to balance what John is saying, which is a general healthy self-regard with the other concern, which is that you’re just going, “La, la, la, I don’t want to hear this note,” but you wouldn’t be overwhelmed and have this feeling if you didn’t think maybe they were onto something. If I know that these characters are compelling in the way that I’ve created them for me, and someone’s like, “I’m just not compelled by them,” then I don’t know what else to do because I know I did this right. If someone says these aren’t compelling, and it’s really, “Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God,” it’s because I think deep down probably–

Meg: I think you’re right.

Craig: Yes. Now overwhelm. You’re our Kate Winslet today, Meg LeFauve.

Meg: Oh, my God.

Craig: You’re overwhelmed.

Meg: So beautiful, yes.

Craig: When you’re yelling at your writing partner, that’s you flinging yourself into the ocean. [laughter] You’re just going to turn back to your writing partner and say, “Take my hand and carry me off, and let’s do whatever the writing equivalent is of having sex in a car and storage in the Titanic.”

Meg: You can get on the door, writing partner. You can get on the door.

Craig: Yes, and you know what? We both fit on the door.

Meg: We both fit on the door. There’s plenty around.

Craig: Clearly.

[music]

Lorien: We’ll be right back. Welcome back to the show. We’ve been doing this podcast for a while, clearly not as long as you two have been doing Scriptnotes, but I have this experience, I think Meg does too. We learn something every time we talk to somebody, whether it’s an epiphany about our writing or a process or just, “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that,” or, “Oh, I didn’t know that.” When you sat down to write this book, what did it force you to face, to articulate that you’d never got the chance to do in the podcast? Specifically around, what did you learn putting this book together? What surprised you?

John: It was my idea, my team’s idea to do it because our listeners had often said, “Oh, we would love to have a book.” The theory was like, “Oh, you could just take the transcripts and print the transcripts,” and it would have been larger than an entire library. There’s just too much there, and so we had to distill it down. Then it became an issue, what are the topics, and then how do we go through the transcripts and pull everything we’ve talked about, character introductions over the course of 700 episodes to see what kind of stuff was there? I think one happy surprise is that we’ve been very consistent. From episode 20 to episode 900 or 720,-

Craig: Oh, God.

John: -we are very much the same. Our messages are the same, but distilling it down was so, so, so much harder than I thought it was going to be. I was naive. We had Drew Marquardt, our producer, Prasant, who’s one of our editors, Megana Rao, lots of folks who worked with us all throughout this process, trying to pull and distill and to get it down to one consistent voice was just really hard to do. I’m really happy how we were able to get there, but it was just a long slog to do it. Like any writing project, you sort of think like, “Oh, I know exactly what this is going to be like.” You can envision the final product, but getting there is just a much more of a journey and adventure than I was anticipating.

Craig: I learned nothing because I didn’t do it. [laughter] Here’s what I did. I showed up and talked for 700 and some odd hours, and then John and the Scriptnotes team did all the work to turn it into a book. I’ve said this many times, I spend most of my life being in charge. I’m in charge of my show, and I like it. I like being in charge. It’s hard. There are a lot of challenges. It’s exhausting, but it’s what I do. Then Scriptnotes, I am not. I love it. [laughs] It’s so awesome to not be in charge. I don’t know if you guys are– Is one of you in charge, or do you both share?

Meg: No, share.

Craig: You share. I love that. Really, the podcast was John’s idea in the first place. I’ve always been a guest on my own show. [laughter] John comes up with what we talk about, John figures out everything. My job is to show up and be as spontaneously entertaining and as informative as I can possibly be. It’s like John gets to summon me like a wizard summons a familiar. I just pop into the world completely like, “What? Huh? What are we talking about? Great. Ti, di, di, boop, boop,” and then an hour later, I go, poof.

[laughter]

Meg: That’s amazing. I love that. It’s funny, Lorien, and I had this conversation after reading your book. We were like, “Pretty much we can just tell people, ‘Go read this book.'” [laughter] You cover everything, and it’s all so good and all so insightful. We are just going to talk about a couple of the things in the book just to let everybody know, just get a taste of it, and all the great stuff inside. Obviously, we’re not even going to get in depth in even one topic because the book is so in-depth and great. You guys talk about, and I believe this was mainly Craig’s chapter, but in terms of structure, and that there are these people who are analysis people, and they create these things where this is what structure is.

You have to hit this, this, and this, and then how that is bullshit because it’s about creation, and it’s more of a spine or a skeleton inherent within the character. It’s interesting because at first, listening to it, I was hoping it would be your voices, and it’s not, but the guy’s very great.

John: His name is Graham. He’s fantastic.

Meg: Graham is fantastic. He’s now part of your ethos to me. You were talking about, Craig, how at first you were like structure’s bullshit, basically. I love structure, so I was like, “[gaps] We’re going to have a fight on the podcast because I love structure.” Structure is everything to me, but then I realized we have a different way of saying the same thing. I say it as structure is the character’s movement,-

Craig: Exactly.

Meg: -and you’re watching a human being come to consciousness about something.

Craig: Exactly.

Meg: You’re saying, and I loved your word because it helps me think of my own script in a different way, it’s, I want to make sure I get the right words right, that to you it’s a central dramatic argument, a thesis that you’re putting forward, and you use examples like men and women can’t be just friends, better be dead than a slave, if you love someone, set them free. That’s so great to take to my work and be like I think about words, I think about redemption, I think about forgiveness, but that isn’t fully a thesis yet. What do you have to say about forgiveness? My question to you, and I love this chapter, you break down Nemo. I’ve used Nemo too, which was fun.

I was a little jealous. I was like, “Wait a minute.” [laughter] I thought, okay, mind melt. How do you, and I’m asking both of you now, how do you get to that argument? When you’re writing drafts, how do you find and distill it down? Do you always not start before you have it? Do you find it as you go? How do you, even if you have a word, let’s say forgiveness, or how do you distill it into that argument or that theme that will become the structure and the character movement?

Craig: I do caution people, I think, even inside that bit to not necessarily feel like they have to start by writing down a bunch of fortune cookie things, and then what story should go on. We often start with an idea. Really, the thing that gets you excited is the thing you should start with. You have an idea for a plot. You have an idea for a cool character in a place or time. The next question I usually ask, then, is like, okay, if I have an idea for a movie, just plot. Then the next question is, who would be an interesting person to see inside of that? Then the next question would be, why did I think that that person would be an interesting person, and what is wrong with this person?

Something’s wrong with them. Otherwise, they’re fine. I don’t want to watch it. It’s not drama. What’s wrong with them? By asking what’s wrong, you will get to a place of, okay, I understand. It’s a cool idea. Shrek was a cool idea. The man who wrote the book, William Steig, is that right? He had a cool idea. I think somebody like Ted Elliott comes along, and he goes, “All right.” The character is someone who is so angry about losing his swamp. Why would anybody want the swamp in the first place? What is an ironic thing for an ogre to want? Love, right? You very quickly will get to it is better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all.

It’s just like, boom, right there, but that’s fine. You’ll get there through examination of what the fertile soil is around the plot that you’re playing with or around the characters that are emerging.

John: Going back to Craig’s Finding Nemo chapter and this overall framing of the question, we talk about structure, but central dramatic argument is also theme. There are all these words that we throw around a lot about in screenwriting. I feel like the jargon of it all is sometimes a barrier for people to understand what’s really at the heart of this, which is that, do you have interesting characters who are trying to do interesting things, and are you creating obstacles in their way that are compelling for the audience? I think a thing that Craig and I often feel frustration about with dogmatic structure is that you’re hitting these beats, but what is the experience of the audience?

What is the audience feeling through this? How is our relationship with that character changing? How are we putting ourselves in their shoes, seeing the choices they make, and have it feel like they are really driving the story? So many “well-structured” scripts are terrible because they’re just not compelling. They’re not interesting, and scene by scene, they’re not working. So many of these books talk about these templates for things and neglect like, oh, no, you actually have to have interesting scenes that do compelling things where there’s a structure within the scene where you have conflict within the scene.

In the book, we’re just trying to tease out those things and make it clear that as a writer, you’re thinking about all of this at the same time. You’re both in the scene with the characters and sitting in a theater watching it on the big screen. That’s really the challenge of the craft that we’ve chosen is that you’re trying to do all this at once and forget that you actually know what’s going to happen next.

Lorien: Along those same lines in the book, you talk about abandoning want versus need, which I am 100% for. I think it’s so distracting for people because they write characters who articulate their need in the first 10 pages. They’re super aware. We as the audience are aware, and we’re like, “Great, I know what’s going to happen,” so it’s not engaging. Again, it’s that conversation of the different words we use for things. I try to articulate that as what does the character learn? What do they realize? Meg talks about that belief system. How is their belief system shattered? What are ways that you talk about it that is more clear to you when you’re writing specifically?

Craig: Those all sound good. I just think about myself and you mentioned therapy earlier. We don’t go to therapy to announce the insights. Also, insights themselves–

Lorien: Wouldn’t that be great though if we did? [laughter] “Here are the things I know about myself. You pay me. You’re welcome.”

Craig: Just say them back to me. As my therapist and Scriptnotes associate therapist, Dennis Palumbo, says, insight is the booby prize of therapy anyway, because just because you realize something doesn’t mean you’re okay. In fact, that’s usually the worst moment. The worst moment is when you realize you’ve been wrong, you realize the way it should be, and you have no idea how to get there. You can’t go home, and you can’t go forward, and you’re just lost in the phantom zone. That is in fact what the low point is. It’s just that in these structure books they go, “No, a low point happens. Your character’s sad.”

Why? I do think quite a bit about just the simplest things. What is this character afraid of most? How profound is their denial? I want their denial to be profound enough that they are not aware of it because that’s how denial works, but I don’t want it to be so profound that they cannot then be shown. It’s right under, but it’s got to be under, and that’s as simple as that. What are they afraid of? What’s their denial? Why would I be invested as a third party in them having the insight, and then finding the courage to move forward and become the new person?

John: If you’re making those choices, honestly, they should resonate with the audience. The audience should be able to see themselves in this protagonist. Even if they wouldn’t make necessarily the same choices, they understand why the character’s making those choices. They want that character to succeed. They are right there with them. That’s classically what you’re going for with the protagonist going through on a journey and having that transformation. I think we also really try to focus on the book is that it’s never about one character. It’s always about a relationship.

It’s always about the relationship between two or more characters, and really thinking about that relationship as its own entity, and where are we at with this relationship. We probably have a POV perspective on that. There’s one character who’s driving a little bit more, but we have to really be able to understand things from both characters’ points of view. Again, that’s a thing we didn’t see in the books that we read growing up as we were starting off in this business.

Lorien: I love it. I like the, what are you afraid of? That’s something Meg talks about Jodie Foster asking all the time. What is the main character afraid of? I think it’s such a great. Then how much, how deep in denial are they? Because we have to be in denial with them.

John: Yes, and we have to make their denial understandable and even attractive. I want to know. I’m rooting for Shrek in the beginning. I’m like, “Yes, beat it. No one likes me. The world is designed to kill me. My parents sent me away when I was eight [laughter] to be alone, and I like being alone.” He’s so happy in the beginning of the movie, but it’s not really happy. It’s just content.

Meg: I talk about this. You guys have a whole chapter on point of view, which is great and enlightening. My take on it is also emotional point of view, which you’re talking about. Emotionally, I have to agree with the denial. Who’s emotional point of view in the scene? Sometimes when I help people with their scripts, I’m like, “Just go through your script and see whose emotional point of view are we in each scene because it’s flopping all over the place and I’m never landing.”

Craig: What you just said should be chiseled onto some wall at the DGA because where I find non-writing directors struggle sometimes is very specifically with that. Who has the emotional perspective in the scene? It’s such an important concept. The emotional perspective is typically defined to me as the person with whom at the end of the scene, I go, “You. You ran this. You were in charge of this. You saw it. You get it. You learned. You changed. You influenced. You did something,” but it’s got to be someone’s. Yes, I love that. Thank you for saying that.

John: It’s always a challenge when you have parallel plot lines. You may have a protagonist, you may have a secondary character who can drive their own scenes. They clearly have storytelling power in the movie or in the series, but then you put those two characters together in a scene, and it’s not obvious to the audience who is driving the scene, who’s in charge here, who we’re supposed to follow. You as the writer, you have to make that choice because they can’t both be driving the car. That’s a fundamental thing to do. I’ll go back Harry Met Sally. The movie is largely Billy Crystal’s movie and he’s driving those scenes when he’s in them together, but they’re wrestling for control of the wheel and that’s some of the fun.

Lorien: We get asked a lot, “Which project do you focus on? How do you know?” It’s, well, who’s paying me? What are the deadlines?

John: Yes, who’s paying me? That’s a good one. [chuckles]

Lorien: Other than that, let’s say you’re an emerging writer or you have multiple things going on, what do you say no to, I guess, is the bigger question. You talk about this in your chapter on endings. You say, which one has the best ending?

Craig: Yes, my default go-to answer. It’s like, write the thing with the best ending.

Lorien: Which is this is great. In a feature, your ending has to be inevitable, surprising, satisfying. In a TV show, you need to have an ending for each episode.

Craig: You get to have an ending for each episode.

Lorien: You get to have an episode that’s ending.

Craig: It’s a gift.

John: It’s so nice.

Craig: It’s a gift.

John: You also get to have a new start at the beginning of every episode, which is so great. Back when they had commercials, you had act breaks, which is also exciting.

Lorien: You get to have an ending at the end of the season and the series. What advice would you have for someone who’s writing a spec pilot and they need to have that ending of it that makes the person desperately want to read the next episode?

Craig: For starters, for television, you have to ask an important question. The movie question is, who would I like to sleep with for a month or two? The television question is, who would I like to move in with? I want to live here for a long time. I want to be in this world and tell these stories with these people for a long time. This will be good. In fact, I have too many ideas about what happens next. My problem is, how do I break these down into a manageable amount of episodes? Definitely, there’s a big idea at the heart of it that makes you go, “Okay, yes, I need to see this now.

At the end of this first episode, I understand, the audience understands why I want to be here.” I’ve transmitted to them the moment that made me go, “Ooh, I got to do this as a TV show.” Transmitting that passion theoretically should work.

John: Yes. My next project is probably going to be a streaming series. I’ve written the pilot. We took it out. We had all the meetings. What was so great about the meetings when they’d actually already read the pilot is they could ask me questions, and I could pitch them detailed things like, “Okay, this happens next, and this happens next, and this is a typical thing. In episode 6, this is how we’re flipping it.” I wasn’t faking any of that. I’m genuinely passionate about doing it. If you’re looking at writing your own spec pilot for something, you should have that sense of enthusiasm and excitement, and that will carry through back into the pilot you’re writing.

You’ll see that you’re setting up these things, and so like, “That’s going to be so exciting to pay off.” I’ve read a lot of spec pilots where it’s like, “Oh, I can see that you delivered the premise of that, but I just don’t feel like there’s another episode there.” While the writing on the page was good, I’m not that necessarily excited about that writer because I don’t feel like they have that hunger, that zeal for continuing and actually making this as a show.

Meg: Yes, so many times the spec TV pilots, they don’t have an engine to the show.

John: No.

Meg: Do you guys have any insight into TV engines? I’m a feature writer, so I can talk about feature engines till the cows come home. When people ask me about TV, I’m like, “Ah.” What is a TV engine for you guys?

Craig: I don’t know because I don’t write that kind of show. I’ve only written shows that had endings planned. The Last of Us, it’s just a very long single story cycle that has cyclots inside of it. Each episode is a cyclot. The season is a cyclot. The series is a cyclot. I actually don’t know how to write a procedural that is meant to go on forever or even an adventure show that’s meant to go on forever. I understand it. If you put a gun to my head, I could do it. Just I’m not sure that that’s where my smarts are particularly leveled up.

John: I would go for making sure that each of the characters that you’re establishing as your series returning regular characters, that there’s interesting things that we want to see paid off that can’t be possibly paid off in the course of an episode so that over the course of a season, over the course of multiple seasons, we’re going to get a chance to see them grow and change and get somewhere closer to where they’re going to be going.

The challenge, of course, is then the reason why you have to have big brains and/or a writing staff to help you do it, is finding ways that what each of those characters is going for, what they’re trying to pay off, the stuff that’s driving them can resonate with multiple characters in the course of an episode, and that they’re in conversation with each other, that each of these plot lines really do have a reason to be intertwined in ways that are meaningful. It could be thematically. It could be the conflict that’s going to come between them, but that’s the hard work.

If you go back and look at your favorite TV shows, the ones that keep coming back, they have that in their DNA. From the pilot forward, you can see that they set up characters who can just generate a lot of story, and that’s crucial.

Lorien: Craig, when you said movies are who do I want to sleep with for the next two months, you said, and then a TV show is who do I want to live with, and I thought, “How dare you? That’s not true.” Then I quickly flipped through everything I’ve recently watched to check to see if that was real, and I was like, “Oh, no, it’s mostly true.”

Craig: I’m mostly true. That’s my thing.

Lorien: Mostly true.

Craig: I’m true-ish. [chuckles]

Lorien: It’s a great generalization, though, to check because we also get asked, how do I know if my idea is a feature or a TV show? It’s a little bit of, do I want to hang out with this person for a really long time and be all up in their business, or do I want to be with them for this hot moment, intense experience, and then say goodbye?

Craig: We have met people that we can think to ourselves, “This would be a great hot moment, but oh my God, I would not want to live with you.” You have to ask when you think, is it a movie or a show? How much is really here? Is this an explosion or is this dominoes that keep going? That’s what you just have to have a sense for. God’s honest truth. The reason that so many screenwriting books are bad is because they just don’t acknowledge something brutally fundamental to what we do, and that is talent. [chuckles] Taste, talent, instinct.

There are things that you learn over time that John and I have learned over time that you guys have learned over time, and you share with people, and we share with people, but we don’t get to that if there isn’t the stuff that you cannot teach. There’s a lot you can’t teach. The Screenwriting Education, our book, it’s ultimately for people who we will find out later had what they needed to have at the start. Maybe this helps them get where they were going to go a little faster. I think is nice, but these questions, movie, television show, we’ve all sat in rooms and watched executives debate with each other because they don’t know. It comes down to us, gulp.

[music]

Lorien: We’ll be right back. Welcome back to the show.

Meg: I also love the chapters in the book where you’re taking quotes from your guests. It’s really fun to see them so distilled down, and great insights from all the guests. One insight that I wanted to ask you guys, David Koepp and Eric Roth both talk about getting fired. These two penultimate writers, the icons of screenwriters, talk about, yes, getting fired sucks. Eric Roth talks about how much it hurt. To me, that’s also talking about, as writers and artists, our failure, which we want our characters to fail so they can transform. Yet, when we fail, we’re like, oh, what’s happening?

Craig: Exactly.

Meg: What is your experience, take on, it doesn’t have to be being fired, because maybe you’ve never been fired-

John: Oh, good Lord. We’ve both been fired a lot.

Meg: -or maybe failure.

Craig: A lot is strong praise, but certainly, we’ve experienced– you can’t work in this business and not. There’s the hard firing and the soft firing.

John: Mostly, the soft firing.

Craig: Mostly, the soft firing.

John: Mostly, it’s like we’re not proceeding with the thing.

Meg: They just never respond to notes. Literally, you hear from someone else, oh, they’ve moved on.

Craig: You do the drafts that you were hired to do, then they don’t really need more, and you go do something else, and then you hear that someone else is working on it.

Meg: How do you process that? What is your process? Do you immediately start something else? Do you rage? Because again, it’s approach to failure and what our characters do too. How do you guys approach it?

John: Maybe before I talk about healthy approaches, we should describe unhealthy approaches, things we’ve seen other writers do, which is just not serving them or serving anyone well. We’ve seen writers who fixate too much on one project to the exclusion of others and their entire identity becomes about this thing that it’s the next thing they’re going to make and it’s going to happen, or they got screwed over by this producer on this thing, it’s all they could talk about for years, and they don’t write other things.

That is so frustrating and debilitating when you see talented people who are getting in their own way by fixating too much on one thing. I think you have to passionately love the thing you’re writing, believe in it so deeply, and then also acknowledge at some point it could just vanish and go away, and it doesn’t diminish your experience and your love of it, but that you have so little control over it ultimately.

When I’ve written books, books exist out in the world, they’re on a shelf, I’m done, and they’re there. As screenwriters, we’re just writing this plan, this vision for a movie or a series that could be, and sometimes it’s not, it sucks, and you can grieve that, but if you fixate on it, if you let that be your defining quality, you’re going to be at the start of your tragic beginning. You’re going to protagonate on that, and that’s not a good place to be beginning.

Craig: It’s harder when you start your career because you have fewer experiences. If you get up to bat and it’s your first at-bat as a major league baseball player and you strike out, currently, you are on course to strike out every single time and be the worst player in history. You have to have a short memory. Feel your feelings. The most important thing is to not let it define you and to also remember, thank you, Dennis Palumbo, that feelings are real, but they don’t mean anything. They have no logical significance, and they are terrible predictors of the future because what we tend to do is say, I got fired, I will be fired, I’m the fired person. Now everybody looks at me as no good, I’m no good. The end. That’s in fact not what’s happening.

There’s this wonderful study that I’m obsessed with that these guys, we’ve talked about this before on the show, Kahneman and Tversky, who are these two psychologists who studied human irrationality. They were hired to look at the performance of people in the military, like in the Air Force. They were hired to basically help evaluate and teach the people teaching these people how to teach them better. They asked, well, what’s something that you guys know? They said, well, we know that when somebody goes out on a practice run, and they do really well, they come back, we praise them, the next time they don’t do so well.

When they go out, and they fail, and they come back, and we yell at them, the next time they do much better. It seems to us praising people makes them worse and punishing them makes them better, which is a perfectly human conclusion to draw, except the reality is, it’s just regression to the mean. Generally speaking, when you do really well, you’re doing better than you normally do. When you don’t do very well, you’re doing worse than you normally do. What happens when you get fired is, they could be wrong, which has happened to me before, where I’ve watched it, and I’m like, ahah, but let’s say you didn’t do as well as you normally do, that means you’ll do better because normally you do normal.

That’s the perspective that time gives you because you can’t see it unless you get fired a bunch and you succeed a bunch. There are wins that I’ve had that I didn’t really deserve. There are failures I had that I didn’t really deserve. There’s all sorts of weird things that occur, but eventually you can get to a place where at least you go, okay, if you don’t want to continue with me, that’s for the best. It’s good. It means you hired the wrong guy for what you want. It’s, you know?

Meg: Yes. I love that. It’s not a definition of you and your worth and your value and who you are forever. I think that’s great and a great example of belief systems in your characters and how we see things that are just not really, you might have to wake up through experience to that. All right. We could talk for hours and hours with you guys. It’s such a privilege. Craig and John, you have shows to go and features to write. We always ask our guests the same three questions at the end of the show. Go ahead, Lorien.

Lorien: Craig, what brings you the most joy when it comes to your writing?

Craig: When something just sings, I don’t know how else to describe it. When there’s just a beautiful harmony, and I know it’s right. You just know when it clicks, and you’re like, that is correct. It doesn’t matter if anybody in the world told me this isn’t correct, they would be wrong. This is correct. There’s no defense or argument here. It’s just humming in my bones. It’s humming the right tune. It is in harmony. That’s the most joy.

Lorien: I look forward to that happening quite soon for myself.

Meg: Craig, what pisses you off about writing?

Craig: How disconnected effort is to result. It’s remarkable. There are times where just, there it is, done. I’ve gone two weeks grinding myself over one scene because it’s just wrong, and it makes me crazy. Then, eventually, there’s a moment where I go, oh, it’s because that’s not the right scene or because of whatever. It is so frustrating to not be able to say, well, if I just work harder, if I’m building a house and I just sleep less and work more, theoretically, the house will get built faster. It just doesn’t work that way in writing. It’s frustrating. It pisses me off.

Lorien: What’s your proudest career moment to date?

Craig: Probably somewhere around the second or third week of Chernobyl airing, where it became clear that people were watching it. I didn’t think anybody was going to watch it. When that happened, and the response was what it was, I just felt great because it was legitimately after– I had been working at that point for 25 years, it was legitimately the first thing I had ever done that I wasn’t fulfilling anyone else’s request. I thought of a thing, I did a thing, I did it entirely in my own terms, and I was in charge of it. That was my proudest moment. It’s going to be hard to top that one. I don’t think I’m going to top that one. It’s a pretty good one.

Lorien: Yes, you will.

Craig: I’m still sad and anxious all the time. Don’t you worry.

Meg: All right, John, what brings you the most joy?

John: Related to Craig’s, he’s talking about how everything in the scene clicks. For me, it’s when a character surprises me. When the character does something that I wasn’t anticipating them doing, they say a line, suddenly, they just are able to do a thing that I was not conscious that they could do. At a certain point, they just become alive; they’re just doing their own things. Those moments where you feel like you are just a documentarian filming them doing their life, those are the moments that bring me real joy. Those are generally moments where I’ve passed into flow, where it just becomes easy. That’s the joy. That’s the high you’re often chasing.

One of the things I just try to remind writers is that just because you’re not in flow doesn’t mean that you’re doomed, that you’re bad. Flow often won’t happen, and yet, no one will know that you wrote that scene while you were in this magical, mystical state, versus you were just grinding through it.

Lorien: All right, so what pisses you off about writing?

John: Probably what pisses me off about writing is that there is fundamentally this impossible task we’re given that we are trying to create the experience of watching a movie just with the words on the page, and that all the artistry we can do, all the craft, all the little tricks we can do to create the visuals and the sound experience, or just the feeling of being in that world, it is fundamentally limited, and that it’s going to have to be interpreted through actors and directors and everybody else, and it’s never going to be quite the movie that I see in my head.

You have to learn to live with that and accept that. It’s never going to be quite– there’s just no direct brain connection where people can quite see the movie that’s in my head, and what’s helpful is when you remember that, you are the only person who’s ever seen the movie, you can have a little bit more patience with people who are still getting up to speed on the process, the directors who are asking 20,000 questions because they just cannot see the same movie that you’re seeing.

Meg: Last question is, what is your proudest moment in your writing?

John: Weirdly, it wasn’t a public moment, but I would say when we did the Big Fish musical. I wrote the movie Big Fish and did the Broadway musical Big Fish, and along the way, you do these readings and workshops where you’re getting it up to speed, and what’s so great about them is they’re so private. There’s maybe 20 people in the audience for some of these things, just sitting in chairs, and you don’t have props or costumes, people are at music stands. Yet, I can see, oh my God, Andrew Lippa and I made this thing that was just beautiful, and everyone’s crying in this room.

It was just great to see that you can create these really amazing emotional experiences with nothing but just words and songs. There’ve been many moments along the way in the Big Fish musical, but those small, intimate moments were some of my favorite and proudest moments.

Meg: John and Craig, thank you so much for coming on our show.

John: An absolute pleasure.

Craig: It was great. It was great to be here. Thank you, guys.

Meg: Thanks so much to John and Craig for joining us today. Their new book, Scriptnotes, a book about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters, is out now, and we’ll link it to the episode description.

Lorien: For more support, find us on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok, and head over to thescreenwritinglife.co to learn more about our workshop program, TSL Workshops. We have a growing library of prerecorded workshops that cover craft-related topics from character want to outlining a feature. We also host two live Zooms a month where you could chat with me and Meg about projects you’re working on.

Meg: Right now, we’re running a special holiday promo. Just head to the tslworkshops.circle.so and use the code holiday25 to get 50% off your first month. The link and promo code are also in the episode description. If you have any questions, you can always reach out to thescreenwritinglife@gmail.com.

Lorien: Thank you for listening, and remember, you are not alone, and keep writing.

John: That was The Screenwriting Life. It was produced by Jonathan Hurwitz and edited by Kate Mishkin, whereas Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Ciarlelli. Our Christmas-y outro music is by Matthew Ciarlelli as well. 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. 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. You can find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You can find us on Instagram at Scriptnotespodcast.

We have T-shirts and hoodies to drink wear. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes with the links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you. Thank you to all our premium subscribers, especially the folks who are joining us in this new year. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on Rob Reiner. For Drew and Craig, Meg and Lorien, thanks for listening.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Okay, bonus segment. Not the bonus segment I wanted to record.

Drew Marquardt: No, I’m so sorry. As soon as I found out, I texted you because you knew Rob and Michele. It was heartbreaking for me. I can’t imagine how it was for you.

John: Yes. We were having dinner with friends, and another friend texted me and said, holy shit, Rob Reiner. I was like, yes. You quickly look at the headlines, but you don’t know what’s really happening. When I saw stabbed at his home, I was like, oh, I hope it’s not the son, and it was the son. Weirdly, Rob Reiner is, of course, an icon of a director. Looking at that period between 1984 to 1995, he was just unstoppable.

Drew: Incredible.

John: Just amazing. This is Spinal Tap, The Sure Thing, Stand By Me, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, Misery, A Few Good Men, The American President.

Drew: Incredible.

John: Incredible. Back to back to back. So many of these movies we’ve talked about on Scriptnotes over the years. Obviously, we did a whole deep dive on The Princess Bride, but When Harry Met Sally, it’s foundational.

Drew: Whenever I leave the podcast someday, let’s just do a deep dive on When Harry Met Sally. I think I’ve seen that movie more than-

John: Next week.

Drew: Next week, yes. Perfect.

John: It’s an incredible movie. We think about it as Nora Ephron’s movie, but it’s Rob Reiner who directed it. It’s because of his working with Nora Ephron that we got the movie that we got. We got that perfect trajectory-setting romantic comedy. It was hard to imagine what our rom-coms would be like if we hadn’t had When Harry Met Sally.

Drew: The American President felt like it was a constant on TV when I was growing up. That was Sorkin, right? I think wrote that.

John: It was Sorkin, yes.

Drew: He made these sort of North Star movies.

John: There’s an episode of Love It or Leave It where Rob Reiner comes on to talk to John Lovitz about just directing and other things. They talked about Aaron Sorkin, where he’s very upfront about all the cocaine he was doing when he was writing The American President. It was this 600-page script he delivered. Rob Reiner was going through and cutting out all the stuff that he did down to, here’s The American President, and all the parts that were not there became The West Wing.

Drew: That makes sense. It’s been striking to me in the last week or so, since this all happened, how many people just talk about him as a person who lifted them up and gave people freedom, creative freedom, and really bolstered people he believed in. He just seemed like the best, both professionally and then also politics, too.

John: Absolutely. I never worked with him on anything. I may have had one meeting at his company at Castle Rock at some point early on, but he was doing other stuff. I wasn’t writing anything for him. I first got to know him, recent history here. In California, we had marriage equality briefly, and then there was Prop 8. My husband and I got married during the brief window of time when we still had marriage in California. It wasn’t legal federally, but it was recognized within California. Then the same year that Obama was elected, Prop 8 passed in California, which took away marriage equality.

Mike and I were part of the lawsuit that was challenging the legality of that, which was designed to be a federal lawsuit. It was an organization called American Foundation for Equal Rights, and Rob Reiner was a big funder behind it. I went to organizing dinners and other events at their house to get this stuff started, to meet Ted Olson and David Boies, who are our lawyers behind all this. They were great and helped find us plaintiffs and helped put the whole thing together.

Over the course of years, I saw Rob and Michele a lot, and they were phenomenal. Obviously, everyone’s going to talk about Rob Reiner because he’s a legendary director. Michele Reiner was great. One detail I think is worth telling about Michele, which I’d never seen anyone do before, but was so smart. This was a pretty big dinner, and Michele said there’s going to be one conversation at the table, no side conversations, everyone participates. That was the rule, and it was a smart rule because it makes everyone be involved and no one gets pushed off in a corner. It’s like 20 people, but it’s one conversation.

Drew: That sounds like them, from everything I’ve heard about them, that making sure that everyone’s heard and everyone has a seat at the table.

John: I last saw Rob and Michele during this last election cycle. There was an event at their house that Kamala Harris was speaking at. It was right after Biden’s disastrous debate. Everyone was on edge. What is possibly going to happen? Kamala Harris just killed it. She was so competent and in charge. I remember walking away thinking, okay, Biden should pull out, and Harris should replace her. That event only worked because Rob and Michele just made everything comfortable. They just made everyone feel like, yes, everyone’s panicked, but also, we got this. We’re going to get through this. They were great, as always, and remembered me. Michele remembered me from years before, which is another great sign.

Drew: Just, oh, they sound so cool. Like adults in the room, exactly what you want a person to be.

John: It’s a great loss. Directors, everyone’s going to die. It’s going to happen. This could have happened in a car accident, and it would have been heartbreaking. For it to happen in such a grisly family tragedy way is what makes this so particularly awful and keeps it at the top of the news cycle. It’s mostly what I focus on. We lost two really good people, and it sucks.

Drew: I think that compounds the heartbreak for me. Also, you just imagine what it is to be a parent with a child who you can’t help and who you know has these huge problems. They seem like the kind of people that– I’m sure they did everything they possibly could do. This isn’t–

John: The son, Nick, was at this fundraiser, which is where I met him. He had a strange quality to him. I didn’t know his backstory, but reading about that story, oh, that tracks make sense. They could tell they loved him and that they were trying to help him out. It’s awful. It’s a tragedy. I guess I’m a little happier now that everyone’s starting to acknowledge that this is a family tragedy. There’s no greater meaning behind it. It’s a thing that could have happened at any point in the last couple centuries. It’s a thing that is specific to this family and so heartbreaking.

Mostly, I want to celebrate Rob Reiner, an incredible run of great movies, even forgetting an actor. An actor going back to– Obviously, that’s made his start. All in the Family, he came up with that initially with Penny Marshall, who also became a director. Was always guest-starring as somebody’s dad in New Girl or some other thing. Exactly who he’d want for that.

Drew: His sandwich is lettuce, tomato, lettuce, meat, meat, meat, cheese, lettuce.

John: Perfect. That’s what you want, you’re going to have it.

Drew: Never forget it.

John: Listen, I don’t believe in an afterlife or any sort of meaningful way that people, when they’re gone, that they’re watching down over us. He’s the kind of person who I hope their spirit lives on in a sense of we should all aspire to have that kind of effect on those around us.

Drew: Absolutely. I think talking about him and Michele now, everyone feeling that and feeling like that is a model for what we want to do with our lives.

John: You don’t really lose somebody if you can take the lessons and model what they would have done. What would Rob do?

Drew: I hope we keep doing that because he was great. They were both great.

John: Thanks, Drew. Thanks.

Links:

• The Screenwriting Life podcast
• 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 (now with fewer emails!)
• Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
• Scriptnotes on Instagram
• John August on Bluesky and Instagram
• Outro by Mathew Chilelli (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.