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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep 318: Writing Other Things — Transcript

September 26, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2017/writing-other-things).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 318 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we won’t be talking much about screenwriting at all. Instead, we’re going to be looking at writing books and songs and other things with some advice for collaborating with folks outside of our normal expertise. To help us do that we have Aline Brosh McKenna back to join us. Welcome Aline.

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** I am back in black.

**John:** So Aline Brosh McKenna is the Joan Rivers of our podcast in the sense that she is a frequent visitor, but also special in a way that Joan Rivers was special to us all.

**Craig:** Yep.

**Aline:** Everyone tells me that all the time.

**Craig:** All day long.

**John:** Before we get into the meat of the episode we have some reminders. Craig and I will be at the Austin Film Festival at the end of October. We’re going to be doing a live show. We’re also going to be doing a live Three Page Challenge. So for the Three Page Challenge we’re doing at Austin, we have a special little checkbox you can mark if you are submitting a script to the Three Page Challenge that says I will be at Austin and will be in the audience.

So if you’re going to go to Austin and you would like us to consider your Three Page Challenge, you need to go to johnaugust.com/threepage. Attach your script like normal, but then also check the little box that says I will be at the Austin Film Festival.

And so our producer, Megan, will be going through those scripts and picking some great ones for us to talk about live on stage and to invite those screenwriters up on stage with us to discuss what they wrote.

**Craig:** And we’re pretty nice to them. I mean, we don’t soft pedal anything when we do those in Austin. I don’t think we are any more or less discriminating about our comments, but I don’t want anyone to think that we beat you up or humiliate you in front of anyone. That’s never happened. We’re very nice.

**Aline:** Have any of those turned into movies or sold screenplays?

**John:** So, yes. Some of the Three Page Challenges we have looked at have sort of moved up through the ranks. I don’t know if anything has actually been produced yet, but they’ve placed well on Black List things. They’ve gotten people started. So, every once and awhile we’ll get — actually, the last episode somebody wrote in saying the three pages we looked at were instrumental in the rewrite and so therefore they were thanking us for helping out down the road.

**Aline:** And have you guys ever thought of sending in three pages of your own to see how it went?

**Craig:** We did it.

**John:** Craig and I on an early episode we took a look at our first scripts.

**Craig:** The very first ones.

**Aline:** But I mean sending it in randomly.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** Absolutely. The other one wouldn’t know that it was one of us.

**Aline:** I think you should just to see if it made it past your producer.

**Craig:** I think they will. I think they will. Yeah. Not to put down our pool of applicants, but yeah, I think we would make it through. I got to be honest with you.

**Aline:** I just found an old script from 2000. I mean, I went into the garage and I looked at the titles on the side and I was like, oh my god, I forgot that one. But I found an unsold spec from 2000. And the first 15 pages I was like this is pretty cute, and then it was just shame spiral.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Have you gone back to redo any of your old scripts? Have you tried to dust anything off?

**Aline:** You know what? A producer called me like a couple months ago and wanted to some of my old stuff. So most of it wasn’t on a computer anywhere. So, I had to scan it. That was pretty funny. And it had my notes in it. And a couple of those were pretty good. Those were two that had sold and I don’t think he’s going to do anything with them, but you know when people ask me if I have anything, I point them towards things.

**John:** Well you were so busy writing new things, so tell us about the new things. First off, you have a new season of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend happening.

**Aline:** Indeed.

**John:** This is season three. So when do we start to see the new episodes?

**Aline:** Friday, October 13. Friday the 13 we start airing.

**Craig:** Right around the corner.

**Aline:** So we’re midway through shooting the season and so I’m pretty tired. But yeah it’s exciting. I can make an announcement here.

**John:** We’re so excited.

**Craig:** Oh! God!

**Aline:** Your friend and our friend, John Gatins, is going to be appearing on our television program.

**John:** Is he playing a high school quarterback?

**Aline:** He is not. He is playing somebody really handsome and memorable. And someone sings a song about him.

**Craig:** Huh. OK.

**John:** That sounds great. So John Gatins was also in my movie The Nines. I don’t know if that was his last acting credit, but he’s a very talented screenwriter but also a person who can be put in front of a lens without breaking a camera.

**Aline:** Yes. He has another thing coming up that he’s acting in, but I’m not at liberty to disclose. But I think this is a burgeoning little area for him. I think we should all as we retire look towards these like cottage industries. This leads naturally to what we’re saying.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s no surprise here. I mean, John Gatins is an A-list screenwriter who would at any given point swap out whatever he is working on as a screenwriter to do one day on a show with three lines. That’s a fact. He is a — I guess the most frustrated actor. He was an actor. He should have been an actor. He’s a pretty good actor, you know.

**Aline:** He still seems like a movie star.

**Craig:** He does. But the problem is he’s got skills. Like he’s got skills — his skill as a writer is extraordinary. His skill as an actor, forgive me John, is not extraordinary. It is good. But it’s not–

**Aline:** Well he was smart enough to figure that out.

**Craig:** Yeah. Yeah. But, man, he’s got the bug. You can tell.

**John:** All right. So we have Aline here not to talk about John Gatins, but to talk about and really to plug her new project. So this is Jane. This is a graphic novel that is the retelling of the story of Jane Eyre. How did this come to be? So first off, we should say — full disclosure — this book is available today as this podcast comes out.

**Aline:** September 19.

**John:** That should be the day this episode drops.

**Aline:** Great.

**Craig:** Drops.

**John:** September 19, they’re buying your book. Everybody who is listening to this podcast should pause and buy the book and then listen to the rest of this podcast so we can talk about this book.

**Aline:** Yes please.

**John:** What is it and how did it come to be?

**Aline:** So about six years ago I signed on to adapt a graphic novel called Rust, which I loved, which was published by a company named Archaia. And in adapting that graphic novel I kind of fell in love with graphic novels in general and started just devouring them. And I got infatuated with this artist named Ramón Pérez who did a book called Tale of Sand. And I had had an idea that I thought could be a movie but wasn’t necessarily a movie. And so I started talking to the folks at Archaia, including Stephen Christy who now runs their — Archaia was later bought by BOOM! And Stephen runs BOOM!’s movie department.

So I started talking to them about doing a book. And I really wanted to do it with Ramón. And I was always obsessed with the Bronte sisters’ novels as a kid, particularly Jane Eyre. And what I loved about Jane Eyre was the kind of sensual relationship that the books kind of in three parts, her growing up, her being with Rochester, and after Rochester. And I was always kind of infatuated with — and would go back and reread the Rochester section.

And I realized that was sort of my love template was the sort of remote kind of emotionally constipated difficult dark man. Love stories that I like. I think people who like Wuthering Heights are more into those stories where the love interest is like your sibling, like twinning. But I was always interested in men who were very other.

So I always wanted to do kind of an updated version of that. So I pitched that to Archaia and we got Ramón on board. And then–

**John:** Can I stop you for a second?

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** To talk about what a pitch is like to a comic book or a graphic novel house. So, how are you describing it? Was it sort of like going on a movie pitch? This is what it’s going to be and these are the beats of the story? What were you describing it as?

**Aline:** I don’t know if I can have the most representative experience, because I was working with Stephen and Archaia every single day. So Steve and I talked about it a ton and I wrote an outline for it and I gave it to him. Maybe I wrote like a five or ten-page outline that I gave to him. But, we were sort of dying to work together, so it was like — I think I had less of a screening process than you might normally have.

I will say that every single piece of it took forever. Sending in the outline. Them deciding to do the book. Finding Ramón. Getting Ramón. Making Ramón’s deal. Then waiting for him to be available, because he’s like one of the premier comic book illustrators and he’s always booked back to back to back.

So we had to wait for him, so in the meanwhile what we did was Ramón did a first series of drawings. And basically the book is like the sensual part of Jane Eyre, the Rochester part, in contemporary New York. And it’s a young girl who goes to be a nanny for a rich powerful man who is sort of Bruce Wayne like and gets pulled into his world. And at first it was going to be a little bit more genre spy and have more action in it. And so as we started working on it we thought, hey, this could be a movie. And so we sold it to Fox 2000 with Kinberg attached to produce it five years ago.

**John:** This is Simon Kinberg?

**Aline:** Simon Kinberg, yeah. So Simon Kinberg and Genre, his company, we pitched it around. Fox 2000 was the one who bought it. And I worked on it as a screenplay for maybe two years. And I had many different versions of it. As a movie, it was very hard to crack because as you guys know when you put any action intrigue thriller stuff into your script, it’s one of those things, it’s like dropping a tiny spore in a glass and then you come back a couple days later and it’s just covered in mold. Any little bit of action or intrigue that you build to — that you put in the beginning of a script really has to lead to something kind of monumental.

And that collision of that genre with the romance was always very difficult to calibrate. And at some point it seemed like the studio was looking for really just an updated version of Jane Eyre and I had wanted to add this overlay of kind of intrigue and corporate plotting. So, I developed it with them for a couple years. They had an option on the book. And then they fell out of option. And so Ramón and I started working on the book with three or four different drafts that I had written for Fox 2000, all of which were a little bit different.

**John:** So, to back up here, you have this idea for a book.

**Aline:** Yes.

**John:** And you make the deal for the book. But before you actually write the book you’re selling the rights to Fox 2000 and developing the screenplay and there’s still no book?

**Aline:** No, my god, we’re so far from a book. So we had sample drawings that I brought around with me and I met with everybody. And it’s actually, as you know, great to walk in holding something. So I had these beautiful drawings from Ramón. And so that was part of the sales pitch of it. And in working on the screenplay was sort of developing the book at the same time. And I was waiting for Ramón to be ready, also.

And so there was no book for a really long time and I think the studio started to believe there never was going to be a book. And I have never waited for a man more than I have waited for Ramón. I mean, I was like metaphorically waiting outside his doorstep for a very long time. And then he — when he finally turned his attention to it we kind of sat down, looked to what I had done with the screenplay, and then kind of formulated a story which was actually quite different from the screenplays. Because I had become convinced overtime that the kind of Hitchcocky plot needed to be very streamlined. And it could for a book.

And that’s what was great was like for a movie, especially in the moment that we’re in right now, you can’t really have — I mean, if you look at a lot of the Hitchcock movies they crescendo to a moment of great tension, but not action and not things blowing up, and not nuclear briefcases. And maybe you guys can think of one, but I can’t really think of a movie that has that sort of like Hitchcockian thriller thing but doesn’t build to a big genre — doesn’t then owe a third act where people are shooting each other in armor tanks.

**Craig:** Well, Get Out sort of I think is a kind of neo-Hitchcock kind of thing.

**Aline:** Yeah, horror. But that really is like, yeah for sure. And horror is definitely — like Get Out is horror but not very gory. But it’s a little bit more in the world of jump scares and Jane is a little bit more in the world of like Rebecca.

**Craig:** Right. Right.

**Aline:** Where it’s a romantic drama with thriller elements — suspicion, those kinds of things.

**John:** What you’re describing sounds more like what we do in television now, or what you do on limited run television, like a Netflix show can have that sustained build but doesn’t have the expectation of giant set pieces all the time.

**Aline:** Right. And so as a movie I started to understand why they were nervous about it and what was good about that was having explored that then when we got a chance to go full boar on the book we just were able to throw that aside and really go for the simplicity of the romance. There is an intrigue plot and there is a big twist in the book that I came up with after I saw the first schematic that Ramón did.

Ramón did a book that had partly finished art and then partly kind of sketches. And it’s really beautiful. I have it in my house. It’s gorgeous.

**John:** So, Aline, what were you actually writing? What was the document that you created that then Ramón would use as he went off to do art? Like what were you handing him?

**Aline:** Well, in our case because we had so many scripts we kind of started with that. And then he would do like a sketch book that was sort of taking certain bits and pieces of it and then I would respond to him with notes about the story. And then we had a couple of meetings where we went through and at that point you’re kind of — you’re kind of outside of text in a way because you’re in — you’re just in pictures, so you’re kind of making a silent movie in a way, like Ramón is.

You know, he’s really looking to boil down the pictures and it takes a while before you get back to the dialogue part. Because we were just talking about kind of purely visual storytelling. And this was — a lot of the stuff I did before I was working on the TV show. And a lot of what was driving me was before I did the TV show, I think I’ve talked about this here, I had really reached a point with movies where answering to directors is really challenging, especially when you’ve been doing it for twenty some years, and not having control over your finished product. Whether you love the director or don’t like the director, at the end of the day not having final say gets to be excruciating.

And so the book was someplace where Ramón and I were collaborating but his skills are different from mine. But I had final say over the story, so it was kind of like directing in a sense. But like sitting with your DP and they’re coming up with amazing visuals to translate the story. So there was a whole period time where it was really just pictures that were going back and forth. And I would look at the sequence.

And so because Ramón is so busy and because we had taken so long, Ramón finally gave me a pass that had all the images in it and kind of temped dialogue, you know, which you can imagine what that’s like. It was sort of temp dialogue. Some of which had been in the screenplay, but not a lot of it. Some from the beginning had. But then a bunch of it was just like stuff that had been slugged in there to kind of reflect what was happening.

So then I did two or three giant passes where I went through the book and I did dialogue. And what was funny is no one ever gave me a script. I kept asking them, “do you have all of the dialogue in one editable document?” And I probably could have had somebody do it. Instead, what I did was I kind of drew pictures and wrote notes and scribbled on it and drew bubbles. And so we ended up doing that all the way through two or three times to make sure that all the dialogue matched the action. And then there’s a little bit of, you know, at a certain point when we had this deadline Ramón had drawn some things and I wanted to tweak the story a little bit, but the art was already done. So it reminded me a lot of editing where you just got what you got, and then you’ve got to make it make sense, which is always kind of fun and challenging.

So we did a lot of passes through the dialogue once the images were all in there. And he’s very innovative in terms of the way he chooses to tell story. And it’s way, way sparer than a movie is. And there is some voiceover in there. You know, at the end really scrambling and getting drafts back was really fun, and the letterer is incredibly talented. It’s very beautiful. And the woman who did the color with Ramon is very talented. I can give you their names and their Twitter handles.

And so he’s a true artist in a sense that — as writers and directors like, yeah, you know, he’s an artist, she’s an artist. Meh. But like an artist-artist that you think of as a kid. You know, like somebody who picks up pen and ink and makes art. I think he’s a magician.

**John:** Let’s talk about your use of time. Because this was five years of your life. And so it wasn’t continuous, but it was a lot of your time. And every time there was a new draft there was more stuff to do. And I don’t know the economics of all it, but I’m 90% sure that this was not profitable to you in any useful way.

**Aline:** It was not, no.

**John:** But so why do it? Why — was it worth it?

**Aline:** I really wanted to have a finished product that I could hold in my hand that was mine. As I was saying, I just had had a lot of experiences with movies where I could kind of see my work in the movie if I squinted my eyes and didn’t look too closely and it had been changed so much by the time the movie got made and that’s a tough thing. So I really wanted to do something that I could have the final say over.

And then the other element of it was I always thought I was going to be a novelist as a kid. At a certain point it became clear to me that I was not really like a prose person, like a person who lives to sort of polish prose. And I remember being at a point thinking, god, what am I going to do if I want to be a writer but I’m not like somebody who wants to describe a forest for half a page.

So when I found graphic novels it was kind of similar to when I discovered movies. I mean, obviously I knew movies existed. But when I started looking at them as something I could do, it’s a format I really love because it’s also visual storytelling. But you don’t have to have a director tell you you can’t do what you want.

**John:** It sounds like you made it through the whole process without ever sort of hitting a graphic novel or comic book script. Because there is–

**Aline:** There is a more official format for graphic novels and I’m sure you can find samples of it. And they look like treatments and they’re very dense treatments and they’re like for a whole book they’re probably 60 pages. But because I had written multiple versions of the script we kind of started in conversation about that. And the other thing was it gave Ramón a lot more leeway.

And because I hadn’t written a lot of graphic novels, I wasn’t like panel six is this, panel nine is that, panel 12 is this. And I don’t think he would have enjoyed that. I think one of the reasons that he wanted to work with me was because there was a lot of room for him to invent in the storytelling and sort of come up with visual ways to translate the story beats.

**John:** Craig, you know, you’re going off now to do your TV show for HBO, and is there any part of your experience that is similar to Aline’s in the sense of like you want to do something that is actually just yours, that’s new territory? It’s not something that you’ve done before?

**Craig:** Well I suppose I would say that foolishly every time I start anything I think of it as mine. The difference here is that it’ll stay mine. And in movies they take it away. So, I just never learned the lesson. I don’t know how else really to write anything anyway unless I just think, well, this is mine. It’ll be mine as long as it’s mine.

But I think the major difference is going to come down the line. I mean, I have had the experience a number of times in movies where I have not worked like a typical screenwriter. You and I have talked about the Screenwriter Plus. So, I end up in editing rooms. And I end up in lots of meetings and talking about budget and planning and all the rest of it. So, I’ve had the experience there, but ultimately in film, yeah, at some point–

**Aline:** Yeah, I have, too. And I know John has, too. But when you’re in a room and you know somebody else can — you know, ultimately someone else has final say, you will really enjoy being in a situation where you’re the commander of the writing.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, I’m definitely the commander of the writing. There’s no question about that. And I think the good news is that our little family that we’re putting together is pretty great. And we’re all very respectful of each other and I think we all want to hear from each other. And so I’m not really actually dwelling that much, frankly, on the specifics of the authority fact, you know? I’m just kind of going about trying to make the best thing I can with these people.

**John:** I got to visit Aline on set this season to watch them filming a musical number, which was fantastic. And there’s still glitter that I find in my shoes. And one of the things that really impressed me about it is you had sort of a quiet authority as we were sort of sitting in video village watching things. And you would sort of ask me a question or you would sort of make an observation and the director, you were totally respectful to the director and to the choreographer and to Rachel who is doing stuff, but you were mindful of things that they might not otherwise have seen.

And I think that can be a crucial role for a writer on any set, but particularly when it’s your thing. You have a vision of what the overall thing is you’re trying to achieve. I didn’t hear you saying do this, don’t do this, but you were sort of reminding people of what your priorities were.

**Aline:** The three of us have often talked about how strange it is that there isn’t an onset writer on every project. Because we know the story. We’ve imagined the world before anyone else. So the only reason to cast that person aside is an ego reason. I can’t see any other reason to do it. And the directors that I worked with that welcomed me into the process where I was that Screenwriter Plus were the most confident ones.

So, you know, and a TV show, it emanates from the writing. And that is a cultural — I actually found as a screenwriter I thought a lot more about, hey, how can I get my point across in a tactful way? And in TV you don’t really need to. You just are the person that they’ll go to to ask which pants should they be wearing and what source music should be playing. And what color should this character’s hair be? And you know all those things.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, the weirdness of the delineation in movies is such that they think that the writer is just responsible for whatever they consider to be writing. But the problem is what they consider to be writing is a very narrow view. It’s certainly an incomplete view. And in television, somehow magically, they all understand that writing encompasses everything. We don’t go into these things not thinking about all of this stuff. It is a bizarre business we work in because I think that for everybody else it comes down to questions of title.

Literally. I don’t know why they are so sheep-like in their need for titles and authority that is rigidly defined by titles. But it is why when you are making a television show if you’re the head person on that television show, you need to be called Executive Producer. That’s it. If you’re not, you’re not. Because they need it. It’s the weirdest thing.

And really it should just be writer like in charge.

**Aline:** Well, because it’s a military operation, you know. It is. And so in those situations they need to know and it really is for practical purposes. You know, on our show from the beginning Rachel and I and Erin Ehrlich, we had three executive producers, but I’m the showrunner which is an extra designation. And you need to have that also because if there’s multiple executive producers, really for all practical purposes, the people on the crew need to know who they can go to to get the fastest answer that won’t change. Because you waste money and time if you’re going to this person and then they change and then it changes and then it changes.

So, having one person who is answering that shirt should be blue; the watch should be black. He should have blond hair. You want to make that one person for practical purposes as much as anything else. And in television that’s the writer.

**Craig:** Yep.

**Aline:** And, you know, I just wanted to say movies are in a desperate place creatively right now. I mean, I’ve left my house to go to the movies I think four times this year. And I think one of them is Get Out. We’ve all seen Get Out. Kind of a cut above. And TV is so good right now because it belongs to writers. It’s run by writers. I firmly believe that. And through whatever accident of circumstance made that happen, I’m really hoping that the movie business learns from like if you let the people who create the stories manage the stories, your stuff will be better.

**Craig:** Although, I have to say if you look at the historical context of these things, you could also point to the ‘70s and say that in the ‘70s, at the height of auteurism, movies were vastly superior to television. There was still the same delineation. The directors were in charge of movies. Writers were in charge of television. And an enormous amount of television was horrendous. Nothing like what it is now.

It seems to me that one of the keys to all of this is what’s happening on the other side of the creative line between us — all of us, directors and writers — and the companies that are asking us to make things. In television right now, because of the multiplicity of formats and the delivery system, I think that the people on the other side are adventuresome and also craving content. They are content hungry. Which means people are getting a chance to try things. And on the movie side, on the other side of this line, the people making movies are frightened. They are very restricted in how much content they want. And they are very limited in the kind of content that they’re willing to pay for.

So, all of that is a squeeze down. It is tempting to say, well, if we put the writers in charge, as opposed to putting the directors in charge, everything would change in film. I think it’s just as easy for people to point to this weekend with It and say, well, there is a director who is in charge and a different person who wrote the script.

Mostly I wish I could just say to the people running the movie studios, the movie parts, the feature parts, that writers don’t need to be in charge of movies any more than directors need to be in charge of movies. Writers and directors together should be in charge of movies. At any given moment on a set, if they decide that the director needs to have the ultimate authority there in that moment. That’s fine. But it’s the philosophy of auteurism that’s the stupidest thing and I think does rot away at a lot of what would have been otherwise been good films.

**John:** I can definitely see that. And circling back to what Aline was saying about sort of having to have one person in charge, having a militaristic operation, I think the reason why we get to that point is that the stakes are so high. Time is limited. Money is limited. Someone has to make those decisions and there’s all this pressure on it. And I wonder if part of the reason why you wanted to go off and do this graphic novel is because there was no pressure. There were not stakes. It was just basically — for you it was kind of a lark. And if it turned out great, fantastic. If it didn’t turn out great, there’s no skin off your back.

And to me like the Big Fish musical was to some degree that, at least in the early stages. Once it became — we were headed to Broadway, then the stakes were incredibly high. But for years as we were developing that show, the stakes were just like, well, we wrote a song. Like we made a thing. That song was delightful. And it’s a thing that didn’t exist otherwise.

Some of the stuff I do with apps is a similar kind of thing where the stakes just aren’t as high. I don’t have to get somebody’s permission.

**Aline:** And also you get to derive that beginning, middle, and end of a process of a product, of having something you can hold in your hand. And, you know, the writer girl that I was at 12 years old would be super thrilled to see this graphic novel about Jane Eyre. And rather quite confused by the giant pile of unproduced scripts in my garage. So, you know, you don’t set out to generate a bunch of printed out pieces of paper. You generate to make things. And I think now more than ever people want to make things. And screenwriters who are in a more frustrating circumstance, kind of everyone I know is making some thing.

**John:** Yeah. We always talk to these aspiring writers who say like, oh, it’s so frustrating as I do these things, and we always try to remind them unlike an actor or unlike a director a writer can just go off and write something, which is fantastic. But I think sometimes we forget that lesson ourselves is that we end up sort of seeking permission to write the things or we might go off and spec our own thing down the road, but usually we’re busy enough writing the stuff for the studios and we’re sort of in that grind.

**Aline:** But Craig, same thing for you. Or Chernobyl was like, yeah, I’ll do this. And it was sort of a sideline during many years of doing busy screenwriting stuff.

**Craig:** No, no, not really.

**Aline:** No?

**Craig:** No.

**Aline:** I mean, not on a sideline, but it’s certainly not making you as much money as the other stuff.

**Craig:** Oh, no, financially it’s nothing at all like that. No. There’s no question about that. But the amount of time that I have devoted to it and the amount of time I’m going to devote to it will probably make it the thing that I have worked the longest and hardest on, actually. I mean, because it’s five scripts. They’re each 60 — well, the last one is a little bit longer. So, think of it as like basically three movies. So it’s three movies worth of scripts and then there’s, you know, all of the prep and then the production and the post. It’s going to be a lot. And then just an enormous amount of research, also.

The nice thing about writing some kinds of movies, and I did about two weeks of research for Identity Thief. You know, I’ve done years of research for this. So, no, this is a pretty serious endeavor for me.

**Aline:** Can I say you have one of the most eclectic, delightfully eclectic filmographies of anyone I know.

**Craig:** It’s about to get more. I’m about to achieve levels of, yeah, strange eclecticism. No one would…

**Aline:** IMDb head scratcher.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think that’s great.

**Aline:** Oh, I think it’s great, too. I mean, listen, a lot of the writers and directors that we love from like the ‘30s and ‘40s in particular, it’s like they did everything. They made every kind of movie. George Cukor. They made every kind of movie. William Wyler.

**John:** As I always say in interviews, my favorite genre of movies are movies that get made. So I will happily write anything that can possibly exist.

**Craig:** Pretty much. But I think that there is a nice thing that does happen after a while. If you do spend a lot of time doing what you are asked to do, and what you’re being paid well to do, then eventually you do arrive at a moment where you have the luxury of saying I’m going to spend a lot of time now on something that I’m not going to make a lot of money on, but I just care about. I couldn’t have done that before. I just, you know, this is where when people do talk a little bit about the economic realities of starting out in Hollywood now, I am incredibly sympathetic to people who are like, look, this whole business now seems to be designed to be a place where independently wealthy children can begin to work. Because–

**Aline:** Boy, I really agree with that.

**Craig:** You know, I couldn’t have done — I had nothing. I don’t think any of us came here with a big bunch of money. And so, you know, I’m certainly grateful to all — I think all of the things that you do prior to something were necessary for one reason or another to get you to what you’re doing at this moment, just as whatever you do now will be necessary for what comes next.

**John:** Yep. So one of the things I did this last year was just a lark. And so a friend of mine, Sam Davis, was the dance arrangement composer for Big Fish. And so he’s one of these people who can hear a melody and then make it a thousand different versions which is what you have to do for a Broadway musical because you have to be able to fit things to the choreography. It’s a really unique skill and he’s just remarkably good at it.

But he’s also a composer himself. And so I was having lunch with him and I said like, you know, Sam, we should just try to write a song together sometime. That would be really fun to do. And it wasn’t to like be part of anything else, it was just to have something to do.

So he sent me a folder on Dropbox with a bunch of little things he’d written, and just little snippets of melodies. And so if there’s anything here you want to do, take a shot at it. And so this last year I did that.

And so I want to talk through sort of this project I did, and you guys both heard the final version of this, but I don’t think you’ve heard any of how this all came to be. So, I’m going to play a couple little clips to hear what the original stuff sounded like.

So, this is what Sam originally sent me.

[Clip plays]

So that was the original melody he sent me. It’s a waltz. It’s lovely. It feels very emotional, but as I listened to that I felt like, oh, there’s words that can go with those plunking. Does that — Aline, you’re writing songs all the time now. Could you hear where words could go?

**Aline:** No. My version of songwriting is I get in the room with songwriters and I throw out a bunch of lines and I hope some of them get in so I can get five or ten percent of the songwriting. But I am no more capable of hearing a melody and writing words to it than a child.

**John:** Craig, you’ve done quite a bit of this recently, too. So, do you hear–?

**Craig:** Yeah, with Jeanine Tesori, the great, great, great Jeanine Tesori. Yeah, no, for sure. Well, it sounds like he’s not just playing an accompaniment there. He is giving you the melody. He’s giving you the vocals, which is actually a remarkable thing that these people — these musicians — can do.

So, you know, when you sing a song you would never play the melody along with the vocalist, right? You’re accompanying them. But they can just sort of adjust to play it. So, [hums], you can just hear it coming out. And you can hear the way the sentences would be structured. And then the little sort of wistful part as it kind of comes down and hits that funky little minor thing. Yeah. No for sure. It’s begging for it.

**John:** It’s begging for it. So, what I heard in that main melody was “I want … I want…” And so it felt like an I Want song to me. And so that was my sort of initial instinct is that this feels like it wants to be an I Want song. It probably needs to speed up a little bit, because it’s a little slow for an I Want song. But imagine the faster version of this. Like, OK, “I want … I want bop-bop-bop-bop.” And so like, well, I started with I Want and who is the character who wants something? What do I want to do?

So, a thing which occurred to me as we were auditioning people for Big Fish is that there aren’t a lot of great I Want songs for boys. In the Disney canon you have all the princess I Want songs, so you have “Part of Your World” and that aspirational kind of I Want song is really common for women, but not for boys. So, like, well I want the song with which a guy will audition for a prince role, for prince charming, in a Broadway show.

And so that was my inspiration. And so I said like, OK, well, what is that character — what does the prince — the aspirational prince kind of character like? And so I wrote out all the lyrics and sort of tried to match them to the melody, including a lot of stuff that wasn’t part of that main melody line. So I just had sort of blank stanzas to sort of get us up before we got to that melody.

And so I’ll talk through the next part of that. So I sent this long document through to Sam and he’s like I don’t know what to do with this. I can see where the chorus is, but I don’t know what to do with this. So the next thing I sent through is what I call the Snap Track. And so I just snapped along to the words to sort of give him a sense of like what the meter of it would be. So, we’ll take a listen to that.

[Clip plays — But at night I have dreams that seem more like a calling. Where this lonely apprentice can end this appalling excuse for a nothing life, common life, lesser life, not a life. I want to live. But dreams are for night, and nights are not long when you wake to bake before dawn].

So with that I wanted to give a sense that like, OK, there’s some triplets in there–

**Aline:** Wake to bake? Oh why, because it’s a baker? Got it. Got it. Because I only think of pot when you say that. Keep going. Ignore me.

**John:** So I wanted to be able to communicate to him like, OK, there’s triplets here, but we’re still sticking in three. But I didn’t want to sort of poison him with the music I heard in my head, because I definitely had my own melody, but I didn’t want that melody to bleed over to him. So that’s why I kept it snapping.

Craig, you probably — when you’re working with Jeanine, do you have that same situation?

**Craig:** We did a slightly different kind of thing. The basic way we would start is we would have a long discussion about what we wanted a song to be about. And we were working off of a script I had already written. So we had characters. We had situations. We had the general sense of it, but then we were like, OK, but let’s get to the meat of what this is really about and how this is going to work, particularly because two of the three songs we did are duets.

After we figure out what the song is really about, then I thought what would happen is Jeanine, being the Tony award-winning composer that she is, would write some brilliant music and then I would attempt to just clumsily put words in. But she was like, no, you send me words first. So I would write these poems.

Now, I have no melody or music, but I would kind of form a little bit of a melody in my head, but I would never sing it or anything like that for the same reason that you wouldn’t do it either. You don’t want to unduly get into the head of your composer.

So, I would write these poems basically, lyrical poems out of what the song would be, and then she would read those and then she would then send over kind of like a here’s a thing. And then she would fill in nonsense lyrics sometimes. You know, and da-da-das and just whatever. Just fake words and things like that.

And then by going back and forth, we would find the shape of the song, the A, and the B, and the C. And then I would start really dialing in on the lyrics. But sometimes I would write lyrics and I would send them to her and she’s like I don’t know if this fits. And I would say it does. Let me send it with stress. And so I wouldn’t do the snap thing. What I would do is I would just underline where the stresses were of the words on the beats and stuff. And then she would go, OK, I got it, I got it, I got.

Because sometimes it would get kind of complicated. You know, what we were doing. And she’s very — and thank god for this — she is a stickler about consistency and true rhyming. She’s like no half-rhymes, no slant rhymes. Full rhymes. And if you pull some sort of wordplay in the first verse, I want a similar version of that wordplay with new words in the second verse. She’s rough. But it forced me, it really forced me to concentrate and work as hard as I could to try and machine these things so that they’re nice and tight.

I loved it. I just loved the process of it.

**John:** I loved this process, too. What was so different about this than any of the stuff I did with Danny Elfman, because I have like seven songs with Danny Elfman, is in all those cases I wrote lyrics and they were in the script and then they went off and Danny just made the song. And so in some cases he would tweak the lyrics. In some cases he sort of left the lyrics as they were. But there was very little collaboration between us.

Like, you know, we might have a dinner where we talk over what the songs were basically about, but there was no sort of direct working together.

**Aline:** I think our show is different, because there are jokes, there are sketches. So a lot of the songs I have credit on were things where I came up with the joke and the title and a couple lines. So like the concept of it and sort of — but one time there’s a song in last season where I said to Rachel and Jack, oh, they could sing a song called something like “we should definitely not have sex right now.” I went to the bathroom, I went to get something to eat, I came back and they had written almost all of the song. That’s usually more of what happens.

And then when I hear it I’ll contribute some jokes. But I would never — I mean, with comedy songs it’s really — they’re very, very conceptual. They’re like sketches. And they have to have very clean games.

So, I don’t actually — I rarely set lyrics down to paper and send it to them.

**John:** But a crucial part of your process though is the demo. So once you have the idea of the song, you have to record a demo so that everyone can sort of sign off on it and so people can plan how they’re going to build the episode.

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** So what is the demo process like for–?

**Aline:** Adam, Jack, and Rachel, who are the songwriters, often sing their own demos into an iPhone. And then they send them to Adam, and Adam turns them into real demos with demo singers or often Adam. And what I love is Adam was in Fountains of Wayne, so we have numerous, numerous, numerous Adam demos for like Adam singing “Where’s the Bathroom?” which is a Tovah Feldshuh song, and Adam singing Rachel’s songs. And Adam singing everybody’s songs if he can’t get a demo singer in and we’re going really quickly.

And then we listen to the demos and I give notes on the demos. And a lot of times, you guys are more kind of it sounds like immersed in the technical. I refer to it as “I’m the monkey” and it has to make sense to the monkey. Because they’re much more steeped in music, so sometimes the jokes are abstruse or the lyrics are confusing. Or it needs to make sense to me. And then a lot of times my notes are like this needs to be a little bit more visceral, or this needs to be more joyful. Or its adjectival input.

**John:** Well that goes back to sort of what your discussion was with the artist for Jane, because you’re not drawing yourself. So you have to find a way — metaphors or similes to describe what it is you’re going for, because you don’t want to tell them how to do his job. It’s the same working with a composer. You find you end up describing a tone, a feeling. It’s in this world rather than that world.

**Aline:** Well, that’s actually a great thing for all writers to learn. It’s going to be applicable to what Craig is about to do. You know, I have multiple department heads. You have to describe what you want to someone and you don’t do what they do. So, you are going to say to the costume person, you know, we need something that looks like this, that evokes this. And they’re going to come back to you with choices. And part of being a good collaborator is letting people do what they’re great at and understanding what they’re great at. And sometimes when we have directors show up on our show, it makes me giggly that they get super camera talkie and they want to talk a lot about–

**John:** The crane?

**Aline:** Yes. And technical stuff. And that’s important and that’s wonderful. And I’m going to say that men do that a little bit more, because they want to show you that they know their lenses. It’s as important to be able to express what you’re trying to get emotionally and what’s the story you’re trying to tell. And that’s the same with songs and that’s the same with the book. That’s the same with, you know, if you’re trying to get a story across, it matters what color the mug is. But you don’t need to choose the mug. You need to be able to extract the salient detail and say to the person who is the artisan to say it’s important to me that it’s this.

And I think it’s good to collaborate on things that get made so that you have practice. So even if that’s just taking your iPhone and going to the yard with your friend and figuring out this needs to be blue. It doesn’t matter what color this is, but this needs to be that. And that’s really the key to — because a lot of what drowns artistic endeavors is unnecessary amounts of — confusing amounts of detail. So, you know, learning how to be really specific about what you want out of any process, a song, a book, a movie, a play, a bedtime story, is important. And learning how to communicate that is really important for writers.

**John:** Yeah. So for the case of this song, the case for “Rise,” what was great is we were able to finally record a real good true demo. So we got in–

**Aline:** When did you get the rise-rise pun baking idea?

**John:** Oh, the rise-rise pun came pretty early on. Actually–

**Aline:** How did it come to mind?

**John:** So I envisioned that this guy was a baker. So this kid was–

**Aline:** Why?

**John:** I’m not quite sure why baker was the initial sort of instinct behind it. So, I did envision like this is a guy who was toiling, but had sort of this fantastical notion of what it would be like to be a prince. And, again, you don’t see people aspiring to be princes. And this is about what it would be like to aspire to be a prince.

So, I saw him as like — I think originally he worked as a blacksmith, but then a baker felt better. And once I was in baker, then it’s like “Rise” became natural. And “Rise” felt like a very sing-able word for where he was going to.

**Aline:** Are you writing a play to go with this?

**John:** So I could write a play to go with this. And that’s what’s actually so interesting, so once we got the whole song together and once we recorded a demo, so we recorded a demo with a great Broadway guy named Curt Hansen who is in Wicked and could really do it. Like it was so surprising to hear the song. We only heard ourselves singing it poorly and like the aspirational notes we couldn’t quite get to, and this guy could actually belt it and sort of do the real good version of it.

Once we actually had it, then we had our sheet music, this is from the baker prince. So, eventually somewhere down the road it could become a thing, but I also just want it to be its own thing. I want it to have sort of value in and of itself. It’s a kind of song that people can download and sing or use for auditions. It felt good on those terms, too.

**Aline:** Can I ask you a question which I may already know the answer to and you can cut this out, but it is a same-sex love story thing possibly?

**John:** Not intended to be.

**Aline:** Because there’s not enough of those. There’s not enough of those that are in the genre of like longing wish-fulfillment romance. There seems to be more that are tragic, you know, tragic stories. And I think it would be awesome to have more fairytales about that.

One of my best friend’s husband is the same-sex Pasodoble Gay Games national champion.

**John:** Fantastic, yes.

**Aline:** And I’m waiting eagerly for the day that they have same-sex ballroom dancing on Dancing with the Stars. But having same-sex narratives in more kind of traditional “straight” genres I think is a great thing. And if that’s what that was, I’ve already bought my ticket.

**John:** Yeah. I think you and Craig both asked that question when I sent you the song months ago is like, oh, is this where it’s going to go to? And Rachel I think sort of fell in the same place, too.

**Aline:** Were we all stereotyping?

**Craig:** I think inside John’s — he goes, oh, yeah, you all thought that’s where this was going.

**Aline:** But I think, by the way, I think that could be a very important and compelling thing.

**Craig:** You know what? Here’s the thing. I don’t like those stories that much. I’m just going to say, because I haven’t had any–

**Aline:** Fairytale love stories?

**Craig:** I just find them so boring and cliché at this point. Now, granted, I’m older now. So children really do like them. But I like the tragic crazy stories. You know what’s a great song, to give Jeanine Tesori some credit, but she gets plenty of anyway, she’s a genius, is “I’m Changing my Major to Joan” from Fun Home.

**Aline:** Of course.

**Craig:** Which is a great same-sex love song that isn’t tragic. It’s joyous. But it’s not–

**Aline:** Well, “Keys,” forget it. “Keys.”

**Craig:** Well, “Keys,” that’s not a love song as much as like an aspirational kid seeing acceptance. But also an amazing song. But I don’t, like I don’t necessarily–

**Aline:** But I’m saying Frozen, Tangled, you know, I’m saying a fairytale. It’s just a genre that — one of the reasons you may perceive it as being a little tired is because it’s inhabited by the same types of characters all the time.

**John:** I think my other frustration, so people should go back and listen to our great episode with Jennifer Lee talking about Frozen because there was always such an instinct originally in Frozen that we have to have sort of classic love interests and Elsa has to be a villain and all these things. And once they actually figured out like, oh, it’s about sisters. Oh, they could actually build the whole thing out.

To me, it’s that we never see princess romances from the boy’s point of view. It’s always from the girl’s point of view.

**Aline:** Totally.

**John:** And so even if it remains sort of–

**Aline:** Hetero.

**John:** Mixed sex, hetero, then to see it from his point of view and sort of what it’s like — we don’t give young men good instruction on how to be noble heroes towards women.

**Aline:** Well, like the boy Cinderella stories tend to have a lot more genre, Harry Potter, Star Wars stuff going on, as opposed to romantic stakes.

**Craig:** But there are some. I mean, “Agony” is a great, great song written from the point of view.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** But it’s also a satire. It’s kind of making fun of those songs.

**John:** It’s spoofing the idea of those things. Yeah.

**Craig:** Right. It’s true. I think in the old days, in the old classic musicals you would have songs where men would sing these sort of moony love songs.

**John:** Oh, absolutely.

**Aline:** Well, Aladdin is–

**John:** “A Whole New World,” yes.

**Aline:** Right. But they tend to be a little bit more jaunty and adventure-based rather than romantic and yearning, although that has lots of stuff in it.

**John:** And it also becomes a duet though. And if it was just Aladdin’s solo, “let me share this whole new world with you,” it would be — it wouldn’t quite land the same way.

**Craig:** You know what else just came to mind is Andrew Lippa’s “The Moon and Me,” right? Which is a beautiful song and is the most non-traditional romance between a man and an orbiting celestial body. But it is a love song. And it is solo. It’s not a duet. And it’s gorgeous.

So, they’re there. I don’t like them that way. I like them non-traditional.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** That’s my jam.

**John:** This might ultimately become that thing, but until then it is a song, so if people want to check it out you can look at the lyrics and there will be links to video things so you can see for it at johnaugust.com/rise. I’ll also put the full track at the end of this episode instead of an outro, so if you want to hear the whole thing you’ll know what we’re talking about.

**Craig:** It’s a good song.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** You’re welcome.

**John:** So, let’s try to answer one or two listener questions while we have Aline here. Let’s start with a question from Niraj in Allahabad, India. He writes, “I’m an author based out of Allahabad and have been in discussions with a Hollywood production company for optioning the movie and TV writes for my historical fiction novel, Daggers of Treason.”

**Craig:** Daggers of Treason!

**John:** “While they’re offering 2% of the starting budget for theatrical releases, their stated rates for episodic serials is abysmally low. 1/5th of the WGA rates. Can you please guide me to how much a non-US or WGA author should expect for a 60-minute serial? And who would help me in procuring a fair deal? I understand I cannot become a WGA member being based in India but would appreciate your help. Regards, Niraj.”

So, where do we start here? I think one of the places we can start is we can be so frustrated with the WGA, but when you’re outside of the US and you look in, it’s like, oh, having the WGA to set minimums is a really nice thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you don’t necessarily not have to have a WGA deal here, Niraj. So, the deal is if you’re writing in India but you’re working with a Hollywood company. Question number one is are they signatory to the Writers Guild or do they have a subsidiary that’s signatory to the Writers Guild? Still doesn’t mean that they have to employ you under a Writers Guild contract. However, what you can ask is that they employ you under the equivalent of a Writers Guild contract.

Now, all these things come down to leverage. How much do they want what you have and how much are they willing to spend on it? Sometimes I think companies will look to places that have burgeoning talent but aren’t covered by the WGA so that they can get better deals. And if these folks there are asking for more money, then suddenly it’s not as attractive a proposition. So you have to kind of gauge the interest level here.

Who can help you in procuring a fair deal? A lawyer. I don’t know where you live, oh, you said Allahabad. I don’t know Allahabad. I don’t know how large of a town that is. But I think if you reached out to a law firm in one of the many enormously large cities in India you will find an entertainment lawyer. India has a massive entertainment industry as we all know.

And the fact that you already have interest from a Hollywood production company I think would certainly mean that somebody would be willing to take your call and talk to you and perhaps represent you. Once that happens, that’s the person you’re going to be asking these questions of. That would be my first move.

**Aline:** Me too.

**John:** That’s a great idea. And the other place I might point you to is it could make sense for you to get an LA-based law firm to supervise the contract. You just need to figure out who has been doing this for other projects sort of like yours. And you end up paying them to do that work as well. But I wish you good luck with this.

The next question comes from Mack who writes, “I usually read my scripts on the screen in the screenwriting software, but I’ve heard the printing one’s script and reading it on the physical page offers a new perspective that may help with the rewriting process. So now my script is printed and ready for me to read, but before I undertake reading it for the 15th time I was hoping you could offer some insight on best practices for reading for rewrites.”

Aline, I saw you nodding, so you agree that people should print out scripts?

**Aline:** Yeah. I don’t do it as much as I used to. I think I’ve developed my skill at looking at a screen as critically as I do at a page, and in TV we’re just moving so quickly that having that extra paper step sometimes is a pain.

But, you know, get your pen out. It depends on what you’re reading it for. But sometimes if you just like change the size of the font on your screen or make it look a little bit different. If I’m proofreading, I read it backwards. Just anything that makes it look new to you. Reading it in a new environment sometimes will do it. There’s nothing for catching typos like sending it to someone. The second you send it for some reason you open it back up and you’ll find six typos.

But anything that makes it look fresh to your eyes is great. And then I would say reading it aloud with or to someone is a great way to go. And Simon Kinberg and I wrote a script together and when we were revising it would read it aloud. And it was really fun. That seems like one of the fun reasons to have a partner, to read it and scribble on it.

**John:** Craig, are you a printer? Do you print your scripts?

**Craig:** Yeah. I do. Usually by that point I have gone through them quite a bit, but my basic process once I get to that stage, I really am mostly looking for typos or things that jump out as reading a little weirdly. So I’m reading it aloud a lot as I’m going through and I don’t do the double-sided print thing because I want the blank back of a page on the left side to be there for notes or things that I need to remark on.

And when I do that I just dog ear it so I have a reference. Then I go back through and I make those changes. But, you know, I don’t think I would get too freaked out about this. Everybody has their own speed and their own way of doing things. I’m pretty sure that there are some wonderful writers that don’t print it out. Whatever works for you, Mack. Honestly. Whatever works for you.

**Aline:** One thing I really thought a lot about with writing in a TV environment as opposed to a film environment is sometimes I found, as a screenwriter, I would overly machine things because I had so much time with it. And so I would tinker with things to make them scan perfectly when actually they play better just the way they splurted out of you.

And in TV, especially when you’re writing comedy, if a room pitches a joke and it works, you don’t change a syllable. So it may not scan perfectly, it may not make sense perfectly, but that’s the comedy milieu in there. And so I find that screenwriters way more than TV writers, just because of time, just tend to overly machine their dialogue and sand off all the rough edges. And I like the idea of sometimes it’s the imperfect perfect thing. So, there’s a lot of like dithering and busy work that is really tempting to do when you’re getting ready to send a script out. And I think sometimes you can ruin things that are lovely because you’re trying to make them perfect.

**John:** Yeah. I would stress that if you’re going through to read, make sure you’re really reading. And that’s why I think printing is so helpful because you can’t actually fix things while you’re reading it. So, I like to print the script and I go to someplace new. I go outside. I sit at the table. And I’m flipping through the pages because I will see things I don’t see other places and things will occur to me that haven’t occurred while I’m cutting whole little short scenes because I just don’t need them anymore.

And if I were trying to do that on the screen, I feel like I might go through and like make a few little corrections right at that moment, then I wouldn’t be reading anymore. I’d really be writing. And that’s not what your goal is.

**Aline:** It’s a different mode.

**John:** Yeah, different mode. All right. Let’s change modes ourselves. It’s time for One Cool Thing. Craig, start us off.

**Craig:** Oh, I got a good one today if you like puzzles. Do you love puzzles, folks?

**John:** We all love puzzles.

**Aline:** Yeah, we’re all puzzlers.

**John:** After this podcast we’re going off to play games at Aline’s house.

**Craig:** Well, I’ll tell you, these are brutal but amazing. So there’s a gentleman named Mark Halpin and every Labor Day he puts out a puzzle pack. The puzzle pack consists of many, many individual puzzles. You solve all those individual puzzles, and then there is a meta puzzle that encompasses all of the answers you’ve pulled from the many, many puzzles. And so this Labor Day weekend, David Kwong and I eagerly downloaded this year’s puzzle package from Mark Halpin called When First We Practice to Deceive.

We have completed all of the individual puzzles except for the last one. We’re halfway through that one. They are really, really hard. And they are really, really good. They are super well done. Very complicated. Really, really just tricky. One of them has — one of them looks like it’s a word search. No it isn’t. I mean, it kind of is, but mostly it isn’t. And there’s about five different levels just to that puzzle alone to get to the answer of that puzzle.

So, Mark Halpin offers these for free, but there is a tip jar link on his page. If you do download these, I strongly urge you to chuck him some remuneration. He worked clearly extraordinarily hard on these. And we will put a link in the show notes for you. So, again, that’s Mark Halpin. And his puzzle pack this year is called When First We Practice to Deceive.

**John:** Very nice.

**Aline:** Very cool. My One Cool Thing — my favorite TV show right now is Insecure on HBO. And I’m obsessed with Issa and I’m obsessed with the show. And I watch it as it airs, or soon after. It’s the best romantic comedy I’ve seen in a long time, but it’s so much more than that. And I just love it. And it’s so great to have a TV show that I’m excited to watch. And so I think — and I have an ax to grind — but I think sometimes things that are created and written by women and deal with love and relationships don’t quite get the due that like a somber crime drama will get.

And I think Insecure is just an excellent show. And belongs up there in any critical appreciation of the best shows out there right now. So, I highly recommend that, and go to HBO to find it.

**John:** Cool. My One Cool Thing is a book by Jessica Abel called Out on the Wire: The Storytelling Secrets of the New Masters of Radio. And so it’s done in a graphic novel format, or an illustrated book thing. It’s not fiction. It’s all real interviews that she did with the people behind This American Life, The Moth, Radio Lab, Planet Money, Snap Judgments, Serial, Invisibilia.

**Aline:** Whoa.

**John:** And so what’s clever is she recorded all these interviews, but then she built it out sort of in a graphic novel format. So she’s having these conversations with people, she’s inserting herself into it. And it’s a brilliant look at sort of how this kind of radio is made. And sort of both how reporters go out to find and really cast the people that they’re going to be interviewing, but then how the stories are found in the edit. And what the edit process is like, which is much more like really like your writer’s room than you would think.

So, they’re reading their scripts, they’re playing their tape, and they’re just digging in on story for hours and hours at a time.

**Aline:** Wow, that’s so cool.

**John:** It’s really great. So, I would recommend it to anybody who is interested in radio, but I also I thought there were interesting lessons about how storytelling works for the radio that I think most screenwriters would find fascinating.

Like one of the things about how they pitch these stories is it’s about blank, but what’s interesting is blank.

**Aline:** Right.

**John:** And so–

**Aline:** That’s almost a podcast cliché. It’s about bananas. Everything you didn’t know about bananas. Yeah.

**John:** So, you know, you have your topic, but then your actual hook is something that is not the topic.

**Aline:** Your take on it.

**John:** Yeah. And that’s–

**Aline:** Hey, before we go, I’m going to sign my book at Barnes & Noble at The Grove.

**John:** Fantastic, what day?

**Aline:** And also at Chevalier Bookstore on Larchmont. And the book signing at The Grove is on Sunday, September 24 at 5pm at Barnes & Noble at The Grove.

**John:** Fantastic. I will be in London so I won’t be attending that one, but I’m so excited to see you and–

**Aline:** Well then perhaps you can go to the book signing at Chevalier’s on October 1 at 5:30.

**John:** That sounds great. Hooray! So we’ll have links to–

**Aline:** Plug. Plug. Plug. Plug.

**John:** We will have links to Aline’s book and the events which you can go visit Aline and have her sign your book. Also in the show notes you’ll find a link to the song I wrote and we’ll put that on the outro for this week’s episode. Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

If you have an outro, a traditional outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send questions like the ones we answered today.

For short questions, we’re on Twitter. I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. Aline is–?

**Aline:** @alinebmckenna.

**John:** Fantastic. She’s on Twitter finally.

We are on Facebook. Search for Scriptnotes Podcast. You can find us on Apple Podcasts at Scriptnotes. Just look for Scriptnotes and while you’re there leave us a comment or a review. That helps a lot.

You can find all the show notes at johnaugust.com. If you have a Three Page Challenge for Austin, remember that’s johnaugust.com/threepage.

Transcripts go up about a week after the episode airs. And you can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net.

Aline, thank you so much for coming on the show.

**Craig:** Thanks Aline.

**Aline:** Cheers, you all. Cheers.

**John:** Cool. See you soon. Bye.

Links:

* [Submit](http://johnaugust.com/threepage) to the Three Page Challenge and check the box if you’ll be in Austin for the Austin Film Festival
* The [new season](http://www.cwtv.com/shows/crazy-ex-girlfriend) of [Crazy Ex Girlfriend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Ex-Girlfriend_(TV_series)) premieres Friday October 13th
* John Gatins’ [IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309691/)
* Order Aline Brosh McKenna’s new graphic novel, [Jane](https://www.amazon.com/Jane-Aline-McKenna/dp/1608869814)
* Ramón K. Pérez’s [website](http://www.ramonperez.com/v4/), [twitter](https://twitter.com/theramonperez?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) and [graphic novel, Jim Henson’s Tale of Sand](http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936393093/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* “Rise” composer Sam Davis’ [website](http://www.samdavismusic.com/)
* The [Original Melody](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/Rise_sam_original_piano_melody.m4a), John’s [Snap Track](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/Rise_john_snap_trim.m4a), and the [demo track](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/Rise_demo.wav) with vocalist [Curt Hansen](https://twitter.com/curt_hansen?lang=en) for “Rise”
* Or you can check out this [post](http://johnaugust.com/rise) for more details about “Rise”
* [Mark Halpin Puzzles](http://www.markhalpin.com/puzzles/puzzles.html)
* [Insecure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insecure_(TV_series)) on [HBO](http://www.hbo.com/insecure)
* [Out on the Wire](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385348436/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Jessica Abel
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [Aline Brosh McKenna](https://twitter.com/alinebmckenna?lang=en) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by John August (lyrics) and Sam Davis (music) ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_318.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 317: First Day on the Job — Transcript

September 18, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2017/first-day-on-the-job).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. A small language warning. There are some big words, some bad words, in this episode. So this might be a good time to put in headphones if you’re in a place where it is not appropriate to hear the F-bombs.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

**Craig Mazin:** Craig Mazin named Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 317 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast, we are debuting a brand new segment where we look at how different movies handle the same kind of scene. We’ll also be tackling listener questions about “therapy pieces” and writing for the international market.

But first we have some follow up. Craig, start us off.

**Craig:** All right. So we have some follow up from Anonymous Animation Writer. It would be great if that was this person’s full name.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Craig:** And they didn’t actually work in animation, but I think they do. I don’t think it’s their name. Anonymous Animation Writer writes, “I just finished listening to episode 310 where you dove,” I think we dived, “into the recently passed WGA deal. I am a WGA member, but primarily I am a fairly successful animation writer.” Hats off to you.

“The reality is most animation isn’t WGA. We get no residuals. The pay rate is extremely low. And yet our material is played and replayed constantly. Kids, you know? And, our material is the primary driver for toy sales. Animation employs a huge swath of writers in Los Angeles, yet I feel as though we are the most neglected segment of the writing community. Can you address or have somebody from the guild address why all animation is not covered by the WGA?”

Yes. We. Can.

**John:** Yeah. It’s actually one of those rare cases where we can answer the question fairly definitively. So, animation is writing. It is completely the same kind of writing as writing for features or for television. Animation should be covered by the WGA, but it is not covered by the WGA because it never has been covered by the WGA.

Once upon a time when animated films were going to be made and when animated television programs were getting made, that writing was not covered by WGA. And it got covered by other unions, specifically a branch of IATSE covers it. So you, Anonymous Animation Writer, probably are working for a union. You’re represented by a union. It’s just not the WGA. And it sucks for you. And it’s going to be very difficult to get you covered by the WGA.

**Craig:** It will not be difficult. It will be impossible. So, here’s the deal with the law, Anonymous Animation Writer, and this bums us out as much as it bums you out. Well, I grant you you’re bummed out even more. You basically have two options for employment. You can either work non-union or you can work union. That’s just in general in life, right? It’s sort of binary. You’re working non-union, or you’re working union.

In closed shop states like California, if a union covers a work area, and there are companies that are signatory to that union, then you are covered by that union. Period. The end. There’s no other way for John or I to write a live action movie for, let’s say Warner Bros, unless it’s done under a WGA deal.

The union that has jurisdiction over animation is as John stated IATSE. And specifically it’s IATSE Local 839, the Animation Guild. Locals are subsidiaries of a larger parent union. But essentially it’s part of IATSE. Like most of the crew and stagecraft unions are.

The deal that 839 has with the companies is such that there are no residuals and, as you note, the pay rate is much lower than the WGA pay rate. The WGA can do nothing about this. Jurisdiction between unions is a matter of federal law. It’s like the jurisdiction police departments. You can’t have Philadelphia cops rolling on into New York and arresting people. It’s just the way the law works. You can’t overlap.

So, the choices in animation are if you’re working for a signatory company it has to be through Animation 839. Or, you may be working for a non-signatory company in which case it’s not union at all. Pixar, for instance, not union. I’m sure one of the other big ones is not union. And so really the choice that you face as you’re taking employment as an animation writer in Hollywood is whether you’re going to have a bad deal or a worse deal. And there is absolutely nothing the Writers Guild can do about it. Zero. Period. The end. And it is so frustrating for us, but it is just fact.

**John:** Yep. So, Craig, talk us through quickly there are certain primetime animated shows that are WGA. Why are they WGA?

**Craig:** Right. So, what we’ve been talking about is feature animation. Now, primetime animation was never clearly covered by any jurisdiction. So what happens is once a union makes a collective bargaining agreement with a bunch of employers to cover a work area, that’s theirs.

From what I understand, primetime animation was never seized, because there was never that much primetime animation. There was a ton of Saturday morning animation on television, of course, but primetime I don’t think there was particularly much. So when The Simpsons happened, then there was this opening. And for the first time in decades an animation football was up in the air. And The Simpsons writers very quickly organized to become a WGA shop. Because, specifically, there was no primetime deal for Fox. Fox, which made The Simpsons, had never signed, I believe, any collective bargaining agreement covering primetime animation.

So, open field. And they obviously — Fox I think, probably quite strongly, pushed them towards Animation 839. That was something that happened also with DreamWorks made a show called Father of the Pride, which they successfully got to push over to 839. But in this case, The Simpsons writers, probably because of the amount of leverage they had, were able to get a WGA deal. And once they did, all primetime animation made by Fox is a WGA deal. So Family guy, WGA deal. And what are the other ones? American Dad. And all those.

**John:** Bob’s Burgers.

**Craig:** There you go. So any primetime animated show made by Fox is WGA. Now, this does give a little bit of a glimmer of hope. For instance, I don’t think Pixar has ever signed any collective bargaining agreements. So, theoretically all of the writers that write Pixar movies could organize and demand to be covered by the WGA. And I wish they would. But easier said than done, because of the nature of feature films.

In television, you have to crank out episodes, particularly primetime network television. I mean, so that’s 26 right?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If your writers stop working for 10 minutes, you’ve got a huge assembly line problem. Not the case in feature animation, where those movies take years and years and years and there’s one of them. So, if there’s a halt for six or eight months, or two years, well, they absorb it. Much, much trickier to do. So, hopefully that answers the question of why The Simpsons, for instance, is a WGA show and not say a primetime program that maybe Sony Television is making.

**John:** Absolutely. So basically the way to get all animation covered by the WGA is to build a time machine and go back and have the decisions made differently. But I think with that theoretical time machine we can also be looking forward. And we need to be looking forward to what are the things coming down the pike that are going to be sort of like this animation situation. And how do we make sure that the people who are writing for those screens are covered and that they are WGA writers who are making a WGA living down the road. I think that’s a thing we need to focus on. And take the lesson we’ve learned from animation to make sure that we’re not leaving stuff uncovered.

**Craig:** Yeah. The legend — I don’t know if this is accurate, but the legend that I have heard is that way, way back in the day feature animation writers went to the WGA, the nascent WGA in the ’40s and ’50s, and said, “Hey, we want you guys to cover us.” And the WGA said, “Oh, no, no, no, we’re real writers. You people are making cartoons. We don’t cover cartoons.”

I don’t know if that’s true, but man it sounds true.

**John:** It does sound true.

**Craig:** Sounds super-duper freaking true. So, if there’s anything to guard against moving forward, it’s any hint of snobbery or exclusion, because whatever you think — if you look down at, I don’t know, content that’s made for YouTube, well, that will be the thing that’s destroying you 40 years from now. We really can’t afford to turn up our noses at any kind of writing for any screen as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** I agree. Second piece of follow up comes from Tim in Asheville. He writes, “I wanted to let you know how thankful I am for your feedback on the Reconstruction of Huck Finn over Mark Twain’s Dead Body in Episode 263.” So that was a Three Page Challenge you and I did.

“That story has reached the quarter finals of Nicholl,” and I actually just checked, it made it to semi-finals. “And although you only gave feedback on the first three pages, your thoughts engendered a come-to-Jesus type rewrite. And let me tell you, Jesus was not having that draft. Thanks for your thoughts and your inspiration.”

**Craig:** I like catty Jesus here. I am not having this draft. Oh no. Oh no! That’s great to hear.

**John:** Yeah. So congrats to Tim in Asheville. And we’ll put a link in the show notes to all the people who were the finalists in Nicholls this year. It’s the only I think competition that Craig and I both feel good about saying, yes, if you do well in Nicholl that’s fantastic. That is a feather in your cap and people actually do pay attention.

**Craig:** They do.

**John:** Congratulations to those folks.

**Craig:** They’ve already released their finalists?

**John:** Yes. So the article I read showed like the 10 finalists, but out of those 10 apparently five get fellowships, so there’s still another culling that happens. I can’t say I honestly understand how it all works, except that I’m very happy for the people who get to be a part of those lists.

**Craig:** So do I. And I hope that at least one or two of them, I mean, this is how crazy our business is. You think, well, there’s thousands of scripts, I assume, sent to the Nicholl Fellowship each year, and then it comes down to 10 finalists. And then five of them get fellowships. And here I am saying I hope one of them becomes a professional screenwriter. But that’s kind of — that is kind of the mesh size of this filter. It’s tough.

**John:** It is tough. Indeed.

All right, let’s get to our brand new segment. So this was suggested by Megan McDonnell, she is our new producer. And her idea was to take a certain class of scenes, a certain kind of scene you see in a bunch of different movies, and take a look at how different movies play that kind of scene. And so we’re going to be comparing and contrasting scenes from four different movies that are all about the same thing.

And in this case it is about the first day on the job, which is sort of a stock scene. And actually very common, I think, in features because as we always talk about features are about characters going through a journey they can only go through once. And so the first day on a new job is a very classic moment that your characters are going to have in lots of different kinds of movies. Comedies. Dramas. Everything in between.

**Craig:** Yeah, no, for sure. It’s a fun scene to write. I mean, we look forward to scenes like this. Sometimes we know what we have to accomplish in a story. We know how people are going to get in, and we know what we need to have them thinking or doing on the way out. And then the nature of the scene itself seems a bit, well, foggy. And then you have to figure out how to make it work.

No one has to really get lost in a fog over this.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** The first day of work we’re throwing characters at you. We’re throwing responsibilities at you. I know everyone knows how that feels. We’ve all been there before. So really it’s just about what is your unique perspective on this shared experience of the first day at work.

**John:** Absolutely. Well, let’s jump right in. So I put out a call on Twitter for people to send me their suggestions for great movies with great scenes about the first day on the job. And, of course, our listeners are fantastic and threw back a lot of suggestions. Probably the number one suggestion was one I hadn’t thought of which is The Hudsucker Proxy. So this is a screenplay by Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, and Sam Raimi.

In the show notes for this episode you’ll find links to the full PDF, but also the individual scenes we’re taking a look at. So, Craig, why don’t you read the setup to this scene? This is scene 14 in Hudsucker Proxy.

**Craig:** Sure.

“SWINGING STEEL DOORS that read, ”MAILROOM.” They burst open as Norville, who wears a mail clerk’s leather apron, imprinted: HUDSUCKER MAILROOM/The Future is Now. The hellish mailroom is criss-crossed by pipes that emit HISSING jets of STEAM.

As he wheels a piled-high mail cart down the aisle, Norville is accompanied by an orientation AGENT who bellows at him over the clamor and roar of many men laboring in the bowels of a great corporation.

**John:** And now let’s take a listen to the scene.

**Scene:**

AGENT
You punch in at 8:30 every morning except you punch in at 7:30 following a business holiday unless it’s a Monday and then you punch in at eight o’clock You punch in at 7:45 whenever we work extended day and you punch out at the regular time unless you’ve worked through lunch!

NORVILLE
What’s exte–

AGENT
Punch in late and they dock ya!

People on either side bellow at Norville and stuff envelopes and packages under his elbows, into his pockets, under his chin, between his clenched teeth , etc.

FIRST SCREAMER
This goes to seven! Mr. Mutuszak! Urgent!

AGENT
Incoming articles, get a voucher! Outgoing articles, provide a voucher! Move any article without a voucher and they dock ya!

SECOND SCREAMER
Take this up to the secretarial pool on three!Right away!Don’t break it!

AGENT
Letter size a green voucher! Folder size a yellow voucher! Parcel size a maroon voucher!

THIRD SCREAMER
This one’s for Morgatross! Chop chop!

AGENT
Wrong color voucher and they dock ya!Six-seven-eight-seven-zero-four-niner-alpha-slash-six! That is your employee number!It will not be repeated!Without your employee number you cannot cash your paycheck!

FOURTH SCREAMER
This goes up to twenty-seven! If there’s no one there bring it down to eighteen! Have ‘em sign the waiver!DON’T COME BACK DOWN HERE WITHOUT A SIGNED WAIVER!!

AGENT
Inter-office mail is code37! INTRA-office mail is 37-dash-3! Outside mail is 3-dash37! Code it wrong and they dock ya!

FIFTH SCREAMER
I was supposed to have this on twenty-eight ten minutes ago! Cover for me!

AGENT
This has been your orientation! Is there anything you do not understand? Is there anything you understand only partially? If you have not been fully- oriented–if there is something you do not understand in all of its particulars you must file a complaint with personnel! File a faulty complaint…and they dock ya!

**Craig:** That’s great.

**John:** It’s delightful. So this is a very classically kind of what we expect on that first day, where everything is being thrown at you. You are just barely trying to catch up with the action around you. And it’s important to set up the environment of this world they’re entering into. This is a sort of dystopian hellhole of corporate machinery. And from sound design to sort of the monologuing of the orientation agent, you get a feeling for all of it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Classic bit of filmic storytelling to take the normal emotions that we have in shared universal experiences and then externalize them in these very broad, caricatured ways. Even though nobody has ever experienced a first day at work like this, you can argue that this is how it feels to us. Everything is confusing. Everything is scary. Everyone around you seems to be perfectly meshed together and frantic in a way you are not because you don’t understand what’s going on. And you are laden down with rules that you do not understand and consequences you do understand. So, you don’t know what you need to do to succeed. You just know what happens when you fail. Very, very first day.

**John:** Yeah. They will dock you. So, this is a great example of like this orientation agent is not a major character, so he’s just going there and he’s just establishing the rules of the world. He is basically — he’s just part of the setting really. This is not a significant character.

But I want to contrast that with the first scene from Devil Wears Prada, or at least the first day scene from Devil Wears Prada. This is a script by Aline Brosh McKenna based on the book by Lauren Weisberger. Here we see the same kind of orientation where you have somebody starting to lead somebody through the office, and yet this case it’s Emily Blunt leading Anne Hathaway through. And Emily Blunt is a major character. Emily Blunt is a character who we’re going to come back to again and again. And so you can see the scene is actually taking some time to establish her as a more important significant character who has a depth to her that this orientation agent doesn’t have.

Let’s take a look at the scene on paper first, and then we’ll take a listen to it. It starts in reception. “Andy is trying to arrange herself on the uncomfortable sofa when suddenly a taller, thinner, and amazingly more groomed version of the women in the room walks in. This is Emily, who looks the part of the sleek fashionista, but is propelled by a core of barely tamped anxiety. Andrea Barnes? Emily looks up, their eyes meet, as Emily takes in how different Andy looks from everyone else. Andy springs up and follows her down the hallway.”

Let’s take a listen to the rest of the scene.

**Scene:**

INT. RUNWAY RECEPTION AREA — DAY

Sleek, elegant, hard-edged chic. Behind the reception desk is an elegant logo that says RUNWAY. ANDY walks over.

ANDY
Hi, I have an appointment with Emily Charlton–

EMILY (O.S.)
Andrea Sachs?

(EMILY (and MIRANDA, later) pronounce ANDREA Ahn-DRAY-a. ANDY refers to herself as AN-dree-a.)

ANDY turns and sees a taller, thinner and, amazingly, more groomed CLACKER. This is EMILY. She looks the part of the sleek fashionista, but is propelled by a core of barely tamped down anxiety. She examines ANDY.

EMILY (CONT’D)
Human Resources certainly has a bizarre sense of humor.
(sigh, annoyed)
Follow me.

INT. RUNWAY HALLWAY — DAY

EMILY briskly walks ANDY down the hall.

EMILY
Okay, so… I was Miranda’s second assistant, but her first assistant recently got promoted so now I’m the first…

ANDY glimpses an office in front of them, seductively bright.

ANDY
And you’re replacing yourself.

EMILY
I’m trying. Miranda sacked the last two girls after only a few weeks. We need to find someone who can survive here. Do you understand?

ANDY
Yes. Of course. Who’s Miranda?

EMILY
(eyes widening)
You didn’t just ask me that. She’s the editor in chief of Runway. Not to mention a legend. Work a year for her and you can get a job at any magazine you want. A million girls would kill for this job.

ANDY
Sounds great. I’d love to be considered.

She smiles. EMILY tries to think how to break it to her.

EMILY
Andrea, Runway is a fashion magazine. An interest in fashion is crucial.

ANDY
What makes you think I’m not interested in fashion?

EMILY gives her a look. ANDY smiles, like she has no idea what EMILY could mean.

Suddenly, EMILY’S Blackberry goes off. She gasps.

EMILY
Oh my God. No. No, no, no.

ANDY
What’s wrong?

EXT. ELIAS-CLARKE — DAY

A black sedan pulls to a sudden stop outside the building.

INT. RUNWAY – BULLPEN – DAY

EMILY begins rapid-fire dialing four digit extensions.

EMILY
(all but screaming)
She’s on her way — tell everyone!

Just then a dapper man of about 40 walks briskly by.

NIGEL
I thought she was coming in at 9.

EMILY
Her driver text-messaged. Her facialist ruptured a disk. God, these people!

NIGEL turns and sees ANDY. Looks at EMILY. Who is that?

EMILY (CONT’D)
I can’t even talk about it.

No time to discuss. NIGEL calls down the hallway.

NIGEL
All right, everyone. Man your battle stations!

**John:** First off, it’s great to have Aline on the show, even if she’s not literally on the show, we get to hear her words and see her work. I think it’s a delightful scene. And so here we’ve already established Anne Hathaway’s character in the movie, but this is our first time meeting Emily Blunt’s character. And it’s a sophisticated thing that we’re seeing here. So, you get to see that Emily Blunt is trying to do her job, but she’s also very skeptical that this girl could even possibly be working here. We’re establishing the stakes of the world and we’re establishing that everyone else who has been hired for this job has been fired very, very quickly.

And then we end this scene with this moment of like, “Oh no, the boss is coming.” And then we get into this sort of montage of Miranda Priestly arriving at the office and everyone panicking and scurrying around to sort of prepare for her. So you’re establishing this big character entrance for a character who has not yet shown up in the movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. In some ways, this is the opposite way of playing a first day moment than the one in Hudsucker Proxy. It doesn’t seem like it starts as the opposite, because in walks this young woman who seems to be perfect, as opposed to our protagonist. But then as they move through the building and begin to talk what starts to come out is that our hero, Anne Hathaway’s character, doesn’t even know who Miranda is. And is oddly sort of Zen. You know, “I’d like to be considered.” She just seems so much calmer and more centered than Emily Blunt’s character, who is already kind of twittery panicky.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And when they hear that Miranda is coming early, you see Emily kind of fall apart. So, what this first day is setting up in a sense probably the arc of these two characters and what is going to happen ultimately with Anne Hathaway’s character, I think.

**John:** What’s also great in this scene is we’re used to the sort of bulldozer coming in and our protagonist being sort of run over by the bulldozer. Anne Hathaway’s character does stand up to her. “Well what makes you think I don’t like fashion?” Basically, she’s taking some agency. She’s actually willing to sort of hit the ball back over the net. And that becomes important in the next scene where she actually is interviewing with Miranda Priestly to make it clear like, you know, you are going to say that I’m not qualified to be here, but I really am. And you should take a chance on me. She’s actually going to stick up for herself in ways that are incredibly important for the character.

What I’d like to do now is actually compare it to her first actual day on the job. So, this is clip from later on in the film where she’s trying to get through her first real day after she’s been hired. And there’s a moment, which I think has become sort of one of the iconic moments in the film, where she is dismissive of sort of what it is they’re doing in general. She makes the mistake of laughing about how absurd it is. And let’s take a listen to what happens in that scene.

**Scene:**

ANDY lets out a little giggle. And it’s like she set off a grenade. Slowly everyone turns to her.

MIRANDA
Is something funny?

ANDY
No, no, no. It’s just…

And MIRANDA says nothing. ANDY twists in the wind.

ANDY (CONT’D)
It’s just that both of those belts look the same to me. I’m still learning about this stuff, so–

And the silence is deafening. Everyone looks to see what MIRANDA will do.

MIRANDA
This… stuff? Okay. I understand. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and select, say, that lumpy blue sweater because you’re trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what’s on your body. What you don’t know is that your sweater is not blue. It’s not even sky blue. It’s cerulean. You also don’t know that in 2002, De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns, Yves St. Laurent showed a cerulean military jacket, Dolce did skirts with cerulean beads, and in our September issue we did the definitive layout on the color. Cerulean quickly appeared in eight other major collections, then the secondary and department store lines and then trickled down to some lovely Casual Corner, where you no doubt stumbled on it. That color is worth millions of dollars and many jobs. And here you are, thinking you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry. In truth, you are wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.

She smiles at ANDY. Who quakes.

**John:** What I love about this clip is that it shows a crucial aspect of first day on the job which is failure. And that sense of the protagonist comes in with a head of steam. They think they’re sort of figuring it out. And then they meet a huge obstacle and a huge setback. And that setback is generally the antagonist. In this case, it’s Miranda. And it makes it really clear that as plucky and as smart as Anne Hathaway’s character is, she is out of her depths in sort of this situation and specifically opposite Miranda.

**Craig:** Yeah. Most movies that are workplace movies will involve a hero who is new to the job pushing up against an antagonist or villain who is established on the job. It could be a boss, as it often is. Or it could be a rival for a promotion. But no matter what, that villain, that antagonist, needs to have some formidable weight. This is a very common note that studios will give, and for good reason. It’s a good note — make your villains formidable.

So, we could easily begin to see Miranda Priestly as a nut. Just a tyrannical nut who should be laughed at. And, of course, a lot of fashion does seem, on its face, absurd. And it makes perfect sense for us to be with Anne Hathaway and thinking I see through everything here. I can see the matrix. This is all baloney and this lady is nuts.

And it’s really important for the movie and for the character for Anne Hathaway to hear, “No, you don’t see anything at all.” And it has to be done in such a way that in the audience, in the theater where we’re sitting we go, “Oh you know what, that’s a really good point. You’re right. It’s not just that you’re mean about it, or strident, you’ve convinced me. Right? And by doing so I now understand that the character I was identifying with and feeling really proud to kind of be in the saddle with doesn’t maybe know what she’s talking about. And doesn’t see all the things she thinks she sees. And now I feel that way, too.” This is the bedrock of making people care about characters in a movie.

So, it’s a terrific way to use a first day on the job scene to not only set up what it is that people do, but also set up the basis of a rivalry. And to take your hero, and as we always should, push them down. Push them down, because there is no satisfaction in their rise if we do not push them down.

**John:** I’m thinking about the archetypes of this relationship and you see this all the time in military movies where you have the drill sergeant. But you also see it in teacher movies. You think of Whiplash. And this is very much the same kind of dynamic in Whiplash where you have the upstart who thinks he knows what’s going on and then meets this incredible asshole of a teacher who really can show him up and sort of prove that he knows nothing.

And that’s a crucial dynamic. I think so often we think of the antagonist as being the villain in the story. And villains don’t always wear capes and sort of try to destroy cities. A lot of times it’s how they are challenging our heroes. And that’s what you’re seeing in Devil Wears Prada.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it is really important for people to note, in a time when a lot of movies do seem to feature villains that only are interested in the most broad villainous desires like total power and total destruction, that the most satisfying cinematic villains are the ones who in some way at the end of a story are actually vaguely proud of the fact that the hero has risen up.

It took a long time, it took three movies for Darth Vader to get to that point. But he did. And we really liked it. It’ll take one movie for Miranda to get there at the end, but that’s exactly where it ends up with the two of them. You get the sense that Miranda is a combination of antagonist and mentor. And that’s a great combo.

**John:** That is a great combo. When it works, it’s fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly.

**John:** We always think of mentors as being like the kindly old wizard or the caring teacher, but oftentimes it is a confrontational role that is pushing them to the next place. So, it’s great to see it here.

Let’s take a look at another sort of mentor figure and sort of authority figure in Hidden Figures. So this is a screenplay by Allison Schroeder and Ted Melfi based on a book by Margo Shetterly.

So in this scene we see Taraji P. Henson. She’s going to work in the larger office with the engineers rather than just being the calculator off in the little back room. Let’s take a read through the scene and then what actually happens.

So we’re inside the Space Task Group office. “Katherine steps into a cyclone of activity and stress. ENGINEERS chalk equations on blackboards, slug coffee. AIDES and SUPPORT STAFF scurry, answer phones. This is the Space Task Group: the world’s most exclusive scientific club. At the back of the room, Harrison paces in his glass bubble, talking with Karl Zielinski. For the briefest moment, everyone seems to be looking at the black woman who just entered their world. But it’s just a passing moment, there’s far too much to do.”

And so we’re going to actually skip ahead a little bit in the scene to listen to when she first has her conversation with the character played by Kevin Costner.

**Scene:**

AL HARRISON
Ruth. What’s the status on my Computer?

RUTH
She’s right in front of you, Mr. Harrison.

Ruth motions to Katherine. Harrison gives her a once over. Not what he expected either.

AL HARRISON
Does she know how to handle Analytic Geometry?

RUTH
Absolutely. And she speaks.

KATHERINE
I do, sir.

AL HARRISON
Which one?

KATHERINE
Both, sir. Geometry and speaking.

Harrison waves a finger at Ruth.

AL HARRISON
Then give her the-

She knows exactly what he’s talking about. She always knows what he’s talking about. She snatches a bundle of worksheets off her desk, rushes them to Katherine.

AL HARRISON (CONT’D)
(to Katherine)
Do you think you can find me the Frenet frame for that data using the Gram- Schmidt–

Katherine glances at the data sheets.

KATHERINE
–Orthogonalization algorithm. Yes, sir. I prefer it over Euclidean coordinates.

That’s all Harrison needs to hear. She knows her stuff.

**Craig:** Right. So this is a fairly common way of doing these things. You have somebody that no one would expect to be really, really good at something because of their gender or their race or their age. And they are going to impress somebody. It’s not actually — I mean, it’s a really, really good movie. This is a fairly cliché way of doing these things.

But there is something pretty interesting in it, and that is — and you can pull out and sort of go, ah-ha. You know, sometimes when there are scenes that feel cliché, you realize that one thing isn’t. And it’s a little bit like those puzzles when we were kids, like find the things that are different, right? And those little differences are actually really illuminating. And I’m certain quite intentional. And the little difference here is Kevin Costner just says, “OK, all right. Do you do this? Do you do that?”

There’s no “I don’t think so, or is this some kind of joke?” That’s the difference. And you will see that little bit play out and grow in their relationship over the course of the movie. So there’s a little seed in what is a fairly stock kind of execution of something that is different and refreshing and kind of counter to the hyper formula of this kind of moment.

**John:** Absolutely. So this is a moment that happens midway through the story, I think, because we’ve actually established quite a bit of backstory with the women that we’re going to be following. And they’re sort of all going through first day experiences. They already worked at NASA. They worked as calculators in the sort of backroom doing the difficult calculations. And one by one they’re sort of being pulled into greater responsibilities, so Janelle Monáe’s character is going to work with the heat shield people. And Octavia Spencer is really managing these women and basically wants to be credited with being their manager and being paid as their manager.

So, Taraji P. Henson is of them the most lead character of them, and so she’s going to work in the biggest room with the biggest most important people. And I think we have a natural expectation that her relationship with Kevin Costner is going to be classically antagonistic where she has to impress him and change him.

He starts pretty far along the journey, and so it’s really more about his coming to see the world from her point of view. And basically recognize his own ignorance about sort of what was going on. So it wasn’t that he was this horrible racist. It’s that he had never even thought to question what she was allowed to do and what she wasn’t allowed to do and how frustrating that would be for her. And so it’s nothing like the Miranda Priestly sort of relationship. It’s not — he’s not even sort of teaching her how to grow into this bigger thing. It’s her just through her quiet competence pushing him and the rest of this group forward.

**Craig:** Yeah. And that is kind of the thing that jumps out of this exchange. Because it is, like I said, it’s a very — we’ve seen this before.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times. So, that’s the thing that is the little payload. I think there’s a really good lesson there, actually, that when you are writing these scenes sometimes people are so panicked that they’re writing a stock scene. And I think it’s not something to panic over as long as you are putting some kind of twist or thing on it.

It’s when you don’t. It’s when you fail to surprise in any way whatsoever that the thing just starts to lie there and feel super derivative.

**John:** I think one of the other reasons why this didn’t pain me when I saw it in the theaters is that it’s part of a much longer scene. So we did some of the setup, but she’s just standing around this office for a long time while people are waiting and doing other things. She has this moment, and then the scene just keeps going on where she has to — where she’s finding her desk. And so it really places you into her perspective of what it’s like to be there.

One of the brilliant tricks that this movie does is that by fully grounding the experience in these women’s lives, you see everything from their point of view. And so when we go into these sort of white male enclaves, we are going into it as her. That is the foreign territory we’re heading into and we are completely identifying with her perspective on things.

And so letting her be sort of quietly competent in this moment and not have her big speech here, but save it for later on, you know, saves our powder and lets us sort of really stick in our perspective.

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree completely.

**John:** Cool. Let’s take a look at one last first day, which was the second most highly recommended thing on Twitter when I put out the call for these scenes. This is Training Day by David Ayer.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** And this whole movie is a first day on the job essentially. So, let’s take a look at a scene that happens in a coffee shop. So, we’ll read through the setup here.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s a good one. All right.

”INT. COFFEE SHOP – DAY

Old and tired, near Good Samaritan Hospital. Jake struts through the door, confidently looks around. JAKE’S POV: DETECTIVE SERGEANT ALONZO HARRIS, in black shirt, black leather jacket. And just enough platinum and diamonds to look like somebody. He reads the paper in a booth. The gun leather-tough LAPD vet is a hands-on, blue-collar cop who can kick your ass with a look. BACK TO SCENE Jake walks over. Slides in across. Alonzo’s eyes will never leave his newspaper.”

**John:** And let’s take a listen.

**Scene:**

JAKE
Good morning, sir.

A young waitress pours Jake coffee, offers a menu. Jake waves it away.

JAKE
I’m okay, ma’am. Thank you.

ALONZO
Have some chow before we hit the office. Go ahead. It’s my dollar.

JAKE
No, thank you, sir. I ate.

ALONZO
Fine. Don’t.

Alonzo turns the page. A long beat. Then:

JAKE
It’s nice here.

ALONZO
May I read my paper?

JAKE
I’m sorry, sir… I’ll get some food.

ALONZO
No. You won’t. You fucked that up. Please. I’m reading. Shut up.

Jake does — Jeeez, sorry. Pours a ton of sugar in his coffee.

TIME CUT TO:

INT. COFFEE SHOP – DAY

The waitress pours refills. Alonzo reads. Jake fidgets.

JAKE
Sure wouldn’t mind not roasting in a hot black and white all summer.

Alonzo sighs, carefully folds his paper. Glares at Jake.

ALONZO
Tell me a story, Hoyt.

JAKE
My story?

ALONZO
Not your story. A story. You can’t keep your mouth shut long enough to let me finish my paper. So tell me a story.

JAKE
I don’t think I know any stories.

Alonzo waves the paper in Jake’s face.

ALONZO
This is a newspaper. And I know it’s ninety percent bullshit but it’s entertaining. That’s why I read it. Because it entertains me. If you won’t let me read my paper, then entertain me with your bullshit. Tell me a story.

**John:** This is a fantastic scene. I remember loving the scene when I first saw the movie. This is establishing the dynamic between these two characters. This is like the Miranda/Anne Hathaway relationship in that the nature of their relationship is going to be the entire movie. And this establishes it so well.

**Craig:** It does. And the story he goes on to tell also helps quite a bit. Indeed. We, I think, have all had an experience where we’ve met somebody that puts us on our heels permanently. Because not only are they aggressive and preternaturally in control of themselves it seems, but they are bizarrely unpredictable. They feel dangerous to us. And you try and catch up to them. You try and get into their good graces. You try and match them and their tone. You try and figure out exactly what wave length you’re supposed to operate on with this person until eventually you find out you can’t. That’s never going to happen.

And what’s interesting to me about this first day scene is that Denzel Washington’s character puts Ethan Hawke back on his heels really, really hard. Really, really aggressively. And Jake, Ethan Hawke’s character, goes ahead and does as he’s ordered. He starts to tell a story. And this guy keeps interrupting him, and he’s doing it in a way that is, again, dangerous. Until Jake finally starts telling the story kind of the right way.

You can see Ethan Hawke trying to tell it in a way that would entertain Alonzo, because that’s what Alonzo has demanded. Entertainment. And he does and Alonzo gets entertained. And Jake feels really good about it, you know? Until Alonzo smashes him down again. Verbally, of course, in this instance. You get everything you need to know in this first day on the job scene. This is not a scene where you are trying to catch up with somebody who is going to teach you lessons. This is not a scene where a large business is overwhelming to you. This is a scene where you’re meeting a dangerous person, and you’re trying your best and using all of your skills to make it work and none of them are working at all.

**John:** Absolutely. So, in contrast to all these other scenes, we’re not going into the classic workplace, except that the workplace of these two characters is going to be just them together in a car, in a place. We’re not going to be in sort of the bullpens. It’s not that kind of movie. And so the workplace of this movie is going to be wherever the two of them are. And so it’s a really good way of establishing what the dynamics are going to be there and telegraphing what to watch out for.

I think what’s so great about how Denzel Washington’s character is playing through this moment is he’s not boxing, it’s more like a kind of Aikido or a Judo where he’s just continually knocking Ethan Hawke’s character off balance. And so that he can’t sort of figure out what he should say or do next. And it his desperation to figure out what to do next that can sort of compromise him.

It’s just ingeniously set up.

**Craig:** Yeah. And the rhythm that this establishes will repeat over and over and over. And you realize that the only way that this rhythm will ever break is if Jake breaks, essentially. And the movie itself, I mean, I love Training Day in part because, for a movie with a lot of action and a lot of plot, honestly — there’s a big kind of, well, you know, internal affairs-y sort of conspiracy going on and you’re meeting characters and people are getting double crossed and all the rest of it, but it is a movie about these conversations. It really is. And obviously those of us who have seen the movie, we all understand the metaphor here of what the training is exactly meant to be.

But this scene is a good example of when you and I talk about a little seed, you know, our first three pages. This is a great little seed. All of the stuff that is going to happen in this movie is essentially all packed into this one scene. So that’s another great way to make use of these first day on the job scenes is by giving them double duty. It’s first day on the job and it is the thematic and character DNA for the whole film.

**John:** Absolutely. Some other choices that were suggested for these scenes included Swimming with Sharks, The Sound of Music, Hot Fuzz, 9 to 5, Men in Black, Mr. Mom, Tootsie, Soapdish. There’s a whole wide range. And so in picking these four movies we didn’t necessarily pick the best scenes, but the ones that I thought could show us a good contrast between the kinds of things that happen in your first day on the job scenes.

So, this was fun. I enjoyed doing this as a new segment. If you have an idea for a future installment of This Kind of Scene, let us know and we’ll try to do this in the future.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know what? We can do whatever we want.

**John:** Yes. But we like your suggestions.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. I mean, well, you do. I just like doing whatever I want. Here’s the sad truth: I say that, and then I just do whatever you want. So really that’s what it comes down to. Do you want their suggestions? You get them. I do what you want. And here we are.

**John:** And this is how it all happens.

**Craig:** This is how it all happens, folks.

**John:** We have two listener questions we’re going to try to hit. So, first off, we have John who wrote in a question regarding how to write for an increasingly international market. Let’s take a listen.

John Listener: Do you think that the international audience has become significantly more important to the studios than the domestic audience? And if so, when you guys are working on studio projects how do you keep in mind the international audience? Do you try to limit dialogue, for example? Add more action? Add more CGI? Or do you not really worry about that?

How do you make your projects, you know, feel like they’re not pandering? Lately it seems like a couple films have been pandering to Chinese audiences, for example, and it sort of backfired. And the Chinese audiences rejected them knowing that they were being pandered to. So, how do you avoid situations like that?

What do you think we can expect, basically, going forward in movies and how can we train ourselves to be thinking about international audiences? Does it start at the concept phase? Should we come up with stories that are less regionalistic, for example? Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

**John:** So, Craig, what John’s referring to is there have been some movies that definitely steered things in a certain way so they could either capitalize on Chinese dollars or avoid angering Chinese audiences or Chinese censors. Basically, it could be very hard to get your movie to play in China if China doesn’t want your movie to play there. So, there have been movies that have been nipped and tucked in order to play in China. And movies that have included a scene of characters drinking a Chinese product because it was important.

But, I will say that as a person who writes some big studio movies, it’s never come up for me that I needed to be writing something specifically different for China. Have you felt this?

**Craig:** No. I haven’t. But I suspect that it was probably couched in something else. Sort of the way you give your dog a pill by shoving it in a piece of cheese. We do hear things from studios: casting suggestions, and maybe, oh, we need another action set piece, or something like this or that. The truth is that we are in a strange dance right now with the rest of the world when it comes to our business and how important the international audience is.

For some movies it’s kind of important. For some movies, it’s really, really important. In general, the studios get a much lower percentage of the returns from international box office. But international box office at times dwarfs domestic box office on a movie by movie basis.

I’m thinking for instance of a movie like Warcraft. Warcraft was made by Universal. It starred people speaking English. So it seemingly was intended for a domestic audience. But I suspect it was really largely intended for an international audience, because Warcraft is just so much bigger in Asia than it is here. It used to be pretty big here, but it’s huge still in Asia, and, not surprisingly, Warcraft made a massive amount of money overseas. Far more than it made here. Far more. People think of that movie as a huge bomb. It’s not.

There are, of course, movies that then — and I think John is absolutely right when he points this out — they pander. And that’s horrendous. And hopefully we stop doing that because I don’t think it’s productive. One thing I know for sure is you’re going to be very hard pressed to have a hero in your movie from Tibet. You’re going to be extremely hard pressed to have the villains in your movie be Chinese people. That’s not going to happen. Nor North Koreans. It’s hard for that, too, because again China is incredibly protective of that sort of thing. And they have a strict government control over what gets released and how long it is in theaters.

So, it has been very disruptive to our business, I think. The emergence of this massive new market, and also a lot of capital, has been disruptive. But creatively speaking, I also feel like domestic audiences are moving closer to where international audiences used to be. They just seem mostly interested in spectacle. I think that’s why we are awash in superhero movies and will remain so for some time. They are massive spectacle. And they cross all cultures.

**John:** I would agree with you. I think we would be making those kind of movies regardless, because those movies are incredibly successful in the US. And so you look at how our movies have become sort of bigger and flashier and sometimes dumber when they’re trying to be the giant blockbusters. But we’re also still making really good movies that are intended for a domestic audience that do really well. And so you look at Girls Trip, which was made by Universal, and was incredibly successful. Nowhere in their calculations did they say like, oh, we have to be able to release this movie in China. That just wasn’t sort of on the table for it. And so it’s still very possible to make an incredibly successful movie that is mostly playing in the US. And that’s good. We want to have a range of things being made.

Also, to date, the television that we’re making, some of it goes overseas, but some of it doesn’t go overseas. We’re still able to make television that is appealing to a very American sensibility that’s about sort of America right now. And I think that’s only going to continue.

So, I’m not too pessimistic that we’re going to lose the ability to have a culture of filmmaking that is sort of uniquely looking at American culture because we have that, it’s just sometimes not on the big screen.

**Craig:** Yeah. From a practical point of view, I don’t think there’s much sense in tailoring your writing for some imagined studio executive’s desires. Look, if in your heart what you really want to write is Pacific Rim, well, congrats. Good news. That is the kind of thing that studios probably will look at and go, OK, that feels like it could play really well internationally. And, yeah, that will give you a leg up.

But you have to want to write that. You have to feel that. You can’t calculate these things. If you do, you just end up with a calculated piece of crap. And believe me, we’ve got enough of it. We’ve got enough calculated pieces of crap coming from highly trained professionals. So we don’t need amateur calculated crap. What we need is stuff that feels authentic and passionate.

So, the truth is you kind of have to play the hand you’re dealt by your own passion and your own desire as a writer. And just know that there are still avenues for everybody. There are — good news — far more avenues now than there were five years ago for, for instance, grown up dramas. Because now they don’t necessarily need to exist theatrically. They can exist in a very real way on Netflix or on HBO. So, you’ve got to write what you want to write. Don’t try and game the system. You will lose.

**John:** I agree.

All right, our last question comes from Arvin who writes, “I’ve received notes back on several of my short scripts. One person keeps giving comments back that I am writing a ‘therapy piece’ and I’m putting my own issues into the script and not dramatizing the conflict. What is a therapy piece and how do I avoid writing one?”

**Craig:** Oh, well, I can guess. I mean, it’s not really a common term, meaning I’ve never heard it before.

**John:** I never heard it before either. But I understand what the friend is saying. And to me what the friend is saying is that if feels like you’re writing this to work through some issue that is not necessarily interesting to a reader or potential viewer of this product.

**Craig:** Yeah. So we have all seen scripts that feel like they’re navel-gazing. Somebody is writing a script because the events in their mind and the insights that they are having about circumstances particular to them are occupying their every waking minute. And now they’re putting it into a screenplay. It is a terrible miscalculation to do that because by and by those specific details of your life are remarkably boring to everybody.

There is a reason you have to pay therapists. It’s not just for their expertise. It’s also because nobody else wants to listen to that shit week after week after week. It would be exhausting. Literally exhausting.

We all have our problems. We are all carrying our baggage. And it is fine to be informed by that, or inspired by that, to write something that would be universal for everybody, that would be exciting for everyone.

If you are writing a screenplay to exercise your own personal demons and you’re not doing it couched in a larger story that would play to somebody who has no interest in your personal demons, then yeah, you’re kind of not doing it right. That said, Arvin, one person is saying that. I don’t know what other people are saying. And, you know, there are smaller movies that kind of do this somewhat successfully. I mean, you could argue that a lot of Woody Allen’s films are — I guess you’d call them therapy pieces in a way. But they are done with such wit and intelligence that we are entertained.

**John:** When people make intensely personal movies, that can be a really good thing, as long as that intensely personal thing speaks to a larger universal truth. It gives you an insight to the human condition that you wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. And so some of our great filmmakers make things that are intensely personal to them and yet we’re able to see through their lens a much broader perspective around us.

Speaking to the sense that this one person has read your script and it feels like you’re just working through your own stuff, you know, you’re not doing the other things well. And so you’re probably having characters speak the kinds of things you wish you could say, and in doing so you’re basically writing yourself into it, but not in a way that is entertaining for everyone else.

You look at Aaron Sorkin, I mean, you could say that most of what Aaron Sorkin writes sort of feels like therapy pieces. It sort of feels like you’re going through a therapy session with him. And yet he has such tremendous mastery of craft that you’re sort of delighted to go through those therapy sessions with him. So, it may just be picking stories that let you examine things that are interesting to you — internally interesting to you — but finding a way to externalize them in a way that they’re interesting to other people as well.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a term that has become very popularized. Mary Sue. Or Gary Sue. Depending on gender. And the idea there is a writer creates a character that is essentially a stand in for them. And this character is an idealized perfected them. So, whenever something goes wrong, it’s because this character is being unfairly wronged. And they are able to quickly fix the situation and come out on top. And it’s just basically sort of a teenage fantasy version of yourself. It’s an immature, childish expression of kind of an overpowered perfected you, which in and of itself implies a need for actual therapy, which I think is pretty universal and common to all human beings.

I’ll make a suggestion, Arvin. Check out, if you haven’t seen it already, 500 Days of Summer by Neustadter and Weber and directed by Marc Webb. Because it is a therapy piece I think. I think — I think it was based on a relationship that Scott Neustadter actually had. And it is very much that and yet manages to be extraordinarily entertaining and I think provides a kind of universal pep talk for us all.

So, we don’t feel like we’re watching one person getting back at someone or proving to themselves that they’re OK or that they were wronged. We watch someone go through something that we feel we’ve all felt. So, take a look at that and maybe you’ll get some good lessons from that.

**John:** I think that’s a great suggestion. And what’s crucial about 500 Days of Summer is that you see the suffering and you also see the mistakes that the protagonist is making. And so often in the Mary Sue stories or the Marty Stu stories, the character is flawless and therefore uninteresting.

**Craig:** Correct. That kind of is the hallmark — I like Marty Stu. I don’t know why Gary Sue. I saw Gary Sue and I did think like that’s weird, because Sue is still, like no one is named Gary Sue. So Marty Stu. I like that. That’s much better.

**John:** Our friend Julia Turner was talking about that on the Slate Culture Gabfest today and they were talking through fan fiction and the prevalence of the Mary Sue and the Marty Stu character in fan fiction.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s definitely out there.

**John:** It’s out there. All right, it is time for our One Cool Things. Craig, I am so fascinated by what you put on the outline that I want you to talk me through it.

**Craig:** Well, this is the most — it’s just bizarre. So, George Plimpton, you know, George Plimpton knows — I don’t even know why George Plimpton is famous. I’ve got to be honest with you. I never quite got it. He was — I think he wrote some books about sports and —

**John:** But he was mostly a talk show guest is what I think of him.

**Craig:** Yeah. He was famous for being famous and for having that incredibly patrician American accent. And then he was also famous, I think, for people of my generation because he was the guy that advertised I think in television or something like that. But anyway George Plimpton was also quite rich apparently. And he purchased a 3,700-year-old tablet from the ancient civilization of Babylon. You know, and they had this cuneiform, we all learned that in school, their manner of writing which was these little wedge shapes in clay. And then eventually the tablet was gifted to some academics.

So, a guy named Dr. Daniel Mansfield, along with his team at the University of New South Wales in Australia, took a close look at this tablet. Everybody knew that it was basically mathematical in nature. What they figured out, in fact, is that it was a tool — it was essentially like a times table, except it was a trigonometric table to calculate right triangles at different sizes.

And what’s fascinating about it is it is actually a more advanced trigonometric system than the one the Greeks figured out 1,500 years later which we are still using today. So, our system of trigonometry is limited to our number system, which is basically base 10, you know. 1, 10, 100, 1,000.

But the Babylonians were using base 60, like time. So they divided things up into time. Which meant that they could have many more perfect divisions of things as they calculated them and they wouldn’t end up in these weird repeating fractions. Like if you want to take a third of 60, it’s 20. No problem. It’s exact.

You want to take a third of 10, it’s 3.33333 forever. Not as exact. So, really fascinating stuff. And we’ll throw a link here in the show notes. It actually will make sense to you when you read it. It’s not a particularly — you don’t need a math degree to understand this. All you need to know is there is a clay tablet from 3,700 years ago that may change the way we do trigonometry today. And that is awesome.

**John:** That’s very cool. My thing will not change the world, but it was a great observation. So this is a piece by Hana Michels writing for The Cut called Sword Guys are a Thing and I’ve had Sex with All of Them. And she talks through Sword Guys.

And Sword Guys are guys who own swords. And she really finds this sort of subculture of men who buy swords. Asian swords or other swords. And prop swords. Some are cos players, but many of them aren’t. And there’s just a very unique kind of man she’s describing as the man who owns a sword.

And she likens it to cat ladies, in the sense of like we have an idea of what a cat lady is and all the stereotypes about them, and you can kind of do the same things with any man who owns a sword. And so her piece I just thought was delightful, so I would recommend them.

It very much feels like the kind of observation you could see in a movie and say like, oh, wow, I totally get it because that guy has a sword hanging above his fireplace. It’s just very true.

**Craig:** I read this and I thought it was terrific but I didn’t think it was real. It seems not real. This is real?

**John:** Oh, this is real.

**Craig:** Are you sure?

**John:** I am going to bet $5.

**Craig:** Ok, because here’s the thing. Sword guys are real. There’s no question about that. I have sex with all of the sword guys feels made up to me. That’s not a thing. I just don’t believe that.

**John:** Well, I think I have sex with all the sword guys is the exaggeration of what it is like to be in a part of that piece of culture. Basically she’s saying I am the kind of girl who ends up having sex with the sword guys.

**Craig:** OK. I can see that. I don’t know. At some point while I was reading it I thought this is a master work of comic fiction. But if it’s real than I just am a bit confused, to be honest with you. Then I’m confused because the article seems to be both acknowledging and embracing what is — it seems to be painting this as a sort of pathetic pursuit and then also really appreciating it. I’m confused.

**John:** Yeah. So, you know, I think it would be delightful if I was confused and took this piece of fiction as a real fact. But I’m pretty sure that this is more on the order of a Modern Love kind of column in the Times where it’s like this is kind of a real thing. And so it’s a well-told version of the real situation.

**Craig:** I mean, she is a comedian.

**John:** She’s a comedian. Yeah. So like all comedians, there’s going to be exaggeration and things twisted around to make the joke better. But it feels real to me.

**Craig:** You know, she also wrote something called My Imaginary Boyfriend, Josh. I don’t know man. This can’t be real. Well, we’ll find out.

**John:** We’ll find out.

All right, that is our show for this week. So, our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week comes from Rajesh Naroth. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We are on Facebook. Just search for Scriptnotes. You can search for Scriptnotes on Apple Podcasts and add us and subscribe and leave us a review. That is so nice and helpful when you do that. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. Go there. You can download the PDFs of the full screenplays for all these things, but also the individual scenes that we talked through.

That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. So Megan gets them about four or five days after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. We also have a USB drive with the first 300 episodes available at store.johnaugust.com. Craig, thanks for a fun new segment.

**Craig:** John, thank you as always for being a podcast innovator.

**John:** Ah, we do our best. And I’ll see you next week.

**Craig:** You got it.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [The Academy Nicholl Fellowships](http://www.oscars.org/nicholl)
* The Hudsucker Proxy [on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hudsucker_Proxy) and [the full script](http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Hudsucker_Proxy.pdf).
* [Our scene in The Hudsucker Proxy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv33SsGHYHo), and [in the script](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/HUDSUCKER_PROXY_Orientation.pdf)
* The Devil Wears Prada on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_Wears_Prada_(film)), and [the full script](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/DEVIL_WEARS_PRADA_Full_Script.pdf).
* [Our first scene in The Devil Wears Prada](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=t4isatjZ0BM), and [in the script](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/DEVIL_WEARS_Andy_Interview.pdf)
* [Our second scene in The Devil Wears Prada](https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_9506656686&feature=iv-UoUErzCSSctn&src_vid=b2f2Kqt_KcE&v=Ja2fgquYTCg), and [in the script](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/DEVIL_WEARS_Miranda_Monologue.pdf)
* Hidden Figures on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures), and [the full script](https://s3.foxmovies.com/foxmovies/production/films/123/assets/hidden_figures_screenplay.pdf-5183735384.pdf).
* [Our scene from Hidden Figures](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syZeizyYNUs&app=desktop), and [in the script](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/HIDDEN_FIGURES_New_Computer.pdf).
* Training Day on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_Day), and [the full script](http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Training_Day.pdf).
* [Our scene from Training Day](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3myRRZkErs), and [in the script](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/TRAINING_DAY_Coffee_Shop.pdf).
* [Sword Guys Are a Thing and I’ve Had Sex With All of Them](https://www.thecut.com/2017/08/sword-guys-are-a-thing-and-ive-had-sex-with-all-of-them.html) by Hana Michels for The Cut
* [3,700-Year-Old Babylonian Stone Tablet Gets Translated, Changes History](http://www.distractify.com/omg/2017/08/28/13BnNP/babylonian-stone-tablet) by Collin Gosell for Distractify
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Rajesh Naroth ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_317.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 316: Distracted Boyfriend Is All of Us — Transcript

September 11, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2017/distracted-boyfriend-is-all-of-us).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 316 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast, it’s another round of How Would This Be a Movie. This time we’ll be looking at stories from Arkansas, to Copenhagen, to WWII Paris. Trying to figure out which ones might lend themselves to the big screen treatment.

**Craig:** Excellent, but first, before we get to any of that, little business, John.

**John:** All right. Do the business.

**Craig:** The business of democracy, my friend. Right now elections are going on for the Writers Guild of America West and presumably the Writers Guild of America East. Although as you know, I think there should just be one Writers Guild of America.

**John:** But that’s not a thing you can vote on in this election.

**Craig:** It’s not. But what you can vote on are the officers and board of directors for the Writers Guild of America West, if you are a member of said union. And one of the people running is my co-host today and always, John August. I personally have voted for you, John.

**John:** Oh, thank you very much.

**Craig:** I’ve already voted. I voted for you. And I think everyone should vote for you, personally. There are a couple different ways to vote. We have electronic voting and we have regular old paper ballot voting. Paper ballots should have arrived in your mailbox by now. Generally speaking, those of us who live up closer to Pasadena get them later, you know, maybe a day later than everybody else. So, they should be in everybody’s mailbox by now. And also you can vote online, which is super convenient.

A brief reminder. For those of you who are strategy-minded about how to vote. We elect eight candidates to the board in any given cycle. I believe in this cycle one of the current board members is also running for an officer position, which means that the ninth vote getter would then also be taken in and appointed to fill her seat for the remainder of her term. You don’t have to vote for eight people. So there’s, again, for those of you who are strategy-minded, there’s something called bulleting your vote. And the idea is basically let’s say I really want John August to be on the board, which is true. One thing I could do is I could vote for eight people and include him among them. Makes sense.

I could also just vote for him. And what bulleting does is it strengthens your vote for whom you want, because you are not voting for somebody that he is also running against. So, the downside for bulleting your vote is that, well, you’re choosing fewer people and you’re gaming the system a little bit.

So, I tend to vote for about four or five candidates. That’s usually my move. I feel like, OK, I’m doing a pretty decent job here. I’m being democratic. But, I’m also giving a little extra **oomph** to the people I really like. So, we’ve discussed who we like, don’t we?

**John:** I think we have. So, there are people who are running who are from various backgrounds. We are electing probably nine people of the 12 candidates running. In general, in past years, we’ve said we want a mix of different voices and different backgrounds to make sure we have feature writers and TV writers represented. There are certainly plenty of TV writers already on the board and folks who are running who are TV writers as well.

So, a mix would be great.

**Craig:** Yeah. For sure.

**John:** The other thing I’ll say is that you would have gotten a paper ballot in the mail by now, but you can also vote electronically. If you look through your spam filter, it sometimes gets caught in that, but it’s from Votenet.com is where the ballot for online voting would be found.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s exactly right. So please do vote, and vote for John August. He’s not allowed to say that, I don’t think. But I am allowed to say it over and over and over. Because I am protected.

**John:** All right. And voting concludes September 18, which is a Monday, but there’s no reason to wait till September 18.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** You should vote now.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Pause the podcast to vote now.

**Craig:** Just do it.

**John:** Do it. Other bit of news is my news. Big Fish in London is happening. And so it runs from November 1 through December 31. So, if you are in London or you will find yourself in London during that period, come see the show, because I think it will be really good. It’s a different version than we’ve done anywhere else. This version stars Kelsey Grammer. And there will be a link in the show notes to where you can buy tickets.

It’s selling really, really well, which is fantastic. So, if you’re thinking about getting tickets, maybe don’t think about it too long. Maybe just get some tickets because the page I’ll send you to shows the relative availability of different dates and many dates are not that available.

**Craig:** May I ask you a question, sir?

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** As an early viewer and fan of the first iteration, the Broadway iteration — well, not first iteration, but it’s the one that matters. In the version in London, does it include different or new songs?

**John:** It does include different and new songs. So, structurally it works a lot differently, but yes, it includes different songs, including a song that was in the Chicago version which was not in the Broadway version. It has one entirely new song. It has some songs that have been restructured. And actually I would say most songs have been restructured in some ways because things have moved because of the nature of what we’re doing in this version. And it’s spoiling nothing to say in this version the Edward character, who was played by Norbert Leo Butz fantastically on Broadway, that role is split between two people now, more like how the movie works.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So Kelsey Grammer is playing the real older Edward and a great actor named Jamie Muscato is playing the younger story version of Edward, more like the Ewan McGregor character. And so because of that, the songs work differently because different people are singing them. And it allows for some great possibilities.

**Craig:** That was the second question I was going to ask. And you have answered it in such a way as to satisfy my curiosity.

**John:** Fantastic. Let’s do some follow up. So, last week we talked about MoviePass and we were searching for explanations on how MoviePass actually works and we just couldn’t find them in time. But right after we recorded the episode I found out more information. So, I’m going to link to an article from Gizmodo by Rhett Jones that talks through more of the backstory behind. But a crucial thing which I did not understand as we recorded last week’s episode is that MoviePass actually functions as a MasterCard. And so the reason why they don’t have to have a specific relationship with a theater like AMC is it’s just a credit card. So you just buy it with that credit card and they can refund the whole amount to the user.

So, AMC still gets the full price that they paid on the credit card, but it’s the user who gets that money refunded to their account. So, that is how they get around having any specific relationship with an individual theater.

**Craig:** So, I go into AMC. A ticket costs let’s say $14. I hand them this card. They charge me $14. Then, because I have a $10 a month deal with the MoviePass people, MoviePass — and I’ve already spent my $10 — MoviePass just sends me back $14.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Then how does MoviePass make money? It seems like they’re losing money every time somebody goes to see a movie.

**John:** So that is more of what you can find out in this article. And other people who wrote in. So, specifically one of our listeners, Udhaya, wrote in saying, “There’s one reason the MoviePass idea might work. While it appears not to be a money-maker, the people funding this might work out some kind of special access leverage with buyers of the MoviePass which would allow them to target the market holders of the MoviePass by showing special products to them. Think about it. You have a millennial to Gen-X target audience who go to movies frequently.

“If these MoviePass guys could select custom products and services to them, it’s a fraction of their marketing budget to get out more MoviePass.”

So essentially she’s saying — I don’t know if Udhaya is a man or a woman — is saying that it’s the data that’s actually really helpful for MoviePass, because they get to target people who go to movies very frequently. And by collecting all this up, they can actually do something with it that might be useful.

So, and it turns out that the person who is now the CEO of MoviePass was a Netflix person, so it comes from that sort of data background. It made me a little more — a little bit less skeptical that there’s no way it could work.

**Craig:** I guess. I mean, I guess. Look, I don’t understand how they make money. $14 over and over and over — or $12, or $10 — whatever it is, if the average MoviePass person spends more than $10 in actual ticket prices per month, which I assume they do, and frankly the more they use it, the more expensive it becomes for the MoviePass people. That is the most extraordinary cost of data acquisition I can imagine. Especially because once you have their data, they’re just beating the crap out of you over and over, every time they go to see a movie.

So, I don’t know. I’m missing something clearly.

**John:** What I would say though is that same criticism could be leveled against the original Netflix model and the current Netflix model which is that the people who use it a lot are costing Netflix money. And so the people who were getting those discs, who are like watching one movie by mail every day, they were costing Netflix a lot of money. But it’s the people who, kind of like us, who would get the discs and sort of sit on them and not really get the maximum value out of it, those are the people they make money off of.

So I think they’re anticipating people will sign up for MoviePass, they’ll use it heavily for a while. It will taper down till they get back to sort of more normal movie-going habits. And it will sort itself out. I think that’s the hope.

**Craig:** Well, we’ll certainly find out.

**John:** We will certainly find out. So, it is filed away for a one-year follow up. We’ll see where MoviePass is one year from today.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** All right, it’s time for our feature, How Would This Be a Movie. It’s a periodic look at stories in the news or stories we find other places and we examine them to look at how they could be adapted into movies. Usually we’re talking about big screen movies. Sometimes they’re more like made-for-cable movies. Occasionally we’ll decide that, oh, it’s actually more of a TV series idea, or it’s just a bad idea that should never have been put on the outline for us discuss.

But this week we’re going to actually try to do a bunch of them. Usually we do three. This time we might cram though as many as five. But we’ll be a little bit faster going through them and seeing what are the possibilities, what are the downfalls of this kind of movie.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So the first one is something I put on the list. This is a New York Times story by Sabrina Tavernise. It is also a great episode of The Daily. So she came on to talk through it on the New York Times podcast The Daily. And the stories are very complementary. You know, her written version of the story versus the audio version of the story, they are structured differently, but they tell the same story, which is that one year ago 20-year-old Abraham Davis and some friends in Western Arkansas graffitied a mosque in their town with racial slurs and swastikas.

Abraham Davis was eventually caught because of radio surveillance on the mosque. So while in jail, he was unable to make bail. He wrote this letter apologizing to the leaders of the mosque, who then became kind of his allies. They tried to get his felony charge reduced to misdemeanor, not wanting his life ruined for this one stupid thing he did.

So ultimately the New York Times story sort of frames Davis as both a villain and a victim in this situation that’s really more about — as much about class as race and sort of the consequences of some really bad spontaneous decisions.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, what did you make of this story? As a story and as a potential movie?

**Craig:** Well, as a story it’s heartbreaking because you’re dealing with front line of failing America. There is a broken family with a deceased abusive father. And a mother who cannot make ends meet. They are living in poverty. And as is often the case, into that environment slips drinking and bad thinking. And blame. A search for blame.

And so on the one hand, this is a postmortem of let’s just call this almost a run of the mill kind of racist act. This isn’t the act of a coordinated group like those ding-a-lings in Charlottesville. This is more of the random guys get drunk on a Saturday night and go do something stupid. They act out. But they do so hatefully against the most vulnerable of people, namely outsiders. People that don’t fit into the status quo. And then we dissect why.

And underneath it we find that Abraham doesn’t really know why. And he comes off in his own way as sympathetic, because he feels terrible and he apologizes and he wants to make amends. And the people that he harmed, the members of this mosque, who seem like wonderful people, who have been trying very, very hard to live their lives in a place that is, well, inherently hostile to them, behave in, ironically enough, the most Christian way. And they forgive him and they try and help him.

All of that stuff feels very lovely. As a movie, the problem here is that this is too easy. There’s a wonderful moment in Mississippi Burning where Gene Hackman’s character is explaining how racism actually works to Willem Defoe’s character, because Willem Dafoe is a northern FBI guy. Gene Hackman is an FBI guy from the south.

And Gene Hackman’s own father, I believe, in the story does a terrible thing, a racist thing. And when Gene Hackman is done telling the story, the conclusion is he just couldn’t see — his father couldn’t see — that being poor was what was killing him. And that worked great as an object lesson inside of a movie that was about large historical events, people being murdered, and a courtroom drama. This does not have that, so it’s kind of operating on a simplistic Upworthy-like level.

**John:** Yeah. I can see that. And I think Upworthy is a good comparison to it, because I remember that site, and it would always have these sort of heartwarming stories of like, you know, you sort of won’t believe what happened next. And there’s a generosity of spirit that the leaders of the mosque show towards Abraham that is unexpected because it’s very easy to sympathize with their point of view is that they are sort of frightened to be in this town and suddenly have this spotlight on them because of this act that these guys took.

And the prosecutor in the small town decides to go after them for a felony, partly to make an example of them, to try to keep these things from happening again. And yet the leaders of the mosque really want to see this reduced down to a misdemeanor so this guy’s life isn’t destroyed.

I agree with you that I think what’s missing here is the bigger hook that sort of makes it a full story. This feels like a setup and right now it’s sort of like we’re kind of just floating in the second act. We don’t sort of see what his ultimate transformation is going to be. I’m assuming we’re looking at this from Abraham’s point of view, but we could look at it from other characters’ points of view. But what is the ultimate really outcome? What is the end of this journey? And I just feel like we’re still kind of in the middle of this journey right now.

The inciting incident was this decision to go graffiti this mosque. The surprise turn is that the mosque — not that it’s just that he’s caught, but that the mosque comes to his aid.

But we still don’t have anything to sort of push us towards that third act, much less a third act itself.

**Craig:** Yeah. Look, it is a wonderful story in that it does exemplify what is the best I think of human behavior. But when you tell a story like this, you are immediately in danger. You’re on somewhat thin ice because partly the whole thing feels a little bit like an apologia for a racist. And even if he is not as much a racist as a misguided, poor, impressionable young person, I don’t think too many people are that interested in investing their empathy and sympathy in him, because on the other side you have these poor people that are doing everything right, following all the rules, putting up with every day racism, and then somebody comes along and puts swastikas, oddly enough, on their mosque. It’s not exactly the most historically enlightened racists.

And so really they’re the ones who deserve all the empathy. There is an interesting dramatic debate there between the prosecutor and then the victims, the actual victims, in the mosque. But overall it’s not a movie.

**John:** Yeah. You look at other stories of southern racism and sort of like discovery. You look at To Kill a Mockingbird, and in To Kill a Mockingbird, you know, Harper Lee has made some very specific choices about whose eyes we’re going to see all of this through. And by putting it in Scout Finch’s eyes, we see the whole story. It allows for a kind of simplicity to sort of really take in the whole thing at once, which would be very difficult if we were just seeing it from her father’s point of view, or from any of the sort of damaged parties’ point of view.

So, I don’t think we have a Scout Finch in this story yet. And maybe that is actually the way in is to focus on Abraham’s brother or some other character that lets us sort of take a wider point of view on what’s really going on here.

**Craig:** Yeah. There is a character in here that appears briefly. And, of course, when we talk about these things we don’t mean to be insensitive. The whole point of this is to figure out how it’s a movie. This isn’t a character, it’s a human being, but, in the context of trying to figure out how it’s a movie, there is a character who is Abraham’s friend from high school who is Muslim. And his friend forgives him at the end, and that is certainly an interesting angle because, again, there is something a little sickly underneath all of this which is this weird desire to take the time to understand why this kid did this.

On the one hand, maybe that’s exactly what we need to do because that’s how we pull people away from this stuff. And on the other hand, is that the best use of our empathy right now? It’s a tough one?

**John:** So one last little bit that I want to make sure we didn’t elide from the story is the whole reason why Abraham Davis had to stay in jail is because he couldn’t make the bail. And so it does raise the real issue of sort of cash bail in the US legal system in that if he’d had any more money he wouldn’t have been in jail in the first place.

So, if you were to make this story or some version of this story, I think that’s an interesting detail to make sure you include in there. Because it speaks to the fundamental unfairness of the system as he’s seeing it.

**Craig:** Yeah. And just so people understand how poor Abraham and his family is, the bail was $1,580. And we presume that a bond would have cost a couple hundred bucks or something.

**John:** So in the audio version of the story you get into a little bit more of his family and his stepfather. And both of his parents are on disability. It’s really desperate times there. And so that I think is also part of the story if you’re trying to tell this story on some sort of screen.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Cool. Do you want to set up the next one?

**Craig:** Yeah. Sure. So the next one is sent to us — we were tipped off by Mark Harris. Mark Harris — he’s fancy.

**John:** Yeah. He’s a bona fide journalist there.

**Craig:** He’s a bona fide journalist. And husband of Tony Kushner. Is that right?

**John:** Yeah. That’s absolutely true.

**Craig:** Husband. Tony Kushner who I’m sure — by the way, Mark Harris is listening to this going, “Great, you know, I am my own person. You don’t have to mention the Tony Kushner thing. Do I always have to hear about the Tony Kushner thing?”

Yeah, you kind of do. He’s Tony Kushner. What are you going to do?

Anyway, fantastic story in the New York Times about a woman named Jeannie Rousseau de Clarens, who was a spy in WWII. And the article was spurred by her death at the age of 98. So Jeannie de Clarens was an amateur spy. She spoke fluent German, flawless German, no accent. And during the war, I believe after the Nazis had already occupied France, she became an interpreter in Paris for an association of French businessmen representing their interests as they negotiated with the German occupiers.

And while she was doing that she used all the things that were true about being a woman in the 1940s to get information out of the Germans. Essentially she played dumb. There’s a wonderful line. She said, when she was talking to these Germans, for instance when they spoke of this astounding new weapon that flew over vast distances she would say, “I kept saying what you are telling me cannot be true. I must have said that a hundred times.” And it totally worked.

So she heard all of this stuff and passed it along to the British. And then she was caught. She was actually caught a couple of times, different times, and ended up in a concentration camp. And would not talk about her experience in the concentration camp after. She did however meet her husband, who had also been imprisoned in Buchenwald and Auschwitz. And she didn’t speak much about her wartime exploits.

But it is a remarkable thing that these stories of heroism can just be invisible to us for so long. And then we uncover them, and we just marvel at how everyone, the most unexpected people, suddenly stepped up and put their own lives at risk to do what was right.

And I thought it was fantastic.

**John:** One of the things I liked about it was during the time where she was working, you know, translating for the Germans, she seemed to be complicit with them. She seemed to be sort of on their side. She was certainly helping them to be able to negotiate the occupation of France. And so anybody looking at her — a French person looking at her at the time would see her as an enemy, or see her as a collaborator with the Germans, not knowing that she’s actually working with the secret French intelligence network, the Druids, which is the best name ever.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** To provide information. And she’s providing incredibly detailed information, because she had a near photographic memory. So, she’s asking all these questions, but she’s ultimately convincing them to show her plans to, like, the VI and VIII rockets that could have leveled London. So ultimately it was the information that she passed along allowed for bombing raids that took out sort of key production factories along the way.

So, incredibly important intelligence she was providing, yet at the same time to anybody — any French person watching her would think that she was aiding the enemy, which is a crucial thing about spy life. You don’t know who you can trust and no one is trusting you, which is crucial and difficult.

There were also some really good cinematic moments. There was a moment where she’s just about to get out and she’s caught at the last minute. There were some good near escapes. And I could see it. There was a visual quality to it that I think is important.

**Craig:** And as a character she has all the things you want. Because she is not an ordinary person who just happens to overhear people and so in a sense becomes a hero by luck. She’s a genius. So as you already point out, she has a photographic memory. She performed, this is from the article, “brilliantly at the elite Sciences Po, graduating at the top of her class in 1939.”

This is a very, very smart woman. And yet what do they have her doing in the war? Well, translating for men. Right? And just being kind of secretarial in that regard. And she exploits that.

That is a huge Achilles heel. And in wartime when all of these men are doing everything they can at the highest, most cat and mouse levels, to steal information from each other, they’ve left this massive backdoor open because they don’t know that women are as smart, or smarter, than them.

So, she gathers, for instance, documents regarding the German rocket program into a report called the Wachtel Report. And when this report was looked at by intelligence — there’s an intelligence analyst in London named Reginald V. Jones, which is an incredibly British name. Reginald V. Jones. When Reginald V. Jones saw the Wachtel Report he called it a masterpiece in the history of intelligence gathering. And when he asked who sent the report he was told that the source as only known by the code name Amniarix and that she was one of the most remarkable young women of her generation.

And I think that that was absolutely true.

**John:** So let’s think about this as a movie. So one of the fundamental questions I come up to is what language do you shoot this in? You’re going to make this for an American audience, either French or German is going to be switched into English so that we don’t have to read subtitles the entire time. Would you agree?

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** So, French becomes English and German stays German?

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** All right. And so we’re doing that and so all of the French people are going to be speaking English. I basically get that. Who is our prototype for Jeannie herself? Who do we see in that role? Because it seems like a star role.

**Craig:** For sure. So, she was born in 1919. This is taking place around 1943. So we’re talking about a 24-year-old woman. And she was beautiful. That was part of the deal was that she was kind of notoriously beautiful. So, you know, here we are looking for a beautiful woman in her mid-20s who we also believe is brilliant. There’s that thing behind the eyes that some men and some women have, and some men and some women do not.

**John:** Yeah. That actress can be found. I’m not actually so worried about that, thinking about that age range. I mean, as you get older we have this generation of remarkable talents, the Cate Blanchetts, the Nicole Kidmans. But I think we have a new batch of those who are in their 20s who could do that. A Daisy Ridley. There’s some great British or American actress who I think could do that role brilliantly.

**Craig:** No question. I think that there are quite a few. And the other — you would want, I think, the thing that this article does not give you really is that key relationship. A relationship will emerge eventually. She does meet this man and they get married. But that’s after.

**John:** That’s the end.

**Craig:** Right. So you need that key relationship in the middle. It doesn’t have to be romantic, but it has to be valuable.

**John:** So the obvious choice for that would be her key handler. Whoever with the Druids she’s dealing with that she has to pass along the information to. That feels like a natural choice. But it could also be the main sort of German person she’s talking to who, you know, to the degree to which he’s an enemy but she has to continually manipulate him. And like how much does he know/how much does he not know? That’s always a great tension where like you’re not sure whether he’s on to her or not on to her. That’s always delightful.

**Craig:** I agree. You’d want to personify the enemy in a villain. You want one guy that represents that real threat. But you also need that other relationship to have significance that is beyond the details of the story. Even if it is her handler, there has to be something there between them that’s greasy.

And, again, I don’t think it’s romance. I think it’s guilt. I think it’s honor. I think it’s a question of what to do and what to not do. Cowardice and courage. But it’s got to be sticky. It’s got to be greasy. There has to be conflict between them to make that relationship mean something and in all likelihood when she ends up marrying this other guy, that other person, whoever it is, man or woman, has to be gone. It does seem like the war has to take things from you that matter, you know? And that means people.

**John:** Yeah. It’s delightful if that handler is married. And so every time that he’s off meeting with her it sort of seems like they’re having an affair. So even if there’s not a sexual relationship, there should still be the threat of a relationship there. There’s the possibility there that can never be explored because of the nature of how things are set up. That’s great. That’s the human drama behind the sort of spy drama we’re seeing.

**Craig:** Yeah. You would need to put that together. But I think that there is a possibility here. I think that — I would say if I were at a movie studio I would not do this as a straight biopic. I would —

**John:** No, no.

**Craig:** I would want to use it as inspiration for a fictional narrative.

**John:** Oh, I might use the real story but knowing that you’re going to be inventing some things because there’s just not documentation of certain things. But I think you could use the real story but just not market it as a biopic. Just market it as a great spy thriller that happens to be based on true story.

**Craig:** Yeah. I would go with inspired by. I would have some more license.

**John:** Sounds good. All right, our next one is a very different kind of thing. This is the Distracted Boyfriend meme. So, because we’re an audio podcast I will have to describe it, but once I describe it you’ll say like, oh, that thing I’ve been seeing all over Twitter and I’m really annoyed by.

So, the meme is an image. And the original image stars three people. There are two women and one young man. The young man is walking arm and arm with presumably his girlfriend, who looks over at him horrified because he’s looking back at an attractive woman who is slightly out of focus on the left side of the screen. So it has been dubbed the Distracted Boyfriend meme. And there are a bunch of articles I’ll put in the links of the show notes that talk about the meme and sort of where it came from and sort of how it was used.

Well, I should say that the original image is what I described. The meme became a thing once people started putting labels on the people, sort of identifying the people as ideas, or as types, or as goals. Basically you don’t want the thing that’s on your right arm. You want the thing that’s out of reach back over there. And so sometimes the faces get superimposed, but usually it’s labels.

And I think it was an effective meme that is now burning itself out quite quickly. But I put this on here because I’m curious what kinds of movies you could make out of this meme. So at first I was thinking this is straight ahead what happens when you are the stock photographer who has taken this shot in 2015 and now it has suddenly become a giant meme. Or you’re one of the actor/models in this thing who are suddenly identified with this worldwide phenomenon for something you did in an afternoon three years ago.

But there’s also I think the possibility of, like, what is it about the Distracted Boyfriend meme that feels kind of like all human drama? That you have the one thing, and you’re always looking for that next thing. I feel like so many of our stories that we try to tell on big screens, especially you know our two-hour sort of character dramas are about that guy or about one of those two women.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t think there’s a movie, but I do think that there is a good lesson here for screenwriters. And if you were somehow doubting that a picture is worth a thousand words, this one has generated far more than a thousand. And it’s because it’s incredibly extensible. I mean, you look at this and there are a million possible different analogous things that you could put on it, and people are.

And it is because there is a relationship and a conflict. The key to the Distracted Boyfriend meme is the distracted boyfriend’s girlfriend. So the girl that the distracted boyfriend is looking at is unaware. She’s — they’re behind her and she’s walking away. So, to me it’s all about the girlfriend looking at him like, “Ehh, what are you doing?” And that relationship of you’re looking at her because you want something you don’t have, and I’m looking at you because I’ve just realized that you’re gross.

Because there’s this incredible realization on her face that I think is the birth of a revelation. That is a wonderful little bomb that you can set off to make an entire movie out of. But, yeah, no, it’s not an actual movie.

**John:** Yeah. It strikes me that we’ve probably made a hundred times movies from each of those characters’ points of view. So from the girl who has no sense that she is a wrecking ball as she’s walking down the street, where she has such an attraction that everything around her sort of crumbles and she’s blissfully unaware of it. That’s a delightful character sometimes to see.

We make a lot of movies about that guy, the cad. That guy who keeps screwing up but you still love him for some reason. But we’ve definitely made the girlfriend’s movie a bunch of times, who gets betrayed by the guy who thinks that she loves or thinks that she likes. And so sometimes that moment happens on page 10. Sometimes it happens on page 30. Sometimes it’s the strategy of a whole journey and discovery. Sometimes the movie is — realize she originally was the girl in soft focus at the left side of the screen and she’s become the girl on the right side of the screen.

So, those three characters are kind of — I think part of the reasons why this became such a good meme is those characters are really archetypal. It’s an experience we all have seen a hundred times and experienced in our own life.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But it’s not a movie in and of itself.

**Craig:** Nah.

**John:** It is worth clicking through — Martin Belam for The Guardian wrote up a piece about the original photographer. The picture was originally called “Disloyal Man Walking with his Girlfriend and Looking Amazed at Another Seductive Girl.”

**Craig:** That is accurate.

**John:** That’s fantastic. And so it was a stock photo image by a 45-year-old professional photographer, Antonio Guillem, from Barcelona. And he uses those same three models in a bunch of things, so it’s fun to see those same actors in just a bunch of different situations. So it’s fun to click through if you want to see more about that meme and its origins.

**Craig:** The craziest thing is these other things involving those stock photo actors and the craziest one is jealous girlfriend. There’s a sequence of four photos — jealous girlfriend and her husband — it doesn’t seem like the same guy — they’re happily looking at a pregnancy test. She’s pregnant. Then the next photo is she has a baby and she’s feeding it from a bottle. And then the next bottle is looking at a thermometer. The baby is not a baby anymore. She’s like two. And jealous girlfriend, now mother, is staring at a thermometer worried. The last photo is the jealous girlfriend sobbing as she stares at a toddler’s shoe. And it’s clear that the kid died. [laughs] It’s the craziest — I mean, actually this photographer has the ability to reduce narrative down in a way I’ve never experienced before.

I mean, it’s incredible.

**John:** Yep. The other four set of photos shows essentially the same — it’s a flipped version of the same couple looking at a girl who walks past. So, originally he sees the girl walking past, and then it’s like, oh hey, we know that girl. And so they’re friends. And then the two girls are having coffee. The guy is in the background. And then the two girls are kissing.

**Craig:** It’s getting better and better.

**John:** Yeah. So it can work many, many ways.

**Craig:** It can work many, many ways.

**John:** All right. Our next story comes from, there’s a bunch of different things I can send you to. I’ll link to a New York Post article about it. But ultimately a Daily Mail article which is sort of a more extensive follow up.

So what happens is Lisa Theris, she’s 25 years old, and she goes missing in the dense Alabama woods. Search parties with dogs go to look for her, but they never find her. Her family makes pleas for anyone with information.

Investigators then say that Lisa Theris was with two men who burglarized a hunting lodge in the woods. Eventually each man accuses the other one of killing her. Then a month later, almost 30 days later, Lisa Theris emerges from the woods, onto a highway, and is spotted by a motorist. She’s lost 50 pounds. She’s bedraggled. She says she was drinking water out of a brook and eating berries and mushrooms for all these weeks. She has bug bites and scratches. She looks horrible.

And originally the story is built like can you believe this woman somehow survived. It is a miracle. And then the story gets extra complicated. Do we want to jump to the spoiler right now, or do we want to talk about that initial part?

**Craig:** The spoiler is the only reason to do it, so we might as well talk about it, because otherwise it’s like whatever.

**John:** Right from the first time I saw this article and bookmarked it for like we’ve got to talk about this on a segment, there is something that doesn’t add up here. No young woman without any training is surviving for 30 days in the woods. And she wasn’t that far away from places either. So something else major was going on.

I initially suspected, OK, there’s some serious mental illness or something happening here. One of the initial stories said that she was legally blind. I didn’t see that in the follow up stories. But I thought like, you know what, there’s drugs here someplace. And it seems like there probably were some drugs here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Not just drugs. America’s favorite drug. Meth.

**John:** Meth.

**Craig:** Meth. I went into meth forest and I had meth mushrooms. So, Lisa Theris was hanging around with these two guys who were no good. She doesn’t seem to be any good either, to be honest with you. And when I say no good, I mean trouble.

They were talking about robbing a place. They were, it appears, to be completely out of their mind on meth. And she goes wandering off because she’s out of her mind on meth. Here’s the best part. The cops pick up these two guys. And they say what happened. And eventually they confess that they shot her in the head, which they believe they did because they were on meth.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** That’s where this story starts to go to the next level. I don’t think it’s a movie, but it could be an awesome episode of something. Or like even a plot device of something where two characters are absolutely convinced they’ve killed somebody and it turns out that, no, you were just on meth.

**John:** Yeah. So I really want Gillian Flynn to tackle this. Like Gillian Flynn who did Gone Girl. The same way that she was taking some real life events and sort of spinning them into her own fictional fantasy world for Gone Girl, I feel like this had the beginnings of an idea that needed to be further built out. And so you need some characters who actually had a little bit more agency here. Because one of the frustrations is like all three of the people involved here seem to just be idiots. And so you want somebody to be a little bit brighter and have a little bit more forethought.

But then it’s great when people do have some forethought and still get backed into a corner, which is what is so great about Gone Girl is that everyone ends up being sort of trapped by their own egos and their own devices. There’s something here that could be great, but it just needs a lot of extra stuff to sort of shape it and fill it out.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s kind of silly. Because in the end no one dies. No one is hurt. No one even gets burglarized. It’s just three knuckleheads losing their minds on meth. For those of you who might be thinking about trying meth, we don’t think you should. You shouldn’t do it.

**John:** I would think we can come down pretty strongly on that actually. Because we don’t want to tell you how to live your life, but I think we can say that meth is not good.

I don’t know a lot of tremendously successful people who are heavy meth users.

**Craig:** I actually don’t know any of them. We won’t tell you how to live your life, but we will tell you how not to not live your life. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] We can only offer, like, cautionary tales of things. And this would be a cautionary tale.

Ultimately what I think is appealing about this story is the sudden twists. So like a girl goes missing. That’s heartbreaking, but we’ve seen that before. Oh, these guys confess to killing her, but they don’t know where the body is. Oh, that’s a good twist. Oh, she stumbles out of the woods. Well that’s great. And so then like well what happens. And what we’re lacking right now is a “What happened?”

So we’re somewhere in the second act and there’s nothing — it’s not clear that there’s enough machinery built up to carry us through a second and a third act.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Agreed. Let’s go on to Copenhagen. Do you want to try to set this one up?

**Craig:** Copenhagen. Oh boy. This is a weird one. So, in Denmark they found a woman’s torso, without a head, arms, or legs. In the water. What happened here?

Well, [laughs] it’s just too weird to be true, but it’s true. A famous Danish inventor by the name of Peter Madsen had built a homemade submarine. And he took a journalist out on a little submarine ride because she was, I believe, writing a story about his submarine. Her name was Kim Wall. She ends up dead. Initially when she went missing he said that there had been an accident on board, which had caused her death, and that he had gone ahead and just buried her at sea.

And that already was not good. But when the body turned up missing a head and arms and legs, it does seem like maybe he didn’t just bury her at sea. That maybe she didn’t just have an accident. And so right now we’re kind of in the middle of this crazy case where this third rate Elon Musk has apparently pulled some Silence of the Lambs crap on his own submarine.

What? John, help.

**John:** So here’s what we have. We have a fantastic setting. It’s Denmark and it’s a homemade submarine. And you have this guy who aspires to be Elon Musk, or a Richard Branson. And he’s convinced this journalist, or maybe she sought out this interview, to go on this homemade submarine with him. And she’s an accomplished journalist herself. She’s Swedish. That’s all really interesting.

And then she dies. What’s tough, though, is to figure out where do you start the story. Do you start the story before this murder happens? Do you start the story with the body washing up? And who are the principal characters other than this guy? And are we following it all from his point of view? Because there’s definitely a dark, dark movie where you’re basically with him this entire time, sort of watching things go awry. But there’s also probably a Fargo-ish version where we have multiple point of views and particularly some law enforcement person who is pushing into the crazy here, to just help — he is thrown into this.

Again, we don’t have enough beats here yet. There’s not enough story here yet. So we have a really compelling world. A compelling central character. We’re not sure we’d follow him as a dark protagonist or as the Hannibal Lecter of the story. But we don’t have really an engine.

**Craig:** I agree. I think that there are quite a few, maybe one could argue too many at this point, television series that center around a single murder, an unexpected murder in a quiet place. A number of these series, in fact, are Danish and Swedish. And you could see this being episode one of an eight-episode series, trying to figure out how someone ended up armless and headless and legless after taking a submarine ride. So there’s certainly the potential for a good mystery here.

But I don’t think it’s at all a movie. It does sort of inspire, though, an idea for a movie.

**John:** Tell me.

**Craig:** A serial killer on a submarine. Like a real submarine.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** It’s like a locked-room mystery. So people just keep turning up dead on a submarine and you’re the guy in charge of figuring out who did it. That’s kind of cool.

**John:** Oh, OK, great. I was hearing that a completely different way. So you’re describing that it’s Murder on the Orient Express but you’re on a submarine?

**Craig:** Exactly. Exactly.

**John:** That’s great.

**Craig:** But it keeps happening. Like Murder on the Orient Express, one person is murdered. So in this one — this is more like And Then There Were None on a submarine.

**John:** I originally thought you were describing a serial killer who like got into places on a submarine. Basically that’s why no one could ever detect him. Because he was coming in on a personal submarine.

**Craig:** That would be cool.

**John:** That would be kind of cool.

**Craig:** And weird.

**John:** And weird.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right. Let’s get to our final one. This is a much kind of looser idea for a story. I guarantee you there’s not a movie about specifically this, but I thought it was an interesting framework for sort of a thing that feels old fashioned yet still apparently exists.

So, this is a story in Fast Company written by John Paul Titlow. And he follows Penelope Gazin and Kate Dwyer who are starting an online business. And they’re able to do everything great. Things are set up and working well, but what they find, or at least what they suspect, is that sometimes their vendors or other people they’re dealing with are dismissing them, and they think it’s because they’re women.

So they create a fake male cofounder and start using his name on the emails going out. And they find a very different reaction when the email comes from a man’s name rather than a woman’s name. So it basically tracks what it’s like to create a fictitious guy in the company that’s actually run by two women.

**Craig:** I actually think that there is a movie in this.

**John:** Tell me about it.

**Craig:** Well, there is a long tradition in comedies, and I think it would be a comedy with an edge and purpose, of characters creating a lie, losing control of the lie, having to face the consequences of the lie. Usually the point of that is you shouldn’t have lied. And in this one the point can be, oh, you shouldn’t have had to have lied. And there is a possibility of two women creating this man and suddenly encountering all this success and having to farcically keep up the man and his presence and send him into meetings and all the rest of it. It’s a bit like Cyrano de Bergerac but for business. And instead of trying to win over the heart of a woman, you’re trying win over the heart of a VC guy. So you’re sending in some dopey guy who — essentially you hire a bro.

You hire a tech bro to be the face of your company and the entire thing is essentially a satire on sexist Silicon Valley. And then it all comes crumbling down. I think there’s potential for a funny movie there.

**John:** I agree. So, part of what they’re describing here is essentially the premise of Remington Steele. So that was a great detective drama that I loved, or detective comedy that I loved, in the ë80s, starring Stephanie Zimbalist and Pierce Brosnan.

And so Stephanie Zimbalist’s character was a private investigator and no one would take her seriously so she created Remington Steele who would be the man runs the agency, but he was always off on business. Pierce Brosnan shows up as somebody asking for Remington Steele, basically realizes that there’s no real person, and basically fills that spot. And so the tension is between them and this guy who shows up. So that’s certainly a possibility.

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend also had a plot line where Rebecca had basically created a fake boyfriend based on this guy on Facebook. But that guy turned out to be her own stalker. And so he shows up and hilarity ensues.

So, there’s definitely a great tradition of that where you’ve started a lie and the lie just keeps spinning out of control. And you’ve lost the ability to sort of manipulate it, but that’s part of the fun of that.

So, I agree some person occupying the spot of that guy ultimately is what’s going to have to happen.

**Craig:** It does seem like that. Who, by the way, is in the great pantheon of culture — who is your favorite fake boyfriend?

**John:** Do I have a favorite fake boyfriend?

**Craig:** Because there is an answer.

**John:** What is the greatest fake boyfriend?

**Craig:** George Glass.

**John:** What is George Glass from? Is that from Not Another Teen Movie?

**Craig:** No. He is from The Brady Bunch.

**John:** Oh my god. The Brady Bunch. Of course.

**Craig:** Jan invented George Glass because Marcia was making fun of her for not having a boyfriend. George Glass.

**John:** George Glass is great.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I think there could be some movie there and, again, the casting of these two women is so fundamental because their basic chemistry is going to have to be driving a lot of this. And then you add the third element of whoever this guy is who fills that spot. And some good stuff could happen. You could have the tension between the two women. You have the tension between the two women and this guy. The outsiders. It’s a good way of sort of framing the craziness of Silicon Valley or VC culture. So I can see all of that stuff happening.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think somebody should do this.

**John:** All right. Maybe someone will do this. So, I want to thank Andrew Ellard who pointed us towards this article. And we also had a bunch of readers who pointed us to other articles that we talked about today. Like nine people pointed me to the submarine thing, so thank you for that. Again, you guys continue to be the best people.

Craig, of all the movies we talked through today, you think this one could be a movie and probably the spy story could be a movie?

**Craig:** That’s right. That’s where I’m coming down, John.

**John:** All right. I think those are good choices. But I would say I wouldn’t be surprised if people keep digging around about the meth story and even this New York Times story, which got a lot of attention, there’s something appealing about the worlds in which they’re set. There’s just not enough story here quite yet for either of those other two stories.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Agreed. Craig, it is time for our One Cool Things. Do you have a One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** I do. I do. Today’s One Cool Thing is something that was a cool thing in my life years ago and is about to become a slightly larger cool thing again. The Lego Company is putting out a new Millennium Falcon model. So, the last time, and this is the big one, right. So there was a big one back in the day that I built. It was 5,000 plus pieces. 5,195 pieces. And I built it, John. I built it. It was enormous. And it took me a long time as you can imagine.

**John:** Well, when you say a long time, it was weeks or days?

**Craig:** Weeks. Weeks.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, it had to. 5,195 pieces is more than you think it is. It’s so many and a lot of them are tiny, tiny, and you’ve got to find — and the instruction booklet is like a phonebook. So, I built it. I built it. And then over time I actually gave it away to one of my son’s friends, so he has it now.

But they’re reissuing — not reissuing — they’ve created a new one. The new ultimate collector series Millennium Falcon. It’s going to have 7,541 pieces. And it looks so good. And I’m going to buy it. And I’m going to build it. Yeah. I’m going to do it, John.

**John:** So, where will you put the Millennium Falcon when you’re done with it?

**Craig:** That’s a great question. I’ve been thinking about that. I think I’m going to put it in my office. But I’ve got to find a real good spot for it. It’s heavy. I want to build it where I’m going to be, because transporting it is a huge pain in the ass.

**John:** Yeah. So and will you hang it some way, or will it be a pedestal? I suspect there will be a whole aftermarket for like custom pedestals for the Millennium Falcon.

**Craig:** I’m just going to put it on top of something. I’m not going to — hanging it would be very difficult. It is heavy. I can’t remember what the actual weight was of the first one. But it was probably 30 pounds, 40 pounds. I mean, it was really heavy.

And this one, one of the cool things about this one, just to get super dorky, is that they’re giving you a choice. As you build it, you can build it to be a replica of the original Millennium Falcon, or you can build it to include some little tweakies that have since come aboard the version that is in 7, 8, and 9.

**John:** Nice. Cool.

**Craig:** So I can build the Rian Falcon or the non-Rian Falcon.

**John:** That’s awesome. And so one kit will be able to build both, or you have to buy the special kit?

**Craig:** No, one kit will build both. There aren’t that many differences, so they’re able to do that.

**John:** Really nice. Cool. Maybe you could get Rian Johnson to sign your Millennium Falcon.

**Craig:** Ooh, I’m gonna. What a great idea.

**John:** I have good ideas every once and a while. My One Cool Thing is a website called the Living New Deal. And it’s basically a giant Google Map that shows little pins for all of the New Deal projects built across the United States. So, for people who don’t know US history, during the Great Depression there was an act called The New Deal which was to build a bunch of things across the country to basically put people back to work. So, there were major engineering projects, bridges, dams. But also a lot of artistic projects, so like a lot of artisans were put to work building murals and other sort of works around.

And you look at this map and it looks like some horrible outbreak has happened in the US, but it’s all like cool stuff that was built. So you can zoom in, or you can even type in your zip code and see what’s around you that was built as part of the New Deal. And I lost a lot of time just clicking through and seeing stuff because it’s really an impressive achievement of what an organized spending plan can do to create cool things in the world and keep people working.

So, particularly our national parks. That’s one of the great achievements of the New Deal was really building the infrastructure for our national parks system which is still amazing.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is a great map. I know that some people feel like government doesn’t do anything, but when you look at this it is astonishing.

**John:** Yeah. And over a period of — the New Deal lasted eight years I would say, max. I don’t really know. I don’t know the outer boundaries of the New Deal.

**Craig:** Roughly. Yeah.

**John:** But it was making stuff. And it’s cool when people make stuff. And it’s cool that so much of that stuff is still around because you get to see it. And even in Los Angeles, you know, you kind of can’t go too far without encountering a grade school that has a mural from the New Deal, or our public libraries. So, check it out.

**Craig:** Yeah. There was a time when this country actually functioned.

**John:** Remember that? All right, that is our show for this week. So, final reminders. You should vote in the WGA elections because it’s important to vote and set a course for the next two years of the WGA. And buy Big Fish tickets in London if you are going to be in London because it will be a fun show and I’d love to see you.

Our show is produced by Carlton Mittagakus. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week comes from Jonathan Mann.

**Craig:** Oh, I like Jonathan Mann.

**John:** And Craig will especially like this one, because Craig is all over this outro.

**Craig:** Well, you know. I’m pretty useful for outros.

**John:** If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send longer questions, but short questions are great on Twitter. I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. On Facebook, look for us at Scriptnotes Podcast. And look for us on Apple Podcasts to subscribe. While you’re there, leave us a review. That’s always helpful. Thank you for people who do that.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. Transcripts have been a little bit slower, so it’s about a week after the episode goes up that we have the full transcripts. But it’s nice. It’s searchable.

You can find the back episodes of this show at Scriptnotes.net or on the USB drive. Just go to store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, have a fun week.

**Craig:** You too. And I’ll see you soon.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Cast your ballot in the WGAw Officers and Board of Directors election](https://eballotuv.votenet.com/wgawest/login.cfm)
* [Get your tickets now](https://www.theotherpalace.co.uk/whats-on/big-fish-the-musical/booking) for this November and December’s London run of Big Fish: The Musical
* Gizmodo on [Why MoviePass’s Crazy Cheap Subscription Just Might Work](https://gizmodo.com/why-moviepasss-crazy-cheap-subscription-just-might-work-1798635276)
* Abraham Davis’s story on [The Daily](https://www.nytimes.com/podcasts/the-daily?mcubz=1) and in [The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/26/us/fort-smith-arkansas-mosque-vandalism-and-forgiveness.html?mcubz=1&_r=0)
* William Grimes on [Jeannie Rousseau de Clarens](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/world/europe/jeannie-rousseau-de-clarens-dead-french-spy-in-world-war-ii.html?referer=https://t.co/79fyyCiWZo?amp=1)
* The Distracted Boyfriend Meme in [Wired](https://www.wired.com/story/distracted-boyfriend-meme-photographer-interview), [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/30/the-team-that-made-the-distracted-boyfriend-meme-have-split-up), [Vox](https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/25/16200526/distracted-boyfriend-other-woman-stock-photo-meme), [Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/distracted-boyfriend-meme-interview-with-couple-2017-8) and [the “movie trailer” from Vulture](http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/watch-the-trailer-for-distracted-boyfriend-meme-the-movie.html)
* The New York Post on [the woman lost in woods who survived on ‘berries and mushrooms’ for a month](http://nypost.com/2017/08/15/woman-lost-in-woods-survived-on-berries-and-mushrooms-for-a-month/amp/), and follow up from [The Sacramento Bee](http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article168855082.html) and [The Daily Mail](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4810060/Cops-Woman-month-woods-high-meth.html)
* [Famed Inventor Says He Buried Reporter ‘At Sea’ After His Homemade Sub Sank](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/21/545029872/famed-inventor-says-he-buried-reporter-at-sea-after-his-homemade-sub-sank?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews) on NPR
* Fast Company on [Witchsy’s two female founders and their fake male cofounder](https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604/these-women-entrepreneurs-created-a-fake-male-cofounder-to-dodge-startup-sexism)
* [The new 7,541-piece Lego Millennium Falcon is the biggest and most expensive set ever](https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/31/16234244/lego-star-wars-millennium-falcon-set-7541-pieces-800-dollars)
* [The Living New Deal map](https://livingnewdeal.org/map/)
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Jonathan Mann ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_316.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 315: Big Screens, Big Money — Transcript

September 6, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2017/big-screens-big-money).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 315 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the program, we’ll be taking a look at how the movie business makes money on the big screen. And two plans to disrupt the status quo. We’re also going to be answering listener questions about creative rights and producer promises.

**Craig:** OK. [laughs]

**John:** But first, we have another event coming up here, which is not a Scriptnotes event, but is a Writers Guild Foundation event. It is a poker tournament, which Craig competed in last year. Craig, are you competing in the WGF poker tournament this year?

**Craig:** I’m not sure. I’m going to endeavor to do so, but it’s a little shaky one way or the other. But it’s a very good event. A lot of big fancy writers are there. A lot of regular, average, cool people are there. New writers are there. And I assume it’s for the benefit of the same program it was last year, which was the Veterans’ Writing Program.

**John:** Absolutely. So it’s to benefit the great work that the Writers Guild Foundation does. It is on October 20. It’s a Friday. It’s a $250 buy in. That gets you the chips and lets you compete against other screenwriters who may or may not be talented in poker, but are certainly talented at the craft of screenwriting. So if that is appealing to you, there’s a link in the show notes for that. So, another good WGF event to attend.

Now, Craig, last week we talked about Unforgiven. It was a popular episode. People seemed to really dig it.

**Craig:** Well, it makes sense because I’m not patting myself or you on the back here, it’s a great, great movie. And I generally have this theory that even though the massive majority of commentary on the Internet about films and television is negative, snarky, and mean. What people actually want when you get down to it is positivity. They don’t want bland, vapid positivity. Golly gee, I sure did like that movie. They want passion. It is so much more interesting, I think, for people to listen to anyone — not just you or me — anyone talk about something they love and talk about why.

So, maybe there’s a lesson in this for the purveyors of snarky slop.

**John:** I wonder if some of the fandom theory mongering that happens, basically like oh, this is how all these movies are really connected or this is the secrets you did not notice about this movie is an attempt to sort of create positivity. Like it’s an attempt to talk about movies that people genuinely love and because there’s this fear of like well why would I write that this movie is really good because everybody knows that movie is really good? So, sometimes I wonder if people are generating sort of controversies around movies just so they can have something to talk about and not feel pointless.

**Craig:** Well, that may be true. It may also be true that they simply have impoverished imaginations or a poor ability to understand why they actually like something. And so they don’t know how to express it. I mean, any idiot can yell at a movie. It requires no neural wattage, as far as I can understand. But the best people who write about films are the ones that write lovingly and in detail and insightfully. And it’s fun to read those things. It’s so much more rewarding to read those things than anything else because they bring you to a new movie, or they have you reconsider something that maybe you didn’t quite like before. So, I’m hopeful that maybe a few more people out there might start to do things like this.

**John:** It would be great. And so we will try to do another one of those deep dives on a movie before it’s another year. We always sort of promise we’re going to do one and we never do one. But let’s try to promise to do one in the next six months. How is that?

**Craig:** I hereby do vow. And you get to pick the next one.

**John:** I will pick it.

**Craig:** So again, people can either watch Tuff Turf now. They could read the script now. They could wait and watch Tuff Turf right before the episode if they want to get refreshed on Tuff Turf.

**John:** Yeah. I think it’s always a good choice to read Tuff Turf, but I will promise you that that will not be the movie that I pick.

**Craig:** God. I guess I’m going to read Tuff Turf for the 20,000th time.

**John:** You have to make those choices.

**Craig:** I was just talking about being positive and here I am, I’m pooping on Tuff Turf. I have never seen Tuff Turf. I just like the title.

**John:** I barely know what Tuff Turf is. I assume Tuff Turf is a football movie?

**Craig:** No. No.

**John:** I was wrong then.

**Craig:** The turf is like sort of gang turf, as far as I can tell. And obviously it’s tough. So, I don’t know actually what happens in Tuff Turf. And I don’t really know what it’s about to be honest with you. I think my turf thing is correct, but I’m not sure.

**John:** Well, if Pixar were to make Tuff Turf it would be about the brave glades of grass who have to fend off invaders. And it’s literally about the grass itself being tough. And like is the grass tough enough? And like one blade of grass would have to take a great journey in order to learn how to fight back against the lawnmower.

**Craig:** Yeah. And maybe the lesson in the end, true Pixar style, is being tough is a trap. It’s just a trap, you know?

**John:** I mean, the blade of grass has to learn how to be more emotionally connected to its fellow blades of grass, because they are all in this together.

**Craig:** They have to accept the best of what they are and understand that this is how it is. And that one day new sod will be there.

**John:** So whether it’s the Tuff Turf from the 1970s or the Tuff Turf of 2017, the common thread behind them is that at some point they’re going to be huge blockbusters on the big screen.

**Craig:** Segue Man! Tuff Turf, by the way, was I think the ’80s, not the ’70s. I don’t think the ’70s could have possibly produced Tuff Turf.

**John:** The Warriors was also the ’80s, was it not?

**Craig:** The Warriors I believe was late ’70s. Let me check. Because it seems like in my mind it was right on the edge of the decade turn.

**John:** This will be the episode that never actually starts.

**Craig:** Well, I’m good with that. I mean, listen, I think people don’t — 1979. Nailed it.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** I don’t think people want us to actually start.

**John:** No. They want us to talk about Tuff Turf and like how little we know about it. So, I know it’s Warriors Come out and Play. That’s basically all I know. And that there’s baseball bats and they’re on a subway train.

**Craig:** Yeah. I remember Warriors was a movie that every single kid in my school was talking about. And I was not allowed to see it. So I was confused. I felt isolated. The problem for me is, so I was eight years old. We’re talking about third graders, I guess, at that point. And third graders are the worst at explaining movies. So, my understanding of the Warriors for the longest time was as it was conveyed through third graders, which is mostly just, “And then, and then, and then.”

**John:** Absolutely. Everything is episodic because that’s the way that kids describe these things. I was also really confused by Kiss at the time. And I bring up Kiss because I perceive that in Warriors there’s makeup and there’s disguises and faces and masks and things. And I didn’t understand whether Kiss was serious or a joke about rock. And I just didn’t understand Kiss at all in my youth.

**Craig:** I’m with you, actually. There were two bands when I was growing up in the ’70s that puzzled me. One was Kiss and one was The Grateful Dead. For the same reasons. Because I looked at Kiss and they seemed very serious to me, especially because of the blood. So Gene Simmons would bite a thing and then blood would come out of his mouth. And so I’m pretty sure they took it seriously. And my friends would collect Kiss cards. They had Kiss trading cards. And they were really serious about those. But then I heard the music and I’m like this is just pretty much bland pop rock. I know the Kiss army is now coming after me. But I want to rock and roll all night…that’s just sort of a boppy little rock tune.

**John:** Yeah. It feels good.

**Craig:** It’s just a pop song. And so I was so confused by that. And the other one was The Grateful Dead, because their name was The Grateful Dead and there were skeletons and skulls all over their stuff. And I finally listened to them and I’m like this is not the Swedish death metal that I was expecting at all.

**John:** Not whatsoever. I think the first Grateful Dead song I was really aware of was Touch of Grey, which is of course not indicative of their whole what they were sort of doing.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** But that’s the first song I heard. And like well that’s just almost a folk song.

**Craig:** Oh, no question. You were very late to the Dead. The first Grateful Dead song that I remember was Truckin’.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** So I’m ready for The Dead. Like, OK, it’s The Grateful Dead. They are embracing their death and their skeletons and skull faces. And then Truckin’…like the Doodah Man. Truckin’. What? What is happening here?

**John:** Craig Mazin, what was the first live concert you saw of a big name act? Like an act you would hear on the radio?

**Craig:** The first concert I saw of such nature was Crosby, Still, and Nash. No Young.

**John:** Pre-Young. Pre-Young or post-Young?

**Craig:** It was post-Young. Post-Young. So I saw CSN. My first concert was Crosby, Stills, and Nash.

**John:** Mine was The Bangles opening for Cyndi Lauper. Or it could have been Cyndi Lauper opening for The Bangles. It’s a little unclear sort of where they were at in their respective trajectories. But it was at CU and it was kind of great. Like I still love both of them in their way. And it was my first show.

**Craig:** Let’s see, so you had The Bangles and you had Cyndi Lauper.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** This was in 1980…?

**John:** When would that have been? Like 1986 I want to say.

**Craig:** God, I feel like The Bangles opened for Lauper.

**John:** Yeah, that’s got to be true because Cyndi Lauper would have already been a hit. She would have already had her True Colors and those moments.

**Craig:** Yeah. She wasn’t going to be opening for anybody. She’s Cyndi Goddamn Lauper.

**John:** Were you more Cyndi Lauper or more Madonna?

**Craig:** Oh, definitely more Cyndi Lauper. I did not like Madonna music — I have never liked it. I’ll be honest with you. I’ve never understood the Madonna thing at all. It has always confounded me because the songs are very pop generic, which is fine, but she herself just seemed so weirdly bland. I never got it at all. Whereas Cyndi Lauper just seemed like a genius. And so — I mean, there is no one like Cyndi Lauper. There’s never been anyone like her before her. There will not be one like her again. She’s Cyndi Lauper. And I was always — to me like Cyndi Lauper or the Eurythmics. You know, and I’m thinking about sort of synth pop ’80s bands, and I’m not even talking about like the arty ones. I’m just talking about sort of the mainstream ones. Like Annie Lennox fascinated me.

Madonna? Meh.

**John:** Yeah, but I think when it comes down to Madonna is you recognize the singular ambition. So, independent of talent, like you know, you take Cyndi Lauper or you take Annie Lennox, they are remarkable talents you feel like would find a way to be discovered no matter what. Madonna was good in her zone, but she was so ambitious that she was going to be successful no matter what. And I think that’s what I always sort of respected about Madonna was this desire to be at the top of everything. And that’s — it’s kind of — that’s kind of great. I love to see that.

**Craig:** I guess. On an individual basis, person by person, that can be very admirable. But I can’t help but feel like if that is true, a lot of people then grew up and said I’m going to be like Madonna and now we have Kim Kardashian, whose only talent is ambition apparently.

**John:** Yeah. That’s true. I’m not saying it was a good thing to be out there. I don’t like it in the Kim Kardashian’s. But I guess I can now understand why some people might like Kim Kardashian for being just empty ambition.

**Craig:** [laughs] Exactly. Well, I’m sticking with my Annie Lennox and my Cyndi Lauper.

**John:** That’s absolutely fine. And I will continue to enjoy my classic Madonna even as I don’t sort of celebrate the new Madonna stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah, OK, well you know what? I feel good about this.

**John:** I feel good about this. I think it was a good use of listeners’ time. Let’s get to a 101 on how the film industry works when it comes time for the big screen. So it’s a weird thing that I don’t think we’ve ever really talked about on the podcast. And it’s really strange the more you dig into it.

So, I first learned about film economics 101 back when I was in the Stark Program at USC. And it was great, but it was also kind of overwhelming. You recognized that the flow of money is really strange and different than I was sort of expecting.

So let’s talk about what exhibition is and how studios relate to it. And use that as a background to look at two new things that are happening in the industry and sort of why they are disruptive.

Let’s start with exhibitors. And so exhibitors are what we call the general term for what we call the theater chains, or actually even individual theaters. And so in the US the big chains you tend to recognize are AMC, Regal, Cinemark, Cineplex. But there’s also a lot of regional local chains. And so Pacific is really big here in Los Angeles, in Southern California. Every little city or community is going to have its own chains. And they’re important because within a region they tend to be not monopolies, but oligopolies. There’s not going to be that many theaters competing within a region because there’s just not that many people to see movies. Like you can’t have 15 different theaters within one little tiny pocket. There’s only a certain geographical range from which you can draw.

So, theaters are incredibly important for literally getting butts in seats. They own the seats that are going to be holding the butts that are watching the movies that come out on that first weekend.

**Craig:** That’s certainly true. Theaters are a strange business because they plop themselves down in the physical space and sell you something which is a movie plus all the popcorn and the so on, whatever you’re buying. But other than the concessions that they’re selling you, they don’t own the stuff they’re selling you. They’re kind of letting other people sell it to you through them. It’s almost like a trading post for movies really. So, it is true that you can’t plop these things down because they can’t really compete. They don’t have different products because they don’t make their own products.

They don’t sell unique products. It is, I guess, a little bit retail in that regard, but because of the way the pricing works, and we’ll get into that, you don’t have the kind of competition that you would have anywhere else. You don’t have where Target and Walmart are near each other and you say, well, I can buy this backpack at Target or I can buy it at Walmart. Let me sell, well, they’re selling slightly different backpacks and those are a little more expensive.

No, there’s one Justice League movie. Where is it going to be? That’s where I’m going. And it won’t be playing across the street from itself unless you’re in a city where you can get away with that sort of thing.

**John:** Yeah, in general within cities they tend to carve cities into zones. And so that a given movie will not be showing at one theater and the theater across the street. Occasionally on super huge movies they’ll break the zone, but in general a movie is playing at one place in Hollywood rather than two places in Hollywood. And that’s just how it has evolved. That’s how it has come to be.

And Craig makes a crucial point. They’re showing exactly the same movie. So, two theaters, they can only compete against each other on the intangibles or the niceties. Like ArcLight is a better experience than a crappy theater two blocks down, so I might choose to see the movie at the ArcLight. I might choose to pay a little bit more money to see the movie at the ArcLight. But that’s about it. They’re showing the same film. It’s only the stuff around the film that changes.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So let’s take a look at where they’re getting their movies. Well, from the studios. And so the big studios, we all know, it’s Disney, Warner, Fox, Universal, Sony, Paramount, and then there’s a couple other places that will bubble up from time to time. The Lions Gates. The other people who make big movies. And of course there’s independents. There’s the A24s. There’s going to be some other movies that come out there in the world. But it’s those big six studios that are controlling most of the product that is being shown in these theaters.

And so it seemed really natural that like, well, why don’t the studios just buy the theaters. Why don’t they just control the whole chain?

**Craig:** That’s a great idea. Why don’t they do that?

**John:** It would be so, so smart, and once upon a time they did.

**Craig:** Oh…

**John:** And so in 1948 there was a consent decree. It’s called the Paramount Decision. And basically it prohibited the studios from owning theaters. Up until that point, studios could control the theaters and it was ruled to be an antitrust violation. It was unfair restraint of trade because independent theaters couldn’t get access to these movies, so they broke them apart. And so you will still see some theaters called like a Paramount theater, but they are not owned by Paramount anymore.

**Craig:** Yeah. It was one of the early examples of what we talk about all the time now — Vertical integration. You control the entire chain of supply and in doing so you create a situation where you can manipulate prices and control the market and suppress competition unfairly.

If you had, let’s say think about your typical grocery store, if they were also making all of the food and packaging all of the food and selling you all of the food, and they controlled that entire chain of supply up and down, then they could start to undersell everybody. And it would be a problem for competition, right?

So, when the studios owned every single theater, you would as a consumer be forced to see whatever it was that they were showing. There was no chance to see something they weren’t showing. They could effectively create a system of censorship because if they all agreed they weren’t going to be showing certain kinds of movies in their own theaters, you couldn’t see them. Enter the Hays Code, I think it was called the Hays Code, right?

**John:** I think so.

**Craig:** And they also would force you to watch other stuff you might not want to watch, which is called bundling. So, Microsoft got into trouble with this one, especially in Europe. When they were selling Windows they would also sort of force you to now use Internet Explorer. This was a huge problem and it’s called bundling, where you lean on one monopoly to force people to start buying another product that isn’t necessarily required for the Monopoly to work. And now you’ve created a second Monopoly. And so Internet Explorer went from what the hell is this to the biggest browser in the world — if you can believe it, because remember that piece of crap?

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** So, they would start bundling short films. They would start bundling their other movies together. If you want R movies, you have to — and you’re not — and we don’t own you. We still kind of own you. Because if you want any of our movies you got to buy them all now. It became a real problem. And they fought it. Man, did they fight it. They fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.

**John:** And they lost.

**Craig:** They lost.

**John:** So, the realities today is that the studios and the exhibitors are negotiating on a per-movie basis for which theaters are going to carry which films. And so if you look at the negotiation from both sides, the studios want the best screens. The exhibitors want the biggest movies. And so each of them is doing the calculation of like how much am I will to fight to get this movie or this screen and what is it worth to me to get that. And the terms they can be negotiating over are basically how much money are we going to split between us on this film.

Classically, the split has been on the first weekend or the first two weeks, the studio might get 90% of the money that comes back. Well, that’s not entirely true. They might split it 90/10, but with a certain fee guaranteed to the theater for that screen. That’s called the House Nut. And so that split would over the course of weeks generally equal out to be about 50/50 split between the studios and the theaters. But it’s all a negotiation. Even like the amount of that house nut would be a negotiation between the studio on that picture and the theater for that screen. So, it’s a complicated series of decisions and magnified by the fact that AMC has thousands of screens and Pacific has 30 screens. So there’s different levels of power between these two players as well.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. The leverage is complicated on both sides. Obviously the larger the exhibitor, the more leverage they have. Of course, through economy of scale, their costs are lower than those of smaller theaters. So there is that to consider. And then there’s the question of the product itself.

The movie studios are still allowed to bundle, they’re just limited on how many movies they can do it with. So they can say, well look, if you want this you’re going to have to take this. So this is all part of the arrangement. I think most people don’t understand that when newspapers — ha-ha newspapers — when your online click-bait hell hole is reporting the box office for a movie, I think people assume the studio gets that. They don’t. They get, like you said, roughly half. For the amount of money that is collected in overseas arrangements, it’s even less than half. Because there are other distributors in between now that have to be paid. But when you think about it, it starts to make sense. A typical movie theater probably has, what, ten screens now? I mean, multiplexes used to be this crazy thing. Most movie theaters were one theater. One screen.

Then it became these multiplexes. Now everything is pretty much a multiplex, but your average, you know, OK, I’m going to the mall, I’m going to AMC, they’ve got — I don’t know — ten screens in there. It’s a lot of space. They’re paying rent. They have a lot of labor, still. They got to clean it. They got to maintain the equipment and the sound and all that stuff. So, there’s a certain sunk cost. And then, of course, they have to make a profit. And I think as many people suspect, the profit is probably largely from the concession stand.

**John:** Yeah. So whenever you see those stories saying that movie theaters make most of their money on concessions, you might think like, well, that has to be impossible. Because if a ticket costs $16, I’m not spending $16 on popcorn and a drink. But, maybe you’re spending more than $8, which is the half that the movie theater is taking from that ticket.

So, going back to Craig’s earlier point, I think that’s a really crucial thing to underline, and really for all of our listeners when they read stories about this movie cost $100 million and it made $100 million at the US box office, that does not mean it’s profitable. That the studio has taken in about $50 million if it’s made $100 million. So, it still has a good long way to go to make its money back.

The money that comes back to the studio from the movie theaters is called the Theatrical Rental, which is such a confusing word. And I really wish — I mean, I’m sure if we had a time machine we’d go back and we’d pick a different word for that because it’s confusing with rentals of video and everything else. But that money that comes back to the studio is called the rental on it. And that is an important figure for figuring out the profitability of a movie, for figuring out down the road whether a writer like me or Craig gets some percentage of profits on the film. The answer will be no. We don’t get any percentage of profits on the film.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** But theoretically that’s how a movie becomes profitable is if the money coming back in to the studio is high enough. And that money coming back into the studio from the theater is called rentals.

**Craig:** A lot of it is done digitally now, but in the old days the studios would make a massive amount of prints and then the money was a rental fee. So, partly it was calculated by how many tickets you sold, but essentially what you’re renting is the reels of film that you’re projecting. And then you send them back.

**John:** So, my husband, Mike, used to run all of the movie theaters in Burbank, so he worked for AMC. And so he had 30 screens I want to say. And so I would hear all the stories of like how challenging it was to manage theaters. And you’re managing a largely teenage staff. He was still dealing with physical prints that had to be set up and spliced and sometimes you’d sync them between multiple theaters so you could actually show the same print in multiple theaters at the same time.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** It was just an incredibly exhausting job and, of course, all normal holidays are crucial times for the theater business. So those were the times you absolutely couldn’t take time off. Exhibition is a great, wonderful part of the business that we don’t talk enough about. Those people are wonderful. I think it’s good for screenwriters to understand the people who are showing our movies in the theaters, they’re not part of the studio machinery. They’re their own separate business.

**Craig:** By law. By law. Yeah.

**John:** So all the theater owners together are represented by the National Association of Theater Owners.

**Craig:** I love that. Because they’re NATO.

**John:** They’re NATO. They are NATO. We’ll put a link to the Wikipedia article for NATO in the show notes. But crucially you may have heard of CinemaCon, which used to be called ShoWest. That is the annual event where they — maybe it’s twice a year — where they trot out all the stars to go to Las Vegas to hype up the big movies that are coming out. And so it’s crucial to understand that theater owners themselves are a crucial audience for studios, because the studios want to make sure that the theater owners are excited about what they’re going to be bringing, so they promote stuff in the theater as much, so they’re more likely to strip that trailer in front of a given movie. So they’re going to be willing to put the giant cardboard standee in the lobby. That they’re willing to swap out their popcorn tins to promote that movie.

So that becomes a crucial very early marketing push for the studios to get the studio owners excited about it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Imagine that car dealerships weren’t exclusively connected to a certain automobile manufacturer. So they can sell any car. So my auto dealership, what I have here are ten different cars from ten different manufacturers because I think that these are the ones that are going to sell well. So, as a car manufacturer, you want to impress that guy. These ShoWest things are remarkable. They are this quiet thing that happens with an enormous amount of celebrity wattage.

These exhibitors, their representatives, see entire movies very, very early, or sometimes they see special 25-minute presentations of those movies. All designed to get them excited to display them in the theater. And it’s high stakes stuff. Some movies are, I think, probably made or broken right there and then at ShoWest.

**John:** I would say the only other industry that gets as much attention from studios at this early stage is toy manufacturers. Because I have friends who have worked for the big toy manufacturers and really quite early on they’ll be invited in to see rough cuts of films or the sort of sizzle reels to sort of hype up these things because toy manufacturers have such a long lead time to get those things done. They have to make decisions quite early on like are we going to try to do a tie-in with Guardians of the Galaxy for toys and they have to look at the movie and say like, OK, do we think this is a toy-worthy movie.

So for the case of —

**Craig:** Toyetic.

**John:** Is it toyetic?

**Craig:** That’s the word they use. Toyetic.

**John:** Does it want to be toyetic?

**Craig:** That’s ridiculous. That’s not a word. Toyetic.

**John:** And from the movie theaters’ perspective, I mean, they don’t have real control over what the film release calendar is, but they’re going to have some influence. I mean, all the studios know what weekends different movies are coming out and they have to figure out will I be able to get the screens I want for this movie if I come out on this weekend. And that’s a whole complicated dance.

**Craig:** It is. And similarly there are, the exhibitors are taking risks. For instance, we know that movie studios will traditionally counter-program against big movies that skew heavily towards one demographic or the other. Or perhaps sometimes against television events. So Super Bowl weekend, maybe there’s movies out that the studio might think appeal to demos that aren’t as interested in football.

So, now exhibitors have to say, OK, am I going to be counter-programming that weekend or am I going to be just going with the big boys that weekend. Look, I don’t know how they do this. I want to believe that there’s a science to it. I want to believe that their expertise matters. I think maybe it’s just luck. I mean, you know?

**John:** Well, I think it’s probably a combination of like good spreadsheets and some institutional knowledge that lets them predict overall things. But there’s always going to be those Black Swan moments where it’s like, oh, now it’s Titanic. And like now this movie is going to be playing endlessly for months.

Mike was telling me about when Titanic was in his theaters, I mean it made a tremendous of money for them but he hated it because they had to basically keep adding new shows to it. The movie was endlessly long, but they could add an 8AM show and people would come to an 8AM show of Titanic. It was just unstoppable. It was a juggernaut.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s crazy. I mean, they have these things now that they never used to before where they’ll say, OK, if it’s a big movie we’re going to show it and it comes out on this date. It’s embargoed until this date. 12AM or 2AM screening. I mean, when Star Wars comes out, they do stuff like that. And that’s, ugh, but people show up.

**John:** People show up. It’s exhausting and hard for everybody. So, I wanted to do this 101 sort of talk through the theatrical film business so we could have some background on these two news stories that came up in the last few weeks. The first is about MoviePass. And so I was only vaguely aware of MoviePass. It is a system that you can buy this pass and basically go to unlimited movies over the course of a month. And the price of MoviePass was originally around $30, and then it dropped to like $19, and now they’re lowering it to $10 a month and you could essentially go to unlimited films over the course of the month. Which if you are a frequent filmgoer that’s a hell of a deal.

**Craig:** I mean, it’s frankly kind of a hell of a deal if you go to a movie once.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** When I read about this, because I didn’t even know about this, I thought, well, OK, is this a way for exhibitors to kind of do this brilliant end run on the studios. If they make all their profits off of concessions, this is a way to essentially figure out how to get more people in at the expense of the studios, and then make a whole bunch of money off of concessions.

But in truth, that’s not really how it works. Because the exhibitors’ portion of ticket sales is what’s offsetting their costs so that the concessions can be profitable. If you lose that amount, then you’re losing money. And it seems like that’s in fact exactly what the exhibitors are saying now. That’s not sustainable. If one movie ticket costs an average of $8, you can’t let people see every movie they want in a month for $10. That’s nuts.

**John:** Yeah. It does seem just generally nuts. And so this kind of system exists in Europe. And it seems to work relatively well in Europe. But the prices are higher. So the prices, I’m going to link to an article that Jeremy Fuster wrote in The Wrap. But in Europe those prices are set between 16 and 20 Pounds a month, so that’s $21, $24, $25 per month, which is twice as much as what MoviePass is going for.

You know, classically when you reduce the price you hope to increase the frequency. And so I think the idea is like, well, from the movie theaters’ perspective you’re going to get more people through the door. They’re going to be buying stuff. It’s going to be great. But MoviePass is an independent company. So what’s weird to me is that it’s not like AMC has this program that they’re rolling out to try to do this. It’s this independent company that’s going to be reimbursing AMC. AMC was the impetus of this article. They’re the ones who are fighting back against it. And part of it is a perception issue.

They don’t want to perceive the price of movies to be going down. Because how much is a movie worth? Well, if it’s only worth nine bucks for unlimited movies, people are going to feel weird about paying $16 for that one movie.

**Craig:** Exactly. I mean, what they’re saying at AMC is, look, you can’t sustain this. This $10 price feels like a loss-leader kind of first sample of crack to get you hooked. But at some point then the price goes up and people are going to be annoyed because once people — you know, they hear, well, a song costs $0.99. It took Apple a long time to make a song cost $1.29. And it’ll take longer and longer still to kind of move up from there. But to move up dramatically would never work, right?

A song costs $0.99. Oh, now it actually costs $5. Wait, what? Well, that’s kind of what’s going to happen here. If you see three movies a month and you’re paying $10 for it, and then they come back they’re like actually now you’re going to pay $24 for it, well people are going to freak out.

I don’t understand this. And I don’t understand — I mean, in order for MoviePass to work, didn’t AMC have to make an agreement with them to honor it?

**John:** AMC must have originally had an agreement with MoviePass at that higher price point. They figured something out. And so it’s crucial to note that MoviePass’ money comes from some other place. So I don’t know if it’s VC money, or some other pool of money that’s paying for this. So, essentially they would be burning through this money in order to sort of grow up to a size. And then at some point magically flip a switch and become profitable.

We have examples of Netflix which had a subscription service. It went through conniptions as it sort of pivoted, but it has now become tremendously successful. So I can see from a Silicon Valley perspective like, oh, it’s disruptive so therefore it’s worth investing in. I just wonder if it’s disruptive in a way that is good or bad for people who love movies.

**Craig:** Well, the movie business has been a remarkably stable one. I don’t mean to say in terms of how much money it makes or loses from year to year, but rather structurally. The way the movie business works structurally has been remarkably stable for a very long time. Longer I think honestly than any other industry in our country.

**John:** Because if you want to look at the fundamental idea of what movie exhibition is, is that people are going to buy a ticket to come into a dark room, watch a movie projected, and then they’re going to leave. Like that’s the experience of going to see a movie. And that’s been the same experience for 100 years.

**Craig:** That’s right. And behind the scenes, the business structure behind it is Group A makes a movie, and Group B shows the movie. That’s the way it has been since 1948 when the United States vs. Paramount Pictures ended studio ownership of movie theaters. So, for all that time this is how it has worked. I understand the desire to disrupt it. The problem is I’m not sure you can. I don’t think this is particularly susceptible for disruption because it is kind of a great system. It works.

It works really well. It’s not like we can’t see the movies we want to see, you know? Remember when movies selling out was a huge thing. It was a problem. Movies don’t really sell out because they’re smart. They know how to just open another screen. They balance these things out. They’ve got good data. The system works. I don’t think MoviePass — I don’t understand it.

**John:** Absolutely. So we’re going to file this away to maybe come back to in a year and see what’s happened with MoviePass. I try to do some research before we talk about things on the air, but I still don’t fundamentally understand how MoviePass is supposed to be making money.

**Craig:** I’m with you.

**John:** Cool. A thing I did understand better was Steven Soderbergh’s business plan behind Logan Lucky. It is a new crime thriller that came out a week ago as we’re recording this. Basically he raised the money independently to make this film and then he hired a company to release it, to distribute it. So it was not really done through a traditional studio model.

And his plan was to sort of go into theaters, particularly concentrate his advertising in the final weeks. Concentrate on a southern strategy. The article I’ll link to by Brooks Barnes, sorry Craig, it’s a Brooks Barnes article.

**Craig:** It’s all right. We’ll make it through.

**John:** Quotes, “Mr. Soderbergh noted the box office for success is lower under this setup. With nearly everything prepaid and no hefty distributor fees coming off the top, even a modest $15 million opening would be a win.”

So, the movie did not hit that number. It hit $7.6 million on its opening, which was disappointing to I would imagine all the people involved, but I don’t think it necessarily negates the idea behind this business plan which is basically Soderbergh wanted more control, not just over his cut of the movie but how the movie was going to be marketed. He wanted to really be his own studio on it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’ve been looking at this pretty carefully and trying to figure out exactly what’s going on here. And I think I understand it. There’s a larger question about whether this is advisable to do, in part because you are going to struggle replicating some of the things that studios actually do well.

So, but I understand, look, the impetus is this: it’s not about creative control per se, because there are a lot of directors that get creative control working in the studio system. So Christopher Nolan has final cut on his movies. And he, I’m sure, has an enormous input on what the marketing campaign will be and look like. And then the movie goes off into the world. It’s not just about creative control. It’s also about eliminating the studios as middleman.

As the article points out, it’s not exactly new for a filmmaker to be able to raise independent money to make a film. All right, in this case he wants to raise I think it’s $30 million. You can do that. And then the idea is you make the movie, it’s yours, you control it, and then a studio comes along and makes a distribution deal with you. They then work with the exhibitors to distribute the movie into theaters. They market the movie, etc. And you get whatever remains.

So, as the investors of the movie and the creator of the movie, what you get back is all the money that came in, minus what the theaters take, minus what the studio takes for distribution and marketing. Then you get what’s left.

So, he didn’t want to do that. But how do we get rid of that? So, his first idea was let’s just make the movie and go right to the theater owners. Brilliant. Except, as you and I have just pointed out the federal government looks very dimly on the owners of movies getting into these direct relationships with the owners of theaters. If a theater owner is now dealing directly with a movie director, and paying the movie director money so that they can — you start to worry is the theater owning the movie, is the movie owning the theater? They don’t like this so much.

So, here’s what I think happened basically. Soderbergh goes to this other company and they’re called Bleecker Street Media. And according to this article they have a total staff of 20 people. Bleecker Street would do the marketing campaign and they would receive a token fee of less than $1 million. If the film hit certain box office thresholds, they would then get a slice of ticket sales.

But, the point being they’re charging nowhere near what a traditional studio would charge to be the middle man. Essentially they’re kind of a fig leaf middleman to keep the whole thing legal and not running afoul of antitrust laws. And that’s kind of their purpose, as far as I can tell.

Did it work? This time, no. But the play here is to go after the probably exorbitant distribution fee that studios charge.

**John:** Yeah. So some of what you’re describing Craig is not that different than what happens on classic indie movies, the Sundance movies, because for each of those big six studios I talked about at the start of the podcast, there are a ton of little distributors who do that kind of negotiation directly with theaters to get those movies onscreen so people can see them. And so that is actually a pretty common thing.

What’s different here is that, you know, rather than them picking up the rights from this film, Soderbergh is basically going to them and saying, OK, I’m going to pay you to do this thing, but I’m holding on to everything myself. And that could work with the right film. Certainly when you look at how Lucas used 20th Century Fox to do the three Star Wars prequels, there’s a similarity there, too, where like Lucas really controlled everything but he was basically renting Fox to sort of put the stuff out there.

My hunch though is that Fox had some really meaningful percentage participation in there so that it was really in Fox’s interest to make sure that the Star Wars movies worked. Also the Star Wars movies were presold, so they were going to be a hit no matter what.

Logan Lucky is just another hopefully great Soderbergh film, but there’s no guarantee of success in that. And so that’s a challenge.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, look, from a studio point of view, even if somebody that has an incredibly desirable property like Star Wars comes to you and says I want to make a marketing distribution deal with you, from a studio point of view you don’t really have to run the numbers. You know what it’s going to cost. You tack on some percentage above that as profit. You win. That’s it. There’s no risk to you. You’re not paying for the movie’s production. Nor are you on the hook if it underperforms in theaters. You’re getting a fee.

So, I think studios generally like these things if they feel like it’s going to work out well for them and not damage their brand. I think they’re aware that everyone assumes that if they release a movie they made it, which is often not the case.

Here with this one, Soderbergh was aiming for something that kind of hadn’t been done before which was to release a film a la an independent, but to release it wide.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, I don’t think this has ever happened before. They opened it over 2,500 locations I think was their goal here. So, that’s like a big movie release.

**John:** And he had big movie stars in it. I think if you’re going to try to do this with a non-franchise movie, this had the right combination of elements. You have Channing Tatum. You have big stars. You have a big director. But this one didn’t catch fire.

**Craig:** No. But that in and of itself is not really a comment on the business plan. It may be a comment just on the material itself and the attractiveness of the movie to people. I mean, because obviously big studio movies flop all the time.

Will this happen again? It certainly won’t happen as quickly as it would have if this one had worked.

**John:** Yeah. I agree with you. I think if this had sort of caught fire, you would see every A-list director going to their agency saying like I need to find the people who can do this for me, because I want to have all those controls. I want it to all be mine. Because this didn’t take off, I think there’s going to be a little more reluctance on that. And I think there’s going to be a bit more of appreciation for sort of what all those hundreds of people at the studios do to sort of make the machinery work to put out a big studio movie.

**Craig:** No question. I mean, for as much stick as we will give the studios for their sometimes questionable ability to creatively shepherd work, they are outstandingly good at being banks and being advertising agencies and being distribution agencies. They are fantastic at it.

And if you want to go it on your own, it’s not just a question of can you do it. There is an opportunity cost because you’re not doing it with the people that do it really, really well. So, OK, well this time it didn’t work. Let’s see what happens next time. I suspect there will be a next time. But who knows.

**John:** Who knows? All right, let’s get to two quick questions. First off, Tom writes in. “I’m a screenwriter who has just had his first movie produced. Is it worth making a stink if the studio violated your creative rights? I’m particularly asking about the right to view a cut before your movie is released? I called the WGA about this and they started talking arbitration. That scared me because it feels like it’s burning a bridge.”

Craig, what should he do?

**Craig:** I understand the fear of burning a bridge. You are not burning a bridge. We are trained to believe that we are constantly walking over gasoline-soaked bridges with little Zippo lighters in our pocket. And any time we dare question something or stick up for what we deserve, we’re just flicking that Zippo open. This isn’t just something that the bridge owners are telling us. This is something that agents and managers are constantly repeating to their clients. Everyone lives in fear of this burnt bridge.

Here’s what I have come to understand about this business after all this time. The bridges are not flammable, at least not on their own. Bridges become flammable when you do bad work. If you write something and it’s good and it makes money, you could be the one dumping the gasoline all over it. You could have yourself a good little torch party on that bridge. You can burn the whole damn thing down. They will build you a new one, because they want to make money.

So, with that said, if the studio is happy with your work and happy with you and they have violated your creative rights, I would not worry so much about the bridge burning. Also, it’s worth pointing out that the aggrieved party here is not you, Tom, it’s actually the Writers Guild, because these terms, these creative rights terms we have have been negotiated by the Writers Guild and they are in our collective bargaining agreement. The Writers Guild has a right to go ahead and pursue arbitration on your behalf with or without your consent, as far as I know. Because, well, their contract with the companies was violated.

I do believe it is important for us to stick up for these things. If we do not, then we don’t have them. We can keep going on strike and turning ourselves inside out every three years, and screaming about the companies and how unfair they are, because we want things. But if we do not actually demand what we already have and deserve on paper, then why are we bothering to ask for anything at all?

**John:** I agree with you, Craig. So, I have a movie going into production so just this week I got a letter from the WGA saying, hey, this movie is going into production. Here is a reminder of your creative rights. Also here is your reminder that many of these creative rights have a time-based quality. And so it is up to you to be proactive to try to make sure that you’re getting the opportunity to do these certain things along the way.

It was a great reminder. I will be sort of making sure that those creative rights are acknowledged as those milestones come up along the way. But if any of those creative rights were violated, I would let the WGA know because it is important to put that on record and to make sure that everyone knows when those things happen and when they don’t happen. You’re not narking on anybody. It’s a thing that was supposed to happen.

So, I would say to Tom, if anyone at the studio or producer contacts you about saying, hey, did you complain about not seeing a cut, the answer is the Guild contacted me to ask if I’d seen a cut. I said I had not. It’s the Guild’s responsibility to do that. And you know what? Let the Guild be the bad guy.

You know who is great at being the bad guy? The DGA. The DGA is so good at being the bad buy and I would love to see the WGA be the bad guy more often.

**Craig:** Halleluiah to that. And this is not something that writers have just started pointing out and asking about. As long as I’ve been in the Guild, writers have been saying why are we not more like the DGA when it comes to protecting the creative rights of our own members? Every director, big or small, gets a visit from a DGA representative on set to make sure that they are being treated properly and in accordance with the contract. And do you know who has no problem with that? The studios. In fact, they’re quite concerned. They want to make sure they don’t get into trouble with the DGA. The DGA is aggressive.

We are not. We’re just not.

**John:** Nope. So on the topic of aggression and following up on things, Leeann from Brooklyn wrote in with a question about how to navigate promises from a producer on a first time feature project. Let’s take a listen.

**Leann:** I recently finished my fourth feature script and passed it on to a producer contact of mine as a project I would also direct. She said she loved the script and with my permission passed it on to an exec at an independent studio which she reportedly has a solid relationship with. She said my script is exactly the kind of movie both she and the studio are looking to make right now, which is exciting for sure.

However, it’s now been three weeks since my last phone call with her, during which she said she would be getting a face-to-face meeting with this exec soon, whenever that is. But she also said if he didn’t work out, she would look for other funding options for the project this fall when her production schedule frees up.

So, I’m basically in a holding pattern. Or am I? My question is what should I be doing during this time? Should I take her at her word that she’s going to do whatever she can to get the film made? Or should I still be sending my script to more producers? I don’t want to sully what could be a great business relationship, but I also don’t want to miss out on any opportunities. Are all things fair game until something has been signed, or has essentially a verbal agreement been made between her and I and I should just stick with it and see where it leads?

While the phrase wait and see sounds passive and unproductive to me, could that just be my naïveté making me antsy? I would really love to hear what you both think about this situation and how you would recommend a writer-director looking to get her first feature made to act and react given these circumstances. Thank you both so much for all your work. You are mentors and wizards.

**John:** Actually, Craig is a barbarian in the current campaign we’re playing, but in general we very much appreciate the sentiment. I was nodding along a lot to Leeann’s question because I remember being in sort of exactly her situation, where I had come back from my internship every day to my apartment. And I would look at the answering machine, because it was still the answering machine time, waiting for this producer to give me word about this agent who was supposedly reading my script.

And about three weeks passed and it was incredibly infuriating and exhausting.

**Craig:** Yeah. Boy, this is a tough one. Well, good news, Leeann, you are a member of a large fraternity/sorority here. We have all been through this. Waiting is part of the deal. Unfortunately people take time to read things. People are busy. They have more to read than we can possibly imagine. If it makes you feel any better, I was talking to an actor last week — an actor who is on TV, he’s been on TV, he’s in movies — and he’s got a project that he’s working on and he’s been waiting for somebody to read it now for four months, and he’s the kind of person that you’d think, well geez, somebody would just read that in the next minute.

This goes on. The trickier part of your question I think is managing your own ambition and activeness. This is something I think we all struggle with. You have given the script to this producer. That she’s not a producer — it doesn’t sound like — she doesn’t have an exclusive relationship with this one studio that she’s talking to, because she said she can take it to somewhere else. She’s kind of now your producer. There is an implied relationship there.

You can certainly say, you know what, I think I want to give this to other producers, not you. But at that point what you’re saying is you’re not the producer. So, bye. And that will essentially sever that relationship.

You are more I think forgiven if time goes by — a reasonable amount of time goes by and nothing happens. But this is a tricky part. If you give the script to a producer and the producer is not particularly good and they kind of show it around to a bunch of places and those places say no, those places have said no. It’s not like you can get a new producer and they’ll suddenly say yes.

So, you have to ask yourself what your relationship with this person is. It sounds to me like you don’t have a manager or agent working on your side to kind of intercede on your behalf. You may want to talk to this producer and say, hey, are you aware of any managers or agents that you could hook me up with if you don’t. If you have representation, they should be inserting themselves into this process, obviously.

If you don’t, see if maybe this producer can segue you to someone, and then that person can start to give independent advice. It is a dangerous thing to suggest one clear course of action to you because we just don’t know enough and the potential for harm is significant.

**John:** I agree. I would underline what Craig said about trying to use this producer to try to get yourself to a manager or an agent is great. So, I think you definitely need to lob an email back into her saying like, hey, checking in. This is what I’m working on right now. I’d love to have a conversation with you about agents and managers because that’s definitely a next step I see being important for me.

But I don’t think your script is — I don’t think you should assume that your script has to be frozen and locked down and that no one else can put eyes on it. And so I would say whoever wants to read your script, let them read your script. And make it clear that there’s a producer attached to the script. There’s a producer onboard the script. But it’s going to have to get out there in the world a little bit wider so that people can read it. And maybe a different scenario will come up or somebody else will say like, oh, I know the perfect person who would want to make this kind of movie. And then you can direct your producer towards that person.

I just know so many people who have been in this situation where they have a producer sort of involved on a project and then like a year goes by and there’s no forward momentum. That’s what I’m worried about for Leeann.

**Craig:** I am, too. I mean, the one nice thing is that producers can accumulate, unlike writers. You’re the writer. You’re the director, Leeann. You have a producer now. But what happens sometimes is somebody — you give it to somebody else, they hand it to somebody else. That person says I’m a producer. I want to do this. And I can set it up. These people already want to buy it. And you say, OK, I can’t turn that down. That sounds great. I do have a producer involved. Well, they’re still involved.

And then it gets worked out. And the thing is you don’t have to work it out. The producers work it out. They figure it out. So that’s between them.

I will say to you that the one thing you definitely don’t want to do is just hit pause on your life and your creativity and your output because you’re in waiting mode. The waiting mode that you’re in never ends. Your life will be a waiting mode. It is such a trap to think I can’t do anything until I get the clarity of the call, because when the call comes all questions will be answered. It will be clear and definitive what’s happening. Trust me when I tell you it will not be. And it never actually gets that way. The only times things finally seem incredibly clear and definitive to me is when I’m at a premiere. That’s about it.

Other than that, it’s an endless series of negotiations and questionings and forwards and backwards. It’s just the way it is. So you have to get used to living in this constant state where you’re waiting on a thing while you push something else ahead.

So my strong advice to you is if you’ve had something else that you’ve been thinking about working on, if you’re thinking about working on this thing maybe hit pause on that for a moment because it’s out there. But if there’s something else you want to do, do it. You are not in waiting mode. You’re in Leeann living her life mode.

**John:** Absolutely true. I’d say the other moment which things become crystal clear is when they just completely fall apart. When that thing gets shut down and it’s done and it’s dead. And in a weird way that can be a relief, too. Because rather than this sort of floating ambiguity, I’m sometimes happier when something is just done. Like I can’t do that there. The ship has sailed. That can be kind of weirdly freeing. And I’ve found so often when I’ve been stuck in this waiting mode I get the “no” and that no is actually much better than the sort of Schrödinger’s cat of this half-dead/half-alive project out there.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m thinking about the sheep movie. And the first time I read that novel and Lindsay Doran gave me the novel. And the seven year odyssey to get the rights to it. Seven years. And at no point did we ever succumb to any kind of fatalism. The amount of time involved was such that impatience was not even psychologically possible. You just had to accept it. You just had to accept. So, these things take remarkable amounts of time. When we read stories about things that have taken remarkable amounts of time, in our minds we just glide over it. Like oh yeah, that’s crazy. It took ten years to get to the screen. Wow.

Try living those ten years. That’s ten years. So, it’s just part of the deal. It’s just part of the deal.

**John:** Thinking back to Unforgiven, David Webb Peoples wrote that script and Clint Eastwood sat on it for all those years. And it turned out great. Everything was just wonderful and remarkable, but we did sort of skip over the fact that David Webb Peoples had no guarantee that movie would actually get made. It could have just not happened.

**Craig:** That’s right. I mean, he has written this script. I assume he understood on some level no matter how humble he may be that it was amazing. And there it was. In a drawer. Doing nothing. Yeah, very frustrating.

**John:** All right. Good luck Leeann.

It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a thing that was sitting in my drawer for a very long time. It’s a book called Party of One by Dave Holmes. And it was not literally in a drawer. It was on my Kindle, but so far back on my Kindle that I’d forgotten it was there.

So it’s a book from last year. It’s Dave Holmes, who sort of became famous as a VJ on MTV. I only kind of remember him from MTV because he rose up after I stopped watching it regularly, but the book talks about his sort of growing up in St. Louis. The chubby gay kid and sort of his so desperate to fit in and sort of the choices he made along the way. And also the wrong choices he made along the way. And how it worked itself out.

It’s one of the rare books where because he’s almost exactly my age, like every reference was just exactly right. I felt like I was just back in each of those years as he was describing them. So it’s a book that sat on my Kindle for far too long, but it’s just delightful. And really funny. And he’s a really talented writer, so I can’t wait to see what he writes next. So, Party of One by Dave Holmes.

**Craig:** Excellent. My One Cool Thing this week was a recommendation from Kumail Nanjiani and it is Hellblade, Senua’s Sacrifice. This is an independent videogame that is available for Microsoft Windows — yuck — or PlayStation 4.

Let’s see, it’s developed by a company called Ninja Theory. The director is Tameen Antoniades. And it was written by Tameen Antoniades and Elizabeth Ashman-Rowe. So, I’m not through with the game yet. I think I’m about a third of the way through. It’s incredibly simple on the one hand. You’re playing a woman who is some sort of ancient Viking type lady. And you are on a journey to rescue the soul of your lost love. And you’ve gone into the region of hell basically. But what sets the game apart is your character is psychotic. Not psychotic like blah, but actually has the mental illness of schizophrenia and psychosis, so there are constantly voices in your head that are the voices in her head.

And they worked with actual psychiatrists to make it accurate and to simulate the kind of voices and the incessant intrusion of those voices and the variety of those voices and the nature of the sort of things that those voices say when people have legitimate mental illness. And it is fascinating. And disturbing. And kind of remarkable.

I like it a lot. And for that reason alone — and you know, if you don’t like — it’s not actually heavy on combat. It’s a little bit more keyed towards puzzle-solving. And if you don’t love combat that much you can just set the combat to easy and, you know, not worry about it, because I don’t really care that much about combat. I’m more about the story and the puzzles.

So, very cool game. So thanks for that one, Kumail. I’m playing it right now.

**John:** Cool. That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Carlton Mittagakus. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week comes from Rajesh Naroth.

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.

For shorter questions on Twitter, I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

We’ve had a lot of questions on Twitter this last week and they were good.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We’re on Facebook. Search for Scriptnotes Podcast. You can find us on Apple Podcasts at Scriptnotes. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there, leave us a review. That’s always so helpful. Through iTunes you can download the Scriptnotes App for your phone, or the other app stores. You can find it there as well.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts.

You can find the full back episode catalog at Scriptnotes.net. It is $1.99 to get to all of those back episodes. We also have some of the USB drives. And so if you’re looking for one handy item that holds all the back catalog, go to store.johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find the drive.

Craig, thanks for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** And so I will continue to debate whether Cyndi Lauper should have the higher place in my esteem than Madonna for her role in the ’80s.

**Craig:** No debate here.

**John:** No debate. She-Bop.

**Craig:** She-Bop. I’ll see you later. Bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [The WGF 2nd Annual Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament](https://www.wgfoundation.org/poker2017/) is on Friday, October 20th
* [Tuff Turf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuff_Turf) and [The Warriors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warriors_(film)) on Wikipedia
* USC’s [Peter Stark Producing Program](http://cinema.usc.edu/producing/index.cfm)
* [United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc) on Wikipedia
* The [National Association of Theater Owners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Theatre_Owners) and [CinemaCon (formerly ShoWest)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Theatre_Owners#CinemaCon_.28formerly_ShoWest.29) on Wikipedia
* The Wrap asks, [Is MoviePass’ $10 Monthly Subscription Deal Too Good to Be True?](http://www.thewrap.com/moviepass-too-good-to-be-true/)
* [With ‘Logan Lucky,’ Soderbergh Hopes to Change Film’s Business Model](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/business/media/with-logan-lucky-soderbergh-hopes-to-change-films-business-model.html?referer=https://t.co/iJtvadduKq?amp=1) from The New York Times
* [Party of One](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0804187983/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Dave Holmes
* [Hellblade](http://www.hellblade.com/), and [on Steam](http://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/414340/)
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Rajesh Naroth ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_315.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.