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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 664: Hollywood Got Old, Transcript

November 21, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listen to episode 664 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, how do you handle the anxiety of uncertainty? At times in life, particularly in this industry, you’re waiting around for an answer that’s going to have a direct impact on you. We’ll talk through strategies for navigating those situations. Then Craig, do you want to feel old? The president of production at New Line is 27. That guy at Fox, one person 28. Paramount Studio chief is 31, and by the time he’s 35, he’ll be the chairman of Disney. Craig, does that surprise you?

Craig: It doesn’t surprise me. It delights me because the odds that all of those people have been listening to Scriptnotes for the last 10 years is pretty high. I’ve always said this gig is our best job insurance.

John: Well Craig, unfortunately, we have traveled back in time secretly because that was actually true in the ‘80s and ‘90s, because all those people are well-known names you recognize, like Jeffrey Katzenberg or Mike De Luca, those folks were all running these studios when they were in their 20s and early 30s, and they’re no longer doing that. Now, Hollywood is run by folks in their 50s, 60s, 70s.

Craig: Basically, nothing changed. Those people that came along– You know John, when we started in the ‘90s, it did feel like there was– maybe it’s generational, there was this group of 20 somethings coming and going.

John: That was my Stark class coming into the industry.

Craig: “Everybody get out of our way. We’re taking this,” and then we did. We haven’t apparently let it go.

John: We have certainly not. We want to talk about the impact of that generation and how it influences what gets made and who gets to make it. We’ll also ask the question, Craig, is development wage theft?

Craig: Oh, well, strictly speaking those aren’t wages at all because it’s unemployment.

John: Yes, exactly.

Craig: It’s an independent contracting.

John: It is, yes.

Craig: It is technically.

John: We will talk through those and answer some listener questions. In our bonus segment for premium members, which aspects of pandemic life are we still practicing in 2024?

Craig: That’s some thought.

John: First, we have some actual news. We have some events coming up. We have our live show December 6th at Dynasty Typewriter here in Los Angeles. Tickets are now on sale for everyone.

Craig: That’s great. Now, we don’t have guests to yet announce.

John: Not yet announce. We have one who’s confirmed, who’s fantastic. I’m very excited about that. We’ll match folks in who will be great and equally fantastic.

Craig: We’ve never failed to get great guests. Even when we had trouble, we were going to have the-

John: Oh, yes.

Craig: -Larry Kasdan on and then he was not feeling well, so we just threw in some Jason Bateman and some Benioff and Weiss. We can do things like that.

John: We can do things. So I’m excited for our live show and excited for our guests. I’m also doing a second little event on November 22nd 6:30 PM in Village Well in Culver City. This game we make, Alpha Birds, they’re having a night which is just playing Alpha Birds. We’ll be there.

Craig: Oh, cool.

John: Folks can have a drink and play some Alpha Birds. We’ll show you how to play it.

Craig: I love a game store.

John: Game stores are good. Game stores with a liquor license, even better.

Craig: I was confused there, but if they can afford that, amazing.

John: That’s good stuff. You’ll find links in the show notes to both of those events if you are in Los Angeles and want to come to those. Now, Craig, we are recording this episode on a weekend. Drew is not here, so it’s just the two of us.

Craig: Finally.

John: We have no supervision.

Craig: We can just do whatever we want instead of mommy yelling at us.

John: This episode will come out on Tuesday, which in the United States is election day. We’re not going to talk about the election, but I do want to talk about anxiety as a general phenomenon because independent of what day or what’s happening in the world, there are moments, especially as a screenwriter or someone working in this industry where you are waiting around for an answer to come or something to happen.

It could be that you’ve turned in a scripture waiting for notes, you are waiting for the results of a medical procedure, and sometimes those are worse than the actual news itself, is the anxiety that builds up about waiting around for that. I just want to talk through some general strategies you’ve learned over the years and things I’ve found to be useful.

Craig: Sure. You put your finger on one of the biggest challenges we have as human beings, and that’s uncertainty. We really struggle with it. What we try to do, I think instinctively is solve it. There’s a problem. I’m scared of blank. It always starts with fear. I’m scared of blank. How do I solve that? Maybe if I just ruminate and perseverate, and think it through and seek reassurance, which is our number one strategy, then I can make the fear go away. In fact, reassurance seeking really is just pointless. It’s not going to change the reality of what happens.

John: I think let’s look at it from a point of view of screenwriters, because as screenwriters, we are problem solvers. We see situations out there in the world. We’ve created these situations for our characters or in our scripts, and we are looking for what those solutions are. We talk about it on the podcast, sometimes you just need to stop and think and actually work through it and figure out what that is. That is true and useful in fictional worlds in which we’re creating where we can change all the rules. But in this real world, we can’t change those rules.

I think, Craig, one thing you’re saying is, we are trying to solve a problem that we cannot solve by accepting that there’s not a solution to the problem that is in our control is a crucial first step.

Craig: It’s hard, because you’re right. We are used to being in complete control of the narrative. We can go around and change things and do whatever we want. We are all of us living inside a reality that we narrative eyes, but it is not a narrative, and we just don’t know. The things that we don’t know, we don’t know are vast. You and I have been in positions before where we may see people worrying about something that we are making. It hasn’t come out yet, but they’re worrying.

They’re worrying because they care, which is a good sign. It’s better than them not caring, but sometimes they will express their fear in statements of certainty because they’re looking for certainty. It is sometimes easier for them to say, “You know what? This is going to be bad and I’m going to hate it. I’m not going to watch it. I’m not going to care,” because the alternative was just to sit in my uncertainty for months and months and months is intolerable. But what we know on our side of things is, “Hey, we actually made something good. Wish we could show it to you right now to calm you down. Can’t, but we will.”

I think sometimes that’s how things work with politics. All we see is what we’re shown, but we don’t know. We don’t know what they know.

John: Absolutely. Pulling it back to more our industry, we are waiting for an answer sometimes from a decision maker, and that decision maker is also facing uncertainty. That decision maker is like, “Am I making the right choice? Am I not making the right choice? What is the safest course? What is the most likely course that is not going to result in a disaster?”

Recognizing sometimes from their point of view, they don’t know either. It can be frustrating, but also reassuring that we’re all feeling our way around in this situation.

Craig: We want to believe that the people that control things are supremely confident, and they’re not, nor are they perfect, nor may they even be confident in what they are doing. And they may also be struggling with those problems that we don’t know about. They may want to say yes. The problem is they’ve been told they’re not allowed to say yes currently because they’re in a fight with somebody over something they just said yes to. How that all functions and flows is really hard to comprehend, so don’t. Don’t bother. The waiting, in and of itself, disappears as waiting if we just stop waiting. Don’t wait. Just move on with your life.

John: Let’s talk about the moving on of it all, because there’s the moving on you can do with the actual situation you’re faced with. With the project that you’re waiting for an answer from this one person, it’s worth interrogating. Like, “Am I actually waiting for this person? Does that yes or no really matter, or could I be doing something else that’s useful and productive on this? Am I waiting for this person to give me a thumbs up or thumbs down, or should I be showing this to other people, because that may be the smartest thing to do, or should I just be working on that next project?” And that is often really the best choice.

Craig: You can’t go wrong doing more work.

John: Yes.

Craig: That’s generally speaking a win-win. I think that agents and managers who listen to this are probably very familiar with the feeling of a client calling saying, “Why aren’t we doing anything?” The answer is there’s nothing to do, but that’s not a great answer to give a client because, A, they’re looking for reassurance, reassurance through action. The notion that we are in control of things, if only we did A, B, or C. Also, it’s not an easy thing to say to a client that right now you have no utility to them. This is something that I think representatives struggle with a lot of times.

They know there’s nothing to do, or they know that maybe there will be something to do, but in a month. The stuff again that we don’t know, what we don’t know is that five days from now, somebody’s going to mention this to somebody, who’s going to mention it to somebody, who’s going to mention it to Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks is going to say, “What? Let me read that,” and reads it and says, “I want to do this.” Then everything changes. We have no way of seeing any of that because it’s in the future. It hasn’t occurred yet, nor is it predictable.

We have to unfortunately accept that we are only in control of what goes on the page, and very little else.

John: For sure. What I don’t want anyone to take from this conversation is the sense of that you have no agency, you have no control, you have no ability to make decisions yourself. You absolutely do. If you are getting no answer from an agent or a manager over a period of time, and they seem to be doing nothing, and you write in a letter saying, “My agent or manager seems to be doing nothing,” that is a concern. Then you should bring up that concern and consider looking for new representation. That’s a story as old as this time.

What we’re I think trying to stress is that, it’s worth asking, what is the roadblock? When you find out what that roadblock is, you realize there’s nothing I can do about that roadblock. I have a project right now that we should be going out to the town with, but there’s a roadblock based on the rights holder that has to be resolved, and there’s nothing I can do to force that to happen more quickly.

Craig: Exactly. There is nothing you can do. The people that work for you, you do have control over. You pay your agent. You pay your manager. That is an enormous amount of control. If they’re not fulfilling what you think is a service that you’re paying for, then you fire them and you find somebody else, but the people that we’re asking money from, and I don’t know if you’ve– I think you must have experienced this, as time goes on, we get more and more comfortable with the practice of submitting something and then literally forgetting you submitted because there’s something else to do.

When you get called about that thing, it is a pleasant surprise, but if you have kept yourself moving, if you get a call that’s an unpleasant surprise, well, let’s now talk about what else we can do there, or do we just end it? Either way, I’m moving forward. I’ve already been moving forward. What I haven’t been doing is sitting by the phone, chewing my fingernails.

John: Yes, for sure. There’s a general framework in terms of thinking about what’s on your side, your circle of control. What are the things you can actually control versus your circle of concern? There are things in the world that you are concerned about. You have strong opinions about things you want to see happen in a certain way, the health of your family, the environment, our general political system, those are issues that are well within your circle of concern, but they’re not necessarily in your circle of control.

There’s not a thing you can do specifically to solve that problem. So it’s worth interrogating, well, what are these small actions I can take that will advance that goal? That’s great because that will make you feel that you have some utility and some agency in that cause. Tomorrow, I am phone banking. Phone banking is like, “Listen, I might talk to three people and nudge them on, but that’s great.” It’s going to make me feel better and could potentially be helpful in a swing state. It’s recognizing that there’s limits to what I can do. There’s no more big checks I could write that would actually have an impact.

Craig: Yes. And I think often of the lesson that our grandparents must have faced when they lived through a war, which you and I have not lived through, not on the scale of World War I, World War II. We were barely alive for Vietnam. We weren’t around for Korea. The wars that followed, the engagement by United States forces were so limited compared to those. No drafts. There has been a draft since Vietnam war.

John: We had 9/11 and it was the closest we had to be an assault on us.

Craig: 9/11 actually, in and of itself, is a pretty interesting lesson in uncertainty because if someone had said two weeks earlier, something horrible was going to happen on United States soil and we’re counting down and you all know what it is, that would have been a horrible two weeks. But the fact is, the act itself would have been no different. Anticipation and uncertainty, in and of themselves, are a kind of torment. We are capable of withstanding a lot of it, more than we think, but part of withstanding it is recognizing for what it is, something over which we have no control.

John: Let’s talk about why we worry and why anxiety exists because I think it is a useful evolutionary function. We have it. Other mammals have it. Clearly, other things, too. Can be stressed out about the future. As humans, we have a much stronger vision of the future. We can narrativize these things and catastrophize these things, but in some ways, that helps protect us and helps keep us alive. The challenge is, it was designed to keep us away from predators. It was not designed to deal with weird nebulous existential threats.

Craig: Yes. We have a system in place neurologically that keeps us alert and creates a state of vigilance. Vigilance, on some level, is important. If you cut yourself and then just ignore it, your arm’s going to get infected. Gangrene will sit in. You’ll either die or lose your arm. If you get a sense that your spouse is spending a whole lot of time with someone else, you may want to investigate that. There are reasons for vigilance, but hypervigilance over your life is toxic. I know this because I’ve literally had to deal with this in therapy.

The notion of over-vigilance in the sense that if you do not provide Ryan Reynolds style maximum effort to self-examination and the state of your career, your life, whatever it may be, it’s all going to fall apart. Problematic. Not helpful. Doesn’t actually keep you any safer. Just blows those circuits out and you end up spending all of your time scared.

John: I think it’s worth thinking about, how do we put some limits on the time and space we’re allowing ourselves to worry or letting ourselves worry at places and then also not worry about places. Things I do for myself is I basically will not look at social media on my phone after 8:00 PM just because I know that I recognize that creates a pattern of a doom loop that it’s hard for me to break out of.

Rachel Bloom in her special on Netflix, she talks about the huge grief she was going through and the fear about her daughter, and her daughter just being born right at the start of the pandemic and losing Adam Schlesinger, her therapist would say, “Have a room in your house where you can go and cry and cry in that room, and give yourself that space, but then leave that room and leave all that anxiety in that room,” which is a useful way of thinking about it. Just actually put that in a place and recognize that that’s the place for that, but don’t let it infest the rest of your world.

Craig: Yes, you need a chance to feel what you’re feeling. You can’t beat anxiety by yelling at it, but putting it in perspective, which is what that sounds like is what you need to do. Part of it is just recognizing what it is. It’s a bunch of feelings that are happening, like having to cough. If you have to cough, cough. Get it out. But while you’re coughing, don’t think I’m dying because I’m coughing or I’ll never stop coughing. I guess my life is now coughing. It’s not how it works.

John: It’s also worth recognizing that sometimes you feel a physical thing and then you reverse engineer that to say this is anxiety. Last night, I was like, “Oh my God, my anxiety is off the charts.” It was like, “Oh, no, I’m actually just cold.” I haven’t turned on the heat in the house. I’m actually shivering because of that. That’s actually what’s doing it. It felt the same as my anxiety felt. I put on a sweater.

Craig: My version of that is sometimes I get that butterfly in the stomach feeling, jittery, and I presume immediately that there’s a reason I’m scared. What is the reason? Why am I scared? I’m not scared. I’m experiencing a physical symptom of fear because some adrenaline is squirting out errantly. Happens to me all the time. I’ve come to notice there are moments where something suddenly triggers “fear” in me that is nothing, like looking at a tree and I suddenly, “Something’s wrong.” I’ve come to understand, “No, nothing’s wrong.” Something hormonal in my body just went blah.

I don’t have a good alarm system. My alarm system is broken. In fact, and I don’t know if this is true for you, since we both suffer from anxiety, where I excel is when there really is trouble. In those instances, I am incredibly calm, clear, direct, problem-oriented, no panic, nothing. It’s the tree, or I don’t know, something, a smell that just suddenly makes me think, “Oh, no, I’m dying.”

John: It’s more like, how could I have possibly said that thing to that person 20 minutes ago?

Craig: Or 20 years ago.

John: Yes.

Craig: Oh, absolutely. Listen, we also have shame loops on our heads and all that stuff. It’s just, we have to deal with it. When we’re talking about writers, people who their brains are attuned to imagination and whose brains are attuned to finding horrible things, that’s what we do with our imaginations. Horrible psychological things, emotional things, incidental things, then, yes, surprise, we don’t feel so good sometimes when we have to fill a space of unknown with potentials.

Yes, people are sitting around right now, thinking, “Well, if the person that I don’t want to be president is president, I am imagining the following horrible things happening.” Our imagination in that fear is not particularly useful. What is useful is just good old-fashioned dispassionate planning. Preparing, helping, strategizing.

John: Yes, for sure. Last little things I’ll say. If you do find yourself in that doom spiral loop, some tricks to get out of it, and you can google other ones too but things that I found are useful, literally dunking your head in ice water, sounds crazy, but it kicks off this primal, like that. I don’t know. That sounded like drowning, but there’s some primal thing it takes off. It’s like it can snap that for a second. I will listen to my political podcast while I’m running because it doesn’t have the same valance when you’re running.

Just things that you can do to make sure that you are inoculating yourself as best you can from those ups and those downs.

Craig: I’m not surprised that that’s the experience you have when you’re running because perhaps the single most effective anxiety breaker is oxygen. We stop breathing. And as you experience a minor hypoxia, the panic will increase because your brain is also designed to have you panic if it thinks you’re drowning. So as stupid as it is, deep breathing works 100% of the time. It is so frustrating that that is the case. While you’re doing it, it’s not working until suddenly, it’s worked, and it’ll be a minute maybe.

John: Yes, or someone tells you to drink a glass of water and that’s the stupidest thing ever and yet it still, it does help.

Craig: There are these things because what we’re experiencing is a simple mistake in the wiring. We don’t like thinking that we’re that dumb of a machine, but we are. We are that dumb of a meat machine.

John: Yes, for sure. All right, let’s move on to our next topic here. This is inspired by an article by Mia Galuppo, writing for The Hollywood Reporter. Her article is titled The Big Squeeze: Why Everyone in Hollywood Feels Stuck, but what’s really about is this sense, as we were talking about in the lead up here, is that when we were entering the industry, it felt like there were a lot of young people, a little older than us, but our age, who were suddenly running the town, they’re presidents of production, they’re heads of studios, they were doing all those jobs.

Over the years, we talk about the ladder and we talk about the importance of making sure those lower rungs of the ladder are actually available for people who are entering the industry, but I don’t think we talk enough about like, “Well, the upper rungs of the ladder.” If people are just staying on the ladder, there ends up being no place to climb to. When we see executives who are now turning 70, running those jobs, the people who used to be 35 in those positions are now in their 50s and 60s. It creates this log jam where there’s not a space for the folks who should be climbing to climb to.

Craig: Well, there is a space, the space is the same. That was always there. The space is I’m going to kick this old man out and take over. That’s why CAA exists. Four agents said, “We’re leaving William Morris, screw this old man. We’re starting our own place. We’re taking all these clients with us and now CAA is the biggest agency in the world.” I think after it bought ICM, it’s at least maybe endeavors, I don’t know, but they’re up there. Point being, they were called the Young Turks.

John: They were.

Craig: They are all not young. One of the things I’m wondering about is the state of ambition. Along with ambition is its opposite, which is, I guess I would call despair or helplessness. The sense that what you’re trying to get is impossible to get, but you’re trying to break into an impervious vault. Sometimes I wonder if it is generational, because when you and I started, our ambition was to be something in the entertainment business. What we didn’t have was the distraction of everyone else’s life on 24/7 in a reality show.

We did not have any need nor ability to document our lives for other people to see what other people were doing. There are so many distractions, and in a way, I think also– Are you familiar–? We talked about this with Rebel Wilson, Tall Poppy syndrome.

John: Oh, for sure.

Craig: Tall poppy syndrome, I think grows pretty well in social media. The sense that, “Oh, someone’s getting too good or too fast, or they’re too ambitious or whatever, let’s knock them down.” That becomes an ingrained feeling you have when you enter a business like, “Oh, we should all just sort of be leveled out here.” Whereas when you and I started, it was a law of the jungle.

John: Yes, for sure. Thinking back to when I was entering the industry, it felt like it was musical chairs and there were actually just plenty of chairs. There was space for everybody was entered into the industry as things were expanding and more opportunities were opening up, television was expanding. The boundaries between film and television were collapsing. There was opportunities to do new things. I do feel like that time is also happening now in terms of whatever you want to say about YouTube or sort of all the creator-generated videos, which is a whole sort side industry that’s there and it’s actually successful.

What is different about the industry now versus when you and I started though, is even though the big corporations had boards of directors, and they were publicly traded companies, they weren’t publicly traded companies in the same way. Disney was not as big as it was. Warner’s Discovery was not as big as it was, and there wasn’t the expectation that the people who were at the helm of those companies had to be titans of industry for Wall Street.

Craig: Right. The ladder ended at a certain spot, and that spot was movie mogul, I’m in charge of the studio. And now, you’re absolutely right. I think when Sony came in and bought Colombia, it was the beginning of something, although Gulf Western Oil had bought Paramount, but still, when you read about the creation of The Godfather and Charlie Bluhdorn, who’s going back and forth from East Coast to Hollywood and trying to broker peace between all these people and Bob Evans and everybody, yes.

It definitely had a little bit less of, I’m trying to run for president of this nation-sized corporation, but still, we make more television now than we ever did before. I think where the squeeze happened is mostly in the area of producing. When we started, there were 4 million producers and all of them had a deal somewhere because the way the business worked was there were five executives who couldn’t handle everything, and then there were 100 producers on the lot.

All of them shoved into some space with an assistant and a creative executive, all of them absorbing massive amounts of money and almost all of them worthless. That is an area where contraction occurred and did eliminate a lot of pads for people to excel because a lot of people went to those useless places, clearly out shunned the people that had hired them and went on to bigger and better things.

John: Now, a person who enters the industry saying, “I want to make movies.” If they’re not there to be a writer director, if they’re there to be because they want to be a producer or they want to be a studio executive, I think that’s a very different and very frustrating path ahead for them versus my Stark class, when we came out of there, that was technically a producer’s program. We had four people who really became producers quite quickly, others who became agents. There was just a sense of like, we are going to take over this part of the town, and it’s so much harder now.

Yes, there’s other paths. There’s independent film, there’s ways to make things that are exciting. You’re not entering into the classic system to make a thing.

Craig: Yes, I think the rise of management companies has largely replaced the massive tide of questionably valuable production companies. Now, managers are producers as well, and there are more of them than ever. Managers seem to want to take on writers sooner than agencies would. If you wanted to be a manager, I suppose that there are a lot of find your way onto a desk, work your way, but I talk to agents at all the agencies, and when I’m talking to senior agents or partners and things, there is a theme. It’s not from all of them, but it’s from some of them.

The theme is, we’re worried, well, let’s go back to anxiety about the future, because the people who are coming in don’t seem to have the same insatiable hunger for success that we had. We’re not sure there’s any way to succeed in Hollywood if it’s not with an insatiable hunger. You can’t half-hunger your way to success in Hollywood.

John: I think I hear that sometimes with a sense that a generation wants permission to do a thing. They’re always looking for approval, rather than just like, “Screw you, I’m going to do this thing anyway.” I was watching Saturday Night, which is the Jason Reitman movie about the creation of the first episode of Saturday Night Live. What is notable about that is that everyone in that story is in their 20s.

Craig: Oh, yes.

John: Which is absurd. It seems really crazy now that you would trust a person in their early 20s with this big swath of television live, and it’s a big risk. The movie pauses that there was a calculation behind that, that made sense. I do think that the equivalent person now is not trying to do that on NBC. They’re doing something completely different on a YouTube or whatever. I was talking to two friends this week who I ended up connecting, one of whom works in this YouTube space and works with a bunch of creators and they can just make anything. They can do anything.

They have money and they’re successful and they can do stuff. He’s like, “Oh, I need to hire a showrunner for something.” I’m like, “Okay, well, tell me what that means.” He was describing this thing. It’s like, “Okay, that’s not actually a showrunner. I think you want a non-writing producer who can godfather and sort of be a creative liaison.” It’s like, “Oh, yes, okay then, that’s what it is.” I talked to my friend who is probably the right person for that, but it comes out of the classic studio system.

I had to warn both of them, make sure you actually are figuring out what your common language is, because I don’t think you’re using the same terms for nearly anything. I do wonder if it’s going to be a really parallel thing that’s going to rise up and we’ll have to figure out how it fits back in.

Craig: Well, and it might not.

John: Yes, it might not.

Craig: Of course, you and I don’t need to figure it out. Other people do, but there is a question of what is it that people do want? The insatiable hunger people have reasonably, I think, drifted to a place where their hunger will pay off quicker and perhaps more. I don’t know if it will stay as steady as some Hollywood success can stay. If you really can find your way into this business, prove that you have great value, you will have length. It’s hard because a lot of people who I think are worthy just can’t get to that place where they’re able to Velcro on.

In YouTube, yes, I think it’s a little trendy. So people light up and sometimes they explode because of bad behavior. We see that quite a bit. Sometimes people just start laughing at them. You started as something, you became a discovery, you became super-hot, you were an incredible trend, and then the memes began, and now, you’re a joke. That cycle is going to have to happen a few times for people to start to question whether or not it’s worth it.

The amount of money that can be made does seem to make it worth it but there is something about the legitimacy of what we do in Hollywood. The world still takes it more seriously. There’s no question about that.

John: You look at like the success of a Mr. Beast and what he’s able to do and you have the spotlight on you and so you as an individual are such a focus, but he’s both like the star and the Jeffrey Katzenberg of this studio that he is built. There’s something very great about that and something that an only person in their 20s is able to do. That’s notable. It’s a question of like, is that sustainable, is it repeatable for other people?

Craig: Right now, he’s in some trouble. This does seem to happen quite a bit and I’m not surprised because people are in their 20s. This often happens to them in Hollywood as well.

Mike De Luca is a very interesting story, because in his 20s, he was suddenly boom running something and then there was some scandal and there was a bit of an explosion and he crashed to Earth and then got himself well, did the work. It was decades. Now, he’s-

John: Running a studio.

Craig: -one of the people that runs Warner Brothers. That can happen. There are also some really tough stories out there, Maloney and other guys like that. Was Maloney, who died?

John: Jay Moloney?

Craig: Jay Moloney, just superstar agents. Don Simpson, superstar producer went kaboom and that was that.

John: I don’t think we have a great takeaway for this segment other than to recognize that the individuals who would’ve been the executives in Hollywood just I think recognize that there wasn’t a space for them there and they found other industries, they found other points to do it. I think tech took a lot of them.

Craig: Tech did take a lot of them. I do think still there are people in our industry who are in their 20s who are perhaps a little over-intimidated. Because of the size of our business, they feel like it’s impossible to slash and burn your way to the top. It’s not. Somebody has to. I recommend ambition. I recommend thinking big. It’s the only way it’s going to work. When you have a system where everyone gets comfortable with 32-year-old assistants, that system is broken.

John: Agreed. Let’s talk about this next article. This is from Elaine Low writing for The Ankler. The provocative headline is Development is Wage Theft. Let’s talk about what we mean by development. Development is I am bringing in a writer and talking with them about this project that we want to do together. It might be developing it internally and then we’re going to go out and take it on the town and pitch it or it’s a project that we’re developing internally to the studio. We own a book and we are going to figure out a way to develop it into a TV series, into a movie. That’s classically development.
Development can be paid. Development largely classically was paid where there was a sense of, “Okay, we are going to go through multiple drafts on this thing and get it to a place where you can fill it into director.” There’s a lot of unpaid development, which happens because you’re figuring out what is this thing we’re then going to pitch up to my bosses to other people.

This article is really focusing on the collapse of the traditional TV cycle, where we announce these are the fall shows, and then in the spring, we go through a cycle, where we have people write a bunch of pilots, and then we shoot some of the pilots and we go through. With that all collapsing, the time spent in development on stuff has just escalated beyond the normal boundaries of how much time writers are supposed to be working on things.

Craig: There are so many different aspects of development. Let’s talk about the pre-sale development. Is pre-sale development wage theft? No. Because you are creating intellectual property yourself. Nobody gets paid to imagine dream or write anything. They get paid when they license it for a publication or they get paid when they transfer copyright to somebody. That’s how that works. There are no wages to steal there. Nobody is entitled to be paid while they think of maybe something that could be a book.

When it comes to development underemployment, now the company owns the copyright and now you are going through drafts of things. In movies, we’ve always had this issue because we were paid for a draft. We used to be paid for two, then they started saying, “We’re just going to guarantee you one.” Then you would do a gazillion drafts before you turn that draft in mostly for one of these useless producers. All of whom were terrified that if this movie didn’t get made, they were never going to get paid anything themselves.

In certain cases, when people weren’t paid very much, when you broke it out over the course of weeks, they were dipping below WGA minimum. And we’ve been struggling with that since as long as you and I have been in this business. It helped a little bit. Something that I’d been pushing since 2004 when I was on the board, and now, if you are near a certain amount, you get a guaranteed second step, which is helping. Television suffered a far more serious situation where the advent of mini rooms, which is the stupidest name to describe what that is– I’m going to stop calling them mini rooms.

Let’s call them development rooms. Let’s call them pre-green light rooms. The network or streamer is saying, “We’re going to pay you. We own this idea now. We’re not sure if we’re going to make it. You guys go work on it for eight weeks and then we’ll decide if we’re going to make it. At that point, we’ll probably fire seven of you. The one of you that’s left will write this thing.” Is that wage theft? Not necessarily. It’s wage limitation. It’s a lack of job security.

But that one person who’s left over now may have so much time to work on stuff under one aspect of, yes, it can turn into wage theft, but what the Writers Guild needs to figure out — and this is where we are complicit — is how to solve the problem of writers being paid like producers because we don’t have any control over that. And for the longest time and continuing, networks and streamers say, “We’re going to pay you Writers Guild minimums or roughly minimums to make sure you get healthcare and pension. The rest of all the money we pay you will be as a producer.” That’s the wild west.

Writers and agents have generally liked it because it means they didn’t have to pay as many dues. While you and I were paying 1.5% of every dollar we made on movies, people who are making $50 million a year, were paying less than dues. We still have this problem. We’re complicit. I don’t know the answer to this.

John: We talk about mini rooms and how they divvy up the labor in ways that it is so frustrating. The other problem is just time. Classically in television, because there was a cycle, you knew when you were done and you just don’t know when you’re done now in television because we’re developing this thing, but we don’t think it’s quite ready yet, or it’s not the right time to go to this thing, so you’re just being strung along for a long time on a project in ways that is familiar to feature writers, but is new to TV writers.

These TV writers are like, “I have this thing that looks like it’s maybe going to happen, but is it going to happen? Should I try to staff on another show? What should I do?” It’s creating these impossible situations where you’re trying to figure out like, “I want to be available to actually run my show, should the opportunity come up. But I don’t know whether this is going to happen.” Year-round development makes that much trickier. There’s generally not a clock on these things. It doesn’t stop at a certain point.

Craig: No. The season still exists for network television because network television is reliant on ads and that’s when the ad cycles new cars come out in the fall and all that. But the vast majority of streaming is not on any kind of calendar. There is no predictability. The Writers Guild has done some good work in helping writers not get trapped by exclusivity where you say, I’m going to be exclusive to this thing for as long as it gets developed and then the development phase stretches out in an insane way and you’re sitting around doing nothing but you can’t go anywhere else.

John: You’re not contractually barred from doing that thing, but there’s a soft way that you’re stuck to a thing.

Craig: We’re trying to work on that. I think also, the business representatives aren’t stupid. They are trying to make money, too. What I think is going to start happening is a little bit like when you get on a Southwest flight from Burbank to Las Vegas and they get on the thing and say, “Oh, we have overbooked this flight. We’re going to need two people to volunteer to get the F off this flight.” We’re going to overbook people. It’s inevitable. We’re going to overbook people because this is the behavior it is, because they’ve created that situation.

If you are successful enough to be, to have multiple people interested in you, that’s what’s just going to happen. You’re going to have to double-book stuff. I don’t know how else to get around it. They’re going to have to deal with it. If you are, however, a writer that is psychologically reliant on the notion of a cycle, well, it’s over. Welcome to the world that you and I lived in and continue to live in, which is there is no cycle, there is no calendar. There is a constant entrepreneurialism that is required.

John: It’s a hustle. Let’s answer some listener questions. The first one comes from a person you and I both know, but we’re not going to use their name. M writes, “My writing partner and I were sent a feature script by a producer we’ve worked with before. He has his producer set up at Studio A and is looking for a rewrite. Now, what he doesn’t know is that about 10 years ago, my writing partner and I, wrote a script for Studio B with virtually the same premise. It’s not the most original premise. We know of another project out there with the same basic idea. Our scripted Studio B is dead, as far as we know. In fact, the division it was written for no longer exists.

If we were to get this rewrite job at Studio A, I imagine that we’ll be borrowing certain themes, ideas, and jokes that we used in our old script for Studio B. Are there any legal issues we could face doing that? Should we inform Studio A about the situation? If so, can we wait until after we get the job? Any thoughts, Craig, would be appreciated.

Craig: Well, it is something that should be disclosed. If you do it after you get the job, you can still get in trouble because everybody’s contract very clearly states that you warrant this work is wholly original that you’re going to do. It is important, yes, to disclose it. I don’t think it would be anything anyone will be scared of, but the studio and business affairs would need to take a look at that other script to make sure that in the new script, you’re not taking anything that is intellectual property from that first one. If it’s possible to go and buy that one from the defunct or whatever the inherited company is, that might be one way to get around this.

Personally, I think it needs to be disclosed because the worst possible situation would be to get all the way to a movie about to come out, and whoever does own that script, they’re just waiting. If they see this happen, they don’t do anything. They wait. They’re waiting for the moment of maximum leverage, which will be three weeks before your movie comes out, and then they will file an injunction, and now everyone’s in trouble. And Studio A is going to have to pay a ton of money to Studio B to shut them up and let the movie come out, and then you will be blamed.

John: I think, Craig, you’re envisioning a scenario which you’re taking stuff from the other thing. You’re recognizing that there’s things that are going to be naturally lifted from that first script into that second script. I think I’m seeing this in a different way. It’s like, we wrote a baseball movie for Studio A and now they’re hiring us to write a baseball movie for Studio B, do I need to disclose I’ve ever written a baseball movie before? No, I don’t think so.

Craig: Well, yes, if it’s that broad, of course, no. I wrote a comedy for this [unintelligible 00:42:16], I can write a comedy for you, a sports baseball movie, I could write 12 baseball movies. Ron Shelton has written dozens of sports movies, but this sounds a little more specific. The thing that made me nervous was when they said jokes. When you’re talking about stuff that is a unique expression in fixed form, you’re now talking about material that is copyrighted, and then you do have a problem.

Furthermore, people don’t need to have an airtight case to sue, they just need a good enough reason to sue. I would be concerned enough to just say, “Actually, we want to be fully forward about this. We did this, we can’t use any of that. What we can do, however, are things that aren’t copyrighted, theme, ideas, of course.” Personally, I would disclose it. I don’t know who their lawyer is, but if your lawyer says, “No, don’t disclose it.” They’re their lawyer, they know better than I do, but I would.

John: The reality is, as Craig says, you can get sued for any reason.

Craig: Sure.

John: Ron Shelton could get sued if there’s someone saying like, “This baseball movie you wrote for us is too much like the baseball movie you wrote for somebody,” or something like that. It can happen. It’s not likely to happen.

Craig: Every time something happens that’s successful, somebody sues somebody. That’s inevitable, but most of the time, 99% of the time, it’s just dumb phishing expositions that get chucked out of court. You and I have reported so many times on these things. Not once, not once has anybody won one of these things, but that’s different than a studio suing a studio. That’s a very different thing. When studios sue studios, they have a case.

John: They do.

Craig: And that means there’s going to be some sort of settlement, and the closer it is to that moment where you are going to suffer tremendous financial loss if your movie cannot actually be shown in theaters on the weekend you’ve booked, you’re going to pay.

John: Can you think of any examples where a studio has sued another studio over –?

Craig: I don’t remember a specific case of a major studio suing a major studio openly. I think there have been situations where major studios have called major studios and said, “We’re going to sue you, let’s start talking about this before we file an injunction, and so forth.” But Major studios have sued small studios repeatedly, repeatedly.

It’s because smaller studios, and when I say– I’m not talking about independent studios making art films like A24, I’m talking about, for lack of a better term, schlockmeisters, who are selling rip-offs anyway.

Well, you can rip off to a point, and then when you get into that area of intellectual property, that’s when they come up for you and that’s what they get you, and they typically win.

John: Let’s try one more question here. This is from Michelle. She’s writing, “I would love to hear more about the pros and cons of the cost-plus model and how it’s calculated. I’ve heard general discussions about the lack of residuals, but I don’t understand how the math maths. Is it more money upfront? Does this help shows with modest viewership, but hurt big hits? If Netflix takes the risk on whether it will be a big hit, is it helpful to the average show or new writers? Does this affect writers differently from actors? It sounds like the industry was hoping that Netflix would change its model, but didn’t. What does someone like Shonda do?”

Craig: Well, Shonda is certainly in a different situation because Shonda is getting paid an enormous amount of money just to be there at all. The cost-plus model basically says, “We’re going to give you the amount of money required to make the show, and then we’re going to give you a certain amount on top of that to put in your pocket, and that’s the last time we’re going to pay you.”

Cost-plus models is– a lot of general contractors will use this. They come to say, “Okay, here’s the budget for your renovations. It’s going to cost $300,000. We’re going to charge you $350,000 and you’re never going to see a penny more. Then that’s it. Unless you change something significantly, that’s what we’re going to be.” Rather than coming to you in the middle and going, “The price of wood just went up.” The problem with the cost-plus model is that it limits the upside dramatically, and it’s particularly punishing on those runaway hits.

The question is, is cost-plus good for us? Well, if Netflix wants to do it, then the answer is no. If a corporation is really dead set on imposing a financial model on artists, then it’s not good for artists. Otherwise, why would they want to do it? Of course, it’s beneficial for them. Of course, in the long run, they’ve run the math and they know they’re going to save money. It’s the question of gambling.

Like, “Okay, we can let everybody play these slot machines and pay one person a million dollars every week when they hit a jackpot. Or we can let everyone play these slot machines to guarantee that almost all of them will walk away making $10 and we win.” Cost-plus is not anything that anybody in the creative community wants. The agents don’t want it, the managers, nobody wants it, except for people who are thinking to themselves, “This is going to be a loser.” Then, sure. Like, “I think this is bad. We got away with it. We’ll take whatever the–”

John: Yes. It has perverse incentives, so there’s no incentive to make something amazing because the success on the streamer does not reward you. It can reward you with future projects down the road, it’s only your own reputation that’s going to succeed or fail because of it. That’s the basic complaint against this cost-plus model.

Now, when Netflix is first starting out, I can understand why people would take those deals and why it makes those deals because we didn’t know what is success. We have no idea what success is. Is that backend going to be meaningful at all? Those first couple of years, I get why we’re going to overpay people basically and do it that way.

Craig: Yes. We did– I’m not sure how it’s working out so far, but the writer’s guild in the wake of the strike and then the contract that ensued did get some kind of method for success-based payments in streaming. They’re hard to hit. The success has to be really big. My guess is we probably haven’t even started to generate enough data to see how that’s working out.

John: I think also by breaking through that seal, it also means that superstar actors and directors, and other folks can start to get paid some backend that’s independent of residuals based on a huge success.

Craig: What Netflix has started to do is create a sports-style model of free agency where what you do is reward people that are creating things that are very popular with an enormous amount of money just here. Like boom, here, Shonda, boom, here. Ryan Murphy, boom, here, Rian Johnson, boom. Then everybody else is just kind of, it doesn’t matter whether you do well or not, that individual project, whatever money they make from that, they take that money.

Then you’re just waiting around for them to go, “Okay, we’ve decided now you’re so valuable to us, we’re going to give you this big dump truck of money here. Boom.” That is not helpful for most people and it doesn’t seem like it’s sustainable anyway. I think Netflix has probably left the era of that kind of payment. I don’t think we’re going to be seeing the billion-dollar deals or the $500 million deals anymore from them. I don’t think they can sustain that. I think they know that.

Then the question is, how do we maybe start breaking through more on that cost-plus thing? What it comes down to is basically whether or not other streamers can effectively compete to the level that they have the financial security to lure people back. HBO has made an investment in me. That’s great, but Max is not the size of Netflix. They can’t do that with 12 other people. That’s where it’s gotten interesting. I don’t know how this will all work out other than to say that agents seem to always win in the long run. Let’s see if they can beat Netflix. I don’t know.

John: It is time for our one cool things. I have two cool things this week.

Craig: Okay.

John: First off, Craig, do you like Tower Defense games? Do you know the genre Tower Defense?

Craig: I do, and I don’t.

John: The general idea of Tower Defense is that you are trying to protect some area, generally the center of your map and there are invaders. You’re trying to set up obstacles in their way and towers that will shoot them down before they–

Craig: Very anxiety based.

John: Yes, anxiety based. I’m playing a new one called Isle of Arrows, which is not actually brand new, but it’s new to me. It’s roguelike in the sense that after every round, you have cards, you can draw it and you can set like, “Okay, now I can set a path. I can set a tower.” You’re really constrained in how you can do it. It’s also roguelike in the sense of this is too hard, so you’re like, “Why can’t I win?” Then you realize, oh, that’s actually–

Craig: That’s the point.

John: That’s the point, is you get better. You accumulate better cards along the way. I’m enjoying that a lot. The other thing I’m enjoying a lot is this book by Tony Tulathimutte called Rejection. It’s a collection of four or five short stories all on a theme of a character who has a worldview and about how the world should treat them, and they are wrong. It pays off in great ways. It reminded me of our conversation last week at the live show. We were talking with Rachel Kondo about how the ideal short story has that sense of surprise and inevitability. These stories are delightfully that.

Craig: Oh, I love that.

John: It’s really fun. It’s described as a comedy and it’s like the stories are you win so much that it’s almost not a comedy, but they are very well done.

Craig: Cringe comedy.

John: Cringe comedy, yes.

Craig: Cringe comedy.

John: Yes.

Craig: My one cool thing this week is a documentary series, I believe there are four, I don’t know, say five episodes, possibly six. It’s on aforementioned Netflix and it is called Mr. McMahon.

John: I don’t know, what is this?

Craig: Mr. McMahon is the documentary about Vince McMahon, the Impresario of Professional Wrestling WWF, WWE, all its various names.

John: Let’s get ready to rumble. The trademark phrase.

Craig: Well, let’s get ready to rumble. Yes, some of that was in boxing and in UFC, which they ended up buying. I’m guessing you didn’t watch much professional wrestling.

John: I did not. Yes, of course.

Craig: Like Hulk Hogan and all that nonsense. Enormous business. Huge. What it is a study in is a– well, I’m just going to go out on a limp here. He seems like a sociopath. What he locked into for the first time made me go, “I think now I understand the whole Trump thing.” Obviously not in support of Trump, but rather trying to figure out why. Why is everybody falling for this? Vince McMahon lays out this remarkable point of view that entertainment and engagement with people comes down to causing real emotion in them. Disgust, hatred, rejection, betrayal, those work just as well, if not better, than positive emotions.

In fact, what he did was, as his business was being challenged by another wrestling organization, he began to create himself as a character in WWF called Mr. McMahon who was a villain. Did everything he could to make people hate him. The more they hated him, the more intuit they got. And it is pretty startling to watch how brilliant and terrifying he is. The context for the whole thing is that all the interviews with him and all the interviews with everybody else occurred before, I believe it was February of this year, when Vince McMahon, it was revealed that he’s under investigation for sex trafficking.

The specific allegations are horrendous. Horrendous. This, by the way, not the first time that he had been accused of sexual assault or coercing employees or anything. This was like the 19th time. These allegations are so lurid and barf-worthy, and you realize, okay, actually, he is a villain. Man, he encapsulated something about American culture and how to get people to get into you that is so horrifying and insightful. Well worth watching. You don’t need to know anything about wrestling to watch it. It’s a slow-motion horror movie.

John: Maybe not this week, but another week after.

Craig: Yes. Let’s see maybe if next week’s–

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Troy. This week it came from Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. We get so many great outros, but we always love more. Please send them through. ask@johnaugust is also where you can send questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. You can find links there for our live show, which is December 6th, and for this Alpha Birds play thing that we’re doing in Culver City.

It’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for a weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have t-shirts and hoodies and such. They’re great. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments. The one we’re about to record on things we learned during the pandemic that we are still doing. Craig, thanks for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Okay, Craig. There was a point as the pandemic was descending where everything changed. We started staying at home, and we’re no longer staying at home. We were out socializing. We were seeing folks at the Austin Film Festival. I want to talk about the things that changed and stuck, and things that we’re still doing post pandemic. I’ll start with Zoom. Zoom was not a thing we were using before. You and I were Skyping before.

Craig: Oh, yes. Stupid Skype. Zoom, a conspiracy minded person might imagine that the Zoom Corporation invented and released COVID-19 into the wild because it came along right around when we needed it. Prior to that, video conferencing existed. No one liked it. No one.

John: No one.

Craig: No one used it. It’s a little bit like the way no one really likes calling each other on the phone. That’s the way video conferencing was. Then suddenly, Zoom came along and that’s all we did all the time with everyone. I don’t know what it was about Zoom, but that’s what happened.

John: Before the pandemic, there were a couple of WJ meetings where I had to call in to it. It was this system called BlueJeans, the absolute worst.

Craig: I remember BlueJean, yes.

John: All just like audio conference calls, which were absolutely the worst. There was something about Zoom, which just, it all worked. You could actually have conversations that were real-time because you could see people’s faces. You could not talk over them. I’ve never met Tina Fey, but I met her on Zoom in the first week of the Pandemic.

Craig: Obviously, we played D&D on Zoom. One of the things that happened in the Pandemic was we went from a difficult to schedule once a month D&D game to a regular weekly D&D game.

John: It was great.

Craig: Awesome, and we still, because so many of us are scattered around. Maybe I’m off in Canada working on the show or somebody’s somewhere else on vacation. A lot of times we still Zoom, and that works. So I think, yes.

John: We also moved over to Roll20, a virtual tabletop. Rather than looking at a physical map, we are all looking at maps on our screens. Even now that we’re back in-person playing, we’re still looking at Roll20 because it’s just better.

Craig: It’s just better. We all sit there in the same room together, but with our laptops. That is much better. That has changed. And of course, working from home, which I think a lot of businesses now are really struggling with. Somebody told me– I won’t say which company or what department, I’ll just say somebody said that there’s a department in their company, and a big one, where no one really came back. Everybody was like, “We like working at home.”

This person said that department just doesn’t function because there is no cohesion whatsoever. No one knows what anyone’s doing, but everybody suspects that the other person’s doing nothing. The only work that happens are meetings, which is just vaporous nonsense. Nothing actually gets done because you’re not sitting in the room looking across at somebody saying, “I am disappointed in this, make this better.” I understand why companies are saying, “Hey, sorry, you got to come in.”

John: Megan, when she was working for me as my assistant and as the Scriptnotes producer, she came in every day. Then during the pandemic, of course, she was not coming in, so she was on Zoom. Then as Drew got hired on to work this job, we realized it’s actually better that he is not here every day. Drew’s like three days a week and other things are on Zoom because the rest of the team is all on Zoom. Recognizing that when some people are in person in a room and some people are on Zoom, that’s a mess.

Craig: That’s the worst. We really try and avoid that. For instance, in prep and production, we’ll have some big meetings. The big production meeting, there’s like 50 people there. Seven of them are remote because they’re scouting or they’re off doing whatever. Well, 19 people get into a boardroom and then the seven people are on a big screen there. That’s the only way to get it done. Is just, what we can’t do is have everybody in their own office on Zoom or two people together sharing. None of that works. It is impressive how video conferencing was a zero, and now it’s just this accepted part of life.

John: Another thing that changed a lot was Keynote for me. Keynote or any slide decks because I wasn’t doing those at all before, I knew what Keynote was. I could do it if I needed to. I’d done some talks with Keynote, but the idea of building something in Keynote to show something for a pitch or for a meeting, which is now going to be on Zoom, was suddenly so useful and practical. Not for every meeting or every pitch do I need to do something, but for a lot of them I was, and so I was going out pitching around town with a Keynote.

This project, I’m doing. This video game, I’m working on, the proposal for the proof of concept, this is what the game is. I built that out as a deck. It was super useful. Then yesterday, I needed to show something about the scoring mechanism, what that was. It’s like, oh, it makes much more sense for me to do that in a Keynote than to try to type it out because I can actually visually show that thing. Pre-pandemic, I wasn’t doing that and now I feel like it’s maybe 5% of my job, but a significant portion of my job is building and running a Keynote.

Craig: I think it’s a great way for people, we’ve talked about this before, who may not necessarily communicate best in a steady verbal flow, but rather communicate better in an organized fashion connected to slides in a deck. If you are the person that just loves to do the talking, do the talking. Don’t be afraid. “Where’s your deck? We’re not going to hire a room without a deck.” Now, if you’re awesome, then believe me, it’ll be fine. The existence of that and the delivery mechanism, is harder to do, I imagine in person. To sit there and turn your laptop around. It may be awkward. On Zoom you just hear like, “So I’m going to go ahead and share my screen.”

John: Here’s what I always say. It’s like people now who like, listen to this podcast who are in meetings with like, “So I’m going to share my screen now.” When I do that, you’re going to get small. Just make sure if you have a question, just speak up because I can–

Craig: You’re going to get small. We’re used to all of that now.

The thing about the pandemic that didn’t stick around, I think really is a sense of paranoia in public. Which is different than a reasonable concern about yourself. If you have a compromised immune system or you think maybe you have been sick, or you live with somebody who really can’t afford to get ill, most normal people aren’t going to give you a hard time. Yes, they’re idiots in fricking Mississippi, like “get your mask off.” Most people are like, you get on a plane, there’s one or two people wearing masks. No one gives them crap but most people don’t.

John: Yes. Mike and I are sometimes there’s one or two people on a plane with a mask, and the calculation I do is like, how much would it suck to get sick at that destination? What is my risk tolerance here? I will tend to do it in a crowded airport when I’m on the plane. Once the plane is actually up and running and the air filters are going, I feel pretty good taking my mask off. What I do notice is that if I’m feeling sick, I will default to going for a test just because I don’t want to spread it around or be the problem.

Craig: I think testing for COVID is something that is permanent now. Whereas nobody ever tested to see if they had a cold. Occasionally, you would test to confirm that you had the flu, but really only when Tamiflu came around. Prior to that, it didn’t matter. You’re sick. Probably the flu, nothing you can do. Rest and drink lots of fluids.

John: Now that there actually are solutions to some of these diseases, that’s what made a difference.

Craig: Then it’s worth testing. But for COVID, first thing you do, and it’s this strange thing where you don’t feel good and then you take a test, and it’s not COVID, and you’re like, “Awesome.” No, not necessarily. You’re still sick.

John: I got a shitty goal. It was a hassle to get through.

Craig: You’re going to make other people sick if they’re not aware. That strange COVID exception still exists. Testing still exists.

John: If there’s a person you’ve only talked to on Zoom, have you met them?

Craig: There is a person I’ve only talked to on Zoom.

John: Would you say that you’ve met them and you know them?

Craig: I know them very well. I’m thinking particularly of Mark Halpin, who is one of the best puzzle constructors on the planet. He lives in Kentucky, just south of the Indiana border. He teaches, I believe, theatric production design or stage design at the University of Cincinnati, I want to say. He’s a genius. I have been on a gazillion Zooms with him as our puzzle crew. Either works on puzzles together, works on puzzles he’s created that he’s just watching us, or we had a crew that played a lot of Codenames a lot of Decrypto together. I feel like I know him very well and I have not met him in person. It’s been many years.

John: There’re executives who I’ve been on a project with like two years, never met him in person.

Craig: Well that’s a delight.

John: It’s how it goes though sometimes. I think I’m okay with that in a way that I wouldn’t be okay with that on a phone call. Here’s the other thing I would say is like, when people will have a four-person phone call, why is this not a Zoom? That drives me crazy.

Craig: There are some people that still want to do the conference call.

John: Yes. I think about Zoom, it’s like you’re going to a destination. It’s like you’re going into a room and everyone’s going to be in that room at a certain point in time versus like, a call is like, someone’s joining the call.

Craig: Because it’s–

John: Be in a middle conversation.

Craig: No one knows when to speak. Two people start talking once then stop, then start together again, then stop.

John: “Now you go.”

Craig: Then there’s always one person who’s somewhere noisy and doesn’t understand how to mute their phone. It’s just like– and I’ve always hated conference calls. They always just seemed awful. Zooms feel so easy. If you’re somewhere where you don’t want to be seen, just turn your camera off.

John: Totally. The last thing I’ll say is that correlates to that is there’s definitely been situations where this Zoom could have been not just an email, like a text message. It was literally like, “Oh my God, I can’t believe we scheduled this thing because you had 30 seconds of information to give me.”

Craig: It could have been an email.

John: At least I didn’t have to drive to Disney for it.

Craig: At least you didn’t. Can you remember driving in traffic? Didn’t know necessarily there’s two ways to get to Disney. I’m going to pick this one. I think, oh, picked wrong.

John: You picked wrong.

Craig: Oh my God, this is horrible. Get there. Then someone’s 20 minutes late, then you sit down, then they say something and you’re like, what? No, this. They’re like, “Oh, great. Okay. Meeting over,” and then oh my God.

John: I’m trying to think, have I been on every studio lot since the pandemic? Have I been on Sony’s lot? I’m not sure.

Craig: I’ve been on Sony’s lot. I don’t think I’ve been on the Fox lot since the pandemic. I’ve definitely been on Universal and Warner Brothers.

John: I’ve been to Fox.

Craig: Oh, and Disney. I’ve been in Disney. No Fox. I haven’t been to Fox. It’s weird. What is Fox lot?

John: Fox is Fox.

Craig: Is it?

John: It was Ghosty before the pandemic.

Craig: Yes. I don’t actually know what goes on on the Fox lot anymore. I know that they still make the Apes movies. The Simpsons folks are there. I think the Family Guy people are there.

John: Have you been to the Amazon MGM offices?

Craig: Not yet. No.

John: The absolute craziest places I’ve been because like there’s not– so it’s the old Culver lots, so it’s Gone With the Windy kind of lot. They have some old bungalow buildings, but they also have these big modern things. The meeting I went there for, I parked in this garage. Sure, fine. Whatever. They’re like, “Okay, go to this thing. There’s a bungalow.” I check in an outdoor place, then check in an indoor place in the bungalow, and they’re like, oh, someone will come and get you.

This was a scenario where I’m the only person in this room, but there’s a security guard who’s sitting there. She’s with a little iPad and I think I cough, but like, not in a COVID way. Just clear my throat cough. She takes out a bottle of Lysol and sprays the air around her.

Craig: That may be about her.

John: That may be about her.

Craig: It can’t possibly be policy at MGM.

John: I don’t think it was a policy at MGM, but then a person comes to get me and then takes me into one of the crazy glass buildings. Then up through a magical elevator. It was weird.

Craig: Yes, I do remember going at some point, but I don’t know if it’s still the MGM offices or not. I remember it was in a glass skyscraper building.

John: It felt Amazon in a way where it was a very secure fire doors.

Craig: Yes. Somewhat sterile.

John: Yes.

Craig: The HBO offices — tragedy. I’m just going to go — listen. I don’t care. I don’t think I go to those offices very often, so I can’t imagine that I’m going to get in trouble for this. We’ll find out. The old HBO offices were in this Warren in a building in Santa Monica.

John: I remember that.

Craig: You couldn’t find anything. An assistant always had to guide you to the bathroom. There was like, “And here’s a map to find your way back.” It was the hallways and there were, but, but. Had a little bit of character. People had offices with doors that could close.

John: Nice.

Craig: There were meeting rooms. Now, they’re in this monstrosity in Culver City. It is an open plan. It is the most open plan I’ve ever seen in my life. Most people are in cubicles. Then the people that have earned offices, it’s basically all the doors are glass, all the walls are glass. They can all look into each other’s eyes all the time.

John: Classic UTA, yes.

Craig: Horrible, UTA-ish. If you want to make a phone call and you don’t have an office, they have little booths that you can go into. It’s almost like they should just call it a dignity booth, which is meaning you have no dignity. Now, everybody knows you’re on a phone call and you’re sitting in there in this weird booth, which again is a glass door, I think. It’s just horrible. I don’t know why opaque doors, they’re important. Sometimes you need to close a door.

John: Yes. Blow your nose, yes, whatever.

Craig: I don’t know. I’ve only been there a couple of times because normally, Zoom, phone calls. It’s a weird place.

John: Yes. I went in for a meeting with Range, the management company that’s out in Santa Monica. It reminded me of a super, super, super high-end airport lounge. This is cool. This is nice but it was like an airport lounge. Everyone was just on laptops around.

Craig: It’s horrible.

John: I’m like, okay.

Craig: It’s horrible.

John: I had a meeting in one conference room.

Craig: I hate it. If I had a business that required lots of employees and a big office space, I would do the normal thing. Just normal. What’s wrong with that? Just here in office, close the door. Yes, there would be some people do work in cubicles. I understand the need for that space. But yeah, it wouldn’t be like this horror show of like this forced, “Oh, yes, we don’t have walls here.” Yes, we do.

John: Yes. You wonder why people don’t want to go back to work.

Craig: Exactly. I don’t want to go back to work because it’s creepy. Because I’m never alone. Because I don’t have a moment to close my door and cry.

John: Sometimes you need to cry.

Craig: I see people crying in their cars all the time in LA. Have you noticed it?

John: I haven’t noticed that much. I can believe it, but I haven’t actually seen it.

Craig: The car has become the place people can cry because they can’t cry at work anymore.

John: Yes.

Craig: So sad.

John: It’s a very emotional episode.

Craig: Yes.

John: All right. Thanks, Craig.

Craig: Thank you, John.

Links:

  • Scriptnotes LIVE! December 6th at Dynasty Typewriter
  • AlphaBirds Game Night at Village Well
  • The Big Squeeze: Why Everyone in Hollywood Feels Stuck by Mia Gallupo for the Hollywood Reporter
  • ‘Development is Wage Theft’: Pilot Season Death Morphs Into Year-Round Hell by Elaine Low for The Ankler
  • Isle of Arrows
  • Rejection by Tony Tulathimutte
  • Mr. McMahon on Netflix
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram, Twitter and Mastodon
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, with special help this week from Chris Csont and Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 663: Live in Austin 2024, Transcript

November 21, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John: Hey, this is John.

Craig: And this is Craig.

John: Today’s episode was recorded last night at the Austin Film Festival, and we enjoy doing live shows. It’s fun to have a big crowd come out.

Craig: Yes, and we did have a big crowd.

John: We did have a big crowd. Whenever we do one of these live shows, Matthew Chilelli, our brave editor, has to go through and try to make it make sense, for what was in the room versus what you’re hearing in your ears. Last night’s episode and the episode you’re about to listen to is probably a little bit more confusing than other things. That’s why we have this explanatory introductory note. Craig, do you want to talk about the lights? We’ll try to cut out and mention the lights, but the lights were weird.

Craig: Yes, or now that people know, we can just leave that in and they can experience our confusion in real time. We’re in the Stephen Austin Hotel in Austin, and it’s like a ballroom. Lots of big lights, chandelier-y lights that are set for a certain mood. I guess the mood this night was podcast. At some point, they just started changing. They got really bright and then they went really dark, and then they got back to normal. Then five minutes later they went really yellow and then really orange. I honestly thought I was losing my mind.

John: It was like if you’ve been in Caesar’s Palace where it has the fake sky and it changes, but if it changed really quickly, it was jarring.

Craig: Somebody hit the button that says like, “wedding fun.” You will occasionally hear me say, “What the F with the lights.” It was funny. We all enjoyed it in the room. You at home I’m sure will go, “Why are they all laughing suddenly about nothing?” It’s the lights.

John: It’s the lights. Last night was also the first game in the World Series and we’ll cut out some of the mentions of it, but they’re an ongoing runner.

Craig: While the show’s being recorded, the last three innings of game one of the World Series between my beloved Yankees in the cursed Los Angeles Dodgers was occurring. Matt Selman, who is the showrunner of The Simpsons, is there in the third row. He and I are making eye contact and I’ve got my phone occasionally. The thing about baseball is almost nothing happens until something happens. You can just look at it graphically. You’re not really watching the game. At one point the Yankees took the lead and then, they lost upon a Grand Slam home run. The worst possible way to lose. Anyway, you may hear some ups and downs in there. Some confusing baseball updates as you hear this episode, the World Series is ongoing and my great hope is that the Yankees are winning.

John: In this episode, we have incredible guests. We have Justin Marks and Rachel Kondo who did Shōgun, which is great. It’s great to talk with the two of them. We have Megan Amram and Susan Soon He Stanton talking about working on their respective shows. We have a game show segment, which kind of worked? It was a very fun premise. We might put some part of that in there.

Craig: I enjoy the hell out of it personally. In a meta way, you’ll see why.

John: Of course, for our premium members, there’s a bonus segment. The bonus segment is the questions that come at the end of the night, Craig. You always do your standard disclaimer about what a question is. Still, sometimes people will come up to the mic, with questions that are not questions.

Craig: This particular one, if you’re a premium member, you’ll get to enjoy one question that was a question, but one of the weirdest ones we’ve ever gotten.

John: I want to thank again, the Austin Film Festival for having us here. We want to thank Matthew Chilelli for his brave editing. Drew Marquardt, Chris Csont, and Megana Rao who all helped out with the night last night and enjoy this live show from Austin Film Festival. One last thing we do mention at the very end, there is going to be a live show in Los Angeles, December 6th, and we have some great guests. When you get this episode, the tickets may already be on sale. If you’re a premium member, you’ll get an email about that ahead of time.

Craig: Of course, as one might expect, there is plenty of bad language in this episode. Earmuffs for the children.

John: Fantastic.

[music]

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

Craig: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You are listening to a very live episode in Austin of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and-

Audience: Things that are interesting to screenwriters.

John: So good.

Craig: John?

John: Yes.

Craig: Two middle-aged white men on a stage in front of a large crowd. Should we Elon Musk jump together?

John: 100%.

[laughter]

John: Now, Craig, it wasn’t the last time, but it was one of our previous live Scriptnotes here in Austin. We got into a little bit of trouble. Do you remember that? You were roommates with Ted Cruz?

Craig: Yes.

John: You’re not a big fan of Ted Cruz.

Craig: No.

John: No

[laughter]

John: We had a very special person introduce us on that episode. Who was that person?

Craig: That was Beto O’Rourke.

John: That’s right. We had Beto O’Rourke.

[applause]

Craig: Well, don’t clap that loud. He lost.

John: It turns out that we got a little bit of trouble for that because it was political.

Craig: I may get in trouble again tonight.

John: Well, we’re getting in a little bit of trouble, so I guess we can say why we’re running a little bit late. Ladies and gentlemen. Welcome Kamala Harris.

[cheering]

John: No, that it didn’t work. It didn’t work, no.

Craig: She’s not like Beetlejuice. You can’t just summon her.

John: We do, we have no political guest. We have incredible, non-political guests.

Craig: We have one now. Before we get into that, I did see, somebody in a Dodger’s hat out there. Fuck you.

[laughter]

Craig: The Yankees are currently up two to one still. Did you just give me a thumbs down?

[laughter]

John: No.

Craig: Your friends are disowning you in front of me.

John: Craig, it could have been an accidental thumb down, you know how on Zoom sometimes?

Craig: No, that was incredibly-

John: You’ll do something, suddenly it’ll show thumbs down.

Craig: It was so vigorous. Feel free to interrupt our show and tell me if the score changes. Thank you.

John: Craig this afternoon we did an escape room. I would rate making movies in television high, of things we like. Playing D&D is also very high.

Craig: Higher.

John: Higher, yes. Escape rooms. Where do they fall?

Craig: No, right up in there.

John: They’re right up in there. It was a good experience.

Craig: It’s a fun time.

John: What do we need to teach our audience about escape rooms that they might be useful for them tonight?

Craig: To escape from this room?

John: Not this, but general life skills you’ve learned from escape rooms.

Craig: Because that was menacing. Well, communication, John.

John: Communication.

Craig: Communication.

John: That’s really what it comes down to. Organization as well.

Craig: Also, trying to suppress your frustration with other people.

John: 100%.

Craig: Especially when they’re doing things wrong.

John: I feel like every notes meeting is basically an escape room. You’re looking for, “What do I need to do to get out of this safely without dying?” You’re listening. You’re taking in all the information, you’re trying to process it.

Craig: Trying to not let your frustration get the best of you.

John: Absolutely. Not try to break everything in the process.

Craig: Including their faces.

John: Indeed. That is the goal. We have some guests tonight who have a lot of experience going through that development process.

Craig: Yes. Segue man.

John: I am the segue man. We should start with them right away because we’ve reached the end of Drew’s first card, which says, “John and Craig Banter.”

[laughter]

Craig: Thanks, Drew.

John: Thank you Drew.

Craig: So thorough. Legitimately it says that.

John: She is a screenwriter, producer, acclaimed short story writer who received her MFA from right here at the University of Texas, Austin.

Craig: Woo-hoo.

John: He– Tell us who he is.

Craig: Well I better get my glasses out. I don’t need those. He is a writer, producer, and showrunner who created television series such as Counterpart, which if you have not seen as fucking awesome. Sorry. Language warning. He was nominated for an Academy Award for his work on Top Gun: Maverick, which, you’ve seen it.

[laughter]

Craig: Now together they created Shōgun, which won 18 Emmys, including Outstanding Drama Series. They also created two children, eh, and are also married. Please welcome Rachel Kondo and Justin Marks.

[applause]

Craig: Rowdy, rowdy crowd. We are so excited to talk to you about your show, about what you’re able to achieve here and accomplish, but I want to wind us back to how this even began. Because, as I understand it, it wasn’t like you went in and said like, “I want to do Shōgun.” They came to you and you had to be convinced.

Justin: Well, it was a really long book.

Craig: It’s a long book. The Door Stop they gave you.

John: I love that book.

Justin: I didn’t know they sent us, well they sent me, I guess the book.

Rachel: Let’s be clear. They sent Justin the tome.

Justin: Well, no, first they told me about it and asked if I had read it. Unlike some friends, I had never read it.

John: But you said yes in the room, right?

Craig: Absolutely.

Justin: Yes. “Yes, I’ve read it. Yes, I’ve read it twice,” is what I said in the room. “Just so I can remember, can you send that book again to my house this weekend?”

Craig: A quick refresher.

Justin: It came, it arrived, and it was definitely like a hard pass on Friday afternoon with 1,200 pages in front of me, but I left it on the coffee table and Rachel picked it up.

Rachel: Luckily I was languishing as a truly highly successful short story writer.

Craig: Nice.

Rachel: You know, $40 a year. Paying all the bills.

Craig: The dream could be yours.

Rachel: It could, and that book was on our coffee table, just at that moment when I realized, $40 might not pay the bills.

[laughter]

John: You had young kids.

Craig: Neither one of you had read Shōgun?

Justin: No.

Craig: Had either one of you seen my beloved and corny as fuck 1980?

Rachel: 1980.

Justin: We did. The year of my birth.

Rachel: Justin was born. Not me, Justin.

Craig: Then you didn’t see it?

Justin: Yes.

Craig: I was nine.

[laughter]

Craig: No, that’s okay.

Justin: It’s shocking.

Craig: I know I’m old. It was like, it burned its way into my brain. Then I got the book out of the library and I read it over and over and over. I was obsessed with it. I’m just fascinated by the fact that you guys were like Shōgun initiates, which I think is amazing.

Justin: I think that there was like a silhouette of Shōgun that was in our head.

Rachel: In your head.

Justin: In my head. Which was a guy who looks like me wearing clothes that don’t belong to cultures that look like his. I think I was very quick to judge a book by its cover in this case. In truth, it’s actually a fantastic book. It’s just this in addition to everything else, an incredible page turner, but also really important for where we are today and had a lot more to say than I otherwise thought. Which is what happens when you read a book.

Craig: Let that be a lesson all of you.

John: Well, talk to us the process of like, so they’ve sent you this book, but you did have to go in and say like, “This is how I would do this.” What was that conversation like? Was it a presentation? Was it a pitch? Did you come in with decks? What was the way of describing, “This is what the story is to me.” What did that look like?

Justin: Why are you looking at me? I got to jump in.

Craig: They’re so married.

Rachel: We’re so married. Is this is a podcast?

Craig: I hope so.

John: This is a podcast for sure. This is a podcast where people are obsessed about–

Rachel: It’s a live?

John: Yes.

Rachel: It’s alive. It’s not dead. It’s alive. It’s a live podcast that speaks to screenwriters. I don’t want to give off the idea that my participation is a normal thing. I went into FX saying, “Hello.”

Justin: “My quote is $20.”

Craig: My quote is $20?

Rachel: I demand $45 a year. My memory is just that somehow I laid down on their couch with my head. We were just talking.

Justin: I wasn’t here for this meeting. What happened? To go in at the very early stage was just a conversation with them about, what were the feelings on it. For us, after some discussion and a lot of reading, it was really just a conversation about, “I think this book is great and I don’t think we need to change anything about this book.” We said one thing which turned out to be be entirely untrue, that our only approach to it was going to be to take this book and to invert the gaze to tell it from the Japanese side, which in truth the book does for you.

I also don’t think that that’s really something that it turns out we could do with the two of us and a room full of predominantly Asian American, but American writers doing it. What we could do, which we had a lot of fun doing, was to subvert the gaze, was to take what you think this kind of story is going to look like, and just to turn it on its head every chance we could get. You think you know what’s going to happen when this guy shows up in Japan and here it is. Then just to play with it and play with it very much at that character’s expense, but to have fun with it.

Craig: You guys, look, it’s a fantastic show. It was riveting. Hats off to Hulu also for putting out basically one episode a week, which I don’t know why everyone doesn’t do, it seems like a totally obvious thing to do.

Justin: It’s like the medium should be done that way.

Craig: Weirdly. We should do episodes once a week so as to create a cultural conversation for everyone. It did, and I’m just curious when, because you mentioned the book is a door stop. It is, it’s huge. I’m wondering, like a snake with a mouse. How do you break this thing apart just structurally to go, “Okay.” I suspect you guys didn’t start with, “Right. This is going to be this many episodes. Now. How do we fit this many episodes?” You broke it down. How do you break down something that size?

Justin: Well, we did know it was 10.

Craig: How did you know it was 10?

Justin: Because we were told it was 10.

[laughter]

Craig: The premise of my question is wrong. Moving on.

John: Also the premise was this is a miniseries, so this is going to be a limited 10 episodes miniseries, that it wasn’t going to be an endless–

Craig: They told you 10?

Justin: Yes.

Craig: You guys were like, “Okay.”

Justin: Sure.

Craig: Then you read the book?

Justin: Yes. “That’ll be $20 per episode.”

Craig: Wow. New question, this is way more interesting to me, is how do you break something down that size and make sure it fits into 10 buckets? How do you do that?

Justin: This is where, in truth, I think your short fiction background came into play.

Craig: I’ll give you $40 if it’ll help you answer.

Rachel: We’ll tell you what we came to in hindsight, but it’s not like any of us were going at this saying, “Yes, we know how to do this with 10 episodes.” No, we didn’t know shit. Can you say that you can on podcast?

Craig: Yes.

Rachel: Justin brings his sensibility. I bring my sensibility. My sensibility, as we all know, is short fiction. I don’t know how to do this, take a 1,200 page book and meter it out so that it feels like a story that sweeps you and carries you. Who knows how to do that? I don’t know how to do that.

Justin: I know how to do that.

John: He’s done that before.

Craig: One of you needs to know how to do that.

Rachel: All I knew was that I like a story to feel like it has a beginning, a middle, and an end. I like to be brought to a place that ends in the exact collision between surprise and inevitability.

Craig: I love that. That’s what we’re all looking for, isn’t it?

Rachel: Yes, it is.

Craig: Just to define it clearly, you’re talking about those moments where people are surprised by what happens and then immediately after go, “But of course that’s what happens”?

Rachel: But of course. Those are the two feelings that you aim for. I was like, “Shit, I have to write a screenplay.” I was thinking, “We’ll do that with a screenplay.” I was doing that with short stories. Why don’t we do that every screenplay, try to find the thrust of a narrative that can feel like that feeling at the end of a great short story.

Justin: It starts with the information in the first episode, because I think that we had to make a decision. The first episode, it’s a 1,200 page book. I would say the first episode covers about 400 of those pages.

Craig: You guys did a very good job there.

Justin: My metaphor, I guess is that it’s a pie, or a pizza. If you pull a slice of pizza, you have to be able to say like, “From this slice of pizza, I can tell you what all the other slices probably look like, because there’s pepperonis, and onions on this slice. I assume that they’re going to be on every slice. I can’t tell you where on the pizza they’re going to be, but it’s going to be like that.” I think you need to know in the first episode, this is a show with these characters, and this is the kind of story that’s going to be told where it is close ended in and of itself. It’s going to have, as Rachel says, that first, second, and third act, but it’s also going to bring these people together.

We knew we had to get 400 pages in before we could finally bring Mariko, Blackthorne and Toranaga together, so that became the first flag. Then everything else that followed just became about how do we just cohesively do it. Then, as we’re in the writer’s room and building it and building it, I was just, I guess, nervously eyeing episode 10 and being like, “Yes, we’re going to stick this on exactly episode 10.”

Rachel: Fine.

John: Well, so there’s a pilot written first. You guys wrote together, you wrote a pilot. What was it like writing together for the first time? Because you’re a short story writer, so you’re used to working on your own. You’ve written screenplays, but you’ve also written with room, so you have some experience with that, but you’ve never had to write with each other. What was that like?

Rachel: Have either of you written with your spouses?

John: Oh God, no.

Craig: No.

John: Are you kidding me? No.

Craig: No. Jesus. First of all, neither of our spouses are writers so that’s a good start. We very carefully married not writers.

Rachel: Smart.

Craig: You fucked up.

[laughter]

John: Because you know each other really well, but you probably don’t have a sense of each other’s creative process in terms of how they get to the next word.

Rachel: If this was 2018–

Craig: Look at this, I wish you could all see Justin’s face.

Rachel: Six scenes-

Craig: Just a headache, just a human headache.

Rachel: When he started this process, I had known him for– No. I had not known him. I’d been with him, biblically with him, for 12 years. 12 years. That’s a long time to know somebody.

Justin: It’s more than that though. We’ve been together longer than that.

Rachel: At the time we started.

Craig: Not biblically.

[laughter]

Craig: Let’s break this down. Non-biblically for seven. Biblically for 12, post biblically now.

Justin: About 20 seconds post biblically.

Craig: Continue with this amazing thought.

Rachel: Thank God my parents don’t listen to podcasts.

Craig: You don’t know that.

Rachel: You think you know a person pretty well, and you do. I was reintroduced to Justin as a high functioning screenwriter.

Craig: Sexy, right?

Rachel: It was super annoying.

[laughter]

Craig: Really walked right into that one. Super annoying.

Rachel: As a short fiction writer, you get snack breaks every 20 minutes.

[laughter]

Rachel: You take naps every 45 minutes

Craig: This is why they only pay you $40, you realize that?

[laughter]

Rachel: And Justin was a little more, I would say-

Craig: Rigorous?

Rachel: -rigorous than that.

Craig: Disciplined.

Justin: A machine.

Craig: Just a machine.

Justin: That’s what I got. That’s how I like to think of myself.

Craig: Maybe in a pruriant way, I’m just wondering like, what do you guys do when you disagree about stuff?

[laughter]

Rachel: We only sat in the same room writing together once.

Justin: For the good of the marriage.

Rachel: It was the first day of episode one. I think, “I’m a screenwriter now. I’m going to show up. He shows up and he says, “You do these scenes and I’ll do these scenes.” I say, “Great.” Then snack time rolls around, he’s still working. I’m like, “What? I can’t do this. This is too much.” We never worked in the same room again. Now all these years later, what it looks like is we still divvy out scenes, and I write mine and he writes his. As we discussed earlier in the panel today, I actually hadn’t thought of it, but somehow magically, the scenes come together, and apparently Justin puts them together.

Justin: Me.

[laughter]

Rachel: I didn’t even know that

Justin: I magically put the scenes together.

Craig: Who did you think was doing it?

Rachel: I don’t know. He just sent it to me.

Justin: Magical elves.

Craig: I want to be you so bad.

[laughter]

Rachel: So dumb.

Craig: You just did an entire show and you’re like, “Elves are doing this, I don’t know how.”

Rachel: Truly.

Craig: Amazing.

Rachel: I have a lot of mouths to feed. I’m busy.

Craig: I hear you.

Rachel: He will send me this script and I start to go through it and I’m like, “Hey, some things have changed.”

[laughter]

Rachel: He tries to sneak it in, but I know.

Justin: I don’t sneak anything in. I’m putting it together.

Rachel: You don’t put it in the red marks.

Craig: You don’t asterisk it?

[laughter]

Rachel: Asterisks.

Craig: Oh really? That’s your sneaking? That’s sneaking.

Rachel: That’s super sneaking.

Craig: He’s sneaking.

Justin: Nobody tell her how this works. Please.

[laughter]

Rachel: But I know. I go in and I just change it back and then I send it back to him.

Craig: Do you asterisk that?

Rachel: I don’t know how to do that, but I would. I would. Then I just hear from the other room, “You can’t just change it back to what you want.” I’m like, “That’s what I do.” Anyway, that’s how it works.

[laughter]

Justin: It sounds funny really.

John: Then that’s it. Next thing you know, you have an episode. 18 Emmys later.

Craig: Chaos. Absolute chaos.

Rachel: It is.

John: I want to talk to you about the use of Japanese in the show because you’re saying that you want it to be a show that’s actually from the point of view of these characters. Part of that is there’re speaking their own voices and we’re watching subtitles through a lot of it, but the subtitles we’re seeing are not necessarily what you were originally writing. Can you walk us through the process of getting to the words we’re reading and what a person who speaks Japanese is hearing and how those match up?

Justin: As quickly as possible, the steps go as follows, that we wrote it in English and we sent it to elves to translate it, and as people who had apparently not read Shōgun, we thought that translation is that simple, and that there’s just one right answer to translation and it turns out that that’s not true. That when the actors, when Hiro Sonata, our star and also one of our producers and Eriko Miyagawa another producer, they started reading it. They said, “This is Japanese, and a translation approximately of the lines in English, but it’s not performable.”

It’s not put into that prose, so we hired a Japanese playwright speaks no English, to translate that rough Japanese into something that felt like not just-

Craig: That’s really interesting.

Justin: -performable, but [unintelligible 00:24:20] because she writes in the Shakespearean Japanese that comes from the tradition of [unintelligible 00:24:25]

Craig: Just to be clear, you write in English, it goes through some fairly wooden translation process. Then a playwright takes the wooden stuff and builds it back into something beautiful.

Justin: She’s understanding the gist of it. Then Eriko, Hiro, they’ll look at it and it’s always like sitting at village. They’re looking at the sides for next week that are coming through and just like, “No, it’s not quite right,” because they can read the English too.

Craig: They can read the English and adjust back.

Justin: Get that back, and I’m of course just taking their word for it because that’s what we can do. Then what started to happen, because all this was discovered accidentally. We didn’t know how to do this.

Rachel: I did.

[laughter]

Craig: She did.

John: Rachel, do you speak Japanese? Do you speak Japanese?

Craig: Oh that’s a big no, I can see it coming.

[laughter]

Justin: Say something in Japanese please for everyone here.

Rachel: No.

[laughter]

John: You’re saying the writer’s room was largely Asian American.

Rachel: We’re all Asian American female. Except for him and Matt Lambert.

Justin: One other dude.

John: You’re getting this highly polished version of Japanese so a Japanese person watching this can hear the excellence, but we don’t speak that. How are you making decision about what we’re reading?

Justin: That’s when the real revelation happened, was when watching dailies, what we started to do was to say, “Why don’t we play telephone with it?” Instead of just putting the subtitles on there to this line that we wrote, that’s really an approximation. We had one of our Japanese-speaking assistant editors translate that what she’s watching on screen into words. Then I’m looking at it, I’m like, “That’s not exactly what we wrote, but it’s almost what we wrote,” but you’re not getting that thing where someone’s like screaming really loudly and then on the subtitles it just says, “Yes.”

You actually feel like there’s not that dissonance to it, but those words are just, now someone is just doing us a favor and translating words to the screen. So then that’s when Rachel and I went back into the process and we tried to take everyone off the hook and say like, “We’ll just do this on our own. We just need Eriko who speaks Japanese as well to verify some things for us. We don’t need 10 people on these Zooms because it’s just going to be Rachel and I arguing over syntax and what works best.” But we would do this for every line of every episode of the show over–

And, this was that when the strike was coming and I was like, “You know what? This is writing. What we’re doing right now, this is writing. This is not localizing, this is not just the postproduction thing.” It was like, if we’re going to brag about this someday and say we went through this process, we have to get it all done in a matter of weeks before this strike starts. And that is what we did.

Rachel: For all of you about to get married or thinking about marriage, just know that punctuation matters.

[laughter]

Rachel: It really matters.

Justin: Let me ask you a question.

John: It does.

Rachel: We discovered things about each other.

Justin: Who puts semicolons in dialogue? What sick psychopath?

Rachel: Who doesn’t believe in the em dash? Seriously.

Craig: You both make great cases. Yes. The em dash is great. Do not put semicolons and dialogue. You guys just need to agree with each other more. I think you guys can make it.

Rachel: What about creative tension?

John: Rachel and Justin, I think we had a great session today. I think our time is up right now, but I think let’s come back next week. We can pick up where we left off there.

Rachel: Great.

Craig: Good progress. Really good progress.

John: That was really good progress.

Rachel: I’ll apply it to my daily life during the week. Thank you.

John: That’ll be really nice. Fortunately listeners around the world get to hear this session and grow from it. Rachel and Justin, thank you so much. You’re going to come back for our Q&A at the end. Rachel and Justin.

Craig: Thank you guys. Stick around. Stick around for the rest of the show.

[applause]

John: Craig, probably two weeks ago you and I were over live. We were doing a podcast and we were talking about something and you brought up, “It’s that movie where the hockey player has to learn how to become a figure skater.” You’re like, “Oh, it’s that Matthew Modine movie. What was it called?” I’m like, “It’s not Matthew Modine.”

Craig: It wasn’t Matthew Modine. Thank you.

John: It was The Cutting Edge.

Craig: It was The Cutting Edge. Exactly, and it does not start Matthew Modine.

John: It does not start Matthew Modine. We had to basically stop and Google and ChatGPT and figure out what it is, but because Matthew Chilelli, our editor, is so talented, you cannot hear all the fuckups that happen along the way because we snip all that out. This is a live show, so you’re going to hear all these mistakes. That’s why we needed to have some people here help us out here. So Megana, I think you’ve recruited two folks who are really good at answering these movie things so if we met make a mistake, they can help us out. Who do we have to help us out?

Craig: Also first of all, Megana.

John: It’s Megana Rao, everybody. The legend.

[applause]

John: First we have Paul Horn.

Megana: Paul Horn and Hailey Nash.

John: Paul Horn and Hailey Nash. Come on up here.

Craig: Come on up.

Megana: Can I just apologize again for how hard this game is?

John: How hard?

Megana: Yeah.

John: Hello, I’m John.

Craig: Hi.

Hailey: Hi John. Nice to meet you.

Craig: Hi, nice to meet you. I’m Craig. Hi. I’m Craig. We do a podcast about things that are interesting to screenwriters.

John: Just pretend we’re doing a normal podcast and we’re going to mess up at a certain point. We’re going to come to you for advice. Craig, I thought we might make this interesting by each of us pick one person who we think is going to be better at this. We need to interview you guys a little bit.

Craig: I literally don’t know the basis of the game. I need some more detail before I make my choice.

John: Let’s talk through this. Paul, what’s your favorite movie of all time?

Paul: Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan.

John: It’s an incredible movie. How about your movie trivia Knowledge? Do you play on any trivia teams? Have you won any trivia competitions?

Paul: I did do trivia with just some buddies in a bar trivia for a while. It wasn’t movie. It was just generic trivia.

Craig: Just regular generic trivia?

Paul: Right.

Craig: I like the way you said buddies. It sounded smart.

John: It sounds smart.

Craig: His buddies are probably smart.

John: I’ve already lost your name. I’m so sorry.

Paul: They were.

Craig: They were?

Paul: Yes.

Craig: What happened to them?

Hailey: Hailey.

John: Hailey?

Hailey: Hailey, yes. Like Bailey Or Kayleigh but with an H.

Craig: Hailey.

John: Hailey?

Craig: Hailey.

John: Hailey, talk to us about your experience with movie trivia. Do people come to you and say, “Hailey will know the answer to this?”

Hailey: I do a lot of movie trivia, yes. At Bronxton Brewery in Westwood, I used to go a lot. I know a little. I know a wee bit.

Craig: She was underselling. Could you hear that?

John: I could hear that. Craig I’m going to give you the pick. Imagine this is Hollywood Squares, and you have to partner up with somebody or Password. Who is going to be your person? Which of these two do you want as your ringer?

Craig: Recency bias. The last answer was from Hailey. I’ll pick Hailey.

John: You’re with Hailey. I got you, Paul. We’re going to figure this out. Let’s talk through some movies here. The game we’re going to play tonight was the movie that we couldn’t think of and it was, do you remember who it was?

Craig: I can read it off of this. It was D.B. Sweeney.

John: It was D.B. Sweeney. As we did some more research, D.B. Sweeney is still a very active actor to this day. He’s in a bunch of different movies and so I thought we might play a little game, and you guys can help us out, called IMDB Sweeney Todd.

[laughter]

John: Here’s how it’s going to work. We are going to describe a movie. We’re going to describe a role in that movie, and we need your help to tell us, wait, was that D.B. Sweeney or was it some other actor named Todd? You’re going to need to help us out here. You get bonus points if it is a Todd, if you can tell us which Todd was the actor we’re thinking of.

Craig: Who’s going to keep track of the points?

John: Drew is going to keep track of points.

Craig: Drew, get that pad ready.

John: He’s got a pen.

Craig: This is big time.

Paul: Just to be clear, this is not what we were told to be prepared for.

[laughter]

Paul: I was told the ‘80s trivia, not Todd trivia.

Craig: Have you been studying furiously for weeks?

Paul: No, I was back there trying to think of an ‘80s movie like trying to remember. Like, Please say Ice Pirates. I want Ice Pirates movies.

Craig: Listen, I don’t know what’s going on with this show either. I got to be honest with you. It never works out the way I think.

Hailey: Wait, you’re not a Todd expert?

Paul: No, I’m not a Todd expert.

Hailey: Dang. Not many Todd experts here.

Paul: Steve, I’m on Steve.

Hailey: You’re a Steve expert? Cool.

John: Here we go. We’ll start. Craig, do you remember that movie it was, Scent of a Woman and wasn’t the main guy. The guy who played Trent Potter. Do you remember what Scent of a Woman was like?

Craig: Of course.

John: It was good but who was in that movie? Can you tell us who that was in that movie?

Paul: Todd.

John: Which Todd?

Paul: The Todd that was in the movie.

John: You are correct. One point for us.

Craig: That was a coin flip.

John: It was a coin flip.

Craig: That was a full coin flip.

John: It was a full coin flip.

Craig: He was like, “50% of the time, it’s going to be Todd. I don’t need to say who the answer is.” Hailey, you see what’s happening here, right?

Hailey: I see what’s occurring, yes.

Craig: Here’s another one. This was a movie called Fire in the Sky. Do you remember what this movie is about? What with the light?

John: That was a UFO movie.

Craig: A logger mysteriously disappears for five days in an alleged encounter with a flying saucer in 1975. There was this character, Travis Walton.

John: I think that’s the main person in it.

Craig: He was?

John: I think he was, actually.

Craig: I wonder who that was.

John: Was it D. B. Sweeney or was it Todd?

Paul: I saw the movie.

John: It’s her. It’s her answer.

Hailey: I, unfortunately, have not seen this one.

John: You’re going to have to guess. Do you feel it’s a D.B. Sweeney energy, or do you feel it’s a random Todd energy?

Hailey: D. B. Sweeney

Craig: That’s right.

John: That’s correct.

[applause]

Craig: They’re fucking with me now, right?

John: They are, yes.

Craig: They’re just doing this for me.

John: This is literally gaslighting.

Craig: This is gaslighting.

John: No, Craig, it’s all fine. All right.

Craig: “The lights aren’t changing at all Craig.”

John: I was watching this movie last night on cable, The Resurrection of Gavin Stone, and the Pastor Allan Richardson.

Craig: Great role. Pastor Allan Richardson.

John: It’s about a washed-up former child star. God, who was in that movie? Was it D.B. Sweeney or a Todd?

Paul: I’ll go with D.B. Sweeney.

John: It was D.B. Sweeney. Nicely done.

[applause]

Craig: Megana was concerned that this game would be too hard. They can’t get anything wrong.

[laughter]

John: We’ll see. There’s still a chance.

Craig: No one has gotten an extra Todd point. D.B. Sweeney has been eating up a lot of these. Let’s see how this one goes. Everyone knows Twister.

John: Everyone knows Twister.

Craig: Everybody knows Twister. Two storm chasers on the brink of divorce doing stuff with storms. Everyone remembers the character of Tim “Beltzer” Lewis.

John: I’m not sure I remember who that was in the movie, though.

Craig: Me neither. Who played Tim Beltzer Lewis? Was it D.B. Sweeney or a random Todd?

Hailey: Todd Phillips.

Craig: Did you say Todd Phillips?

Hailey: Yes.

Craig: The director?

Hailey: Yes, wasn’t he? Wait. It’s Todd, Oh, my God.

John: Are you on the right track?

Hailey: Who did Tar, I’m trying to remember.

Craig: Yes, that’s exactly right.

Hailey: It’s Todd Field. That’s it. Thank you.

Craig: Once she said Tar, I think that was legal to-

John: Yes, 100%. That was really good.

Craig: Good job.

John: This one, this was, it was heartwarming. It was Hope for the Holidays. It was literally titled Hope for the Holidays and the guy who played Dr. Ward, I thought he was charming. He didn’t have a big role but he was good in it, but was that D.B. Sweeney or was it a Todd? Can you help us out?

Paul: Todd?

Craig: No one can get anything wrong.

John: Which was Todd, though?

Craig: Which was Todd, though?

Paul: Todd III.

John: No. It was Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. Still an actor.

Craig: What were the odds that Todd III was going to be correct?

[laughter]

Paul: Low.

Craig: Let’s try this one. Hailey, you’re on a roll. I think you got this. The Manson Brothers’ Midnight Zombie Massacre. Everyone remembers this one about two fighting brothers signing up for a new game, but then apparently there are zombies involved.

John: A big quarterback. The role is a quarterback.

Craig: Quickbuck.

Matt Selman: It’s 2-2 Craig!

Craig: You shut your goddamn mouth Matt Selman, showrunner of The Simpsons.

[laughter]

Craig: What inning?

Matt Selman: Top of the ninth.

Craig: Top of the ninth?

Matt Selman: Yes.

Craig: They scored in the bottom of the eighth. Well you just derailed this podcast, Mister.

[laughter]

Craig: I’m very depressed. Someone named a character Vic Quickbuck.

John: Wonder what he’s about.

Craig: Was that D. B. Sweeney or was it a random Todd?

Hailey: D. B. Sweeney?

Craig: No one can get anything wrong, Megana. They are 100% correct.

John: We’ll shoehorn it so we’re balancing out here.

Craig: It’s amazing.

John: It’s amazing. I thought the first movie of Atlas Shrugged was eh, but Atlas Shrugged II that’s where it really-

Craig: You mean Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike?

John: The Strike That was incredible.

Craig: Crushed it.

John: The rail runners, the Danny Taggert, all that action of excitement that Ayn Rand goodness.

Craig: All that hot sex.

John: It was so good. Wait, was the guy in that D.B. Sweeney or some Todd?

Paul: D.B. Sweeney.

Craig: No one can get anything wrong.

[laughter]

Craig: Somebody has to get something wrong.

Hailey: I’m up next.

Craig: This is madness.

John: Our last and final one.

Craig: Last and final one.

John: Oh my God, Marmaduke.

[laughter]

John: So good. Who does not like a big dog? Not a Clifford, too big of a dog. Just a big dog.

Craig: Just a solidly big dog with a tendency to wreak havoc in his own oblivious way.

John: Yes.

Craig: I mean, the role of Shasta.

John: Come on, incredible. I mean, that was a game-changer, really.

Craig: Was this D. B. Sweeney or a random Todd?

Hailey: A random Todd.

Craig: Megana. For an extra point, which random Todd?

Hailey: I would say Todd III, but he already said that. I don’t know.

Craig: No guess?

Hailey: No.

Craig: It was Todd Glass.

John: Here’s the thing. Matthew cuts out the stuff when we mess up, but he may cut out this whole segment. We want to thank the two of you for being incredibly good sports.

[applause]

John: Thank you so much.

Craig: Great job.

John: Craig I’m not sure who won.

Craig: I’m sure that we won. I won. Hailey won, because of Todd Field. Really what I think we all won was a view of two psychics because you can guess a flipped coin right once, twice, three times. That was like 12 times in a row. Something’s going on with those two.

John: It was magic.

Craig: Possibly connected to the lights. Let’s continue.

[laughter]

John: Let’s bring it back to more familiar territory where we talk to smart writers about the things that they do.

Craig: The smart test.

John: Do you want to introduce our guests?

Craig: Yes. We have two guests, and the first one is Susan Soon He Stanton, not related to John Carlos Stanton, who had a home run tonight but, oh well, she’s not perfect. She is a writer and producer known for her work on Modern Love, Dead Ringers, and some piece of shit called Succession that kept beating me all the time. She won two Emmys that I didn’t win for Outstanding Drama Series.

John: Megan Amram is a writer and producer on all your favorite funny shows, including Parks and Recreation, The Good Place, The Simpsons. She’s co-creator of the Pitch Perfect: Bumper in Berlin. She has zero Emmys.

Craig: No Emmys.

John: She’s the writer and director of and star of An Emmy for Megan. Welcome, Megan and Susan.

[applause]

Craig: Folks who listen to the show know that Megan is my cousin. We’re cousins.

John: They’re actually cousins.

Craig: She is my nepo baby.

Megan: This is my nepo uncle. I got him where he is right now.

John: It is fantastic to have you guys here. As we were backstage chatting through stuff, we were talking a little bit about the difference between writing and being on set, dealing with something that was in production. You guys had such different experiences. I was wondering if we could compare and contrast the two of them. Megan, can you tell us about going off and doing about Bumper In Berlin and your role as a writer on set, and how much support you have?

Megan: This is a great tee-up. How do I tactfully answer this question? I co-created a show that was on Peacock that was a spinoff of the Pitch Perfect movies. It was called Bumper in Berlin, starred Adam DeVine, and it shot in Berlin. For those of you who listen to this show, you’ve heard a lot of different stories of how shows get made and I feel like there’s two camps of them. Either they are developed for years and years and people really dig so deep into the text like we were hearing about Shōgun, or they are told they have to happen in a matter of six weeks and you’re going to fly to Berlin by yourself. That was mine.

Just due to Adam DeVine is on a very funny show called The Righteous Gemstones and due to filming windows, which I’m sure is the most riveting thing we could talk about, we had this period of time we could get him. We knew it was going to be in Germany due to some creative things, but mostly tax breaks. I, as the showrunner, was given those, I would say mad libs of dates filming and characters, and location. We very, very quickly, my amazing writer’s room that I didn’t have for enough time, which is partially why we went on strike, put together a show and I went to Germany by myself, and was the writer-producer there.

John: Good Lord. Now let’s compare and contrast. Susan. Well, talk to us about the-

Craig: Susan, your life has been great.

John: Isn’t it great?

Susan: I don’t mean to compare.

Craig: Not this horror show.

John: I want to show the range of what it takes to make a series. On your show, your writer’s room for Succession was in London, and then writers went to set. Talk to us about what the process was of going from we’re writing a show to making the show.

Susan: Our writer’s room was in London. It was a combination of Brits and Americans and it almost felt like baseball, like home-court advantage. Then when we were shooting, then all the Americans were like, “Now you’re on our turf again.” That was really fun. I’ve been a part of a bunch of other shows, and I’ve never seen so many writers on set. It was something that I felt like was just part of the ethos that Jesse Armstrong had.

We had a lot of coverage and it was such a luxury. I’ve just never seen anything like it. There would be the writer of the episode or writers that would be watching the show and you’d have maybe one person would be in pre-production and doing location scouts and talking to different designers.
Then there’d be the writers while we were shooting. Maybe a couple of writers would be just re-braking some story later. There would always be almost two to four, sometimes more people just keeping their eye on things. We’d be writing alts every single day, alternative lines, which is more of a comedy structure, but there were a lot of roots in the show in comedy and we would have different exchanges and just keep an eye on things. We would read each other’s scripts. I just think everyone was trying to make the whole as good as possible. The brilliant Frank Reich would also be on set and would be lending his eye and his resources.

It just felt like we just had so many people working and if something wasn’t feeling right in the moment or the timing–

Megan: I’m going to start crying. I’m sorry. This is beautiful.

Susan: I’ve never had that since.

Megan: I love it. At least more people watch my show than Succession, so that’s good.

Susan: Everything else is going to be worse-

Megan: That’s amazing.

Susan: -which is the torture of it.

Craig: It does sound pretty great. It is Jesse Armstrong who’s the showrunner of Succession. He’s a lovely man. Well, unless you tell us otherwise. He seems lovely to me. This would be a weird place to suddenly destroy him.

Susan: No, I’m not going to just be like, “Do you want me to tell you?” He’s wonderful. He’s changed my life.

Craig: He’s just a lovely, sweet, humble guy. I’m interested in how, in particular, because you were a playwright sitting in a room, the room is just you when you’re a playwright, I think, because I’ve never written a play. Then actors look at the play as the text and they do the text. Television doesn’t generally work like that. I’m curious how you, from a writerly point of view, went from alone, “Mine, all mine,” to room sharing with somebody that in theory could say, “I’ve decided no,” or, “I want it to change.”

Susan: I think it’s probably more similar than maybe if you were coming as obviously a novelist or as a screenwriter. Obviously there’s a point where we all write alone, we’re all alone for a bit, and then there’s the collaborative fun bit. I think for playwrights, we sit in rehearsal for a long time. Maybe we’re the only writer in the room, but we’re there with actors and a director. That was actually a big bonus on set was I realized, “I’m comfortable talking with a director,” because when you’re a screenwriter maybe it’s all just at this really heightened level.

But when you’re in rehearsal, you just have that time where you’re used to having all of these even design conversations. The stakes, the size of it is much smaller to talk to a set designer for a play than on set. I was just terrified. It was my first show was being on Succession, so I was crazy and I was just constantly terrified. Then it was this nice surprise where I’m like, “Actually these skills are transferable,” which I didn’t think they would be. Then I was in a lot of different playwriting writers groups and that also felt like a writer’s room where instead of supporting each other, giving feedback, it’s like, “We’re all working on the same kind of project.” And I’ve done some devised things.

I thought I was going to feel incredibly different and I came in absolutely terrified and I called up some friends and asked for advice. I was like, “When can we go to the bathroom? Should I raise my hand? How much do I have to talk?”

Craig: Always raise your to go to the bathroom.

Susan: Like, “When can I eat the snacks?” Honestly, it was like, “Is it okay to order this much lunch?” I just felt constantly scared. It wasn’t a learning process but it was less foreign than I thought just getting into it.

John: Well, I think I’m hearing is there’s a sense of an imposter syndrome. “I don’t belong in this space. I’m going to mess up. They’re going to recognize that I was in the wrong place.” I think we’ve all felt that. I definitely remember going into like–

Megan: Mine is real though. Everyone else has imposter-

John: We’re going to figure that out.

Craig: She is literally an imposter.

John: I remember showing up to the first day of shooting on Go and I parked my car. I’m driving up and like, “Man, there’s a lot of trucks around here. What are all these trucks here for? Oh, shit. They’re here for my movie. I was like, “Am I allowed to eat this craft service?” Suddenly you’re onset and you’re worried you’re going to spill your Coke, you’re going to do something and be found out, and then three days later you’re directing the second unit because you’re three days behind.

It’s a very quick learning curve. I’m sure it was, for both of you, the first times you’re onset seeing the thing and realizing, “I actually have the answer here. I know how to get this thing worked out.”

Megan, I see you nodding. Obviously, Bumper in Berlin was an extreme case, but you had more positive experiences working on shows.

Megan: Very much so.

John: Something like The Good Place, that is a collaborative place and we’re watching things in front of you.

Megan: Absolutely. Yes. Well, I have to share one more story from Bumper in Berlin about, because now this is a great place to work through therapy. There was a day on set. As I said, I was the only writer and producer and then our script supervisor got COVID and we didn’t have a backup script supervisor, so people kept asking me about eye line. This is the person on set, very important job. About continuity and getting lines right, but getting angles of the the shots right and everything. I was like, “I don’t know. Just look wherever you want.”

[laughter]

Megan: It was a very funny out-of-body experience. To answer the more positive supported experience, which sound a lot more like Succession. I got to work on Parks and Rec and The Good Place for showrunner Mike Schur, who is also an incredible both writer and producer and then person and I think mentor to people who’ve never done this before. I am so truly grateful that I had a decade of experience of being on set where not only are you learning from other writers who have more experience, but the cast has a ton of experience, the crew all has experience, but it’s really intimidating.

There’s two types of people I guess. There’s people who are extremely intimidated and have imposter syndrome and then there’s people who waltz onto set thinking they know everything. I’m like, “That’s not good.”

Craig: Those are sociopaths.

Megan: It’s tough to find the middle ground.

Craig: You guys, in a way, both work in comedy. Succession was an hour long, but this 30 minutes versus one-hour thing, it doesn’t really make sense. The Good Place is a 30-minute “sitcom.” It’s also one of the most dramatic shows depending on the episode of the moment and vice versa for Succession.

I’m curious how in those rooms, and as you go forward, how you both think about comedy in today’s day and age, where we do have to figure out how to balance being transgressive and pushing stuff with also just not being tone-deaf, or falling somewhere into not funny town because you went too far. How do you guys approach that as you go through your comedy aspects of what you write?

Megan: Speaking for the rooms that I’ve run, part of it is having rooms that are representative of a lot of different types of people. That is under all metrics of identity, where they’re from, what they think is funny. I think that does, then if those people feel free to both be transgressive in a safe space, and then also respectfully push back on other people, I think that is an amazing, super fun mix of people. Any comedian who’s like, “You can’t say anything anymore because the world–“ I’m like, “I don’t know, you’re not hanging out with the right people.”

Because if you’re hanging out with good-hearted, empathetic people, they are transgressive in a respectful, safe way. Then how it comes out in television because I was obsessed with Succession. I think that was a show that did it in a really amazing way where it was edgy, but it also was extremely based in character, which is, to me, you forget that something is edgy or transgressive if you can see exactly why that character is saying that thing.

Craig: Did you ever feel on Succession like, “Oh, are we going a little too far here?” I remember pretty early on Kieran Culkin jerking off against the window of his office, and I was like, “Okay, HBO, here we go.”

Susan: Sometimes I think we got a little baroque in our sensibilities. We’re like, “Where is the line?” And we already crossed it. I think we were also playing with different, I mean, satire and humor. I think to the earlier debate, it’s like The Bear was a big debate. Is it length or in terms of what’s comedy or what’s drama? I think that there is a creepy metaphor of how do you get people to follow you down the path into darker themes, like giving somebody a piece of candy and luring them further into the woods. I don’t know.

I like the imagery. Terrible metaphor. You know this, but how do you get someone to join you on a dark journey is to have the comedy. It was interesting because a lot of the writers in the room just were incredible comics, and had just very funny bones. We were playing with that. I’ve never thought of myself. I think I write comedy and drama sandwiched together, but I’ve never submitted for comedy.

I remember even with writing, hearing, oh, if you submit a script early emerging days, they count how many jokes are per page, or people were just learning writing these joke packets. I was like, “Oh, no, that’s a different kind of writer. That’s not me. I have to do the drama.” Then, dramas that are just so, everyone’s so tense and serious. That’s not what life is. I feel like it has to have both the white and the black keys in terms of what makes something really enjoyable.

Megan: Do they count how many frowns per page in a drama spec?

John: Megan, you’re actually in a place now where you get to read other writers and put together a room, and you’re figuring out how many jokes per page in a script that you like.

Megan: There’s a magic number, but I don’t tell anyone until they submit it. No.

John: Talk to us about what it’s like to be on the other side now, not to be staffing, but to be putting together a staff. What are you looking for on a page that says, “Oh, this, I get this. I get what they’re doing,” or, “I just don’t want to meet this person?”

Megan: When I staffed my room, I took it very, very seriously. I ended up hiring some people I’d worked with on these amazing shows. I’d ended up hiring people I hadn’t worked with, but who I had admired for a long time. I also wanted to make sure that I really did my due diligence for those new spots. I was saying this morning I actually hired people with a few different types of samples. I didn’t want to just go a super traditional route, have agents send me scripts, though that was one of the ways that looked at people.

I also had been submitted a one-act play as a sample. I hired a staff writer who was a comic who I thought was very funny, and specifically that she was very funny at joke writing. But the show that I was making, it was very silly. I already had a tone in my head, even though the pilot didn’t exist because we only had six weeks to write the show. I knew what type of show it was going to be. It was going to be sweet and full of heart, but extremely joke-heavy and quick in that rhythm. When I read things, there’s different types of comedy.

There’s more situational or romantic or whatever. I was like, “I just want the people who are writing insane jokes. If they’re lower-level writers, but they’re amazing joke writers, they’ll figure out the story stuff as we work through it.”

John: Susan, have you had a chance to put together a writing staff yourself yet?

Susan: No.

John: Work back just for like, what were the samples that got you in those rooms though? What were they reading? You’re going in for these things, and then what are they reading, and what’s getting them excited reading?

Susan: I feel like, Megan, as you were saying, I think it’s really important to have a– I’ve been a part of a bunch of different rooms and understand the thinking behind it from different showrunners. Yes, I think you want to have people that have outside of your own experience, you want to broaden the perspective of what the room is. You don’t only want to have your friends, you don’t only want to have people that have the same lived experience.

You need to have a shared understanding and passion for what it is. Maybe you have somebody who’s really great at plot, someone who’s very character-focused. I think to the imposter syndrome, I came in really terrified because I’m not as just hilarious as some of the writers. Then it’s like, okay, well, we can all come in with our strength. We’re like an orchestra, and we can all be good at our own thing and just trust the showrunner who brings us all together, and we can all really work together and make the whole just stronger for it.

John: A metaphor you’re reaching for there, and it feels like a conductor almost. Basically, you’ve assembled all these instruments, how do you get them to play together and work? If it’s working great, you have Succession. If it’s bad, we’ve seen the stories of those terrible rooms that go terribly awry.

Susan: I think it’s scary because you do want to take a chance on new voices. People you don’t see. You don’t only want to bring in the knowns, but I don’t know. I feel like there are some really terrifying horror stories that we’ve all heard about where somebody’s written the page or who knows what. It’s amazing when you have that alchemy. And I think that happens most of the time, I feel like in terms of the rooms I’ve been in. It feels like the experiment works, and it’s really exciting.

John: Let us do our One Cool Things. Let’s bring back up, Rachel and Justin, come on back up here.

Craig: All right.

[applause]

Craig: Matt Selman, showrunner of The Simpsons. What is the score currently of the–

Megan: I was going to ask. Oh my God.

Craig: Still two to two in the– oh, I don’t like extra innings away. Matt Selman, you’ve disappointed me once again.

John: Traditionally, at the end of an episode, we do one cool thing. It’s something we want to recommend to our audience. My one cool thing this week is an episode of a podcast called Decoder Ring. This week’s episode of Decoder Ring, they talk through the movie, Charlie’s Angels. Specifically, a giant glaring mistake in the movie, Charlie’s Angels, which I wrote.

Here’s basically what happens: In the third act, Bosley is kidnapped, and the angels figure out where he is because this bird lands on the window, and they recognize the song of the bird there. That’s a really clever idea that I apparently came up with. The bird you see in the movie is not the bird, the name that they say. They say it’s the pygmy nuthatch, but that’s not a pygmy nuthatch, and the song is wrong. For 15 years, burgers across America and around the world are like, “How could fuck this up so badly?” I’m one of the answers. But the podcast actually goes through and actually figures out how it happened, and why it happened.

Craig: Do you like this?

John: I like this.

Craig: It was just a podcast dedicated to how wrong you were, and you’re like, “This is awesome. I want more of this.”

John: Also, it ends up being a good exploration of why movies are not reality, and why the choices we made and why it’s not a pygmy nuthatch are for good reasons. Why do you think it’s a pygmy nuthatch? Why do you think we picked the word pygmy nuthatch as you said?

Craig: Because it’s funny.

John: It’s because it’s funny. That’s one of the answers, but the answer is also to go back to the US Migratory Bird Act, is why it could not have been a pygmy nuthatch in the movie.

Craig: Less funny.

John: Less funny. Craig, one cool thing for you?

Craig: I have a one not-cool thing.

John: Oh, no, I’m sorry. You’re bringing down the mood.

Craig: Yes. My one not-cool thing is Ted Cruz.

John: Your former roommate.

Craig: We are in Texas, and I know a lot of you are from out of town, but I assume a bunch of you are from Texas. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. I really don’t. Republicans all hate Ted Cruz too. Everyone hates Ted Cruz. Donald Trump hates Ted Cruz. Mitch McDonald hates Ted Cruz. We all can hate Ted Cruz together because he’s awful. Do you know he wrote about me in his book?

John: That’s amazing. Congratulations.

Craig: Yes, he said his freshman year roommate was an angry man, an angry young man. I’m like, “Do you know why I was angry?”

John: Where’s the lie?

Craig: “Stuck in a fucking room with Ted Cruz.” So do us all a favor, Texans, you can vote for the guy that isn’t Ted Cruz, I’m trying to be nonpolitical, or you could just skip that one. But you got a chance. You actually have a chance to get rid of Ted Cruz, and when you have a chance to get rid of Ted Cruz, always take it. Always.

[cheers]
[applause]

John: Justin Marks, do you have a one cool thing to share?

Justin Marks: One cool thing. I hope this hasn’t been shared before. My confession, which should come as no surprise because I think a lot of us have this problem is I am an addict. I am a cell phone addict. I have for many years tried to find different ways to cut down on cell phone use while also recognizing, this is the thing that drives me crazy, is all these light phones and different things, you can’t function in society with most of these smaller, simpler phones. You need certain things like a map in the smartphone, or the ability to get the amber alerts, or different things that are-

Craig: Oh, yes.

Justin: -very, very supportive.

Craig: So we all spring into action.

Justin: There is this device that I came across on a Kickstarter called The Brick, which is this brick, it’s a little plastic brick and it has a magnet, and you can stick it on your fridge, or in a desk drawer or whatever. When you tap your phone to it, based on settings that you decide, you can turn off any app that you want to, and it’ll just shut them down, you can’t get email, you can’t get whatever, and then you can walk around with your phone. I can always have it on. I can always receive texts if something goes wrong, and then if I leave the house, you leave The Brick at home, which means there’s no way to unlock that phone unless you can– it’s actually pretty clever. They give you unlocks where you can pay them like $10 or something like that.

Craig: Oh my God. This company is going to be the biggest company on Earth in a month, wow.

Justin: It’s a nice, I don’t know, it works, I guess.

Craig: You’re doing a little bit better is what I’m hearing.

Justin: I’m doing a little better-

Craig: What else do we have?

Justin: -on that account.

John: That’s therapy. That’s why [inaudible 01:02:08]. Megan, do you have a one cool thing to share?

Megan: I have one and a half. The first one is that as of right now, the Dodgers have hopefully not lost the game, which is great.

Craig: Matt Selman? Yes!

Megan: Oh, why did I say it? Okay.

Craig: Yes. Matt Selman, yes.

Megan: You know what? It’s his podcast. I’ll let him have it.

[laugh]

Craig: Go on, Dodger fan, Megan Amram.

Megan: Okay, great. I don’t know if this will give you all as much joy as it has given me, it’s given me a lot of joy. I discovered a new subreddit recently, which is called TV Too High. It goes along with another one called TV Too Low. I am like, every comedy writer have a black heart where it’s so hard for me to laugh at anything. I’m so dark all the time. And this is just a subreddit of people posting mostly their parents’ living rooms where their TVs are mounted too high.

I’m also obsessed with movies and TV setups, and watching them correctly at eye level, and it’s just like they’ll be up here, and it’ll just be the caption will be like, “Is that too high?” And TV Too Low is pretty funny too, but for some reason a TV in the corner of the room-

Craig: Oh my God!

Megan: -just really gets me. Recently, my mom is redoing our living room and my childhood home, and she was like, “Here’s where I think it’s all going to go.” I narrowly averted a TV Too High in my own life.

Craig: Oh, nice.

Megan: I so excitedly texted my friends being like, “Wait, I almost had a TV Too High in my real life.” I highly recommend it.

Craig: That’s fantastic. TV Too High.

John: Susan, do you have a one cool thing for us?

Susan: Yes. I just discovered right before that, Rachel and I are both women from Hawaii, Rachel’s from Maui, and I’m from Oahu, which is a pretty rare and special thing. I wanted to do one more shout-out for a Hawaii woman, Bliss Lau. She’s an incredible jewelry designer, and she does sustainable pieces. I just really love her design. She does stuff inspired by her Popo, and like with Jade. She also just designs inspired by the Brooklyn Bridge, and I don’t know, I just really wanted to throw that out there. She has a mention in Kevin Kwan’s latest book. Anyways, small sustainable designers and just Hawaii excellence.

Craig: Love it.

John: Rachel, bring us home with a one cool thing.

Rachel: I thought we had to do one cool thing about things we read.

John: Oh, whatever you love. If you read something you love, share it.

Rachel: Oh, okay. It’s a one cool challenge in the sense where I’m sure a lot of people do this, but I really hadn’t done this before. Recently we went to a part of Maui that’s very remote, and the place we were staying at had a library, and I was like, “You know what? I’m just going to go. I’m just going to go choose a book off the shelf.” They only had, I don’t know, Nicholas Sparks and a bunch of other stuff. Nothing wrong with Nicholas Sparks, but I chose a non-Nicholas Sparks book. That book happened to be, it was called A Dream of Islands. I just chose it off a shelf, and I thought, “Ah, this is going to be like–“ it was like a dime store-type novel. It ended up being riveting. I just drank it in like a Vodka Tonic, or Margarita.
I was like, “Oh, give it to me.” It’s a book all about 18th-century travelers who were in search of these strange islands in the South Pacific. It would be as if one of us said, “I think I want to go into space, and I think I want to just float there somehow, and I don’t know how I’ll breathe, I’ll just figure it out. I’ll meet some aliens, and we’ll maybe love each other, or we’ll kill each other. We don’t know.” That’s what they did in the 18th century. They’re so psycho. These are five men, of course, they’re all, sorry. Can I say White men?

Craig: You can say White men.

Rachel: They’re all White men-

Craig: Yeah.

Rachel: -who are like, “I shall be intrepid.”

Craig: That does sound like White men.

Rachel: Yes. And they’re psycho, what they ended up trying to do.

Craig: Those White men.

Rachel: Anyways, the challenge is to–

Craig: This is going to be on TV when? That’s what I mean. Nobody steal it.

John: All right. A Dream of Islands?

Rachel: A Dream of Violence by an Australian writer named Gavan Daws. The challenge is to just pick something random up.

John: Yes.

Craig: Yes, love that.

John: Pick a random book. I love going to see a movie, I have no idea what it is. Like the film festivals, you’re just like, “I have to know what this movie is.” Yes. Enjoy it.

Rachel: I don’t know who these people are.

John: Yes, but that’s the most fun. That is our show for this week.

[applause]

John: We have, as we get into some thank yous. Craig, we have an announcement.

Craig: Oh, we have an announcement. We have a live show in Los Angeles on December 6th-

John: You’re the first to hear of this

Craig: -with some incredible guests. Em dash. Tickets will be on sale soon. If you are a premium member, you’ll get advance notice when they go on sale.

John: That’s right. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with special help this week from Megana Rao and Chris Csont, thank you. It is cut and composed by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Yes.

John: You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at @johnaugust.com. This episode will go up on Tuesday. If you could look at the show notes, you’ll find the transcripts for this. We put up transcripts for every single of our 600 episodes.

Craig: Jeez!

John: If you can read through those.

Craig: Jeez!

John: We have t-shirts, hoodies, and stuff, you’ll find at Cotton Bureau. You get all the back episodes at scripnotes.net. Thank you to our incredible guest, Rachel Kondo.

Craig: Thank you, guys.

John: Justin Marks-

Craig: Amazing.

John: Megan Amram, Susan.

Craig: Amazing.

John: Thank you Austin Film Festival and all of you. Thank you.

[cheers]

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right. It has come time in our show for Q&A. This is where Craig has to give an explanation-

Craig: Yes.

John: -of what questions and answers are about.

Craig: Yes. The answers are the things that we give you. A question.

John: What is a question, Craig?

Craig: It’s an interrogative statement that has a potential answer, and it’s not a speech.

John: No.

Craig: It’s usually not very long. It’s short, and it ends with a question mark, and it’s answerable. If you feel yourself like an airplane circling the airport, just stop and go, “Anyway, that.”

John: Yes.

Craig: And we’ll answer it.

John: Fantastic. If you have a question you’d like to ask us, you’re going to come up to the room here, and Drew has the microphone. You’re going to approach Drew and ask your question here at the front of the microphone with Drew. You can start moving now if you’d like to come up and ask a question.

Craig: Okay.

John: We have no questions. I’m so excited.

Craig: Awesome.

John: We’ve broken it, we’ve broken this down.

Craig: There’s a Dodgers fan standing back there.

John: I see a gentleman coming up here. Usually, it would be in the center of the aisle. Sorry. You’re very brave. Thank you for coming up here.

Audience 1: How does it feel you’ll have only one question?

John: Oh, how does it feel that we’ll have only one question?

Craig: Well, now it feels like shit. Good question. Solid.

John: Solid question. All right.

Craig: I honestly feel like we were just attacked by a ninja.

John: It really was.

Craig: That’s what it feels like.

John: It was so-

Craig: You just looked down and there’s-

John: -good.

Craig: -blood and you’re like, “How did that even happen?”

John: It’s so good. Actually, if you want to stay on there, you can probably just shout your question. We can hear you. What’s your question? All right, so the question is, for the rest of the audience, so you can all hear it. If you are a person who’s not a US citizen, but you want to get attention in the US film and television industry, how can you go about doing that? We’ve had a lot of folks on Scriptnotes who’ve emerged from outside of the US and have made it work, but it can be challenging. A US manager can sign you, a US agent can sign you, and they can put you to workplaces.

When they put you to workplaces, they do all the magic behind the scene stuff that gets you the visa that you need to work here. I would say coming to a festival like this is a chance to meet some of those people, but also I would say look for who is doing the stuff that you’re doing in your home country. Canada, where are you from?

Audience 2: I’m from Canada.

John: Canada. Obviously, you are willing to live in Los Angeles. If you’re a Canadian living in Los Angeles, you’re working in the industry like everybody else, they just hire you a little bit differently. That’s not the issue. What’s more of a challenge is when you have writers who are in small countries without their own film industry, who then have to reach out and find stuff. That’s where you end up going to international festivals. Just finding some other way to get attention and get people noticing you. Any other thoughts from up here on the panel?

Craig: Canada’s got a pretty good entertainment business. Nothing wrong with starting there, but Canadians have been working successfully in the United States-

John: Ryan Reynolds

Craig: -forever. Most of the funniest people in the world, SCTV and all those folks, Canada and the US share. I wouldn’t worry about it. Just write some good stuff. You’ll be fine.

John: Thank you very much. Hello. What is your question for us?

Audience 3: I have a question primarily for everyone.

[laughter]

Craig: That’s all what-

John: That’s awesome.

Craig: -primarily means. Yes?

Audience 3: Is there a difference between creating a show from the ground up and creating a show that is based on an existing property? Whether it’s a literary annotation like Shogun or The Last of Us?

John: Justin, I’m wondering from your service, because Counterpart’s not based on anything, was it?

Justin: No.

John: Compare those two situations.

Justin: I could do you one better and compare the first season of Shogun to the second where we have no book.

Craig: How are you going to do that?

Justin: The digging motion is the same, but instead of digging through, I don’t know, sand or something, we’re just digging through really, really hard clay. Which is to say it feels really good, it just takes 10 times as long to get to something. I think that what I’ve noticed, especially, and it’s the exact same writer’s room that we have in both seasons, but the process works. The process is the same and keeps us through it.

We just have to spend a lot more time at the beginning deciding what the hell this show is. Where the book really did that for us. I don’t know. I find it to be a lot harder, a lot harder to do it without a book. Especially when you had a book, and it was right there, and everyone thought it was really hard, but it was actually so easy because the book was so good, and here we are.

Craig: James Clavell wrote another book.

Justin: Yes. I’ve told them that.

Craig: It was in a different country entirely.

Justin: I brought up, there’s four other books he’s written.

Craig: They’re like, “No. More than that.”

John: In any situation, you’re going to be dealing with limitations and choices that you can’t make. If there’s an adaptation, there’s choices that are made for you based on what the underlying material is, which is great. If you are doing Bumper in Berlin, the limitations are basically, “You got six weeks, you got this thing, it has to be in Germany,” all this other stuff. In some ways you crave those constraints because if they say like, “Oh, it can be about anything,” that’d be paralyzing as a writer. You want that happy balance between those. Thank you for your question.

Craig: Thank you.

[applause]

John: Hello, and what is your question?

Audience 4: I have a voice strain right now, so please bear with me.

John: Oh, I’ll listen and I’ll [unintelligible 01:14:19].

Audience 4: This question is for Craig Mazin. I have not seen Chernobyl yet, but the question I have for you is, what were the challenges that you had to face when you were making Chernobyl?

Craig: You want me to answer a question about Chernobyl, that you have not seen?

John: Yes.

Craig: I like that actually. I like the balls behind that question.

John: Just so everyone can hear it, what he asked-

Craig: What’s your story?

John: -was like, I’ve not seen Chernobyl, but what were the challenges of making Chernobyl?

Craig: The greatest challenges is getting people to see Chernobyl at the moment.

John: Yes. It is.

Craig: That’s the challenge.

John: I hear it’s going to be sad, Craig. It’s going to be sad, isn’t it? If I were to watch your show, what would it be like?

[laughter]

Craig: Anyway, thank you for your question. That was great.

[laughter]

John: No. All right. He’s passing, but thank you very much your question.

Craig: Thank you. Come back, watch it next year.

John: Also, when you watch it, you can also see the behind the scene making of stuff where they ask Craig these questions every week about how he did that show.

Craig: True.

Megan: I only watched that.

Craig: Thank you

[laughter]

Craig: You have the same question.

Megan: The show wasn’t that funny.

[laughter]

Craig: There are good jokes. Yes.

Audience 4: I will direct that to the show The Last Of Us.

Craig: Let’s ask a question about that. There we go. You should have started with that one. That was better.

[laughter]

Audience 4: Like the world building for The Last Of Us, what were the video game adaptation and stuff, because I don’t know if it was you, but I heard a tweet that you never played the game.

Craig: That’s the wrongest tweet in history. That’s saying something because Twitter. No, I played the game when it came out in 2013, and played it multiple times. I loved the game, and I always wanted to adapt it. I wanted to adapt it while I was playing it. I just didn’t think anybody would ever let me. For the longest time, Neil Druckmann who created the game was trying to adapt it as a movie, which was folly. We disconnected because around the time the rights reverted back to Naughty Dog, which is the company that makes the game.

Naughty Dog is owned by PlayStation, so Sony got the first crack at it. They tried to make a movie, they didn’t. Right around that time the rights came back. Neil also saw Chernobyl, and he was a big fan, and we sat down together, and had a chat, and about a week later we went over to HBO, and off we went. I talked quite a bit about adapting video games is a tricky thing to do, because it’s an interactive medium, and you’re adapting it for a passive medium, and so you have to just constantly think about that. We consider that all the time.

What did we love about the experience that is portable, and what did we love about the experience that is not, and we should leave it over there and do something else over here? That’s how we do that. Thank you very much.

John: Our next questioner. I’m going to say your question for the rest of the room so they can hear it. We keep hearing at at AFF this year about how much contraction there is. The question is, as aspiring script writers, what does that mean to us? What should we do, knowing that this industry is smaller than it was before?

Craig: The Dodgers just scored.

John: Oh no.

Craig: Shut up.

Megan: I feel like I heard some people yelling and was wondering if that’s what it was.

Craig: Those people are dicks.

John: All right.

Craig: Oh, really?

Megan: Guess what, it’s six to three, Craig.

Craig: Putting my phone back in my pocket. What was the question?

John: With the contraction in the industry, what should aspiring writers be thinking about in terms of what’s going to happen next? I want to first validate. It’s reasonable to be concerned about this because if we were here four years ago, not four years, there was a pandemic. If we were here six years ago, things actually were increasing and growing and we were making more stuff than we ever had. There were just more jobs, and there are not as many jobs now because there were making fewer shows. We’re still making shows and those shows are still hiring writers, it’s how do you make sure that you are a writer who they want to bring in on one of these shows?

Craig: Look, everybody who is aspiring right now was aspiring five years ago when there were supposedly more jobs, so it’s hard. It’s just like, it’s very hard, or it’s very, very hard, or it’s very, very, very hard. It’s hard. I don’t think you should be worrying about that at all. At all. There’s nothing you can do about it. There’s nothing we can do about it. The vicissitudes of the industry are beyond our control, and certainly not that there’s anything special we can write to make it any easier. There isn’t. The guy who owns Skydance just bought Paramount.

I don’t know what’s going to happen with that. Nobody can say where this is going. I wouldn’t worry about it. I would just worry about writing something great. People are still buying stuff. People are still breaking into the business. It does happen. The odds were always tiny. Maybe they are 5% tinier, but still tiny. Just keep getting better. How’s that for depressing? The Yankees just lost. It’s just game one guys. Just game one. It’s just game one.

John: Any other thoughts from the panel? Suggestions for, if you were an aspiring screenwriter now, is there any advice you would give them that is different than what you would’ve given them three years ago, six years ago, nine years ago?

Megan: No, and just to add to what Craig was saying, whose team just lost. I think that especially if you’re a comedy writer, how I was saying before of when I was hiring newer entry-level writers, I was looking at a lot of different types of things. I hired this team who go by Rajat and Jeremy, who are very, very funny internet comedians who have now written for a bunch of stuff. Part of why I knew about them is they were just putting out weird sketches online, and that is something that used to happen more when Funny or Die was really a thing-

John: Megan, that’s also how you got attention.

Megan: That is how I got found. What I think was so exciting about them, but also just a lot of really interesting writer-comedians, you don’t necessarily have to be a hyphenate, but just people who are making stuff is that they’re always going to figure out a way to make stuff. I think, yes, you should be writing your scripts and your samples, but if I find something, and I’m like, this person just loved making this thing, and it genuinely is really funny, I think that still is going to pop in a landscape where, yes, there might be fewer jobs, but if you’re making something that excites you and excites other people, it’s still going to pop.

John: Thank you so much for your question, and good luck.

Audience 4: Thank you.

[applause]

John: Hello, and what is your question?

Audience 5: Hello. My question is for you, Craig.

Craig: Are you going to tell me you didn’t watch Chernobyl anyway? Okay.

Audience 5: First question, Last of Us. I just want to question you about the Bill and Frank episode.

[applause]

Craig: There is definitely one guy that has not– oh no, he didn’t [unintelligible 01:21:48].

Audience 5: My question is, because there was a big risk to change that part of the story, was there any hesitations with that or pushback, or did you say, fuck it, let’s just do this.

Craig: No, the only hesitation was, it was just a general thing where I’d said to Neil, “I have an idea to do something totally different than what was there, but it’s filling a space that didn’t even exist in the game. It’s just a different thing.” I did feel like the thing about depressing stuff is that you need a break. You need to know that there’s a win. People can win, right? Or else like, “Oh my God, why am I watching this?” There has to be some glimmer of hope, and in the game they didn’t need to do that because you’re the person playing. It’s you, so you’re always winning by defeating the enemies, and when you’re watching, that’s not the case. It was just something I proposed to Neil, and he was like, “Go for it. Let’s see what happens.”

I wrote it, and I was very scared when I sent him, and he said, “This is my favorite one of all of them so far.” I have to tip my hat to him. I don’t know if James Clavell were alive today if he would be like, “No. You’re violating my work.” A lot of people that write novels are like that. A lot of people that write source material are incredibly protective of it, and can’t handle the idea of adaptation, and Neil has always been incredibly both generous but also, I think, smart and engaged. He understands that sometimes changing it keeps it closer weirdly to the source material than not.

Audience 5: Cool. Thank you, and last one is a quick one. We know you’re a favorite baseball team. What’s your favorite football team?

Craig: I grew up a Giants fan, but I got a huge– what the fuck is going on? Did they lose tonight?

[laughter]

Megan: The Dodgers just beat the Giants. I’m sorry.

[laughter]

John: Incredible. No one saw it coming.

Craig: It’s so weird. I can’t believe there’s a room. We’re in Texas. Why hate the Giants? Anyway, I’m not a big football fan. It’s hard. We talked about this on the show before. We’ve all just decided that we know that people are being paid to get brain damage, and we’re fine, and I’m not. I just can’t watch it anymore. I can’t. It’s fucked up. Anyway, a lot of you, I’m sure, are football fans. Thanks for coming.

[laughter]

John: Thank you. We have time for two more questions. You, sir, get one of the last two questions. What do you got?

Audience 6: This is exclusive for Megan and Susan, but anyways. If Eleanor Shellstrop from The Good Place had gotten a job at Waystar Royco-

[chuckles]

Audience 6: -do you think she could have taken it over, and do you think any of the four Roy kids could possibly end up in a good place?

John: Oh, I like the crossover there.

Susan: That’s a good one.

Megan: On the top of my head, I think she talks a big game, and absolutely could not have worked at Waystar Royco. I’m like, she just a bombast, but I think would have broken down, maybe flashed some tires and left the building or something.

Susan: She’s good at talking though. She’s a good problem solver. She could be like a Jerri figure, you know-

Megan: That’s true.

Susan: -where she’s a bulletproof Ninja running through it. I mean, yes, I’m really curious what their hell would look like. I mean, they don’t deserve to be in the medium place, I don’t think.

Megan: I think, yes, maybe they would have been recruited for corporate in the bad place-

Susan: Yes, devising- Shiv would have some really good ones.

Megan: Which is where the shows meet a little bit.

Rachel: I’d watch her and Greg though, the two of them together. I feel like something could– I would love to watch that show.

John: Greg and Eleanor? Oh yes, totally. They would torture each other in just the right way.

Craig: Team Gregnor. I love it.

[laughter]

Megan: Great question.

John: Now, that’s a fun question. Thank you for that question.

Craig: Thank you.

John: All right.

[applause]

John: Our final question of the night.

Audience: For the panelists who came into screenwriting from other genres, now that you’ve done screenwriting, it’s a thing that you have the experience with looking back either at your own work or work in your– whether it be plays or short stories, are there things that you would want to adapt under your own or someone else’s from their field into screenplays.

John: Absolutely. Talk about what you’re able to bring from playwriting into screenwriting. Is there stuff that you’ve taken from screenwriting that you want to bring back into playwriting or into short stories, or from this experience that you want to take back to the other medium?

Susan: Yes, really good question. I tend to see things, it’s like the vessel, and you see something in your mind, and it’s like, “Is this feel like a play?” I had a play that I was in the process of adapting into a TV series. The truth is, we have a lot of things that just don’t happen. There was one play of mine that was set in a hotel, and it was semi-autobiographical from one of my moonlighting jobs, survival Jobs.

But yes, I have another play that I haven’t written as a film, but I can see it that way, and it feels right. I think it’s an exciting opportunity because plays are much shorter, so you have that much more time to see how it looks in a series, or just playing with the visuals of what is it when it’s really literal? Because, theater, you have to use a lot of your imagination, you’re in an enclosed space, and so what does it look like when everything becomes very real, it’s not just the suggestion of it?

So I would be really excited to see that, but I think there are some things that really do feel like this must be a film, and this must be a play, and sometimes the act of translation, maybe it doesn’t move enough. I think you really have to crack open the play to make it work as a film. I think sometimes it really works. A lot of amazing older films began as plays as well, so it just depends on how willing you are to really go for it.

John: Rachel, have you done short fiction since you’ve done all this work as a screenwriter? What is it like going back to prose after this?

Rachel: Oh, I think the difference between the two is it feels like screenwriting is building something. You build something with your bricks. Every single day you show up, you– I don’t know even how you do bricks. You lay cement-

[laughter]

Rachel: -some mortar stuff. I don’t know. Something.

Craig: You actually know a lot about bricks.

[laughter]

Rachel: Yes, and then you put them in a pattern, and you build something, and afterwards you have a wall, of sorts, or a house. Then with prose, and probably playwriting too, it feels like–

Craig: This is what it’s like?

[laughter]

Rachel: Yes.

Craig: No, go on.

[laughter]

Rachel: What’s wrong with that? It’s true.

[laughter]

Justin: I’m glad everyone can see this tonight.

Craig: I am enjoying it. I like it.

[laughter]

Rachel: You put on your overalls and you go to work. You have your triangle-shaped-

Megan: Trowel.

Rachel: Is it a dowel?

John: No, trowel.

Rachel: Trovel?

Susan: Trowel.

Rachel: Trowel.

Craig: Did you say trovel?

[laughter]

Rachel: Sorry. I didn’t study Masonry.

[laughter]

Craig: You know a lot. You weirdly know so much.

Rachel: Really? No, but the point is that fiction write or prose writing, possibly play, I’ve never written a play. I wanted to star in a musical though.

Craig: Now we’re talking.

Rachel: Now it’s coming out. I feel like fiction writing or prose writing is like spinning gold out of thin air. Like you’re just like, “This is probably not going to happen today. It’s just not going to happen, but I’m here.” So I have not gone back to short fiction, but the question which I thought was interesting is the going back and forth, and the adaption, and whatnot. I just really want to finish my collection of short stories. That’s all I want to do, and I don’t see it. It’s like you bring different parts of yourself to everything, and there’s only one part of my heart that’s for that collection and one part that’s for the novel that is in a drawer somewhere. It’s a great question, but it’s funny, the divisions, there’s not much crossover for me.

John: That is our show for this week.

Links:

  • Austin Film Festival
  • Scriptnotes LIVE! December 6th at Dynasty Typewriter
  • Rachel Kondo and Justin Marks
  • Megan Amram
  • Susan Soon He Stanton
  • Decoder Ring – “The Wrongest Bird in Movie History”
  • Vote Out Ted Cruz
  • Brick App
  • r/TVTooHigh
  • Bliss Lau
  • A Dream of Islands by Gavan Daws
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram, Twitter and Mastodon
  • Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, with special help this week from Chris Csont and Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 662: 20 Questions (2024 Edition), Transcript

November 20, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. Today’s episode has even more swearing than usual. If you’re in a car with your kids, this is a standard warning about that.

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

Craig Mazin: Oh, my God. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to episode 662 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we will strive to answer 20 different listener questions on everything from AI to page count, manager notes to emotional investment.

Craig: Get the cocaine out. We’re going to have to get some cocaine in us, John.

John: I don’t think cocaine will really solve the issues here. The issue is that we have far too many listener questions. Every week, Drew gets a whole bunch of questions from listeners, they pile up in his mailbox. Sometimes we get a chance to answer them on the show. A lot of times we don’t. Drew, how many listener emails do you get on a weekly basis?

Drew Marquardt: I probably get 5 to 10 questions a day.

Craig: Whoa. We got to get more. Do you not even know that we don’t do cocaine? I just said we have to get cocaine in us. That’s not what cocainers say. Also, they don’t call themselves cocainers.

John: No, you’re making it up new words.

Craig: I’m clearly not a cocainer.

John: Yes, not one.

Craig: We got to go crazy here.

John: We got to go crazy. We’ve done this before, but we’ve never, I think, actually done it together. There was an episode back in 2022 where I did one with Megana, where I went through 20 questions, then you did one with Megana and went through 20 questions. Yours went on for like three hours.

Craig: Because we love each other.

John: Aw. We’ll do this together. We’re going to crank through here. Then there are bonus segment for premium members. You and I are going to talk through the new D&D Player’s Handbook. That’s why I have a whole stack of the old Player’s Handbooks here-

Craig: Oh, my goodness. I’m looking at them. Glorious.

John: -to compare and contrast, go back to the origins and updates to this fundamental text.

Craig: Foundational, really.

John: Yes. D&D Player’s goes back all the way to 1978. We’ll look at what’s changed, what not changed.

Craig: Gygax.

John: Just the value of a Player’s Handbook. I think back to how crucial of a document it was.

Craig: Yes, and how complicated and not child-friendly it was. Hard to learn.

John: Oh, for sure.

Craig: It wasn’t really designed by a teacher.

John: Yes, but in some ways, it feels like religious text. They’re not designed to be easy to follow. It’s complicated. You can spend your whole life studying them.

Craig: What we have now, and we’ll talk about this in the bonus segment, is the Bibles that they rewrite in American English, which are really weird because all the magic is gone, all the heavy-laden ye and thou is gone.

John: The esoterica is reduced greatly. They’re much more approachable.

Craig: It says things like, Noah said, “Whoa.”

John: Noah did say, “Whoa.”

Craig: Which is almost all the letters of his name.
John: Let’s get into our questions because we have so many. Drew, start us off.

Drew: Undisclosed semi-finalist writes, I just found out that I’m a semi-finalist for the Austin Film Festival. If I were to attend, do you have any advice on how I can capitalize on this opportunity without annoying the professionals?

John: You say you’re a semi-finalist. You entered into the screenwriting competition for Austin Film Festival, and a bunch of readers read your script and you made up to semi-finalists. Semi-finalist will get you nothing in the real world, but it gives you an excuse to go to Austin Film Festival. Let’s talk about what you might do there. We’re going to be there next week, Craig.

Craig: We are going to be there. I think you’re probably on the right track here, without annoying the professionals. Yes, don’t annoy the professionals. They can’t do anything for you. Even finalists are at risk of annoying the professionals only because, again, we can’t do anything for you. What Austin is for is for you guys to do things for each other. You meet other people, you meet other writers, you have good conversations, you learn about how they’re approaching things, and who knows, you might even find somebody that’s interested in working on something with you.

You might also bump into– When we say professionals, we mean the writers. We can’t do anything for you. There are managers there, there are producers there, those are the people who, in theory, you might chat up at a bar and see if they’re vaguely interested in what you have to do.

John: You are there with a semifinalist script. Hopefully, you are going to be able to talk about that thing. Be ready for the two-sentence description of your script, the one-minute longer description of it. Be ready to talk about other things. Be ready to send your script to somebody who might be curious to read it, like a manager, or a producer, but mostly go to Austin to mingle with people, to go to a bunch of panels. Go to the panels that you’re interested in, and look at it as that opportunity because it’s not going to be the moment that changes everything in your life.

Craig: There’s no opportunity to walk in there, find somebody, go, “I’m a semifinalist,” and they go, “Great. Here’s $1 million.” That’s not what’s happening. By the way, just to be clear for people, because John and I are going to Austin, it’s next week, or if you’re listening to the podcast, this week. Approach us all the time. There’s no problem. We love saying hello. If you want pictures and all that stuff, we love doing that, but we just can’t help you with your career. Not directly. Only indirectly through our words.

John: That’s the goal. Question two.

Drew: An honor to be nominated, writes, I work as a coordinator on a show that recently won an Emmy. I’m very proud of the accomplishment for the showrunners, the team, and any small part my role may have contributed to this win. My wife has been telling people that I won an Emmy. I did not. I am quick to clarify that my show won, not that I personally earned the award.”

I’m sure to list on my résumé that the production was Emmy-winning, and I certainly hope to one day have my name on a statuette. I’m unsure how to navigate the conversations around this. Should I gracefully accept the well wishes and compliments, or should I continue to clarify with the, “Thank you, but not really dance?” I’d love to hear your thoughts on how to handle this, both personally and professionally.

John: Now, we are actually going to throw this to you, Drew, because you have this lived experience.

Craig: Oh, I thought you were going to say, “Because this is your question.” “Your wife keeps telling people.”

John: Unlike me or Craig, you we went through this.

Drew: I’ve gone through this. I worked on a show that won an Emmy. I’ve worked below the line for a long time. When your show you worked on wins an Emmy, you get an honorary certificate that recognizes your contribution to the show, it’s got your name on it, it’s got gold leaf, it’s really nice.

My family also likes to pretend that I won an Emmy, even though I didn’t. My strategy tends to be to just bore people with the details of exactly what I just said.

John: And then maybe they’ll stop saying that forward.

Drew: They just nod and they’re like, “Oh, okay,” and then it honors your loved one’s excitement for you without undermining it, but still.

Craig: In this case, I think it would be fair, Mr. or Mrs. to say to your wife, “Stop it.” That’s the short answer. Tell your wife, “Stop it. It’s embarrassing because I didn’t win.” Now I have to explain it every time I’m never going to be the person that just goes, “That’s right. I won an Emmy.” Anybody that starts probing with questions, if I don’t say any of this, is going to go, “Oh, you’re a tool.” You didn’t win an Emmy, so just tell your wife to cut it out. Tell your wife the show won it. You worked on a show that won an Emmy.

John: In the show notes, we’ll put a link to this photograph of Drew’s certificate here, which is fantastic. The 2015-2016 Primetime Emmy Awards, honor Drew Marquardt operation assistant for contribution to an Emmy-winning program, Outstanding Short Form Animated Program.

Craig: Wait. Everybody on Chernobyl got a certificate? No one even told me. Ah.

John: Ah

Craig: Ah.

John: Ah. I think what’s impressive, Drew, is that you keep this with you all the time. You carry this with you all the time.

Drew: Oh, yeah. It’s in my wallet.

John: Yes, it’s nice.

Craig: So you won an Emmy?

Drew: I won an Emmy.

John: Congratulations, Drew.

Drew: Thank you so much.

John: All right. Questions three and four are related. Let’s start with question three.

Drew: Andrew writes, suppose an artificially intelligent machine, like Data from Star Trek or some other AI emerged in the real world and decided to become a writer. Would it get into the WGA? Does the WGA have a policy regarding what happens if or when a non-human entity such as that becomes real, and should it? At what point should a policy about that exist?

John: Data from Star Trek is a fantastic character. In every way, Data is an independent, conscious-living being, and so therefore, would be, in a world in which data existed, Data could join the WGA. I feel that it’s entirely defensible.

Craig: You’d have to change things though, because currently, as I believe-

John: A writer is a human being.

Craig: -AI– writer is a human being, and any material generated by AI is not considered literary material under the NBA. We would have to say, “Unless you’re awesome.”

John: Indeed.

Craig: Currently, no, is the answer Andrew.

John: Currently, no. So at some point, is it conceivable and likely, probably in our lifetime that there will be beings that we would consider conscious who are not organic? I guess. At that time, we’ll have to adjust everything about society. The tiniest thing we’ll have to address is what we’re doing about the WGA.

Craig: Although I’m not sure that those beings will require things like money, but maybe they will.

John: Maybe they will.

Craig: Currently, Andrew, we do have a policy in place. It is a result of our last contract, which we earned through canny negotiation followed by long strike, followed by some more canny negotiation. At least for now, sorry, Data.

John: A related question from Alexander.

Drew: Alexander writes, there was recently this New Yorker article by Ted Chiang. It brings up this idea of a very intricate and elaborate AI setup, where the human can give it, let’s say, 1,000 inputs to prompt and fine-tune a story idea. At this point, isn’t the human still a writer?”

John: Ted Chiang’s article got a lot of traction. This was a month or two ago. It makes some really good points. It also falls into some traps that I think people need to be aware of.

When you say that generative AI is just auto complete, it’s reductionist in a way that is not helpful. Chiang does that a bit. But on the whole, I thought he mentioned some really good points in his essay about why, and we’ve talked about this recently, last episode we talked about the difficulty of doing what we do, and that it’s 1,000 choices per word, per sentence, per project. The art is the struggle. Without that effort, without that work, you’re not making art in the same way.

Craig: I think what he is describing is an artificially intelligent producer. That’s what producers do just at a much slower level. They’re not going to give a writer a thousand inputs. They’re going to give a writer 10 inputs, and then the writer will write something, and then they will give that writer more input. That’s what producers do or development executives. No, you could do that a billion times. No, the human is not a writer. The human now, well I guess in that case the human would qualify perhaps as a producer.

John: It’s entirely possible. You’re giving us a detailed prompt that it’s elaborating on so clearly on when things are that some story credit would actually be like if you were to divvy up, like had this lit of things, at a certain point, you’re writing enough stuff that it becomes clearly that there is literary material in it.

Craig: You would have to write it down and you would have to catalog all of it. At that point, you should just write the script.

John: You probably should. It’s worth people to read Ted Chang’s article because I think it makes some nice points. There was two of the things I pulled out of here is that, “any writing that deserves your attention as a reader is the result of an effort expended by the person who wrote it,” which feels very true to me, and that, “many novelists have had the experience of being approached by somebody, convinced they have a great idea for a novel in which they are willing to exchange for 50/50 split of the proceeds. Such a person inadvertently reveals that they think the formulating of sentences is a nuisance rather than a fundamental part of storytelling.”

Craig: You and I have gotten this. So many people are just like, “I have this amazing idea. I just need somebody to write it.” You have nothing. You don’t even have property. Go ahead tell me your idea. Now it’s my idea because it doesn’t matter because you can’t own an idea. F off.

John: Yeah. Stuff. The last thing I’ll say about this discussion that Chang brings up and just obviously people are thinking about when it comes to AI, is when AI is ingesting a bunch of material and being trained on that, is that more like a human being reading stuff or is that copying and plagiarizing? It can feel like both. Chang makes the argument that if you just took five pages out of a book and said, “This is what I think about something,” clearly you’re not doing any work.

You’re not actually processing that. When an AI generates stuff that is clearly drawn from things, to what degree is that plagiarism, and to what degree is that what human beings view in terms of processing things? That’s going to be an ongoing debate.

Craig: Yes. How we are influenced other things is the concept of homage, the plagiarism, is something that has been going on long before AI ever showed up.

John: Indeed. Most of Shakespeare’s plays were drawn from earlier material.

Craig: Most religions were drawn from earlier material.

John: Funny that. Question five. This is a bunch– we have a couple of questions about this.

Drew: We had a lot of people write in about the Stereophonic lawsuit. Let’s do Jeremy’s. Jeremy writes, I was interested to read this news story about the lawsuit filed by Fleetwood Mac engineer, Ken Callait, and his co-author, Steven Stiefel, claiming the Broadway play, Stereophonic, is plagiarized from their memoir on making of the Rumors album. Does the transformation between memoir and ripped from the headline style fiction push this into a different category than if the play had been explicitly about Fleetwood Mac rather than a fictional Fleetwoodian band?

John: Now, Craig, I haven’t seen this play yet. I’m excited to see it. People love it.

Craig: This is a very interesting question. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with this lawsuit. Jeremy puts his finger on the weird aspect of this. The closer you get to saying, “Oh, this is actually is a dramatization of these people,” the more protected you are. The problem is when you present something as fictional, there is that big paragraph at the end of the movie that says, “All characters within are fictional, and any resemblance to any real people is coincidental.” Unless it’s not.

Because what you can’t do is, say, take somebody’s memoir, change some names, and then just adapt it because you have essentially circumvented the rules of copyright. They wrote it down. They own that, at least in its expression in fixed form. They don’t own the facts, but they own the expression in fixed form. If you are borrowing enough things, then you’re infringing upon their copyright. That in and of itself is a difficult case to make.

I think all these things are always an uphill battle. But if you were to say, I’m going to make a show called Rumors, and it’s a dramatization of the Fleetwood Mac people, the only thing you got to do is not defame them. Defaming is a different deal. That would just be like, “I’m just going to go write a bit where Stevie Nicks bites the head of a baby.” Yes, you’re getting sued. Otherwise, you’re okay.

John: This is a play written by David Adjmi, who was sued earlier over his play 3C, which was a parody of Threes Company. I just revealed why he was able to do that because it was a parody. He was able to be a parody. This is not going to be protected by parody. The lawsuit, we’ll link to the lawsuit here, is interesting. It’s claiming plagiarism, basically that it’s an unauthorized adaptation of the copyrighted memoir by Ken Callait, entitled Making Rumors: The Inside Story of the Classic Fleetwood Mac Album.

Of course, this is complicated because the actual play is not about Fleetwood Mac. They’re not saying it’s about Fleetwood Mac. It’s very Fleetwood Mac-ian. The details are in the lawsuit saying, if this is information that could have only come from his memoir, to me, feel a little bit tenuous.

Craig: They are, because if they’re facts, you can’t own them. If the lawsuit here is by Ken Callait and Steven, we’re going to call him Stiefel, but I do like the idea of Stiefel [“Shtee-ful”], I’d say. If it’s resting on, “Hey, we put a bunch of facts down of things that actually happened that nobody else knew about, and then you made those facts happen in your show,” they’re facts… Then the question is, so you acknowledge that you’re using these facts, but you’re not using them under the names of these people.

I think that’s going to be tough. I honestly think it’s going to be tough unless there’s something defamatory towards them, or there are things in the book that are said in certain ways, like people’s lines of dialog, for instance. If they say Lindsey Buckingham turned to me and said, x, y, z. Then in the show, some character named Jimmy Blingingham says x, y, z. That’s a problem.

John: This week, I saw the movie Saturday Night, directed by Jason Reitman, screenplay by Reitman and Gil Keenan. I will be curious to learn where the boundaries were of what they could say and not say about people. Whose rights did they control or own or did anything?

Craig: You don’t need them. You just have to not defame people. The history of Saturday Night Live is so extraordinarily well-documented. The Tom Shale’s book is insanely– It’s just all his interviews. It’s first-person interviews. It’s a treasure chest if you’re interested in that stuff. My guess is they were drowning in material that they could just point to.

But I do know from having written something about real people and real events that there is a process you go through that is pretty rigorous to make sure that everything that you assert happened is documented somewhere, especially when you’re talking about the behavior of people. Is it either a reasonable inference or is it within the boundaries of what their behavior was? You want to show John Belushi being a drugged-out lunatic or show Bill Murray as a guy that punches people? Oh, yeah. Yeah, that happened. For sure. You want to show Gilda Radner punching someone? Now, we may have a problem.

John: Also, complicated and simplified by who’s alive and who’s not alive.

Craig: You know what? You’re exactly right because Gilda Radner is dead, and you cannot defame dead people in the United States. Everywhere else, you can. You got to watch out for that.

Drew: Can I ask a quick follow-up? Because I know we’ll get it. Is it the frame of the recording booth that would theoretically be the problem? Because there was also like, Daisy Jones in the Six was a show that was basically about Fleetwood Mac that didn’t seem to have these legal problems. Is it specifically because they’re taking–

John: The lawsuit claims that this is from the engineer’s point of view because we’re looking at the stage from the engineer’s point of view? I think that’s crazy. It’s on stage.

Craig: You don’t own that.

John: You don’t own geography.

Craig: A, you don’t own it. B, who knows? I don’t think it would have behooved Lindsey Buckingham or Stevie Nicks or Mick Fleetwood to sue over Daisy Jones in the Six. I think they would have looked like A-holes, and it only helps them sell records. Who doesn’t get helped when we sell a bunch of records? The engineer, because he doesn’t have royalties.

John: You can imagine a scenario. Like let’s say that you wrote a play that was about the engineer for a Fleetwood Mactite band that used all these unique insights of just that engineer. The engineer was the central character of the whole thing, I think that would be a stronger lawsuit, but that doesn’t seem to be what we’re facing here. Lawsuits. Lawsuits.

Craig: Lawsuits. As always, we beg, even though they won’t listen to us, Deadline, Hollywood Report, or Variety, don’t write about these lawsuits. Write about the results. And the results inevitably are settlement.

John: Settlement or a dismissal.

Craig: Or dismissal, exactly.

Drew: All right. Question number 6. Vance writes, I’ve always heard that script cover pages should have the basics and no drawings, graphics, maps, or cutesy stuff. On the three-page challenge, I’ve heard you not only accept but praise some illustrated artsy cover pages. Is this your personal leniency or is it now more accepted industry-wide?

Craig: “I’ve always heard/read.” I’m going to guess from Reddit, other people who aren’t professional writers, people in your writing group, school professors, websites from freaking script consultants. I don’t know what they’re talking about. Look, I’m not in favor of it. I’m not against it. If it’s cool, it’s cool. If it’s not, it’s not. Yes, the default is title, name, contact information, maybe date. But if there’s something cool that goes on the front, sure, nobody cares. Guess what? They’re going to turn the title page and if page one sucks, I don’t care what was on the title page. If page one is awesome, I don’t care what was on the title page, I really don’t.

John: My first produced script go has a logo for go rather than the word go. Because go is such an incredibly small word. The page just disappears. It was a larger thing.

Craig: John, how did you possibly get a career? You violated what?

John: A fundamental tenant.

Craig: What all the gurus say. Gurus. We’re going to Austin, you know what Austin has a lot of?

Drew: Gurus.

Craig: You got it. Tons of them. You know what? They’re there for?

Drew: Money.

Craig: Yes. Tons of it. Taking it from people who don’t have it.

John: I don’t think they’re there for money. I think they’re there for some cred, for some ego gratification.

Craig: They’re looking for clients. They talk about just a big Savannah full of gazelles and these cheetahs are out there. I don’t know about cheetahs and gazelles. Just slinking around saying, “Hey, you’re this close, you’re this close, you know what you just need to do? Give me $10,000.” That’s why I’m going to walk around Austin, just be like no gurus.

John: We were wearing you cheetah skin jacket.

Craig: Awesome. I got to get one of those.

John: I saw a cheetah take down a gazelle.

Craig: Like in person?

John: In person, yeah on safari.

Craig: Ew.

John: When you’re on safari that’s what you’re there for.

Craig: I just wish the honey badger guy were there to narrate all of it. Cheetah, ew. Look at him. He’s taking down that gazelle. He don’t care.

John: Question seven.

Drew: Kevin writes, “As I work on my next project, I’m debating whether to closely involve the original creator of the source material or maintain some creative distance. In your experience, is it better to collaborate with the creator, or can distance actually benefit the adaptation?”

Craig: I’m living this life right now.

John: I think it really depends on the project and the person. It’s what’s going to make for the best scenario for you as the person who actually has to do the adaptation. Big Fish, I kept Daniel Wallace involved in a loop all the time. I wasn’t asking his opinion on things, but I was making sure that he was up to speed on things.

There was another project, another big book adaptation where shortly after we got it set up, it was clear like, “Oh no, this is going to be a bad situation.” I bailed on it because the creator was going to be way too involved in this is just not going to make happy for anybody.

Craig: I make The Last of Us with Neil Druckmann who created the game and he, I think is probably exceptional in this regard. If you’re going to bet, you’re going to bet that the creator’s going to be a problem. They’re going to be a problem because either they work in a different medium and don’t quite understand the purpose of an adaptation or how adaptation should function sometimes, which requires turning away from the material, changing the material.

Doing things that some people would say like, Oh, you made this part “better.” Never, it’s just about different media. Some creators don’t understand that. They just were like, “Here, just take book, make movie, don’t change nothing.” Some creators want to do your job, they just haven’t been allowed to. That’s the worst one. Where like, “I wanted to write this movie, but they wouldn’t let me because I’ve never written anything or because everyone thinks I’m nuts,” and that’s never going to work.

But there are creators who understand, who are smart and flexible, and who are interested in making something that is a proper adaptation that feels different. One of the things about The Last of Us is because you’re going from a video game to a show, the immediate need for adaptation is just there. It’s not like a book where you read it passively and then you can watch the movie. You are moving people around.

We actually had a discussion yesterday about this image in our show of a building and a sign and how the sign wasn’t really entirely in view. What I remember is in the game, it wasn’t entirely in view either unless you moved your stick on your controller, and then you could see it. I’m like, “I think this is fine to not see the whole thing.”

We don’t need to move it so we can see it. These are the kinds of things that just come up all the time, but in passive to passive, creator could be a problem. Kevin, I would be very careful if you’re debating, if you’re debating, maybe just go with no, do it on your own.

John: Thinking back to my conversation with Daniel Wallace and with this other author, I basically had the same conversation with the two of them saying like, “Listen, I love your book and I’m so excited about it. I’m so excited to get into this, but I want you to understand and to know that a lot of things are necessarily going to change just because they changed the medium and I can’t even know all the things that are going to change so far. Trust me that I’m going to protect your characters, protect the spirit of what you’re trying to do, but it’s going to be a different thing just because it’s different medium.” And their response to that was what told me like, oh one is going to be a good scenario and one is going to be a really bad scenario.

Drew: Question eight. Ian writes, I know your feelings about competitions, but what are your thoughts on writer’s retreats? Is it just vacation under the guise of nurturing creativity or is there value to the process of being with others, devoting time to the process, and focusing on craft? How might your opinions differ for an emerging writer outside of industry context versus someone with ties to the industry?

John: I’ve never been on a writer’s retreat. Craig, have you?

Craig: Of course not.

John: No. I’ve been on Sundance Labs, which is like that, but you’re not actually doing the work at the time there.

Craig: That’s super focused too and selective. No, I’ve never done it. I actually don’t know any of my writer friends who work the way we do who have done it.

John: I have novelist friends who’ve done it.

Craig: Yeah maybe they need to just go somewhere to get away from the noise and stuff to write their novel because there’s so much writing for a novel. No, I feel like there’s another way to take money from people.

John: I would tell Ian that if you are curious about it, the opportunity cost isn’t so much. As long as the actual cost is not going to be–

Craig: The money cost–

John: The money cost could be, but if it’s a–

Craig: What do you think these things cost?

John: I don’t know. If it’s a one week, a two-week scenario and you want to do it and you have the resources to do it, and you think it might work for you, it’s worth experimenting because every writer’s different and maybe this is a thing that will be truly helpful for you.

Craig: Here’s one on the Tuscan countryside. That’s just a, can we curse on this one?

John: Sure if you want to.

Craig: That’s a fucking vacation. I’m sorry. That’s just a vacation that costs money. They won’t tell you how much it costs. Oh, they do. Here they do. This one costs $3,500 to $4,500 just for the workshops.

John: That’s a difference too.

Craig: Some people know John and I will occasionally get invitations from these places where they would fly us out and even pay us some stipend or something to be the person that does the work. We go to Austin. Austin doesn’t pay us a goddamn thing. We fly ourselves there and we talk for free and then we go home and just like we do this podcast for free.

We’re not saints or anything, it’s just these things are businesses. Writers’ retreats to me are unless the– I don’t know, the nunnery is doing it. It just feels like another way for you to feel like you’re making progress or getting closer to the dream, you just have to pay some money to do it. Nobody that I know who has succeeded in this came out of a writer’s retreat or talks about a writer’s retreat. Screenwriting is free.

John: There’s a version of a retreat, which is more like what novelist friends have done where they recruit you and to do it. Then it’s not like there’s a classes or anything like that. Basically, you are free all day to write and to work and then you have your dinner together and then a conversation with the other writers who are up there. That feels like that could be really productive for certain people. I don’t see that happening a lot with screenwriters, but it doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.

Craig: Also, you don’t have to go anywhere to do that. Do you mean there are screenwriting groups that are free, all around LA and they’re being spitting, you’ll hit one and you want to go out to dinner with those people and chitchat. Great. If you want to write all day, get on your laptop. As John Gatins says, start clicking. Start those keys clicking.

Drew: Question nine. Anna writes, in your episode with Francesca Sloane, she said that she wrote short scripts to send in as samples for both Atlanta and Fargo. Atlanta itself has shorter episodes, but Fargo episodes run 45 to 60 minutes. Is it a good idea to send shorter samples to demonstrate tone and skill in a more digestible way for the people reading loads of other scripts? Or do people typically prefer reading a script the same length as their actual show so they can be sure you’re capable of properly structuring a 45 to 60-minute script?

John: Francesca Sloane came on to talk about Mr. and Mrs. Smith, a show that had a great very specific tone. I think it’s good to have a shorter sample you could also send, but I think a lot of showrunners will want to see something that is about the length of what their show is, just so they get a sense that you can structure that larger thing.

A lot of times when I talk to folks who are staffing on shows that showrunner is really going for do they have a voice? Do they have a personality on the page? That’s more interesting. They’re not reading the whole thing. They’re basically reading the first 20 pages, like, this person feels like I want to meet them.

Craig: I don’t think there would be any benefit to writing half of an hour-long episode.

John: Oh, no.

Craig: Yes, I do think you want to deliver something that is the length to show that you have the ability to run the full length of the race. If you are reading something that’s really well structured and has great payoff at the ending and somebody understands how to pace and create rhythm and meter across those pages and make the dramatic circle and make the end feel like it was surprising, but yet inevitable, all those wonderful things we’re looking for, that’s also incredibly valuable to see.

If you have somebody that’s just writing some glittering dialogue but can’t seem to make a plot or land the ship, you go, “I might want this person for some glittering dialogue if you’re running that kind of room, but now I know who they are.” I got to be honest, there are a lot of glittering dialogue people out there. There are very few people that you can reliably get a well-structured episode from. So few that it’s upsetting.

John: What might be a choice here is like, let’s say you have the full-length episode that shows what, how good you are at structuring and telling a story over the course of 60 minutes, 60 pages, but then you have a one act play that just like can show a versatility in a different voice and a very specific thing that you can do that no one else can do, that may be a good backup thing for you to have as well.

Craig: Yeah. The more breath you can show, the more versatility the better. You, at least, want to be able to show the fundamental thing that would be required there. Don’t worry about people having some ADD and seeing a 60-page script and going, “Oh, my God.” They write 60 pages all the time.

John: As we’ve established on the show when we talk to showrunners, it’s like they will throw your script across the room after three pages if they don’t like it.

Craig: Correct. If they do like it, they’ll keep going and they may even just flip to the end. Then they might read the first 10 and the last 10. If those are great, who cares? The middle is the middle, we’ll figure it.

John: Ultimately, they’re going to want to meet with you.

Craig: Exactly. Believe me, if you read something good, then yes, you gasp.

John: Question 10.

Drew: Andy writes, I’m pulling into the final stretch of completing a screenplay, which has taken me years to write. It’s an adaptation of some private journals that were written in the mid-1700s. The author died in 1795. Naturally, I assume that the material was in the public domain. Right? Wrong. I just discovered that the owner of the manuscripts, a major university, who published them in the mid-20th century holds the copyright to them until 2045 due to a quirk in the 1976 copyright law. I’m a beginning screenwriter and I would like to submit it to a few quality contests and some managers, but I don’t want to act in bad faith. What can I do in this situation?”

John: There are two very different questions I see embedded in here. First is that like, this is a crazy scenario where something written in 1700s is somehow still under copyright. I don’t believe it, but that’s a whole separate legal question. The second is, do I need to worry about this as a person who’s showing the script around to managers and other people who can get me representation? The second one is much easier to say, show it. Listen, if there are problems down the road in actually producing it, fine. You can show anything to a manager. You can get hired off of anything so that’s not a concern.

Craig: I’m also suspicious of this. Unless this was a translation and they have the copyright to the translation or they just have the copyright to their published thing with the forward, what happens is sometimes they’ll stick a forward on. That makes it something now you can copyright that. But if there are private journals and you’re literally going back to the private journals from the mid-1700s, I’m sorry, it doesn’t matter who owns published, whatever. There is no quirk in copyright that covers that. That said, fine, talk to a lawyer, but you don’t have to worry about that. Like John said, just submit.

Do you think the university’s going to start going, “No”? They can’t because you haven’t even exploited it yet. You’re just showing people something. It doesn’t matter. Then if a company wants to buy it, believe me, they’re going to tell their lawyers, “Go over to that university and either slap them around or give them 10 grand,” and that’s that.

John: If you as a writer want to write a romcom starring Superman and Spiderman, you can do that. Absolutely fine. You don’t control any of that stuff. You can never make that movie. If it’s great and funny and people love it, it can get you hired for other things.

Craig: You’re just not allowed to make a dime off of it until you get permission from the copyright holders.

John: When we say make a dime off, it doesn’t mean that you can’t get hired to do other stuff, that material cannot be produced.

Craig: Correct. Without their permission.

John: Question 11.

Drew: Jason writes, I’m introducing a character we initially only see from the waist down, but they have a brief dialogue with another character. Since the character’s face is off-screen, is OS still appropriate or should I clarify in an action line we only see the character from the waist down? Currently, I’m using both OS and the action clarification. Overkill?”

Craig: Overkill. It’s OS, really means not there. Not VoiceOver somewhere in the space.

John: You also see off-camera.

Craig: Off camera, OC, OS, same thing. Now in this case you would say we only see them from the waist down. That’s fine. If you feel like people are going to forget, you could write their name. If their name is Henry, Henry, waist down in parentheses next to their name. I think just OS or OC would not–

John: I would actually do the OS.

Craig: Really?

John: I would have this description that we only see them for the waist down and just because as people are reading through things quickly, sometimes they’re not reading all the action lines. That OS or OC just tells something like, “Oh, there’s something going on here. Maybe I should look back to see what’s happening.”

Craig: The problem is it gets really annoying. That’s why I’m thinking just, make a custom waist down, maybe just over and over and over. Even that is going to get annoying.

John: That’s going to get annoying too.

Craig: I think you just bold it. Put it on its own line, bold it, make it a bigger font if you want, underline it. You could even do something like halfway through the scene, just write “I just want to remind you, we’re only seeing him from the waist down.”

John: Really what Craig and I are describing here is that you’re going to feel that something that’s right in the context of the page and the context of the scene. If it’s one line of dialogue versus if it’s a whole exchange, it’s going to feel different.

Craig: Just don’t worry so much Jason about like, “Oh, is there like something that’s correct?” That’s a very not in our business way of thinking. We get it all the time. It’s not your fault. It’s this pedantic thing that comes out of Reddit forms and schools and writers’ groups. You really can, just every four lines of dialogue, remember waist down only. He’s still waist down. Can’t see his face.

John: In all these cases, it’s not that there’s right or there’s wrong. It’s what’s going to feel good in this moment?

Craig: What’s effective? What do you want people to feel and if you’re nervous that they’re going to forget something, remind them. You don’t have to remind them with this special way that people are going to go, “Technically, blah blah.” That’s not how it works.

John: No. Question 12.

Drew: Leo writes, I’ve always been able to write a screenplay, go through drafts, editing, feedback, and amends without a second thought, moving on to the next project and never looking back. However, I’ve heard and seen so many people unable to relinquish control and I’m starting to feel like maybe I’m not as attached or emotionally involved as I should be. I treat every script like a rep, like you would at the gym. But I’m starting to think that maybe I should be challenging myself to be more emotionally invested with the scripts. Any advice?”

Craig: Leo, let’s start with one possibility. You might be neurodiverse. Be somebody that just doesn’t feel things the way other people feel. That doesn’t mean you aren’t feeling things. It’s tempting sometimes to look around and go, “Uh-oh, everyone is crying. I’m not crying. Something’s wrong with me.” No. Maybe just you don’t find this as sad.

I do know quite a few people that are very successful who have nowhere near the level of angst that I do, who write with a freedom and less concern. Even the way you and I write, you’ll do the vomit draft, which feels like it would be less emotionally disturbing.

John: I’ll correct that because I think I’m misunderstanding. You think I do a vomit draft and I don’t.

Craig: Oh.

John: I write out of sequence, but no, I don’t vomit.

Craig: Oh, you don’t do a vomit draft?

John: No. I know folks who do the vomit drafts.

Craig: Then somebody does a vomit draft. The whole point of that is they just write. No worries. Let’s just go get something down on the page, and then I’m going to rewrite. That’s where all the– I’m an angst writer, every line, every day when I start, I go back over the day before stuff and I redo that. Everybody has their own– Scott Frank makes me look like I have no emotions.

Everybody writes per them. This is part of what makes you you, Leo. I wouldn’t worry so much about the way other people are experiencing this, but I would listen if you say, “Hey, I should be challenging myself more emotionally.” Also, maybe your scripts aren’t emotional. Maybe they’re just what they are. Maybe they could be a little emotional or maybe this or that, but they don’t have to be super sentimental. There are a lot of people that write that sort of thing. I think you should just be you.

John: I read this as– I don’t think he’s so concerned about what is the emotional content within the scene. It’s basically what does he feel about the work that he has done and how much of himself is wrapped up into these things. How much is his self-identity is wrapped up into this individual project?

There have been projects where I have felt that a lot. I would say going over the course of my career, one of the things I’m happy about is that when a project is just dead, it’s like, “Oh, okay, I’m done.” I am able to just divorce myself and I don’t think about that anymore. That’s a useful skill.

Craig: It is. I think the big lesson here, Leo, is you are as emotionally invested as you are. If you had to choose between getting super overwrought and caught up, or being the way you are describing yourself, I’d go with the way you were describing yourself. You have a better chance of writing more, learning more. As they say, the first few scripts probably are going to be that good anyway. This keeps you writing. Nothing wrong with that.

John: Agreed. Question 13.

Drew: Zach writes, I’m 28 and I’ve been a creative producer for five years on short films in Wisconsin and Minnesota. We want to move into features. However, my BA in theater means that I don’t have much experience with the other fields an industry producer deals with, raising money at the feature level, knowing how to schmooze and making creative producing a job that pays so I can focus on my craft.

To learn those skills and still keep making films with my midwest based team, would it be best for me to move to a larger creative market to try to get a job and learn from the ground up? Should I go to undergrad or grad school for producing or creative producing? Or do I just keep flying by the seat of my pants with my team and try to do it like Mike Cheslik and Ryland Tews who made two indie features in six years with Lake Michigan Monster and Hundreds of Beavers?

John: I did not know either of those movies, so I looked them up and they do look–

Craig: Hundreds of Beavers, I didn’t see it, but the trailer was awesome.

John: It’s great that you have a model for something what you want to do. It sounds like that’s what you want to do, is you want to be making their kind of stuff. For that, maybe you don’t need to get a lot more experience. You just need to grow up your ability to make a short film into bigger things and bigger things because those are very specific niche kind of things.

If you do want to really learn how producing producing works, it wouldn’t be the worst thing for you to apply to a program that does that and get you some experience with folks who are producing bigger stuff. Something like the Stark program would be great, but it could also be overkill if your real goal is to move back to the Midwest and just make midwestern films.

Craig: I think, Zach, this feels like you might want to come on out here. In looking what they’ve done, create a producer for five years on short films in Wisconsin, Minnesota. First of all, half the writers I know in Los Angeles are from Wisconsin and Minnesota. I don’t know what it is about that place, that part of the world, but very creative, very good writers come from there.

The thing is short films, as we’ve said many times already, a little bit of a dead-end street. Short films in the Midwest, a shorter dead-end street. It’s a bit cul-de-sac. I think you might want to come to Los Angeles. You’re 28, which is still young, but not young. It’s a little late to start taking on massive debt to go to a graduate school. That may or may not be the way to go. If you had a choice between spending the– what does Stark cost, $100,000 a year or something? You can spend $100,000 a year plus living expenses and all the rest of it, or get a job that pays you $40,000 a year if you can. That’s a low-rung thing where you’re going to get demoted for a while from what you were doing to what you’d be out here, but you start working somewhere where things are getting made and things are happening and you start climbing a ladder. That is not a dead-end street.

John: I think what we’re talking about is either you go to film school to learn creative producing in a structured program, or you find a place that you work for a producer who’s doing the job that you want to do.

Craig: You get paid to learn.

John: Yes, you get paid to learn.

Craig: You pay to learn or you get paid to learn. I pick the latter.

John: Actually, a good first step for you might be go to some of these film festivals that are showing the kind of movies that you like to do and see if you can get an internship or a job working for one of those producers and really learn from them about the nuts and bolts of it. Because honestly, making the things like Lake Michigan Monster or Hundreds of Beavers is a very specific skill set. Figuring out how they do it is going to be the way to do it.

Craig: What the future holds for that is tricky. They’re great indie bands, but it’s a tough future. You get down the road and you start to go, “Oh my God, I love that band. What’s going on?” They’re still out there touring and it’s– Honestly, Zach, if you could be an assistant to somebody doing the job that you’re doing, it sounds crazy. Like, “I’m going to be the assistant to the person who does the thing I do?” Except that out here on this level, at this scale, the people who do what you do are not doing what you do. They’re doing something else and you do need to learn and you do need to be exposed to it. The whole point of being an assistant out here is not to be a typist in the steno pool. It’s a ladder.

John: The point about raising money, I think it’s crucial because it’s a very specific skill and it really depends on the kinds of movies you’re trying to make. If your goal is to make indie horror films, that’s a very specific pile of cash that is used to do those. It’s a very specific business model. If it is these more esoteric straight Indies, then something more like a Sundance or a Slamdance kind of vibe maybe where you need to focus your attention. Be honest about what appeals to you. I think you are, looking through your description there, it feels like they know what they want to do. Question 14.

Craig: 14.

Drew: Rachel writes, I’ve spent the past year and a half writing and developing my first feature, which I also plan to direct. When my manager walked me through her latest round of notes, I had a gut feeling that she hadn’t actually read the script. Her notes were vague and abstract and it felt like I was the English teacher and she was the student who only read the spark notes and tried to BS her way through.

Craig: ChatGPT. She ChatGPTed the notes.

I’m starting to question why she isn’t more invested in a project she wanted me to write in the first place.

What do I do now? Do I make the changes just to keep her happy so she’ll finally send it out or do I hold my ground and risk stalling everything? This is the third feature we’ve developed together. I’ve put my soul into these projects and I don’t think I can handle another one falling apart. I’m honestly at the point where I might quit if this one doesn’t work out.

I’m too old to keep doing the same song and dance expecting a different result. I feel trapped in this endless feedback loop waiting for months for each round of notes and even got the suggestion to shoot something on an iPhone in the meantime while she catches up. How do I move forward without compromising my vision for someone who isn’t fully engaged? Is it too late to reconsider my rep situation?”

John: Craig, you have the advice here. What’s the advice?

Craig: Fire your manager.

John: Sometimes it’s just that easy.

Craig: It’s just that simple. That was a whole lot of reasons to fire your manager. Followed by the question, “Should I fire my manager?” Yes. It seems like, Rachel, your manager has ticked all the boxes of being fire-worthy. Probably not actually writing the notes, I honestly do. The way she described does feel like she just said, “Hey, ChatGPT, read the script and do some bad notes.” She takes months to respond. What is she doing in between there? She won’t send things out. Send it out. Just do it. If she doesn’t want to send things out, it’s because she has nobody to send them to.

Shoot something on an iPhone while she catches up? What is she catching up with? Legitimately, this just feels like a damaged fraud. Is it too late to reconsider my rep situation? Rachel, it is too late to reconsider your rep situation if you have stage four cancer. Otherwise, no. It’s not too late. In fact, it’s still not too late if you have stage four cancer. Fire them in the last breath that you have.

John: Honestly, I think if you have stage four cancer, your odds of recovering from the cancer are higher than that this manager is suddenly stepping up and doing a great job.

Craig: That’s right. It’s a miracle. She’s sent my script? No. Your bone cancer is retreated. You’re going to live another year. Rachel, for the love of God, I don’t care, I believe you mentioned that, “I’m too old for this. I’m too old to keep doing the same song and dance.” Correct. I don’t know how old you are, Rachel. If you’re 22, you’re too old for this. If you’re 82, you’re too old for this. Fire your manager.

Drew: Question 15. Enrico writes, First of all, I’m Italian, and second of all, I’m poor. I’ve also wrote a screenplay. I really like it.

Craig: Third of all.

Drew: One small company bought the option for my screenplay, so someone else likes it. The Italian market is a huge mess so I want to try different options. Is there a path for a foreign screenplay in the American market?”

John: I don’t know. This is where I think we need to throw to our listeners who might actually have some better insight here because we have a lot of international listeners. If you are an international listener or someone who works with international writers and can offer some advice to Enrico about, if you were an Italian screenwriter who’s written something, presumably in English, we don’t know, and how you get that script read by English-speaking audiences or British producers or American producers, because I just don’t really know.

Craig: Did Enrico write this question in Italian and we translated it?

Drew: No, it came in English.

Craig: All right. Enrico, first of all, just based on this, either your English is good or your translation program is good.

John: Craig, I cleaned it up.

Craig: You cleaned it?

John: Yes.

Craig: Oh, okay. Look, that’s actually good to know. We can leave that in. Enrico’s English is not superb. With that in mind, is there a market? Kind of I’ve seen it. I have gotten things that are from somewhat established filmmakers overseas who are trying to break into American television. You can tell from the script that English is not their first language, but you’re doing the math of, I can look past that actually, to, “What’s the story? What are the characters? Is this fascinating?”

Obviously, they’re going to need a partner who does speak English, who can help that aspect of it. Yes, there is. There’s that beautiful show about the young Italian girls growing up on HBO. There are absolutely avenues for foreign work. Netflix is incredibly global. The Italian market is a huge mess. There’s no question about that, Enrico. The Italian entertainment industry is a bit like Italian politics. Mamma mia. It’s a mess. It really is.

John: I was just in Italy for their film and TV conference.

Craig: Did you note that it was a mess?

John: I noticed it was a challenging time for the industry.

Craig: It’s chaos, but it’s not impossible, Enrico. I think part of it may be finding representation who understands, “Hey, I’m not here just for the Italian market. How do we expand?” You may want to start a little closer to home, for instance, the UK, and work your way to do this. It’s easier to work from UK to US than from say, Italy to the US.

John: There’s this conference over this summer was all about international collaborations between the Italian market and other European markets which makes a lot of sense.

Craig: Now the UK has unfortunately withdrawn from Europe, but.

John: But they still do a lot of things with–

Craig: Of course.

John: They are there.

Craig: Like I said, it’s closer and they’re more likely to look to that market than the US is.

John: For sure. Question 16.

Drew: Tim writes, “I signed with a reputable management company in Los Angeles. We’ve been working closely together.”

Craig: Fire them.

Drew: I completed a screenplay that, after quite a lot of time refining it, we’re now at a stage where a director is attached, as well as producers, who have financial backing for offers to talent. It feels like a lot of cool stuff is happening and I’m very thankful for that. It just feels like this is trotting along forever. I’m afraid of years passing by because of the slow-moving pace of it all with no meaningful progress being made.

My question is, what else should I be doing? Is there more I could ask for my management to expedite the process or ensure my new script gets attention? Should I be asking for meetings with people around town, to show both scripts to studios in an attempt to get writing assignments? I’ve already started on my next script and have a slate of another 10 I want to develop further to see if they have legs, so the actual writing is being done on my part. I just want to rally the troops and make sure I’m not missing anything, but also not come across ignorant or too pressing.

John: Great. It sounds like your management company is doing something well, which is basically they’ve got this thing out, they’re sort of trying to get stuff in, but your concern that this is going to take forever is justified because everything just takes forever here, because it does. During the summer, they’ll say, “Oh, we’ll come back to this in the fall,” and the minute Labor Day happens, like, “Let’s get back to it after the New Year.” That’s just sort of how this town tends to work.

Craig: Until suddenly, within 24 hours, everything must get done. It is so slow and then so fast. Head whipping, really. I think the key word here is feel.

John: Feels.

Craig: He said it feels like this.

John: Your management company, in this meantime, should absolutely be sending you out on a zillion meetings. It’s good that you’re starting your next project. it’s good to have 10 things. Be ready to talk about those 10 things. Describe to your management company, “These are the projects I’m most excited about going out and pitching with people. Let’s find who these people are.” You need to manage your managers and by managing your manager, let’s say ask them, “What’s happening here? What can we be doing right now for me this week, next week? Let’s make a plan for this.”

Craig: It’s okay to say, hey, can we go get drinks to just do a little planning for 2025? In that meeting, say, “This is how I am. Here’s just me as a person. I need this and this and this. It doesn’t matter if it reflects reality or not. I just need to feel busy and to feel like stuff’s going on. You may want to over-schedule me. You may want to send me to more places.” Or, “Hey guys, tell me honestly, am I bad in the room? If I’m bad in the room and that’s why you’re not sending me out there, would be great to know. Then there are other things that maybe I can do.” Sometimes we just don’t know why things aren’t happening and we presume it’s because of other problems and maybe people are saving us from ourselves. I don’t know.

So Tim, I love your antsy-ness and I also appreciate that you understand it might just be annoying antsy-ness. Sometimes rather than saying, “Why aren’t we doing things? Shouldn’t we be doing this? Shouldn’t we be doing this?” Just say, “Here’s how my brain works. Here’s how I am, so therefore, what can we do?”

John: Something I did with my reps this year is whenever I’m sitting down with them, I have a one-pager that talks through like, “Here are all the projects. Here are where things are at and here are what my priorities are.” I can just be really clear like, “This is my number one priority. If this thing happens, everything else goes away. Here are the other open loops here.” So we can all sort of be on the same page about what it is we are trying to do, which is useful.

Craig: It would be nice if they did that.

John: I make the one-pager, which is fine.

Craig: It’s fine.

John: It’s fine.

Craig: They are who they are. They all are.

John: Question 17.

Drew: Jenny writes, “I’m a mid-level TV writer who sometimes hangs out and tries to answer questions for aspiring writers in a giant Facebook group. Whenever I post some well-known film or TV writer script, aspiring writers are convinced that the formatting is wrong. There are a thousand things that they’ve been told are verboten by so-called screenwriting gurus.”

John: Screenwriting what now?

Drew: Gurus.

John: What?

Drew: Gurus. When I point out that, no, it’s not at all against the rules or even unusual for a screenwriter to say, all caps, “A SOUND CUE” in a script, the pushback is always along two lines. A, “Well, he’s a well-known writer so he can get away with it,” or B, “Well, that’s a shooting script, not a spec script. You can’t do that in a spec script.” It creates this perfectly shitty feedback loop where they convince themselves not to learn from some of the best writing in Hollywood. I’ve given up trying to help them. Maybe you can set them straight.

Craig: John, should we–

John: I think we’ve done this for 650 episodes.

Craig: I think we’re in our second decade of saying this and you know what, Jenny? I’m going to give you some advice. Get out of the Facebook group. They’re beyond help. That’s the deal. If that group is convinced that they can’t do something, get out. If they are going to give– By the way, I just want you to know, Jenny, it’s not just you. I get this.

John: All the time.

Craig: All the time. I did an ask me anything on Reddit years ago. People do this and then I’m like, “No, just do whatever you want.” They’re like, “Well, you can get away with it.” Apparently always, from the beginning, somehow weirdly, I got away with it. “Oh, that’s a shooting script, not a spec script.” Nobody knows the difference and nobody cares. This is the problem. It’s just a barrel of crabs all pulling each other down.

A lot of people are in these groups to experience faux authority, like they know. Makes them feel better, because what they don’t have is actual authority backed up by, you know, having a career at this like you do, Jenny. So you know what? Get out. Get out and just let them sit there convincing each other that “we see” is toxic poison for a script.

John: I think your advice for her to get out is 100% accurate. I would also say that there’s this blurry line between what is common practice versus what are the rules. Understanding what common practice is like what most people are doing on the page is really useful. You get that by reading a bunch of scripts. No one wrote the rules. There are no rules.

Craig: There are no rules. There are no rules. We have said this so many, so many, so many, so many times.

John: It’s the third chapter of the Scriptnotes book, the rules.

Craig: There you go. There are no rules. It doesn’t matter how many times you say, “Hey, guess what? If something’s really good, no one cares.” They don’t believe you. They do not believe you. They think it’s either a trap or it triggers their sense of insufficiency to such an extent that they need to defend. I can’t explain to somebody why they should or shouldn’t feel sufficient. I don’t know. I do know statistically, whoever it is, they’re insufficient. That’s just facts. Same way it is for professional sports or acting or anything. Just going by the statistics. If you make it, you are an anomaly. Jenny, God bless you. Don’t go there.

John: No. Question 18.

Drew: Joe writes, “I’m writing this in one of the short windows of time that our newborn daughter allows in between feedings, diapers, and sleeping. Do you know of any reliable dictation to transcription apps for the iPhone to help a new dad get some creative thoughts down? Using the iPhone Notes app, I tried dictation but find that transcription stops after a few sentences. Outside of using the voice memo app and then transcribing later on, do you know of a reliable app that can do transcription to a better degree than the iPhone’s internal features? I’ve read about a couple that lean heavily on AI, which only brings me ethical concerns, but might be the only current solutions?”

John: I use dictation software on the iPhone for journaling, so in day one, so rather than typing stuff in day one about what’s happening, I’ll just dictate to it, because I don’t really care if it’s not exactly right. I’m getting it out and getting it down. It’s been my most of my experience with dictation software. A couple of things to think about. Any transcription software is AI, so just get over your worry about it. That’s just going to happen. I think voice memos on the iPhone now actually does transcriptions a lot better and runs longer. I think it automatically transcribes stuff.

Craig: With the new Apple intelligence?

John: Yes, I don’t think it’s– I think even pre the Apple intelligence can do that. Use whatever works for you. Just go for it.

Craig: This isn’t an area where AI actually feels great because it’s not trying to invent anything, pretending it’s doing something new. It’s just using all of its bits and bobs to move your voice into words. It’s just giving you what you do, not adding or subtracting. It’s not editing you as it goes along. Google it?

John: Google it. Open AI makes a product called Whisper that’s actually very good at transcriptions for stuff.

Craig: There’s an answer.

John: There’s a way. I’ve seen elaborate things where people will sort of take a voice memo and then they’ll create a shortcut that then sends it through to Whisper and sends back a really good transcript.

That’s directly possible. Every week there’s going to be new stuff that does this. I would say just look for the simple solution that gets the stuff done that you need to get done. Joe, if you’re trying to dictate a whole script, that’s going to be challenging. That’s going to be tough. If you’re just dictating notes to yourself, great. Go for it.

Craig: I will say also, like Joe says, creative thoughts. I have found if I’m on a walk or I’m somewhere and I don’t have my keyboard with me and I have– an exchange emerges in my head, I’ll just record it as a voice note. Then listening back is quite simple and often jogs your memory better than seeing it in a format in which it did not exist, nor did you type. Maybe just a voice note.

John: Question 19.

Drew: Gary writes, “I’ve just rewritten a script from scratch on a project that was not very good and wasn’t working in its last incarnation. None of the previous material was WGA. At the end of it all, I’m getting written-by credit, but the producer wants the story-by credit for themselves, for Byzantine reasons. I told them that I wrote the treatment for this version, so I’d share the credit. They insist that they’ve written a treatment in the past. I haven’t seen it. That the previous draft was based on, and all of the basic broad strokes in my script were their idea, and this isn’t WGA anyway. I didn’t put up a big fight as my hope is this won’t wend through the indie route and it will become a WGA script and I can let the guild drop the hammer then, but is this at all common?

I couldn’t recall seeing a story-by credit that didn’t include the written-by author in it. I figured it would have to be a super specific scenario where a lot more detail than just the broad strokes were included in the treatment, like a scene-by-scene breakdown.”

John: A lot of misassumptions there.

Craig: So much confusion. First of all, Gary, it’s extraordinarily common. In the WGA you will see screenplays where it says “story by A, screenplay by B”. It happens all the time.

John: Specifically, you wouldn’t see that- you’re not going to ever see “story by A, screenplay by A” because–

Craig: That would be written by– unless we screenplay by A and B. In the case of original screenplays, the story-by credit is irreducible. If somebody sells a spec and then somebody else comes in and rewrites it and does a lot of screenplay work, but doesn’t really change the basic essence of the plot, basic characters, et cetera-

John: They’re going to get story credit.

Craig: -then it’ll be story by A and screenplay by B. Now, in this situation, none of this is WGA. Here’s the bad news. You’re asking all these questions and the answer is, anything can happen.

John: Totally.

Craig: Obviously this producer’s a jerk. That’s clear. Like, “Oh, did you write a treatment? Where is it? No, you didn’t.” Now you’re hoping that this might end up WGA. I have bad news for you. If it does, you’re not getting WGA credit because you didn’t write this under a WGA deal. WGA credit is going to go to whoever else rewrites it under the WGA deal. Now if that’s you, good news, everything that came before would be source material credit along the lines of– based on a screenplay-by, but the real then residual-able WGA credit would be to you. At that point, the producer’s completely screwed because he didn’t write anything under a WGA contract. But currently? Wild West, buddy.

John: We’ll say that independent of where this ultimately goes, what names appear on the screenplay do kind of matter. If it says story by producer, screenplay by you, it’s going to be assumed that that is an accurate reflection of what really happened here. Maybe just don’t worry about it.

Craig: It’s not WGA. At this point, Gary, they could just say written by anyone. You have no protection whatsoever. It’s almost like maybe you shouldn’t be writing stuff for non-union companies, because guess what? This is what they do.

John: This is happens all the time.

Craig: Now I understand you need money, someone’s paying you something, but you got to know when you walk into a lawless saloon, you’re going to get shot. Like, sorry. You took the money from an entity that has every ability. If they wanted to be union, put up the money, show that they have the ability to do it. Follow the rules. They said no and now you’re like, “What’s happening?” You’re in the wrong saloon.

John: For sure. We’ve done it. Question 20.

Craig: Woo.

Drew: Casey writes, “For the past two years I’ve been writing a screenplay for a TV series. I have a pretty unique situation in that I’m quite enjoying the writing, but I don’t really want to be a full-time writer. I have no writing experience. I’m a middle-aged guy, married with two young kids and a career that I’m proud of. The only reason I’m able to write what I’m writing is because the story is about an area in which I have immediate knowledge, I’m living it, and I’m passionate about the subject.

My goal is to write this one story, pass it off to someone who can get the show made, and then return to my current job. It’s not about the money for me. My dream is just that the show would get made, although I do recognize that any show getting made is a long shot. If it takes 25 years, so be it. I was wondering if you had any advice for initial steps. I’m aware that agents and managers may not be excited about representing a one trick pony.”

John: All right. Let’s think about Casey’s goals here and why he’s approaching this project. He wants a series about the thing he does to exist in the world, and so he’s chosen to go off and write a thing, which is great. You are free as a writer to write anything you want to do. God bless. You’re hopefully enjoying the screenplay format, but you say you don’t ever want to write anything else. Then you’re not really a screenwriter. You’re a person who created this one thing, which is, hopefully a template for a series.

I think the best case scenario for what you’re able to do here is, you get something that’s really pretty good, and then you’re able to find a writer showrunner and show them this, and be honest and say, “I want someone else to make this series. I don’t want to make this series at all.” Will a reputable showrunner actually really want to do that? Unlikely, but it’s not impossible. In a weird way, the screenplay you’re writing, the script you’re writing is less important than if you’d written this as a book about what it’s really like to be a forensic pathologist. It’s almost a source material rather than a real script. Craig, what’s your feeling on this?

Craig: You’re not a writer, Casey. You’re telling us you’re writing. When you say, “I don’t really want to be a full-time writer,” what that means is, I don’t want to write. I don’t want to be a writer. Unfortunately, what you are doing is providing other people with a kit, a model kit, and saying, “Here, build something out of this. Once it’s a thing, then I get to see it.” You say, “If it takes 25 years, so be it.” It may take a million years, meaning just the thought that, “Oh, obviously, it’ll happen sometime between now and 25 years from now.” It’s not going to happen. It’s not anything that anybody will be interested in because it’s just a script from somebody that now is a burden upon the person who actually does have to write the show, that now they have to share created-by credit with somebody who literally wrote 60 pages once.

I would strongly recommend, Casey, that instead of putting this in a screenplay format for a TV show– I guess, it sounds like you’re writing a pilot. If you’ve been writing it for two years, I’m also concerned. Write the novel. Write the novel, because that is its own thing, separate and apart. Then people love adapting novels to TV shows, and then it’s fine. Michael Crichton and all that. Writing a script when you’re not a writer and you’re not going to be a writer, it’s like, “You know what? I really like blowing babies up in people. I got a great idea for a baby. I don’t want to be a dad, but I got a great idea for a baby.” Seeing as how you have two young kids, you know what I mean, Casey. It ain’t about conceiving a child, it’s about raising it. That’s what we do as writers, it’s the raising babies.

John: Raising babies. Craig, we did it. We made it through 20 questions.

Craig: Let’s do 20 more.

John: Instead let’s do one cool things.

Craig: Fair.

John: My one cool thing is Rachel Bloom’s Death, Let Me Do My Special. It’s her new special on Netflix. This has been a long time coming, so if you watch it, I don’t want to give too many spoilers for it. Essentially in 2019, she started to come together with a comedy special and had a plan for what this was going to be. The pandemic happened. She had a baby, her longtime collaborator died of COVID. The whole idea of how do I do a comedy special became fraught. She spent years developing this thing. I’ve seen many incarnations of it.

I saw it at Dynasty Typewriter where we do our live shows, I saw it at Largo, and now I got to see the filmed version. It’s terrific. She’s so smart. Her songs are, of course, phenomenal. It does some really interesting things with a form of what a comedy special should be.

Craig: I got to get on this. I’m a bad friend. I got to get on this. Now, a question for you since you’ve seen so many versions of it. Is it Death, let Me Do My Special or is it Death Let Me Do My Special? Is it let, allowed, or I’m asking permission from death?

John: You’re asking permission from death.

Craig: Got it.

John: Death is a character in the show.

Craig: Death, Let Me Do My Special.

John: Yes.

Craig: Got it. Excellent.

John: It’s on Netflix and everywhere worldwide right now.

Craig: Love Rachel. Congrats Rachel. My one cool thing is the Warner Brothers lot.

John: I love the Warner Brothers lot.

Craig: These days lots are getting less and less lotty. Paramount is an amazing lot, then no one’s there. Maybe that’ll change now that it’s being sold. Paramount was the first lot I ever stepped foot on.

John: Same.

Craig: I was like, “Oh, my God.” It was packed with cars and people and-

John: Star Trek.

Craig: -Star Trek aliens in the commissary, and bungalows full of geniuses. It’s a ghost town now. The Fox lot was the second lot I ever stepped onto, which also fascinating beehive, which I suspect is less beehivey.

John: Oh yes, it’s dead there.

Craig: It’s dead. The Warner Brothers lot is still alive. We’re doing our post-production in a building on the Warner Brothers lot. You walk around and you see production happening on the back lot, and you see all these people coming out by where the commissary is and sitting outside of the tables and there’s this togetherness. There are the trams coming through, but they’re not like the Universal, like Universal is clearly turning themselves into-

John: A theme park.

Craig: -a theme park with an office building built on top of a parking structure. Warner Brothers doesn’t have that. It’s no theme park and it just feels like, okay, there’s still some old fashioned Hollywood going on here. Disney is still a lot, but Disney is Disney.

John: Yes, Disney lot is actually fantastic but Warner–

Craig: It is, but it’s very Disney-ish.

John: At Warner you get the animaniacs acts running around all the time, coming down for the little water tower.

Craig: Because they have cocaine in them?

John: Indeed. They’re cocaine-ers.

Craig: They’re cocaine-ers. I miss it and I wish we could get back to it and it’s not — The Paramount is my great hope. The Sony lot is also a lot, but it’s weird.

John: The Sony is weird. It’s divided. It’s on two different sides.

Craig: Exactly.

John: I said that Paramount was my first lot, but I think I actually had a class with Laura Ziskin on the Sony lot first. The Sony lot is really confusing to find your way around in.

Craig: It’s isolating and it’s maze-like, and they really have just like one “street”. Warner Brothers is just beautiful.

John: It’s gorgeous.

Craig: It’s sun baked and it’s so beautiful that their logo reflects all the — It’s got all those wonderful sound stages.

John: Elon Musk can debut products there.

Craig: Anyway. My one cool thing is a good old-fashioned old-school Hollywood lot that is still functioning and I’ll bump into people I know, and we’ll have lunch and who knows? The ideas might occur. It’s a nice place. I’m hoping that David Ellison can revitalize the Paramount lot. It’s truly extraordinary.

John: It really is fantastic. We have a request from a listener. They’re one cool thing. Drew, help us out with this.
Drew: Yes, this is from our listener, Victoria. She writes, “This is a personal one that’s dear to my heart. Scarecrow Video in Seattle is so important as an institution for the preservation of film, and it would be a tragedy to lose something like this. They’re trying to raise 1.8 million before the end of the year to prevent closure. It’s an incredibly tiny sum of money given the amount of billionaire-owned corporations and arts endowments in Seattle. It seems like no one wants to step up. Paul Allen probably would have if he was still alive, but there it is. I know you all care about the disappearance of film titles, something Scarecrow actively works against. It would be a loss to Seattle and the world if this collection was shut down.” She links to the fundraising and an article from UW magazine.

John: Fantastic. Great. Yes, video stores are this interesting place right now because while we don’t need to go there to rent DVDs and videotapes, they are sometimes the last place to get these things. They’ve also become basically social places where you can throw events. Finding that balance feels crucial.

Craig: Yes. Listen, rooting for them. Always difficult to rely on a fundraiser to keep your business going.

John: Yes, because it then implies the model itself is not sustainable.

Craig: It does feel like an end stage, kind of, we can extend your life by six months. I’m hopeful and who knows, maybe this would–

John: Yes, maybe the fundraiser is to get them to a new thing–

Craig: A new thing where they can. Sure, it would be great if — It’s Seattle so, hey, Bill Gates. Why not? Right? Rooting for you.

John: Yes. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com.

That’s also the place where you can send questions. You will find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts and hoodies and glassware. They’re all great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on the Dungeons & Dragons player’s handbook. Craig and Drew, thank you for getting through these 20 questions.

Craig: Thank you, guys.

Drew: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, bonus segment. Thank you to all our premium members. We now get to go through one of our favorite things in the world, which is the Player’s Handbook. Craig, what do you hold in your hands right now?

Craig: I’m holding the Advanced D&D Player’s Handbook. This is 1978.

John: So you had this book.

Craig: AD&D. I did and I did not understand it.

John: Yes, and that’s what’s so crucial about these books is that they’re difficult to get into. They’re full of tables, so many tables.

Craig: So many tables.

John: Then lists of spells that are duplicated for each of the different classes that could cast identical spells, which is nuts.

Craig: Looking at this, I can understand why I was fascinated as a kid and it starts with the cover. Art has always been a huge part of these books. This is something that Wizards of the Coast is getting pretty savvy with. There’s so much art in the new one. This old one, what you had was this big, demonic, devilish creature with gems for eyes.

John: Yes, a statue of it.

Craig: Yes, a statue of some rogues trying to pull it out. You had some cool guys in the foreground and a dead snake man. All these wonderful things that made me go, “Yes.” Then you open it and the text is so tiny.

John: It’s tiny. It is like a Helvetica font.

Craig: It is dense and it is for adults. That’s the thing that really I didn’t I’d understand as a kid was, and especially AD&D, how this was not for — I was seven. Look at the tables and charts index. That’s like six-point font. Even that, and we could read it back then.

John: Yes, because we were young.

Craig: We were like, “Oh, no.” I could not crack into this.

John: Hand that to Drew because I don’t think he’s seen that. Also on the table here, we have all the different editions between them. That was the first edition. The 1989 second edition Players Handbook, 2E.

Craig: That was a very popular one for a long time.

John: It was a very popular one. 2E stayed around for a long time, and it got closer just to what we’re expecting now.

Craig: Ish.

John: Ish, but there were still fundamental changes to the rules with each new generation of this thing.

Craig: Oh, yes.

John: Going back to the original AD&D Player’s Handbook, the systems that it established were really taken from tabletop role-playing, tabletop combat simulation games.

Craig: Yes, it was chain mail, I think was what it was. Gygax had his initial thing.

John: There were a lot of tables. Your armor class, you wanted a negative number for your armor class, which is crazy.

Craig: Negative armor class was very confusing.

John: You would roll your twenty-sided die to see if you hit somebody, but then you had to consult a chart to see what it was. Over the years, they made some simplifications to things to make things a little more streamlined.

Craig: No more [unintelligible 01:16:36] You hit armor class zero.

John: Zero, yes, was the goal. Second edition still felt like it was a cleaned-up version of probably first edition. There were some changes but it still had the same core classes.

Craig: Yes, but you can start to see, if you look at the cover of AD&D Player’s Handbook, and the font, Advanced D&D, right? Then you look at the font for 2E, you can start to see that they’ve actually discovered, they’re starting to get closer to what becomes like the standard — It’s readable and the cover art is exciting.

John: There’s color inside.

Craig: There’s color inside. Look, it’s not as tiny-tiny and they have explanations of things. Original D&D was not meant to be as big as it was. It was really part of this mail-order, catalogy world of people who are into combat simulation. Now it catches on and you can start to see it getting closer. Fourth Edition, maybe it was a step backwards, I think, in terms of complexity. By the time you get to Fifth Edition, which is now 10 years ago, that’s when everything changed.

John: First edition, 1974. Second Edition, we played a bit, no one would talk about that. Third Edition, really 3.5, became the default standard D&D that people are thinking about. In 2014, there was this fourth edition, no one cares.

Craig: Fourth Edition.

John: Fourth Edition, they tried to systematize things in a way that felt very much like it was taken from video role-playing games. Everything was in these neat silos and it was tidy in some ways, but not interesting.

Craig: D&D just started withering. A lot of people were like, “I’m not playing that version.” What you ended up having were loads of people playing like, “No, we play 2. We play AD&D, like old-school AD&D, or we play version 2 or we play version 3, 5. We’re not doing 4.” Now you have everybody all over the place. Then 5 comes along and sweeps everybody up. It was like they fixed so much and made it so much more fun. I have to say, so far, based on the 2024. So 2024 is not version 6. We’re going to end up calling it 5.5. 2024 is too, damn– It’s 5.5 and I love it so far.

John: I think they made some really [unintelligible 01:19:08].

Craig: Really good changes.

John: Before we get into it though, Drew, this is your first time seeing any of these books. What is your reaction to them?

Drew: My reaction to the original AD&D book is: that is my hell.

Craig: Yes, terrifying, right?

Drew: Terrifying.

Craig: It’s intimidating.

Drew: The character classes, too, just the words get overwhelming. When you look at the table of contents, this is obviously, this is a manual. I can understand if you’re going to find a specific thing, it’s very helpful for that. Looking at the difference between the chapters, like chapter 8 into chapter 9, you can’t even tell where–

Craig: No, there’s zero layout. By the way, the 5th edition had no real index, no real good chaptering.

John: If you look at my copy here, I’ve added little tabs to the edge so you can find stuff.

Craig: We all added tabs, which is insane. Thankfully now they have a good index, although everything is also digital now, so it’s a little easier. Look at the difference in thickness.

We’re looking at the second edition and the original, versus 2024. ’24 has so many more pages. Why? Less information in this handbook. Bigger font. More artwork.

John: So much more artwork, all in color.

Craig: So much more fun and things are laid out carefully, so when you get into spells, like here, I’m into the spell section. Look.

Drew: Oh, that’s beautiful.

Craig: There’s five spells per page. How many spells per page in the in the D&D?

John: Oh God. 10?

Craig: More? Look at this. It’s insane. It’s a tiny, tiny, tiny. Look at how long the descriptions are. Based on how long the descriptions are here, they really also just got good at–

John: Yes, summarizing or basically standardizing on how to talk about things. How to talk about the diameter of an [unintelligible 01:20:48] something like that. Let’s talk about the function, though, of a player’s handbook because it’s a manual meant to provide instructions, but it’s also a reference material. You’re constantly referring back to things in it. That’s the source of truth for everyone playing. Everyone agrees to be the same thing. Even though it’s called the player’s handbook, it’s really the handbook for everyone because all of it’s the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

Craig: Dungeon Master’s Guide is optional. It just gives you optional extra stuff to learn and consider.

John: It gives you descriptions of magical items and things like that.

Craig: Some rules about cover in combat and little stuff like that, which is great. I mean, I have it. If you’re a DM, you should have it, but the handbook is all you need.

John: Yes. Then, of course, the third book in the Trinity would be a Monster manual. That was from the very start.

Craig: That’s just downloadable content. It’s extra stuff.

John: What is so different about– because you and I both started playing again with the 2014 rules. As we started playing, we were bemoaning the fact that this player’s handbook is so hard to find some stuff in. But then over the years, everything was just online. Now, as we were playing last night, we just Google a thing. If we needed to know what is the damage of a thrown trident, we’re googling that. We’re not looking up on a book.

Craig: Right. If you’re inside your VTT, like roll 20, go to the companion. You’re on D&D Beyond, just look it up. It’s all integrated in there. Yes, there are also third-party websites that have compiled everything. Finding stuff now, no problem. What I really appreciate about the– We don’t need to get to the esoteric of the rules changes. I think people will fall asleep.

But what I do love about the 5.5, the new manual, is that it spends time up front doing the one thing I wish they had done in 1978 for seven-year-old me, which is to go, “What is this actually? What is this game?” Because I was like, what I know about games is there’s a board and you move around and you get to the end, how do you win, all these things. That’s not how D&D works but they never freaking told you that. In the original book, they’re just like [unintelligible 01:22:54] Not that good.

John: Basically, it’s like, here are your attributes, like strength and intelligence.

Craig: What am I doing?

John: What are you doing? This book does a very smart job is it really talks through the little transcript of like, these are players playing the game, and this is what they’re saying and doing around the table.

Craig: This is how the game works.

John: Yes, exactly. You’re talking about the players independently of the characters that they’re playing, which is a crucial distinction there.

Craig: Yes, and teaching you how the DM interacts to provide boundaries, tests, challenges, information. All of that stuff is so important. Just having that at the beginning to say, if you have no idea how this works, it’s not like a game.

John: If you were to pick up the original player’s handbook, or really any player’s handbook up to now, and just like, “How does this work?” You would have a very hard time doing it unless someone could show you. This, I think you could actually pick up. If you actually started reading from page one, you would get something. These books were never designed to be read from page one, but this one you actually could.

Craig: Yes, this is an excellent evolution just from the point of view of clarity and then all the rules changes. Basically, the player base of D&D is expanded dramatically but at its core, there will always be a lot of people who are on the spectrum. When I talk to my daughter who loves Elden Ring, I’m like– and she’s autistic. I’m like, “This is a game made by autistic people for autistic people.” And D&D at its core, it really does appeal to people on the spectrum.

People on the spectrum are remarkably good at parsing rules, finding loopholes, exploits, what we call cheese in D&D, like ways to just easily do something that’s supposed to be hard, working various synergies. Over time, the rules-keepers, Jeremy Crawford, et cetera, start to shape things to cut off some of those loopholes, or if things seemed like they were too powerful, nerf them, as we say. Things seem too weak, buff them. They’ve done a really good job with that without breaking stuff.

John: Absolutely. The other thing I think this new version does, and it finds a good happy medium in there, is responding to how we think about things in 2024, which are different than 2014 and earlier years. Instead of races, we talk about species. There’s much less emphasis on what your species is, in terms of what special things it gives you. Classically, going back to the first one, like dwarves get plus one on strength or something.

Craig: They still have it. They’re walking a line clearly, so there is something a little weird about constantly going on– the word racial comes up a lot in D&D, like why do you have dark vision? Oh, it’s racial. There’s class attributes, racial attributes. Everybody gets a little squirmy about that now. They still have it, but they have deemphasized a lot of that, and they put way more of it into your background, which used to be a completely useless thing. It gave you two proficiencies and your skills, who cares?

John: Or loot.

Craig: Now the ability scores are connected to your background, not your race. What you end up with– your species, sorry. What you end up with your species are things like dark vision, can’t be put to sleep if you’re an elf. Look, there are no elves, there are no dwarves, there are no [unintelligible 01:26:20] or any of these things. Fantasy is fantasy and we can all– but we recognize, like when you look at the archetypes of these things going back to Tolkien, there are some tropes that work their way in. I think they handle the sensitivities here well without wandering into performative. I thought it was well managed.

John: Absolutely. It’s also a fairly public process, which is a challenging thing to do. As they were developing this new player’s handbook, they went through all these–

Craig: Testing cycles.

John: Testing cycles, basically. They would show you current state of it. You could download it and play it and see what that was like. That’s scary, but I think it was useful because there were big things they were going to try to do that they took out.

Craig: Absolutely.

John: Things like they were going to combine the spell list in this different way that nobody liked.

Craig: That’s what’s great about playtesting, especially with the core D&D audience. They’ll tell you like, “I hate this,” or you’ll watch them abuse something. It’s all about balance. I think on the whole, this 5.5 version tilts things more towards the player.

John: It tilts things more towards fun, which I think is crucial.

Craig: That’s what does make fun, right? Now, you do need to challenge players and make it — There’s a little bit of a–

John: Creep. Yes.

Craig: Mission creep, where you get more stuff, so then the monsters get more stuff, or else you’re just walking over everybody and you don’t care. That’s always interesting to keep an eye on. But I also love the way that they basically give everybody a feat to start with, because feats are things that a lot of players just sort of skipped past. They’re also really smart about how they’re handling multi-classing because they have two wings. They have the casual players who really don’t dig in too deep. Then they have the real D&D nerds who will go crazy and figure out that if you become a Paladin and a Sorcerer, now you’re a Sorcadin and you can do all this cool like, “Oh,” and then it gets crazy.

John: Absolutely. I think they have to both reward the person who wants to do that kind of thing and also not make it so that it breaks the game for anybody who doesn’t want to do it.

Craig: They are aware as anyone that a game is only as good as its DM. Have they put the new DM?

John: No.

Craig: That I’m hoping does the similar thing in the beginning that this handbook does, which is to teach DMs a little bit, because the bottom line is they’ve made this amazing system. If you have a bad DM, it’s a bad game.

John: Yes, totally.

Craig: Just as simple as that. If you have a good one, it’s a good one.

John: Yes. The DM is the DJ, it’s the host of the party, it’s the person who’s–

Craig: Storyteller. That’s also the person that needs to figure out how to balance things so that you are scared, and then when you succeed, you feel something as opposed to just, “Meh, next.” It’s tricky. You’ve been doing a great job. John has been our DM now for quite some time in this campaign, and Michael’s a good DM. We have great DMs.

John: We do and we have a great new player’s handbook.

Craig: We do.

John: Thank you much.

Craig: Thank you, guys.

Links:

  • Scriptnotes LIVE! at Austin Film Festival
  • Drew’s Emmy certificate
  • Why AI Isn’t Going to Make Art by Ted Chiang for The New Yorker
  • The Stereophonic Lawsuit
  • Rachel Bloom’s “Death, Let Me Do My Special” on Netflix
  • Warner Bros. Studios Burbank
  • Save Scarecrow Video in Seattle
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram, Twitter and Mastodon
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 661: Screenwriting is a Poorly Defined Problem, Transcript

November 20, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is episode 661 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, why is screenwriting, both the craft and the profession, so difficult? Why are the people who were really good in school not necessarily good at screenwriting?

Craig: Nerds.

John: We’ll take a look at what’s weird about screenwriting and why skills in other areas don’t always translate well. Then it’s another round of the three-page challenge where we look at submissions from our listeners and give our honest feedback. In our bonus segment for premium members, how do you talk about movies and series without spoiling them? We’ll offer our tips and tricks and suggestions.

Craig: We are five episodes away from 666.

John: Now, Craig, let’s talk about this because Drew brought this up. We need to think of something for episode 666, the number of the beast.

Craig: It’s almost going to line up with Halloween. It won’t but it’s close.

John: It won’t. It’s close-ish.

Craig: I feel like we should have Megana on because, A, it’s spooky season, B, 666, it feels like she would have input.

John: Yeah. Should we focus on devil and possession movies?

Craig: That’s a great idea, actually. The Exorcist is one of my favorite movies.

John: Let’s do it.

Craig: Yes. I am not a horror movie aficionado. I like a good horror movie, but I’m not somebody that subscribed to Fangoria when I was a kid and saw all those slasher films like the ‘80s. So Drew, you remember the ‘80s.

Drew Marquardt: Oh, yeah.

Craig: John and I would walk into a video store, not Blockbuster, didn’t exist yet.

John: Our local video store.

Craig: Local video store. There would be a wall, just a solid wall of videotapes of nothing but movies where people slashed each other with blades. They all had great names like I Dismember Mama. There were like twelve Prom Nights. I never saw any of them. Wasn’t necessarily my thing, but The Exorcist had a profound impact on me. I do think it’s an incredible film and well worth discussing.

John: Yes, let’s do it. I haven’t seen The Exorcist probably since it came out. Honestly, I think most of my experience with The Exorcist has been while my parents were out, I would be watching it on TV and get so scared that I have to change the channel.

Craig: That’s correct. The other film that we should probably take a look at is a movie that, and I’m going to get in so much trouble, but it’s too late at this point, right, for me, is The Omen. Because The Omen came out somewhat contemporaneously with The Exorcist, not inspired by, but it existed in part because of The Exorcist. The Omen is the film that made a big deal about 666. I think The Omen is an inferior film to The Exorcist. It would be interesting to compare and contrast.

John: Sure.

Craig: There are some wonderful things in The Omen. It’s still better than most movies that try and do possession stuff now, but not as good as The Exorcist. The Exorcist also, and we’ll get there at episode 666, is a fantastic example of a film that is in a genre where almost every movie is bad and somehow they were great. That’s fascinating to me.

John: Yeah. There’s lots of examples of police procedurals or we’ve got to find the killer movies. Then there’s Silence of the Lambs, which is just like such a cut above–

Craig: Something else, right? It’s not doing anything necessarily overtly different. It’s worth digging into what they do subtly that does make it better.

John: Fantastic. This discussion of the video store we used to go to, it’s reminding me of a conversation I had this last week with my reps. We were talking about how the business was overall. We’re saying like, “Okay, well, streaming has never come back to what it was before. There’s never going to be as many deals as there were.” They were referring back to, oh, but we’re now never going to get back to the era of made-for-home video and the ability to make a zillion movies because you knew you could make a profit off of them on home video.

Craig: Unless something happens. That’s the thing.

John: Unless something happens. It totally could happen.

Craig: Yes. I don’t think anybody saw home video on the horizon in the ‘60s, for instance. Maybe some engineers at early Sony and their Betamax experiments, they were thinking, “Oh, maybe.”

I always think of that moment in Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones shows Will Smith how the aliens have figured out how to make a tiny CD and that he’s going to have to buy the White Album all over again. The entertainment business is really good at figuring out ways to get us to buy the same thing we already own over and over and over. Some new format, some new thing. It’s almost inevitable. We all figured like, “Oh, streaming, I guess, one day would be–“ We just didn’t realize how fast and how intense it would be.

John: I think we all assumed that, okay, well, this is going to kill home video because you’ll just stream stuff. We didn’t realize there’d be a made-for-streaming boom that would change the industry, but then it would contract again and leave a lot of people– there’d be a musical chairs quality of it.

Craig: We had a bubble. I think that’s fair to say. What did Landgraf call peak television, peak TV? 600 and some odd, maybe 666? It was possibly 666 streaming television series. That’s obviously the work of Satan. What it’s back down to, I think a lot of people are thinking is some abnormally small number. I suspect we still have more television shows available now than we did, say, in the ‘90s. It was networks and some basic cable.

John: In addition to things that were made for streaming, we have things that were made for international audiences, made for global audiences that are available now. We’re watching series that are in English or other languages from other places too. There’s a lot more content still.

Craig: There is. There’s a ton of stuff. The contraction, I think the absolute number of television shows is it’s not something that’s going to make anyone feel better if they were employed within that bubble. I don’t think they’re going to sit there and go, “Well, but there’s still a few more than there were in the ‘90s.” It’s not exactly a relief. Contraction is difficult, even if it follows expansion.

John: Talking with my reps this week, we had a dinner. I’ve got a sampling of what they’re experiencing because you and I, we all have our own experiences and our friends we’re talking to. Reps, they’re making a bunch of deals all the time. I was asking them what’s happening? They say there are a lot of deals being made and pilots are selling, and stuff is selling, and pitches are selling, but there’s not flow. There’s a lot of one-off things that are happening and it’s busy, but not in a regular way and it’s not a predictable way. You can’t say, “Oh, this is how it’s building up to this thing.” The machine is shuddering.

Craig: It’s trying to figure itself out.

John: Which feels accurate.

Craig: That’s right. We have one predominant streaming service that is very successful at what they do, which is obviously Netflix. There’s Apple, who I don’t think care necessarily because they have more money than most nations. There’s Amazon, who I think presents their streaming service probably as some loss leader to make money off of their core business.

John: They want to make a lot of movies.

Craig: They do. I’m thinking about what your representative said about the flow.

Amazon and Apple probably aren’t going to create this rhythmic vacuum that you need to fill. Obviously, Netflix has that machinery. How Max and Peacock and Disney Plus function, am I missing one? Hulu? Hulu is Disney Plus. Paramount is Peacock?

John: No, Paramount is Paramount.

Craig: Oh, they’re their own?

John: Paramount CBS.

Craig: Paramount Plus. Paramount CBS. Right. Of course. How could I have possibly confused these? All of them, I think, are still trying to figure out how much, how frequently.

John: What’s the right number?

Craig: What’s the right number? What’s the right rhythm? That makes complete sense to me.

John: On the feature side, what I was hearing from them is that studio sides are saying the covers are bare for right now. There’s not the next thing to put into production. Summer 2026 is going to be super jam-packed, every weekend is full, which is great. Good problems to have.

Craig: The strike.

John: Yes, exactly.

Craig: That’s bottom line, right? It’s going to happen. It’s a really interesting thing. When I talk to people, what I often hear is, “We need stuff, but it’s hard for us–“ This is them talking about their own internal process as buyers. It’s not as easy as it used to be to get your bosses to agree to buy something.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: So you are responsible if you’re on a certain level at one of these places. I’ve talked to people, streamers and everywhere, and they’ll say, “I need to get five shows on the air next year. I don’t have them. I can’t get them to pay for the things I want. I can get them to pay an insane amount of money, but only when the algorithm says that it fits their thing. But I know that we already have those–“

It’s almost like we have a bunch of people making a lot of food on the street, and we have a bunch of hungry people driving around, and there’s somebody next to the hungry people going, “No, just keep going, or try something else, or go somewhere else.” I can see why it’s difficult. Yes, the machine is not functioning particularly efficiently right now.

John: It’s like a dating app where the algorithm is wrong and swiping one way or another way. You’re not matching up with the interested parties.

Craig: Yes. Yes. That’s actually a great idea for a dating app, where if you swipe right or left, it has to go through an intermediary who considers whether or not you’ve made the right choice.

John: Yes. I like that.

Craig: Maybe changes it.

John: Yes. Maybe you designate a friend who is actually a serious concierge there who’s like, “No, I don’t think that we want this.”

Craig: “Actually, you really should give this person a shot. It’s a bad pick, I know. Give them a shot.” I think that might be nice.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: Let’s get into that.

John: You don’t do app development, but my company does do app development. This is my segue into saying that we’re actually hiring a new person. One thing I’ve learned over doing 12 years of this podcast is our audience are the best, smartest people in the world. If we need to hire somebody for somebody, this podcast is the first place to start. That’s how we found the person who fixed our WordPress plugins, the video game that we’re doing. Let’s do this.

We are hiring a person to do marketing for us, for Highland, Weekend Read, Bronson Watermarker, Writer Emergency Pack, AlphaBirds, and we need somebody who’s more of a manager than a creative. Somebody who can oversee Instagram ad campaigns, app store search optimizations, really be able to tell us what’s working and what’s not, because it’s not in our skill set. We need somebody who just does this stuff that we don’t do especially well.

Craig: Where in the world will you find somebody that knows anything about social media optimization, SEO?

John: SEO.

Craig: Yes, I’m going to guess 89% of our audience is like, “I can do that. I’m already doing that.”

John: We should stress, you probably already are doing this. We don’t want somebody who’s like, “I could learn something.” No, you need to show that you actually have done this.

Craig: Some experience here.

John: Oh, we’re pretty flexible on what the position looks like. It could be part-time or full-time. It could be fully remote. It could be a Los Angeles person. You’re probably based in the US, but if we could hire you or contract with you overseas, this may be doable. Crucially, we need somebody who already knows and is in the Mac and iOS ecosystem, because that’s what we make. You need to be part of that space. You need to know what you’re doing here in this.

Craig: You need to be good.

John: You need to be good.

Craig: Do a good job.

John: We’re going to put up a link in the show notes to a webpage that talks through what we’re looking for. If you are that person or you know that person, take a look at that. If you are the candidate, submit your stuff.

Craig: This is exciting. Does the job pay $850,000 a year?

John: It does not. It pays an amount commensurate to what the job is.

Craig: That’s fair. That sounds fair. Yes.

John: We have some follow-up. Last week, we talked about Moneyball.

Craig: Moneyball.

John: It was such a good episode. Everyone completely agreed with everything we said on the show. There was no feedback whatsoever, right?

Drew: No, my inbox has turned into an AM radio call-in show.

Craig: That’s weird. Do sports fans have any opinions?

Drew: Oh, yeah. I get stats on Johnny Damon and his–

Craig: Johnny Damon. Great. Let’s have the Johnny Damon argument. I want to.

John: Craig, you were wrong about baseball. For one thing, there is a clock because now there’s a pitch clock.

Craig: Let’s talk about the pitch clock. We actually got that note from, I believe it was a scout with the Tampa Bay Rays organization, which is awesome. I stand quasi-corrected. One of the rules changes that I referred to, I referred to a bunch of rules changes in that episode. One of them, most importantly, is the pitch clock, which makes the game go faster. The word clock there, I think would better be described as timer.

It’s a little bit like the shot clock in basketball. You have a certain amount of time to do something, or there is a, in basketball, the foul or turnover, or in baseball, it’s a strike, or it’s a ball, depending on which side of the– but the game itself has no timer. You can have an at-bat that lasts one pitch long. You can have an at-bat that lasts zero pitches long. If there’s a guy at the plate and there’s a man on first, there’s two outs, and the pitcher picks that guy off first base, inning over, man at home didn’t swing, got no pitches.
You can have an at-bat that lasts 18 pitches, all within the confines of pitch clocks.

So yes, there is a small element of a timer, but the game itself, no one can tell you at the beginning of a baseball game how long that game will last. Everyone can tell you how long a football game will be in terms of game time play, or a hockey game, or a basketball game.

John: The larger point, in terms of being a clock and not being a clock, most sports are frantic. There’s just a lot of activity suddenly all at once. Baseball, yes, there are bursts of activity, but most of it is very open and people can take their time to do a thing.

Craig: Absolutely, and innings last as long as they last, and there are nine of them. In football, a series of downs, you can have possession of a football and you keep getting a new first down, that’s great, but the clock keeps getting eaten up.

John: Yes, so unless you’re able to stop the clock by doing the thing, yes.

Craig: You can stop, but when you stop the clock, there’s no more playing, right? Then everybody talks, and then they get back and then the clock restarts. While that is a good point from the scout that there is now an element of time, where there used to be no element of time– the only element of time that there used to be in baseball was, if there’s a visit to the mound, let’s say the pitcher is in trouble or there’s a situation that requires discussion, either the pitching coach or the manager would go out to the mound, bring in the infielders, and they would all have a huddle on the mound and chat.

The umpire, at some point, will mosey on over and go, “All right guys, it’s enough. We got to go get back to playing baseball,” When? Uhh when he feels like it. Like, “Ah, it’s enough.” That’s the only thing I remember prior to the pitch clock.

John: All right, more follow-up, we talked about residuals in 658 and the fact that they are now digitally depositable.

Drew: E&A writes, “While I appreciate the greater efficiency of having residuals be direct deposit, I would like to stand up for the joys of the home-delivered paper residual. It is always a cheery surprise, a bright spot in the day, the flash of green among the mailers, the happy announcement to the household, the ritual chant of, “Big money, big money, big money,” and finally, the reveal of a quantity which may range wildly, but which is always better than nothing.

Additionally, there’s the hopefully fond memories evoked by the source of the residuals, gratitude for the achievements of the WGA in securing these residuals, and sometimes even a sense of abundance in the universe. So until paper cuts or affluence dim our delight in the little green envelopes, this house will never direct deposit our residuals.”

John: I’m completely in agreement with E&A. I loved the green envelopes, and I loved opening them and I loved having– predict how big a check would be. I would say, “Oh, it’s from Sony,” and he would nail it within 1%. He was so good at it. It’s great. It just feels like found money.

Craig: A weird carnival skill.

John: It’s like, “I don’t deserve this, but it came and it’s great.” For the last three years, four years, they’ve all been going to my business manager anyway, so I haven’t seen them.

Craig: Yeah, I completely salute this person and the love of the green envelope and the excitement of that. No question. Partly it’s also just a function of age because I started getting green envelopes, I don’t know, in 1997? Yeah, after a while, you’re like, “Here’s another green envelope again.”

John: Here’s a proposal. The green envelopes are inefficient because those checks get lost and sometimes, they did get lost. It’s a good reason not to send them to people’s houses. Maybe we still do the green envelopes and inside it says like, “This is how much we just direct deposited for you.” Then you still get the feel, the joy of it, but you don’t have to deal with the check.

Craig: Sure. If they could maybe do that, that’d be great. What if there was an email that said– the subject header was, “Green envelope.”? You’re like, “Okay, when I open this email–“ Then there’s a bunch of texts just in case your email program gives you a little– no, it skips it. Then you open it and you scroll and there’s the number. That would be fine.

John: A little joy.

Craig: Yes. Why not?

John: All right, well, I’m going to propose that to the WGA. More about capitalizing off of a short what we talked about in episode 658.

Drew: Erin writes, I want to build on the excellent advice you gave Michael in episode 658 in which he asked what’s next after a short film he wrote won an Oscar qualifying award. If he wants to capitalize on the success, I would encourage Michael to write a feature version of his short film. Even if his short wasn’t initially meant to be blown out into a feature, there will be something, a theme, a character, what have you, that will make for a compelling feature script and he already has an award-winning short as a proof of concept.

The first question I’m asked when somebody sees and likes my short is, do you have a feature script? My answer is always yes, and because I always have a draft ready before attending any festival, it’s led to my scripts being read by reps and producers. I guarantee the director and/or producers are being asked this question, so he should also reach out to them to let them know he’s getting started on the feature so when they’re inevitably asked, “Is there a feature script?” they can reply, yes, Michael is working on it right now.

Craig: If you can. Not every short is expandable into a feature. I imagine many aren’t.

John: I think it’s good advice in general. Even if you can’t take this exact concept, something that’s in that space feels right because they like the short, they want something that’s like that but is a feature. That all tracks and makes a lot of sense.

Craig: Whiplash.

John: Yes, 100%.

Craig: It’s the theory of Whiplash, worked for Damien Chazelle, could work for you at home. I think that makes sense.

John: Totally makes sense. More on how to be a script coordinator. We’ve talked a lot on the show about the value of script coordinators.

Drew: Joshua Gilbert writes, I’m a long-time listener and a mid-level TV writer. Prior to staffing, I did all the writer’s office assistant jobs, writer’s PA, showrunner’s assistant, writer’s assistant, and script coordinator, the gig I did the most. As such, it occurred to me that if a YouTube video can teach someone to fix their sink, they can learn to script coordinate the same way.

So I created a two and a half hour training video in eight sections that gives step-by-step instructions for taking a script from first draft to shooting draft.

Craig: That’s interesting. Two and a half hours? There’s really two and a half hours of stuff to say?

John: There was two and a half hours of stuff to do to explain about how to do Roll20. You and I put those videos together.

Craig: That was extraordinarily efficient. Roll20, especially the old Roll20, they’ve streamlined it, was so unuser-friendly.

Listen, it may be that he’s just very patient in his explanations. Ally Chang, who’s our script coordinator on Blast Bus, I walked her through it. It was only about 30 minutes.

John: You’re approaching script coordinating from one point of view. You’re also a single showrunner who’s doing stuff and a single writer. People who are on more complicated shows, I think it probably is more complicated stuff. You’re integrating multiple things from different writers.

Craig: Yes. I could see that. There’s a little more traffic.

John: I’ve watched through it, too. He leaves no stone unturned.

Craig: Okay, so it’s an incredibly thorough, too. Thank God. I was just hoping that you weren’t like, “I watch it and–“ No, okay, if it’s super-duper thorough, then great. Look, either way, I just like complaining about things. He put it on there for free. It’s a free class. One more reason to not go to film school.

John: Yeah, film school doesn’t teach you how to be a script writer, though, either. It’s one of those– just someone shows you.

Craig: Yes, but that’s one of the jobs that we have.

John: It’s a job. It’s a job. It’s actually a union cover job.

Craig: Film school just teaches you the job that no one has to give you. Just why? Anyway.

John: All right, last bit of follow-up here is from Lori, and she’s talking about, Craig, you use this word calculating a lot. “You need to stop calculating.” You actually use it in a Scriptnotes book. A little follow-up on this.

Drew: Yes, she says, “What exactly does Craig mean by that? Does he mean that writers shouldn’t have a strategy or pursue a set of goals other than writing good screenplays? If so, how do those good screenplays ever get into the hands of someone who can do something with them?”

Craig: Here’s what I mean. Calculating means figuring out how to game the system. What do people want? What does the market want? If I did this and this and this, then maybe this and this and this. There’s so much effort that you can put into that kind of thinking. “Everybody knows that if you write a such and such story that they want it, they don’t want these unless there’s a this in it. I’m going to do that.” That’s calculating. Not calculating is writing something that you love, that you believe in, that is personal to you, that nobody else could do, or that just expresses your unique creative talent and then putting it out in the world. Then other people work on the calculating part.

In fact, part of our jobs as individual writers in our careers is to resist all of their calculations when their calculations go against what is the beating heart of the work. Otherwise it will turn into crap, which happened to me repeatedly in my career because I didn’t understand that part of my job was to defend against their calculation. I thought in a somewhat humble way, all these calculations must have value. These people are paid for these calculations and the emperor has no clothes.

It’s not about being strategy-less. You write something great, then you’re like, “I wrote this, and I need Renée Zellweger to be in it. It was designed out of my heart for Renée Zellweger. I need to get this to Renée Zellweger somehow.” That’s not calculation. That’s just makes sense. That’s creative desire. Saying, “I wrote this for Renée Zellweger, but what I’m hearing maybe is that Sabrina Carpenter is looking to do something in a movie like this. If I just change the age and change the this and make it more Sabrina Carpenter, then get it to the person that I know who knows her friend, then da-da-da–“ What have you done? No offense to Sabrina Carpenter. If you write something for Sabrina Carpenter, truly–

John: Yes, fantastic, love that. All right–

Craig: I know who Sabrina Carpenter is.

John: I was going to say, nicely done. Weirdly, a Sabrina Carpenter, Renée Zellweger axis, it’s clear. There’s a vector that connects the two.

Craig: I actually am proud of what I just did. I really am. It would have been a very old guy thing to be like, “No, instead I’m going to make it for Reese Witherspoon.” Eh, contemporary, doesn’t work. It wouldn’t have worked. It would not have been as cogent of a point.

John: I like this. This discussion of calculating actually ties in very well to our main topic today, which is about screenwriting being a poorly defined problem. This verbiage I’m taking from this blog post by Adam Mastroianni, which is about why smart people aren’t happier. I think it also really resonates with last week’s episode where we’re talking about how we measure and quantify talent.

In this blog post, he’s talking about how it’s not just physical attributes that we try to measure and quantify. We do it with intelligence too. If you Google the smartest people in the world, you’re going to find physicists, and mathematicians, computer scientists, chess masters.

Craig: Donald Trump by his own admission.

John: 100%. You’re going to do that because if accomplished things that you can point to and say like, oh, it was your intelligence that did that. You can measure that. But a couple of weeks ago, I went to this event with Hillary Clinton who spoke and, Jesus, that is a very smart woman.

Craig: Just a little.

John: Her intelligence is not quantifiable in that way. She didn’t invent a thing. She didn’t solve some mathematical problem. She ran the state department.

Craig: She ran the state department of the United States of America.

John: Not a small thing. The things that I would say, if I could point to her intelligence, she can take a question and then pull it into its parts and come up with, on the fly, this seven-minute answer that goes from the personal to the political to everything. That’s experience. And it’s honestly the difference between what we’d say in D&D terms is intelligence and wisdom. She has the ability to take this whole thing and pull it apart.

Really what it comes down to, and this is from this blog post, is that we tend to value and aim towards these well-defined problems. A well-defined problem– he defines in four things.

That there is a stable relationship between the variables. You can see how everything connects. There’s no disagreement about whether the problems are problems or if they’ve already been solved. There are clear boundaries. There’s a finite amount of relevant information and possible actions. And the problems are repeatable. So the details might change, but the process for solving the problems does not.

Craig: Science.

John: Science is exactly that. It’s the scientific method.

Craig: The results needing to be robust, repeatable. What a joy it would be to work in something where you could actually go, “The answer to this question is yes.” That would be lovely.

John: A lot of us, and I suspect you were as well, Craig, we were good at doing those well-defined problems. All standardized tests, the ACTs, the SATs, they were those things. We were rewarded for that. We’re told we are smart because we’re good at these things. Unfortunately, the career we’ve chosen to go into does not reward that thinking at all.

Craig: It does not.

John: We’re dealing with these really undefinable things. We don’t even know what the edges of this is. What do they really want from here? How am I supposed to do this thing? Am I making the right choice to go, “Should I move to Los Angeles?”? These are not questions with single answers. Many of the questions we get from our listeners are grappling with this. When we say, “Don’t be so calculating,” I feel like so often we see people trying to take these difficult situations and boil them down to well-defined problems.

Craig: Yes, because it’s comforting. You probably remember in math class, there was somebody that was sitting next to you who was struggling with a process. Let’s say quadratic equations.

John: Do you remember the first time your teacher did the quadratic formula or showed how you discover the quadratic formula? There’s no way you end up with such a messy formula. It’s so ugly.

Craig: And so beautiful.

John: Beautiful. It works but it looks so awful.

Craig: We are used to science boiling things down to elegance. E = mc² is so absurdly elegant. It seems like a joke. Most things are not that perfect. The Pythagorean theorem is so gorgeously a² + b² = c². But there was always a kid that didn’t understand the concepts and would turn to you at some point and go, “Just tell me what to do. Okay, so now what do I do? Then what do I do? Then what do I do?”

Meaning, break this down like I’m a computer, code it for me, so that I don’t have to understand what I’m doing. I just follow steps, which are certain. Therefore, I can’t get lost. It’s not actually a bad way to teach certain people certain things that they are struggling to grasp conceptually. However, if they need that, it’s probably not really worth it for them because ultimately, they’re not actually learning anything. They’re merely just obeying steps.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: What we have here in our business is a very– there’s an analytic way of doing things, and then there’s synthesizing things. We have to synthesize stuff. We have to make things out of nothing. It’s art, so it’s all objective, subjective at the same time. There are things that just we all agree on, then there are things that we cannot agree on, and then there are things that we find out most people agree on. There are things that no one agrees on, except 10 years later, they do.

Nobody can really teach this. Yes. What we’re taught is how to analyze, which is fair, and what we can test is analysis and memory. There is this concept, when we were learning about the SAT analogies, we were taught about this thing called the triangular non-relationship, which is that this– and these two things are only related because they both relate to something else, but they don’t directly relate to each other. I think that for people that are good in school and good at SATs, and also are good at screenwriting, those two things are not connected to each other, they’re connected back to one thing, which is a certain mind.

John: Yes, absolutely. Let’s think through some of the stuff that we’re dealing with as screenwriters that are these poorly defined problems and that we’re constantly grappling with.

What is this movie about? This movie I’m writing, what is it about? No, what is it really about? We know it’s not actually about the thing on the surface, it’s actually really about something else.

Who is this character? How do I show that to the audience?

What does this moment look like from the character’s point of view and from all the other characters in that scene’s point of view?

What do they say next and why?

What is the right title for this movie?

Am I using the word “being” too much?

How is this movie I’m writing different from every other movie ever made?

But how is it similar enough to a genre that people can relate to what the hell it actually is?

Then, completely independent of what’s happening on the page, the actual career of being a screenwriter is, how do I describe this thing to an executive? Who should I pitch this to? Should I be focusing on Sabrina Carpenter or Renée Zellweger? When should I send the follow-up email? Should I send the follow-up email?

I see this with my own daughter. She’s a sophomore now, and super smart, so good at so many things. She’s texting me, and it’s not about schoolwork, it’s about, what should I put in this box on this form for this internship I’m applying for? They ask me, “What is your desired hourly salary?” She says, “Should I put 15?” I’m like, “I think 20?” but there’s no answer here. I don’t even know what comes out of this. You’re nodding, because this is exactly what– you do it too.

Craig: We occasionally get these. It’s funny, Jessica is so independent and so much a force of nature. She reminds me so much of me when I was her age. Just all these things that a lot of people consider difficult that she’s just doing. But kinda had a little bit of a meltdown over figuring out how to pay the utility bill for her apartment.

John: We’re on the same page. We got a bill for power, but with some from the previous tenant, and it’s like, “What do you do?”

Craig: Actually, as it turns out, nobody likes doing that stuff. Everybody has to learn. I remember this as great, but it wasn’t great. It was stupid, but I still remember because this is one funny bit where Mike Myers on Saturday Night Live played a character maybe only once called Middle-Aged Man. He’s a superhero. He’s asked, “What are your powers?” He goes, “I can’t fly and I don’t have super strength, but I can explain what escrow is.”

These are the things that you sort of accrue. When you are in your 20s, you’re like, “What do I do with a utility–“ Those are all learnable things. That list of stuff that you put there. The other one that came to mind was, what is the tone of this? Also what is tone? What are we even talking about? These things are only defined by a strange passion and a confidence that comes from feeling good about it. It is all about feeling. When you look at people who are composing, why that note? Why not this note?

Feels wrong, feels right. For us, we have no choice but to actually find some genuine feeling. That feeling then we have to convert into some explanation to either get people to resonate with our same feeling and feel it or get them to hear a rationality that allows them to go along with it.

But for everybody else in our business, that area of what is it and I’m going to feel it and I know what’s wrong and what’s right allows for so much chicanery, charlatanism, fraud, confidence masquerading as knowledge, just bad faith, baloney, gaslighting, because it’s not science. Because I can’t just go, “Stop. Everything you just said is provably wrong and has been proven wrong.” Can’t do it.

John: Of course, we’re talking about this in a context of there’s now more data than ever and more data being used against us about the choices that we’re making. As we’re pitching to Netflix, they will say our metrics show that we need to have– we cannot show a dog in the first three minutes of the show or else, or there’s all this stuff. They have data. They can show that scientifically this is true, but of course, that doesn’t have anything to do with the actual feeling of what it is.

I love to contrast that development process to a film festival where they’re buying a film at a film festival. In that case, they’re emotionally responding to the thing they saw and it’s like, “Oh, this works for these reasons.” We want this movie and we are going to put this on our streamer.

Craig: I think our business has shifted, especially the feature business, very much in favor of that vibe in a way, there is more humility on the side of the buyers because they’ve almost finally admitted they have no idea. Therefore, instead of the old method, which is really– if you want to talk about something that changed our business, the old method of making movies was have a bunch of writers come in, hear pitches, buy scripts, have ten things in development that one of them eventually will be worthy of a green light and be made.

That’s gone away. Now it’s more like, hey, we’ve shown up with a script already, an actor, a director. Everything is here and we also have a budget. All you have to do now is just flip a lever, but all the components are in place. We basically cook the meal for you. It’s a frozen TV dinner. Just put it in the microwave, right? As opposed to, we would like to cook you a meal. We’re going to go gather ingredients. We can discuss if you want chicken or fish, right? And they like that.

John: The episode that Marielle Heller was on that you weren’t able to come for, we were talking–

Craig: Passive aggressive.

John: Sorry. It was a good episode.

Craig: I bet. Jeez.

John: We were talking through this new research study that showed that almost none of the movies that are greenlit came out of studio development.

Craig: Exactly. Which was all you and I knew. All we knew was studio development. In fact, the thing that we would complain about in the ‘90s was studio development and development hell and how we all knew we were going there and getting paid something and then we were just going to be strung out for a while and eventually it probably would just die on the vine like everything else.

John: We were getting paid during that time, which was important.

Craig: Important that we were getting paid. Now what has gone away is all of the money being spread around, but there is a little more certainty. It used to be, if you made a deal, there’s a 5% or 10% chance they would make your movie. Now it’s like we’re making a deal, it’s kind of a green light.

I remember the first time this happened to me, it was at Universal, and I think it was maybe Identity Thief where I came in to pitch the rewrite because it was a page 1 rewrite. There was a pre-existing script. There were two pre-existing scripts, I believe.

I came in with Jason Bateman and Scott Stuber and normally you would go in a pitch meeting, you would pitch to the head of the studio. Everyone was in that room, from Peter Kramer, who’s the president of production, but then Donna Langley also, and then Adam Fogelson?

John: Sure. That feels right.

Craig: Is that right?

John: Yes.

Craig: The guy that was the top of it. I’m like, “What the hell is going on?” When I walked out, I remember I was like, “Why are all these people in a pitch meeting?” He goes, “That was a green light meeting. The deal is if we’re going to pay you to write this, we’re making the movie.” That blew my mind. That was the first time I’d ever experienced that where that’s the deal now. Either no development or make movie. That in a way expresses humility on their end, I think. We don’t know. If you bring us all this stuff, fine.

John: What can we take from this is that, listen, I think there’s going to be moments where you’re going to have this instinct to reduce these difficult problems, these poorly defined problems, and you’re going to try to find edges of things that you can clean up and solve. I see people doing that with the obsession over like, “Oh, I need to get rid of all the widows and orphans in my script.”

Craig: Control.

John: Control. You’re trying to exert control over a thing that fundamentally doesn’t want control. You’re going to submit to a bunch of film festivals and screenwriting competitions so you can get scores and so you can be graded the same way you were graded when you were–

Craig: People love grades.

John: Yes. I miss them. Listen–

Craig: It’s validation.

John: I’m 30 years out of college but I miss that validation.

Craig: Absolutely. It’s validation. When I do see a lot of people on social media saying, “Congratulations to me. I was a semi-finalist,” and blah blah blah, I’m like, “I’m so sorry. It’s actually not relevant at all because there’s somebody who didn’t make it past the first round who has written something much better.” The people who judge these things don’t know either. Nobody in that world knows because the people that are at the highest level of our business also don’t know. They are constantly being surprised. Everybody agrees that this kind of movie doesn’t work until somebody makes one that does. Listen, if there was one genre we knew would not work, it would be to adapt a video game. That was the law. That’s the thing.

John: Two good series.

Craig: There you go. Superhero movies were just dead in the water forever. Musicals keep coming and going. I think Wicked is going to bring them back. Westerns disappear. Probably they’ll come back. That’s the joke. That’s the big joke. So why calculate? Just follow your heart.

John: Absolutely. All right, let’s take a look at some pages from our listeners. For folks who are new here, every once in a while we do a three-page challenge where we invite our listeners to submit three pages from something they’ve written, generally the first three pages. We give our honest feedback.

As a reminder, people want us to be reading this stuff. They’re soliciting this feedback. If we’re mean at any point or harsh, they asked for this.

Craig: That’s a weird phrase. They permitted this.

John: They permitted this. We’ll say that. If you would like to read along on these pages, you can follow the links in the show notes and click through. There’s PDFs for those. You can take a look and maybe stop this podcast, read first, and then listen to what we’re going to say about them. Let us start with Flunge-

Craig: Flunge.

John: -by J Wheeler White.

Craig: I apologize. If you guys hear a page flipping, it’s because I like a physical page.

John: Likes a physical page.

Craig: Forgive me.

John: Drew, for folks who are not able to look at the pages, can you give us a quick summary?

Drew: “In the middle of a fencing match, with seven seconds left on the clock, 17-year-old, Will Stetson, ignores all the onlookers and focuses on his opponent, Alexander. They stare each other down. We then cut to six months earlier where Will is elbowed in his high school wrestling match and starts punching his opponent in the face. Coach Vargas tries to hold him back, but when his opponent calls him a psycho, Will lunges at him and crashes into the scorer’s table. Later, in a school hallway, Coach Vargas kicks Will off the wrestling team. Will punches a locker. Outside the gym, a Mercedes pulls up in front of Will, driven by Alina, another teenager who is currently very angry.”

John: All right. Let’s start with this title page. I love this title page.

Craig: Flunge. Yes. It’s got a nice graphically designed title with negative space fencer in the middle.

John: Absolutely. Craig, do you know what a flunge is?

Craig: I absolutely do not know what a flunge is. A flying lunge?

John: Close to a flying lunge. It’s a combination of a flèche and a lunge. Flèche is where you’re racing up to your opponent, you’re running up to the opponent.

Craig: Oh.

John: The illustration in there is actually what a flunge would be.

Craig: It’s a flunge.

John: It’s a daring stab forward.

Craig: Flunge is going to be changed. That title is not going to last.

John: No.

Craig: Just going to be honest.

John: It looks great.

Craig: It’s fun for now.

John: Fun for now. Page 1 opens with, “Time left on clock, 7 seconds, score 14-14.” I think this is crucial information. I like having it here. I’m wondering how it’s going to be shown on screen. I don’t need it to be shown on screen on the page in a certain way, but I was wondering about that. I like that it’s 14-14. That you know that this match has been going on a while. You know that you’re near the end of this.

This setup reminds me of Challengers, and I don’t know how this is all going to be structured, but I feel like we’re going to be moving back and forth into this this match, which I’m excited to see. It may not be a true Stuart Special where we start at one point and then flashback in time. I think it is a back and forth.

Craig: This does feel like a Stewart Special, though.

John: Well, it’s a Stewart Special in the sense that it started at a time, and we can catch up to this.

Craig: Only because he’s a wrestler and then he becomes a fence– I doubt we’re going to go back and forth. I could be wrong. Also, it’s a television show.

John: Oh, a television show. Pilot, yes.

Craig: It’s possible, but I agree with you, the setup felt really exciting. First of all, I got excited by fencing because– listen, at this point just show me something, and fencing is fun. It’s swordplay and it’s exciting.

John: I had fencing in a movie that didn’t shoot, which I was really sad about.

Craig: Oh, you had a fencing movie?

John: I had a fencing movie.

Craig: Ugh. Do you want to sue this guy? John, that’s what people do.

John: Yes, absolutely. I had fencing in my movie.

Craig: This guy stole your idea.

John: Yes.

Craig: Jesus.

John: I’ll say that if there’s a contract lens that plays an important role in this movie, I’ve won. I’ve won the lawsuit.

Craig: You’ve won the lawsuit. It’s an interesting thing. We have a guy– this is how it opens. “William Stetson, 17, catches his breath. He’s in a full electric saber kit.” I assume that means that-

John: He’s wired up.

Craig: -fencing outfit. “Fencing mask pulled up, a single curl of light hair glued by sweat to his forehead.” Just be aware, that’s the kind of thing that they’re going to have a meeting about, and it’s going to probably look stupid. Maybe just say sweaty.

John: Yes.

Craig: “His eyes, consumed by a deep indecipherable fervor locked with his opponent’s, Alexander Sasha Su, 18.” Now, why do they both have their masks up? Is that a thing that people do?

John: Yes, between parries.

Craig: This is exciting to see on page, but just want to think ahead here. This is J Wheeler White, which is a fantastic comic book name, by the way. J Wheeler White, he owns a newspaper in Gotham, not in New York. They’re just staring at each other. If you’re staring at somebody, and they’re staring at you, the two of you are in a staring contest, that just feels a little weird.

If you’re staring at this guy, and he’s drinking some Gatorade, or doing something, and then he turns and sees you, and expresses something back, whether it’s hatred, jealousy, I’m going to get you, you lost, whatever it is, that creates a moment. I think, here, what’s happened is, they’re just staring at each other, which feels a bit odd.

John: I get that. Again, the reason why I would say Challengers is challenged. Have you seen Challengers?

Craig: I have.

John: Challengers is all stares across on that between people-

Craig: It is.

John: -doing stuff. I love it for that. In this first page, fans, teammates, former opponents, uppercase those. Those are other groups of people that we’re going to see. There’s a thing that J Wheeler White does where it’s a word then a single dash rather than a double dash. It’s consistent. It’s fine. It’s not what I would do.

Craig: I don’t do it either, but it doesn’t matter. I get it.

John: It’s consistent.

Craig: It’s consistent. As long as it’s consistent. It would be nice to know how big. It says hundreds of fans. Hundreds of people– that’s another thing you learn when you’re making stuff is, hundreds of people look like 12 people. Thousands of people look like hundreds of people.

John: I need a sense of– is this State Championships? What is this? That would tell us.

Craig: Olympics. State Championship. Is this a gymnasium? Is this Madison Square Garden? Just give me a general sense of the space. I think it would be helpful. What I really enjoyed was how this just flung us — flunged us — into a different thing, but this is way easier to do on page than it is to do– because the problem is match-cutting from eyes, especially when there’s a mask, even though it’s pulled up, it’s going to be visible. Eyes to eyes of a person that’s in motion, wrestling, it’s just not possible.

John: It’s not possible. There’ll be a sound pre-lap, there’ll be a thing, and then you just have to cut into it.

Craig: Exactly, so probably not– it’s exciting to read, but this is something that I actually think is fine, but later you’re going to have to fix it.

John: Absolutely. It’ll be on a foot and a step will go forward and you’ll realize you’re going to do a different space. There’ll be different ways to get there.

Craig: Exactly.

John: I’m loving everything on page 1 and on page 2. I thought the actual descriptions of what goes wrong in the match, and how it builds, I believed. It felt visceral and it’s funny.

Craig: Yes. I think the only thing that I would suggest here for this, because the point of this wrestling match is Will goes too far, right? He goes too far. He’s wrestling a guy, and he chokes him in a way that’s illegal, and ruins stuff.

John: He chokes him and then he starts beating him.

Craig: Well, because the guy fights back. Then he fights back again. It’s all precipitated by the fact that he’s choking this guy out, which is not legal in high school, or anywhere. That’s fine, but what I needed was something leaning into it. I think part of my issue was it just starts with this guy killing someone. That’s what he’s doing basically. How did we get to that? If you start leaning on someone’s throat– this is just logic stuff, and it’s important for tone. You’re in high school, you start choking this guy out.

Nobody says it– they’ll run in there and pull you off. You can’t kill somebody, and why would you think you could? The problem is this guy goes too far. I need to see him going too far, not already too far. Something leading into it would have been helpful.

John: Yep, agreed. Page 3, the one thing I want to scratch out here is mic drop. Vargas, the coach, says, “You smell like an f-ing litter box.” Mic drop. We don’t need the mic drop, he walks off. And at the bottom of page 3, we’re introduced to Alina Matero, 17, dark hair, clean girl aesthetic, currently very pissed off. That’s all we know about her. I liked that as the next thing we’re seeing.

Craig: I like that she seems rich. I’m guessing that he’s not. I don’t know what their relationship is, but she seems like she’s already heard about the wrestling situation. Again, tone. Page 3, Vargas, his coach says, “We were all watching Stetson,” which I think you need a comma there because it seems like we’re all watching Stetson. “We were all watching, Stetson,” that’s Will, “and good thing too, or that kid would be in an ambulance right now. Incorrect.

They watched him choke that kid out until that kid punched him to get him off of him. They didn’t do anything. And then, good thing you don’t know him.” I don’t know him either, and just because he goes to New Trier, I’m guessing that’s the school for rich kids?

John: Yes.

Craig: It doesn’t justify murder. This is so important. I need to understand why Will was trying to “kill” this kid. Why he was suddenly so vicious and so relentless that he would injure this kid and possibly render him unconscious.

John: Yeah so, thinking about that moment, if you switch it around and Will was the one who felt like he was threatened, or he was getting choked, and that he was the first person who blew up, and it was ambiguous whether the referee should have stepped in, that could have made sense.

Craig: This scene is broad. For me. This is what happens. The coach goes, “You did a dumb thing.” Will says, “No, I didn’t.” He says, “Yes, you did. You’re fired. You’re off the team.” “You can’t do that. Darn it.” Everybody deserves to be a character. Everybody deserves to be interesting. How does this really go down in life? I don’t think it’s like this. I don’t.

I think there is a possibility that as a coach you sit down with this kid– and there’s a scene where he says, “Just walk me through what happened. I want to understand why this happened.” Let Will explain. Just keep asking questions so that we start to understand Will, how his mind works, what the real problem was, and we’ll feel like maybe this coach is sympathetic, understanding, and the coach will listen to him, hear, get to the truth, and then say, “So you’re off the team. Sorry. Based on everything I understand, I appreciate it, I get it. You can’t be on a wrestling team.”

John: I hear you, and that is a version of the scene. I think there’s a way to keep the energy up the way that this scene currently does, but just with a little bit more finesse.

Craig: Actually, that was my problem.

John: That the energy was still too high?

Craig: Yes. We started with this exciting, flunging match, and then we go into an equally exciting and violent wrestling match, both of which it’s feeling like at fever pitch tempo, and then we get into this quick argument. The movie is going so fast, I felt like it’s a television show, it’s a pilot, you can breathe. If you look at Breaking Bad, everybody uses it as a great example because it is a wonderful pilot episode. It starts with, blah! And then it’s like, hmm.

John: It’s quiet. Yes.

Craig: It’s quiet.

John: There’s a description on page 3 that I did like. “Will tries to make himself big, arms out to his side, chest forward, steps to his coach, Vargas sighs.” That does a lot.

Craig: It does. Again, it’s a tone question. Will seems like an idiot here because you can’t big-guy your coach. What are you going to do? Beat him up. The coach isn’t buying it, but then I feel like, why would Will think that the coach would buy it and why is Will do–

John: I believe that’s a dumb high school character move.

Craig: To me, dumb high school characters are different to coaches that control their fate. Those are the people they don’t do this to. Those are the people that they get all solemn with because those are their father figures that they have daddy issues. Again, that’s part of what I’m saying here to J Will writers. The character right now of Will and the character of Vargas is angry coach, angry kid. I think we need to go a bit deeper in that, even in one page.

John: Great. Again, these are not well-defined problems.

Craig: No.

John: They’re all opinions and how it feels.

Craig: That’s right.

John: Before we move on, Drew, can you tell us the logline for what the actual–

Craig: For Flunge.

John: For Flunge.

Drew: “After being kicked off the team for one too many violent outbursts, a high school wrestler reluctantly joins the fencing team to keep his scholarship, unearthing a preternatural talent that may redefine the course of his life. An anime-inspired live-action sports drama series.”

John: Great. I don’t know that it’s a series. I think it’s a movie, but I’m curious–

Craig: It feels like a movie to me.

John: Feels like a movie to me. It feel like there’s a beginning, middle, and end, there’s a victory, there’s a thing.

Craig: It’s a classic. It’s like– What was that movie where Matthew Modine is a hockey player and then he becomes an ice skater? What was that one called? Look it up. It’s such a great idea. He was a hockey player who was like this, undisciplined, got kicked off, whatever personal problems, and gets stuck being paired up with an ice skater for figure skating.

John: It’s not Matthew Modine. It’s somebody who’s like Matthew Modine.

Craig: Oh, it is?

John: Yes.

Craig: It’s not Matthew Modine?

John: Oh, shoot.

Craig: Who was that?

John: He looks like Steve Gutenberg, but it’s not Steve Gutenberg. We’ll find it.

Craig: That’s why we need our search engine optimization person.

John: Hey, can you tell me about a movie where a hockey player then becomes a figure skater? He gets partnered with a woman who’s a figure skater.

AI: The movie is The Cutting Edge. It’s a romantic comedy from 1992 where a former hockey player teams up with a figure skater.

John: Who were the stars of that movie?

AI: The stars of The Cutting Edge are D.B. Sweeney, who plays the former hockey player, and Moira Kelly, who plays the figure skater.

Craig: D.B. Sweeney. D.B. Sweeney and Matthew Modine were odd– My guess is that they bumped into each other at a bunch of auditions back in the day.

John: 100%. Absolutely.

Craig: What a great idea. Anyway, this reminds me in a way of like, okay, an athlete has to transition from one thing to another. It’s actually been quite a few of these. It’s not merely The Cutting Edge. Although what a great title and D.B. Sweeney. Anyway, I agree with the feels feature. What are we doing in Season 3, episode 7 for this? That’s my question, but meh.

John: Let’s move on to our next one. This is Cows by John and Mark DiStefano.

Drew: “In a bar for cows, Callie, a black and white spotted cow, and Wade, a bro-y bull, sit drinking milk. While Wade tells her wild stories about his recent trip to Moodrid, Callie stares at the bartender Jade who is also a cow, they’re all cows. They’re joined by Astrid, a Highland cow who makes fun of Wade from making his trip to Europe with his entire personality. They give Astrid a hard time because her new boyfriend is on a reality dating show, Udderly Single. Astrid wants to throw a watch party for the show, and Wade offers to organize it.”

John: This is an animated, televised, or it’s a pilot for an animated series. Let’s get into it. For what it is, it’s a good version of what it is, but I also think it’s not the pilot episode, or it’s not the first scene of what this should be. This is a Zootopia situation where these are anthropomorphic animals doing a thing. While this conversation tracks, it basically feels like it’s maybe a Friends-like sitcom, but with a lot of cow puns thrown in. It’s probably not the best way to setting up this world for me.

Craig: Yes. What I was struck by primarily was how mundane this conversation is. If you took away the fact that they’re cows, this is a pretty boring scene, unfortunately, because it’s just banter. It’s mild banter, it’s quippy. I don’t believe any of these people. The things that they’re saying to each other feels very canned, Disney television canned conversation. It doesn’t feel real. I have no idea who I’m supposed to be following here.

John: Yes. I don’t know who the central character is. I don’t really understand what the relationship is between the three of them. They’re all there.

Craig: They’re just talking. They’re just talking about something. There’s a lot of page time dedicated to the discussion of where he went to Moodrid and they’re like, “You’ve told us already.” This is not a good use of the first three pages of anything.

John: It’s just one scene also, it’s just like one continuous scene. There’s not a lot of story is happening here.

Craig: It says “Interior bar.” Now these are cows, so we’re in a cow world. “Bulls and cows mingle, dance on two legs”– I don’t know how that works. I’m just thinking about physics. I guess they’re just animated people but they’re cows. It would be nice if they made that clear– “And swill large quantities of milk. Callie sits on a bar stool next to Wade. This bar, where is it?

John: The scale of things also would feel strange.

Craig: What is the scale? What is the decor? What is the music? It says they’re dancing. To what? Can you help me feel like I understand where I am? Because all they’ve done really is, this just feels like a scene from the middle of a middle-grade sitcom where people are talking. Not an introduction to a new world where it’s about cows.

John: Yes, exactly. Here’s where I think writing the scene is useful for you. It’s like this might be a chance to say, “What does it even feel like to have these characters talking to each other? If you just do this as an exercise, it’s like let’s have a conversation where they’re talking. You get some sense of what their voices are. I can’t tell you individually what the three different cows’ voices are. You get a sense of what their banter feels like and what the kinds of cow-related jokes and puns you’re going to be throwing in here a lot would feel like. As an exploratory, let’s crank out some pages. Great, but it’s not the first three pages of this pilot.

Craig: No. If for instance, your hero is a cow named Vanessa and Vanessa works at this bar. Vanessa has to go from the kitchen, around past the bar, past the dance floor, over to cross a few booths, get to somebody, it’s bottle service, or she’s bringing them whatever grass tenders and whatever they eat. As she’s walking by, she’s catching snippets of conversation.

These things are only valuable as background snippets. I don’t buy that we would want to focus our camera and our attention on them because it won’t hold our camera and our attention. What I would understand is, okay, I’m meeting somebody. She’s tired, she’s cranky. Oh, but she has to be nice to these people. Maybe she knows somebody who’s like, “Oh my God, when are you getting off? We have to get out of here and we need to talk about this thing.” She’s like, “Yes, I will. I promise.” Then someone’s like, “Hey, blah, blah, blah, give me a, blah–“ whatever, it didn’t make a scene. This isn’t a scene, this is just people– We’re just like, talking.

John: All that said, there’s nothing objectionable or wrong on these pages. Everything flows right, and it has the jokoid feeling that feels–

Craig: You said jokoid.

John: Jokoid.

Craig: That’s a problem.

John: Yes.

Craig: That is a problem.

John: It’s a problem, but what I’m saying is you don’t look at these pages and they’re like, “Oh, this is incompetent.” It’s not that.

Craig: No.

John: I feel like these brothers– I assume they’re brothers-

Craig: Yes.

John: -they can do this. This just wasn’t a very good example of the top of their craft.

Craig: Yes. I think they need to raise the bar a little bit on themselves because it’s in the form of. By the way, when I started, the very first stuff I wrote was exactly like this. It was exactly like this. It was in the form of, but it wasn’t. That’s part of the normal progress. Somebody needs to go, “Okay, it’s in the form of, so that’s good news.” You actually have internalized rhythm and general– like the idea of how to get information out without reading it off of note cards.

Now we have to think bigger, think better, and be more creative. Just always ask yourself, is the job to do the stuff I’ve seen, or is the job to do something that’s better, or different, or just truer to me that feels like it’s something that came out of me and not an imitation.

John: Drew, what was the logline for this?

Drew: “An ambitious cow and her cattle friends navigate careers and relationships in the cow-centric city of Bovine.”

John: Okay. So it’s either Friends or Sex in the City, and there’s actually a pretty wide range between the two of those.

Craig: Then I would love to– I actually don’t know the answer to this, but what was the first scene of Friends? What happened?

John: The first time in the scene of Friends is at Central Perk and Rachel is fleeing from her marriage. She shows up in a wedding dress.

Craig: Okay. There you go.

John: That’s a scene.

Craig: That’s a scene, there’s a situation, it’s on. That’s not happening here.

John: No, it’s not.

Craig: It’s not enough to say, “And they’re cows.” That’s the other thing. You can’t just say Friends, but they’re cows. What about cows? Look, I’ve written a movie about sheep, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: I’m obsessed with the things that make sheep sheep, but also make the individual sheep different from each other. What can sheep do that we can’t, and what can’t sheep do that we can? Why cows? What is that getting me other than, “Ha, ha, ha, they’re cows?” It’s got to be more.

Actually, that’s almost something that needs to happen in these first three pages, too. That a burden that Friends didn’t have was, why humans?

I need to know why cows.

John: The audience demands a certain amount of world-building and rule-setting in cow Friends that they’re not expecting in a friends-Friends.

Craig: And justification, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: What do we get, because they’re cows?

John: Let’s move on to our final three-page challenge. This is Never Die Alone by Yeong-Jay Lee.

Drew: A storm rolls in over a barge on Lake Superior. On the deck, men dig through their cargo of coal and pull out a gaunt young man with a neck tattoo. They chain him to an iron ball and push him overboard. We follow the body down to the bottom where the iron ball crashes through a sunken colonial boat, releasing a glowing sapphire, The Eye, which begins to float to the surface. Behind it, we see hundreds of bodies on the lake bed.

In the neighboring Sault Ste. Marie, a shabby car pulls up to a trailer home. Inside, Adam Withers, 17, asks his mom, Sarah, 37, if he can go and hang out with the new girl, Jenny. Sarah’s reluctant and sets a curfew for 12:00. Adam admits he’s lost his phone, which upsets Sarah, but she still lets him go. When he’s gone, Sarah returns to her phone call and cigarette.

Craig: You left out the fact that it’s The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

John: What’s this?

Craig: Gordon Lightfoot.

John: Gordon Lightfoot, right.

Craig: One of my favorites of all time. Love Gordon Lightfoot. One of my favorite Canadians. Never met him.

Drew: This is my neck of the woods.

Craig: He’s a genius, though.

John: Let’s start with the title page. I’d love to see contact information and a date. Just useful. People can find you.

Craig: Or at a minimum contact information.

John: I circled a lot of things here, and I want to talk just a little bit about stuff that got me tripped up on this first page. “I barge traversing the Stygian Lake in pouring rain.”

Craig: Stygian.

John: See, I didn’t even know how to pronounce that word. It’s a thing I’ve seen, and never actually pronounced it out loud.

Craig: The Stygian decks.

John: Yes, we’ll need the word Stygian. It’s dark.

Craig: It’s a bit ornate for this.

John: Also, because you’re saying barge, I know it’s the River Styx. Wait, so are we on a barge of the dead? I didn’t know if we were going to shore or away from shore, it’s traversing. I didn’t know where we were at, which becomes important because it’s clear that they’re headed away from shore because they’re going to dump this body.

Next two sentences, “A few men wearing raincoats pace the deck as the barge slows to a stop. Lights from a town dot the horizon. They unfasten a large tarp–“ Wait, they unfasten, the lights unfasten? It’s the men. This is one of those little small things where we’re reaching back, what is this pronoun referring to?

Craig: Yes. In the prior sense, we have a little bit of an issue here, too. Yeong-Jay, I think, you don’t have to use your full vocabulary-

John: No.

Craig: -which is impressive. When you say, “Lights from a town dot the horizon,” the way I just read that makes sense. What we read is, “Lights from a town dot the horizon.” Town dot. It just doesn’t work. You don’t need that so much. Lights dot the horizon or the distant lights of a town are seen on the horizon, if you want. Horizon isn’t a great word for night. We don’t really see the horizon at night. We just see lights in the distance. We don’t know if it’s the horizon.

More importantly, information. “Two dig through the coal.” You just want to say two– Again, what? Two? “Two dig” is not a strange one, T-W-O dig. “Two dig through the coal to reveal a face buried within. They extract a gaunt young man from the pile. He bears a neck tattoo, “Beloved.”

John: Is he already dead or not, important?

Craig: That’s my problem. I couldn’t tell if they were murdering a guy or they were just dumping a corpse. I think it’s a corpse. I hope it’s a corpse.

John: He’s unconscious, he’s not protesting.

Craig: Generally, we don’t describe corpses as gaunt young men. We say-

John: The body of a gaunt young man.

Craig: -they extract the body of a– Exactly. It’s important information because I just presume they were killing him.

John: Now, what happens after this is they are going to attach to the body, this heavyweight, it’s going to sink down, and they were going to follow this down. In an unlikely way, but in a way, that is very elaborate, it’s going to crash through the sunken thing and let loose this stuff. It felt like an opening title sequence. It felt very heightened in a way. It’s like, okay, is this whole thing super heightened? Great. If it is, but then the scene after this is not heightened. This is a very plain scene that made me wonder.

Craig: I’ve seen this transition before where you see something insane happen, and then we cut to many years later, which I assume this is many years later.

John: Oh, no, I thought it was the same time, but we don’t know. It’s end of music cue on page 2, but then we’re in a kitchen, and–

Craig: I don’t know what time. I need to know if this was earlier or later. I don’t know if this was the 1960s or ‘70s. When you play The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, it implies– When was that? The ‘70s? ‘70s. It implies that’s the timeline, even though this body doesn’t crash into the Edmund Fitzgerald, he crashes into an early colonial trading vessel.

Now, I will say that what happens here is awesome. The problem is it’s overwritten. I got lost in all the words. I’m just going to read it. “The iron ball carries him, the corpse, through the sundered wooden hull and into the captain’s quarters festooned with the trappings–” Two things. “Of a wealthy and worldly trader. The ball crashes into an ornate glass cabinet, scattering the antique curiosities within. Among them, a black leather coffer–” a lot of people won’t know what that is, “Imprinted with a cross. As it tumbles through the water, it unlatches–” I’m not sure–

John: What is it? Is it the ball we’ve been following or is it this coffer?

Craig: It’s probably the coffer, but opens, I think, would be fine there. “And The Eye drifts free. It is not an impossible sapphire–“ It is not an impossible sapphire. It is a sapphire “Glowing uncannily in the darkness.” I have a problem. Until that thing comes out, how the hell am I seeing any of the rest of this? I’m in the bottom of a lake at night.

Now, you may think, “Oh, magic light.” If you then do a light trick here, that’s part of the problem. Just like, “How do we actually do this?” Then it says, “It,” meaning the sapphire, “Floats toward the surface. As it rises, pull back to reveal hundreds of bodies scattered across the lake bed.” That’s cool. That’s a cool image to see all those bodies. Do they move?

John: Yes.

Craig: Does one of them twitch? Does something happen to make me go, “This was worth watching all that?” This is actually exciting stuff. It feels very Pirates of the Caribbean or Caribbean if you will. It’s your choice, but it’s overwritten, so actually I got lost.

John: Yes, I got lost, too. Now, I was missing a cut, too, at the end of this thing because we’re about to go to Sault Ste. Marie night, but it wasn’t clear that this was that we were leaving this sequence and going to a new thing. That’s where I thought I needed a transition.

Craig: Looking at it, I think maybe it’s not. That’s why I’m so confused because it says “Exterior Lake Superior – Night,” and then you’re right, it goes “Exterior Sault Ste. Marie – Night.” Maybe it’s at the same time. I generally don’t think that in the early 2000s, guys on boats who find buried bodies in coal, which is a weird thing to have on a boat in the 2000s, would just dump the body. It feels more like something that happens in the 1800s. Something feels– I’m confused.

John: I’m confused about times, too. We have two scene headers back to back that are both exteriors Sault Ste. Marie. Don’t do that. You need to–

Craig: Yes, that’s problematic for everybody.

John: Then we’re ultimately getting into this kitchen of a trailer home. We’re meeting Adam and Sarah, who’s apparently his mother. They’re speaking with a distinctive Yooper accent.

Yooper accent, for our international listeners, is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and it is a Finnish-Canadian thing. Just imagine it has a Finnish quality to it and the oo’s are different.

Craig: That’s why it’s Sault Ste. Marie?

John: Yes.

Craig: That’s just wrong. You’re just abusing the French language. Sorry, U.P.

John: Adam asks, “Can I go out with Jenny?” He’s 17 and he’s asking a can question, which is, sure possible, but I didn’t understand the relationship based on this can–

Craig: He’s 17 years old.

John: “I’m going out with Jenny.”

Craig: Yes, thank you. You have a driver’s license. Good. What is going on here? Why are you asking your mommy if you can go out?

John: Is she on a sex line? What is she doing? We don’t know. You’re setting up that we should be curious, and I actually need to have a little bit more information because at this point, I don’t know if she’s just customer service.

Craig: I think she’s in a meeting is my guest. I like that you were like, “Is she a sex worker on the phone?”

John: It’s night, though.

Craig: Oh, it’s night. There’s also a fawn drinking from the lake at night.

John: We don’t know if this is the same night where this body was thrown over or if it’s 20 years later.

Craig: We don’t know. Also, how late at night is this?

John: Yes, no idea.

Craig: I don’t–

John: We need this information. We know it’s before midnight because he has to be back by 12:00.

Craig: Right. Oh, yes, also 17, I guess, maybe.

John: He’s lost his phone. I don’t know.

Craig: You’ve lost your phone. What year is it again?

John: We don’t know what year it is. It’s an early 2000s Fleetwood trailer home, but it could be an old– Is it a brand new– 2000?

Craig: That’s right. We don’t know what year it is. If, for instance, it was back in the Nokia days, yes, you’d lose your phone and whatever. It’s fine.

John: It doesn’t matter much.

Craig: It doesn’t matter. I need to know. That said, look, Yeong Jay, this actually feels like there’s something awesome happening here. I love stuff like this. I love the use of the Edmund Fitzgerald. You’ve given us moments that feel like they’re from the 1800s, moments that feel like they’re from the ‘70s, moments that feel like they’re from the 2000s. We don’t know what’s going on. Pull back on the adjectives, there’s just a lot. Maybe if the other things were clearer, they would be more enjoyable, but when you have something awesome happening, let it be awesome. You don’t need to put as much ketchup on it.

John: Agreed. Drew, can you tell us the summary of what happens in this?

Craig: Never Die Alone.

Drew: “A despondent boy seeking a new lease on life discovers an eye of necromancy that grants him dominion over the dead and plunges him into a battle for his soul.”

Craig: A Necromancy of Thay. Obviously, he’s going to become a red wizard. Listen, necromantic magic is very powerful, as we both know. There’s a lot of great spells to use there. A couple of interesting cantrips. Chill Touch.

John: Toll the Dead.

Craig: Toll the Dead. Classics.

John: Classic.

Craig: Nerd.

John: It’s a–

Craig: But I like stuff like this. I see it’s a movie?

Drew: It didn’t say but I’m–

Craig: The idea of a teenager becoming a zombie lord is awesome.

John: Sure.

Craig: That could be awesome but who’s the villain? We need a little bit more of a sense of just read that again. It said what happens to him after–

Drew: “A despondent boy seeking a new lease on life, discovers an eye of necromancy that grants him dominion over the dead and plunges him into a battle for his soul.”

Craig: The last bit is the problem. Plunges him with whom? That’s the most important thing to know from that logline. Plunges him into a battle with a mysterious visitor for his soul, with Satan, with the spirit of his own grandfather, whatever it is. That just sounds existential, which feels boring. I think this could be cool.

John: Yes, it could be cool.

Craig: Yeong-Jay got a good vocabulary, I’ll give you that.

John: All right. I want to thank our three entrants into the three-page challenge this week.

Craig: Brave people.

John: Brave people. Thanks to everyone else who sent in your pages. If you would like to send in your pages, you go to johnaaugust.com/threepage, all typed out. There’s a little form there that you read through and click, and then you attach your PDF to it. If you’re a premium member, we will often send out a little email saying, “Hey, we’re about to do a three-page challenge, and we’re looking for things in a certain space,” and so that’s a benefit if you’re a premium member.

We really want to thank everyone who applied because you guys are heroes and let’s talk about the actual words on the page.

All right, let’s do our One Cool Things. Craig, my one cool thing is a movie I watched over the weekend called Strange Darling, and it is terrific. It is written and directed by JT Mollner. Everyone says– Which is true, that the less you know going into it, the better because it’s full of surprises, which is great.

That said, you need to know that it’s bloody because if you don’t like a bloody movie, you’re not going to want to watch that. Also, you’ll know from the very start that it’s in six chapters, but the chapters are not in order. What I think is so good about watching this as a screenwriter is you recognize, “Oh, that’s right. A story is told by the way the audience receives it and the order the audience receives it, not chronologically.”

The choice to put the chapters in this order is an incredibly important screenwriting decision, and you could not reverse it out of this. The story doesn’t work if it’s told chronologically. It’s such a great example of knowing what your audience is thinking and then being able to subvert those expectations by–

Craig: Putting things–

John: Putting things back.

Craig: Being intentional. That sounds awesome.

John: Intentionality.

Craig: I also have a movie.

John: Please.

Craig: My winkle thing. I think it’s a A24 movie, possibly, called My Old Ass.

John: Oh, yes. I think people love it.

Craig: It’s lovely. It was written and directed by Megan Park, Canadian. In my list of Canadians, it’s going to be hard again, to get past Gordon Lightfoot, but she has moved up the list. What I really like about it, it’s a comedy, but it’s like a weepy comedy. It’s a coming-of-age story. It’s very simple. It is simple, short. It’s a formula without being a formula, which I love. It follows the stuff about the formula that connects to us on a deep level, which is why the formula became the formula, without just feeling like it’s walking along a similar path.

It does its own thing. It felt to me incredibly current. It was easy for us when we watched John Hughes’ movies in the ‘80s to go, “Oh, this older person gets us. He’s generally speaking, in our world.” This felt like that for 20-somethings now. It just felt correct, felt true. It stars Maisy Stella, who was fantastic. She’s opposite two people. One is Aubrey Plaza-

John: Iconic.

Craig: -who was great. One is this guy, Percy Hynes White, who I wasn’t familiar with, but I think he was in Wednesday, and I think he was briefly canceled and then got uncanceled. I thought he was spectacular. The two of them together, I just thought it was just fascinating. It was really, really well done. There’s a high concept at it that they treat as low concept as possible. There’s no spoiler here, it’s in the trailers. I guess she’s 22 or whatever she is in the movie?

Drew: She’s 19.

Craig: 19. It’s all the same to me, I’m 53, it doesn’t matter. 19 years old. She’s about to leave home. She lives in Canada, which took me a while to figure out, but Maisy Stella is from Canada. She takes mushrooms with her friends, has a psychedelic experience, but the psychedelic experience is merely that her 39-year-old self shows up and just has a conversation with her, and starts telling her things. That high concept is played as low concept as possible. It’s almost like they saw a looper and went, “We could be even less invested in the who cares how this worksness of it,” which I thought was really smart. It was just very beautifully done, well written. Really well written.

John: Yes, I love that.

Craig: Also, well directed. I really appreciate directors who don’t make me look at how they’re directing so damn much and just let the story lead us and just get out of the way. It’s like invisible directing, my favorite kind.

John: That’s great. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilleli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you’re an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for a weekly newsletter called Interesting, which is lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great, you’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. Craig, thanks so much.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, so I was just describing this movie that I like so much, Strange Darling, and I didn’t want to spoil anything about it. So I wanted, in our bonus segment here, talk through how we discuss and convince people to see movies or talk about movies without ruining what’s actually in them. For example, I saw the new Joker movie, and there’s things I really liked about it, but things that I think didn’t work about it. It’s tough to discuss those things without revealing big stuff that happens in it.

Craig: For starters, I think, we overestimate our ability to convince people to do anything.

John: True.

Craig: We get excited about, I’m going to convince you to see this because I liked it. I see that you’re not leaning in hard enough. Let me give you another bit, or let me tell you that something happens that completely flips you out. When you get there, you’re going to be so happy. Then maybe you won’t because that’s how that goes. So I think we start to tread towards spoilers when we’re worried the people are going to do what we want them to do.

The easiest version would be to say, you’re describing this movie and you’re like, “You should see it. I think you would love it. If you don’t, I’m sorry. I think you’re going to love it. You just look in them like stuff happens that you will like.”

John: I also feel like anything that shows up in the trailers or shows up in the first three minutes of the movie, that’s–

Craig: Fair game.

John: Yes, it’s completely fair game.

Craig: Like My Old Ass. There’s not this moment– Obviously, in the movie, it’s like, “What? Who? You? What? What do you mean?” The characters can experience that. We all know from the trailers that’s what this thing is about, so that’s fine for us because it’s in the first, 10 minutes of the movie. It’s all the stuff that happens after. Yes, there is something big that happens that if I mentioned it or even refer to it obliquely, would be a massive spoiler. Even saying there’s a massive spoiler in a way is a spoiler.

John: That is one of the challenges, too. That’s what I was running into with Strange Darling, it’s like, if I say things about the performances or the surprising things in the performances, as you start to watch the movie, then you start looking for, “Oh, when is this surprising revelation going to happen?”

Craig: I had this wonderful experience– I think I might’ve mentioned on the show, of showing Bella Ramsey The Matrix. Not only had she not seen it, she knew nothing about it. That was so glorious. I was like, “So you’ve never–“ She’s like, “I’ve heard of it, but I don’t know anything about it.” I’m like, “I’m going to tell you nothing. Let’s just watch.”

And the delight– And it was experiencing it again in the best possible way, as opposed to, ”Oh yes, The Matrix, man, it’s going to blow your mind. It’s got this mind-blowing thing in the middle, it’s going to freak you out.” Then everything’s going to be, “Don’t worry, you won’t know what’s going on, you’ll be confused, but then you won’t be–“ None of that, just go ahead.

John: My experience with this recently was showing my daughter Too Many Cooks. It was fun watching it with her, because it was like, “Oh, okay, I sot of get it.” Then in the end it was like, “I did not like that,” because it goes to this incredibly dark place.

Craig: You shouldn’t like it, you should appreciate it.

John: Yes, absolutely.

Craig: Exactly. Sometimes you just want people to have the same experience you had, but by telling them anything about your experience, you’re ruining their chance of having that experience that you had. It’s hard.

John: There’s a movie that I’m talking about doing a remake of, and so I described it to Drew, but I had Drew watch it. I was talking through, “Oh, these are moments that I think are really good, but there’s something coming out that you haven’t hit yet that’s actually a really good version of this scene and this moment.” It’s that balance between you want to provide a framework for why it is you’re liking this thing, even if the movie is not necessarily great. What the potentials are there, and still not spoil the experience of actually getting there.

Craig: Then burdening the person with pleasing you. I just want them to watch something, I don’t need them to turn to me and go, “Oh, you were right, that is awesome.” I don’t want them thinking about me at all, just watch it. I always say to people, “Listen, I love this, you may not.” I say, “If you feel, as you’re going through, “Okay, I’ve seen enough of this, I get what’s going on.” Just stop. It’s fine, just bail out.

Drew: What do you do if, so I feel like I’m at a lot of parties or get-togethers where maybe one or two people haven’t seen a movie, but then like, you brought up My Old Ass, and there’s a thing I want to talk to you about, but John hasn’t seen it, so I don’t want to– Do you just say like, “Oh my God [beep].”

Craig: No, don’t say that.

Drew: Okay.

Craig: Also, just be patient. You’d be like, “Okay, at some point, when it’s just the two of us here,”–

John: Absolutely, when he goes off to get a beer then we’re going to talk about this.

Craig: Yes, I just want to talk real fast about this. I don’t want to pull you away from them or anything like that, but if you love it and you want to have that moment where you love something with somebody together, just be patient. If you do the thing, what happens is, I think people resent it. They resent it because they feel like, “You know what? Then I’m not going to see it, actually.” Fine, you love it so much that you need to talk about it, I don’t want it.

John: I listen to Slate Culture Gabfest, and on that show, they will often do a segment about a movie, but then if they need to, as their bonus segment, they’ll do like, “This is the spoiler part of this stuff, and then we’re going to talk about all this stuff.” That’s also another good approach. It’s just like, there’s the conversation you have going into it, and then the expectation that behind a paywall or behind a little divider curtain, “Here’s where we’ll talk about the other stuff.”

The same thing could be true for online posting. It’s like you put it in a place that is spoiler forum or you use the spoiler tag on things so that people don’t see the stuff that they don’t want to see.

Craig: So much easier in that format. Spoiler tag is great. Sometimes I’m looking for something about, let’s say, it was Baldur’s Gate 3, and I’m like, “Okay, I know this thing is supposed to be here, I can’t find it. Let me go and see what the answer is.” Then it’ll go on Reddit and someone will be like, “Oh, here it is.”

Then there’s all this other discussion, and people are really actually pretty decent about spoilers. Then you’re like, “I don’t actually want to know that, so I won’t click on that. I won’t click the fog of war there and reveal it.”

John: Yes, which is crucial. And the fog of war is actually the right, I think, metaphor for that. Because in fog of war, in gaming terms, is that as you pass through a space, you expose the stuff around you, and therefore you can start to see those things. Going in, you’re not supposed to know what the geography of a place is.

Craig: Right, sometimes there are movies where I’m like, “Look, I have no interest in seeing that movie. It’s not my genre, it’s not my thing.” People are talking about it, it’s annoying. I’m just going to go see what it is so that I don’t have to be annoyed and walk away from people. As if I’m going to see that movie one day, I know I’m not.

John: Mike’s thing is he’ll just like, “I will look up the Wikipedia article on it and just read it because I know I’m never going to see that movie, but I’ll know what actually happens.”

Craig: At least, I just don’t have to walk away from people. Sometimes people say, “Do you care if I spoil it?” I’m like, “Absolutely not. Just spoil away.” Never going to see it. I think the real problem is when we’re trying to convince people to do something that maybe they don’t want to do. It’s like we make a trailer that gives away too much with our mouths.

John: Yes. And I’m sure you’re constantly grappling with that on your show. It’s like in your ideal world you would love for everyone to come in completely clean and not have a sense of what– I haven’t watched the trailer for your show because I don’t want to know anything about how it’s going to be this season.

Craig: You don’t get hard information but you definitely learn things. It’s an interesting thing, adapting something that exists.

John: Yes, that’s true.

Craig: I don’t worry so much about the spoiler stuff because, to me, if you’re not in for the journey and the interesting things we do in a different format, then if you’re just watching it to find out the– It’s not Lost, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: I don’t need to know what happens. What is the island? There is none of that for us really. It’s not about that. It is why I had the nuclear reactor blow up instantly in Chernobyl because I’m like, spoiler, it blows up. Let’s just get that out of the way. It blowed up.

John: Yes, absolutely. Cool, thanks.

Craig: Thanks.

Links:

  • Quote-Unquote Marketing Director – Apply Here!
  • Veteran Script Coordinator on YouTube
  • Why aren’t smart people happier? by Adam Mastroianni
  • Middle Aged Man – SNL
  • FLUNGE by J Wheeler White, COWS by John and Mark DiStefano, and NEVER DIE ALONE by Yeong-Jay Lee
  • The Cutting Edge
  • Strange Darling
  • My Old Ass
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram, Twitter and Mastodon
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« 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 (30)
  • 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 (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (492)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.