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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 653: Multi-Cam Comedies and WGA Dollars, Transcript

October 7, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 653 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we discuss a giant area of television writing we’ve barely covered over the 12 years of our program, which is multi-camera sitcoms, from Seinfeld to Friends to most of the Disney channel programs. These were the shows we grew up watching, and they still account for a sizable portion of the writing happening today. We’ll also look at the WGA’s Annual Report, which, gasp, shows that writer income was down for the years, for reasons we can’t possibly imagine. So we’ll try to get to the bottom of that.

To help us through all this, let’s welcome a writer-producer-director whose credits range from My So-Called Life to My Boys to The Carmichael Show to Superstore. She’s also the secretary treasurer of the Writers Guild of America West. Welcome to the incredible Betsy Thomas.

Betsy Thomas: Oh, John. Wish you’d follow me around and just do that all the time.

John: Absolutely. I’m your hype man.

Betsy: That was fantastic.

John: The first time we met – I think it was the first time we met – you had reached out to me, emailed me or called me, to say, “Hey, can we talk about me running for the board?” We had a drink. We talked through stuff. And I’m so happy you decided to run for the board.

Betsy: I am, most of the time. But yes, that was really fun. We had a drink, and then I was like, “Oh.” Then later, I was like, “Oh, you made an exception for me.” I was like, “Oh, I feel flattered.”

John: It was a Friday afternoon, so it was, “Let’s have a martini,” but I’m not generally a “let’s have a martini-”

Betsy: I know. I learned that later.

John: You can hear that laughter off to the side. That is Megana Rao, who is joining us this week.

Megana Rao: Hi.

John: Hi. Drew and Craig are both out this week. Thank you so much for stepping in.

Megana: Of course. I’m excited to be here.

John: Very relevant, because you’ve just been reading a bunch of multi-cam scripts, right?

Megana: Yes, I have. I am working my way through all the seasons of Cheers through the scripts that I can find in pdf form online.

Betsy: Wow.

Megana: Which is not intentional, but I just started reading the pilot, and I was like, “Oh, this is fun.”

Betsy: It’s very cool that you’re doing that. I hope they survive long enough that you can work your way.

John: We’re gonna talk about multi-cams, but in our Bonus Segment I’d love to talk to you about golf, because you are a golfer, and Megana and I know nothing about golf. I’m speaking for both of us. You don’t know much about golf?

Megana: I don’t know much about golf, despite my father’s best efforts.

John: Very nice. Your father golfed, but you do not golf?

Megana: Correct.

John: Have you ever golfed?

Megana: Yes, I’ve golfed with my dad a lot.

John: Only people who subscribe to the Premium membership will actually-

Megana: Get to hear [crosstalk 02:30] stories.

John: … get to hear all about Megana golfing. Before we get to that, let’s talk about some news. Deadpool and Wolverine opened this past weekend. It made a bazillion dollars. It was really good for movies to succeed. I’m just really happy when things are working. Overall, the box office is down a little bit from last year, but we also have a lot more movies that are still in the pipe coming out. I feel pretty good about it. I see you nodding your head.

Betsy: It’s great. It’s incredibly exciting. I hope this continues. It sure seems dumb that they had that five-and-a-half-month break where people couldn’t do any promo, and they decided to delay all the releases. That seemed like a real waste of momentum.

John: Yeah, it does seem like a bit of that. Deadpool and Wolverine was a movie that famously did have to stop shooting because of the actors strike. That pulled all the people away, which was a hassle for them, because there’s a ton of cameos in that movie, and all those people having to be rescheduled. As the actors strike was going on, I just felt like how they get out of this and how does that movie specifically pull all of its cameo people back in to do those shoots, the logistical nightmare of that seems crazy.

Betsy: Yeah, that’s hats off to the line producer.

John: Yeah, absolutely. Combat pay for them. More big movies coming out. I just want to celebrate when there is good news, because so often we see, oh, numbers are down. It’s like, numbers are actually doing pretty well.

Betsy: Yeah, it’s great. I think we should celebrate all good news all the time.

John: 100 percent. That’s my goal for 2024 into 2025 is celebrate the wins. Let’s do some follow-up. We talked last week about listener who had concerns – he’s part of a writing team. He said, “Oh, the WGA said the gains for writing teams that was not really the gains for writing teams.” We were like, “No, you misread it.” But Megana, could you help us out with some more follow-up we got this week?

Megana: Yes. Chris wrote in and said, “I wanted to reach out and respond to the conversation you had in this week’s episode about the gains in the WGA made for writing teams in the 2023 MBA. In addition to now having pension and health caps applied to each writer instead of the project, which as a screenwriter on a team I think is hugely impactful, we also won that writing teams making the weekly minimum on a TV show will now each receive P and H contributions on the full weekly minimum, not just the half they each take home. My writing partner and I mainly work in features, but I have to imagine this is a substantial win for early career TV writing teams, so I figured it was worth making sure people know about it.”

Betsy: It’s not just early career. Everyone’s getting the contributions based on minimums in television, so it’s huge. My husband has been mostly in a writing team. I’m writing right now a pilot for ABC. Even though we’re not writing partners, we’re a team. We’re co-writing it. So it’s huge to get those full contributions.

John: Yeah, it does really matter. A lot of the gains in the contract this year really did, I think, focus on people who are at that pivotal breakpoint. Script fees for staff writers is a huge win, and making sure that we outsize increases for people who are at that first rung of the ladder, to make sure they can make it to the second rung of the ladder.

Betsy: Yes. The script fees, that is just so huge. It’s something that I have to say. John, you were there when we got that. It was such a thrill, because it’s something we’d fought for for so long. After a certain point, you’re like, “Is that ever gonna happen?” So it was really exciting.

John: Yeah, it really was. Another thing we’ve been talking about on the podcast is about locked pages and colored revisions. I’m curious what your take is, because you work largely in multi-cam – uses the same color cycle, uses the same things. A thing we’ve been discussing is that, particularly for one-hour dramas, like what Craig is doing, they’re not using printed scripts anymore at all, and so this whole notion of colored revisions and locked pages maybe doesn’t make sense.

We’re proposing, what if we just got rid of it and just started numbering stuff and doing it that way? We asked for feedback, and man have we gotten a lot of feedback. Megana, can you help us out with the two things we got this week?

Megana: Yes. I’ll start with Megan, who’s a script coordinator. She writes, “I work as a writer and script coordinator. I wouldn’t say I like locked pages, but once you hit production, I find them useful. One big reason is communication across departments. If a scene is seven pages and I need to talk to another department to quickly resolve an issue, being able to identify the exact page is helpful. And anecdotally, I know art department folks who also write notes in the margins. When a new script is published, being able to know it’s only this one page changing, versus figuring out where in a scene the change is, is helpful to them in transferring those notes.”

John: I get that to a degree. We’re not proposing that you throw out starred revisions. I think starred revisions should be doing that job. The hope is that you can see what’s changed on the page or has changed in the scene, because there’s a star that says this is something new, something to pay attention to. Betsy, what’s your first instinct there?

Betsy: I’ll say in multi-cam, a lot of times you’re just fixing a joke. I think in a half hour in general, if it’s just like, oh, we did a punch-up pass and so there’s eight new jokes, then releasing an entire new script doesn’t make a lot of sense, just because I think a lot of people do still use paper. I don’t. But I think some of the actors do. They just grab the – for the scene. Sometimes in those cases, I think locked pages make sense, because now you’re only delivering 4 pages, 8 pages to the stage, not an entire 32, 35 pages.

John: But in the case of a multi-cam comedy, let’s say there are four new jokes. What if that joke caused page breaks to change, and so you have A and B pages? Is that a hassle in multi-cam? It doesn’t matter?

Betsy: Not really. To me, it’s all wasted paper. I’ll go with the flow on anything. But I do think that it feels like there are more changes in multi-cam than there are in single-cam in general, because oftentimes in multi-cam, the script is changing every single night at such a significant rate that it’s a whole new script anyway. It doesn’t really matter.

John: The thing we’ve been speculating about, at a certain point paper’s just not the best way to capture what the current state of the script is, and so maybe people should just be looking at basically the iPad, where we’re all looking at one source of truth, because that’s what they do actually on late-night variety shows. There’s not a printed thing anymore. They’re all looking at one central, shared document, and that’s what they’re generating the run of the show off of. They’re using things like Scripto to do that.

Betsy: Look, I think it’d be great if we all got away from paper. I listened to that, and I agree. I think getting away from paper and just having a few small ones, I think it’s great. As I said, I don’t use paper anymore when I direct, and I certainly won’t when I’m working on staff. I would much prefer to have this.

But it is true, I think, that still the habit is – and this is true, again, back to multi-cam, because you have a table read and then a run-through and then a run-through – you’re watching the run-through and you’re making notes on the script, your joke pitches, whatever. The same thing on show night; you’re down there with your scripts, and you’re pitching on jokes the whole time through the show. That you can do electronically, obviously, but it’s far easier to just do it on the page.

John: We have one more bit of follow-up on that.

Megana: Sandrine, an AD, writes, “The main reason for keeping locked pages is because of breakdowns. ADs make stripboards that list what scenes will be shot each day, but department heads also make breakdowns of their particular elements, particularly props, art department, and costumes. As writers, directors, and actors, we care that Larry’s motivation changed, but props just wants to know whether or not he’s still throwing the pillow on Page 37. Costumes wants to know if he’s still wearing day 2 nightclothes even though it’s day 3 morning. Those breakdowns are always by scene, but depending on how people organize, can also use page numbers. If new pages don’t impact them, departments will often just keep working with their original script.

“Scene changes as colored pages is much more straightforward than starred revisions. If I get new pages at 11:00 p.m. and have to send off sides to actors, there’s no confusion when sending pink pages versus having to confirm that draft if it only has revision marks. With how quickly things move, particularly the micro-exchanges that happen throughout the production department and with the others, that we work really hard to shield for director and producers, that small detail of clarity can make all the difference.”

John: I welcome Sandrine’s points here. I think one of the things I would stress is that we can’t just stop doing it and not replace it with something that actually takes care of the issues. I think locked pages and colored revisions are a solution that was probably a very smart decision solution for when we first needed to do this. I just feel like there’s probably a better way we could do it now, and I don’t want our inertia to keep us from trying these things.

Betsy: Also, if you use one of those programs, you can download the starred revision. It goes right in your script. You see what’s starred. It lets you know it’s new. It’s not that hard.

John: Absolutely. Some of the software’s already there. Let’s get to one of our two main topics here. The Annual Report from the WGA is out. Over the years, Craig and I have looked at the Annual Report as it’s been published to see where trends are, what’s happening. But Betsy, I don’t think all the guilds do the kind of Annual Report we do. I don’t see the same thing coming out of DGA or SAG or any of the other places. We’re very transparent about the number of people working, how it’s all going, our finances. That’s always been the tradition as long as I’ve been in the field.

Betsy: Yeah, we always are. I think the others have to. I think their membership may not be as-

John: As engaged?

Betsy: Yeah. Writers like to look for the drama and the mystery and the intrigue.

John: Most years, I would say there’s not a lot of mystery and intrigue and drama. As we’ve gone through this, things are growing, because streaming’s growing, or the number of feature writer jobs is decreasing, because that’s just a thing that happened. But this year, there actually is bigger news.

The top line is that a total of 5,501 writers reported employment in all work areas in 2023, which is a 19.5 decline from 2022. The total writer earnings, reported for dues purposes, declined 31.8 percent, to 1.29 billion dollars.

We should say right from the start here, that clause “for dues purposes” is doing a lot of work there, because particularly in television, writers also get producer fees that are not included in the dues process. The total amount that writers in this industry are bringing in is a lot more than 1.2 million dollars, but the 1.29 is how much gets reported to the Guild.

Betsy: Yes, that’s true. Also, did you hear that we were on strike?

John: Yeah. Absolutely. Some of the blowback has been like, “Oh my god, can you see they were down 31.8 percent?” We were on strike for five months, which is 41 percent of the year no one was working, and then there was a SAG strike afterwards. So it’s not a huge surprise that writer income was down.

Betsy: There was already a contraction. I think a lot of people were saying, oh, people are scared because of a potential strike. No, there was a natural – the contraction that we’re feeling now had already begun. I remember I had pitches to take out, and they’re like, “We don’t want to take it out yet, because nobody’s buying.” That had already started. We saw this as a reflection, by the way, in our Strike Fund Loan applications and whatnot.

There were a lot of people that had not been working since 2022 already. My last job was in November of 2022. Then we came back, but the actors didn’t. There was a lot of concern about production and not wanting to maybe start production until after January 1st. The above-scale fees that television writers make, they weren’t getting.

John: A thing we should also notice is that every year this report gets published ,and you see these numbers, and the numbers go up the next time it’s reported, because basically money comes in late. This is only a reflection of the amount of money that came in. If you go back to the ’22 Financial Report, it showed a 6.1 percent decline in earnings, but when they actually did the recalculation, it was up .2 percent. Some of these numbers will actually improve a little bit over time, but it’s not gonna change the minus sign in front of the number. Clearly, writers brought in less money this last year.

Betsy: Yes. I did.

John: I did too. Funny, that. As did Megana. In the report – and we’ll put a link in the show notes to the pdf – it breaks it down by TV and by features. TV took a bigger hit, which kind of makes sense, because those are things that are constantly ongoing. For features, there are people who were writing features before the strike happened, and they delivered once they could get back to work, so it didn’t take as big of a hit. TV employment was down negative 35 percent, and feature employment was down 22 percent.

I think where I get frustrated is when people say, “Oh, look how much money was not earned. You’ll never earn that money back,” and so that the strike was useless, because you’re never gonna get that five months of employment back. It makes me want to strangle people over a screen, because everything we have as the Guild, our health plan, our residuals, everything, was because someone was willing to go on strike and get that for future generations.

Betsy: Completely, I hate that too. I have also been told, “This cost me $500,000.” If that’s how much money you’re making, you’re in good shape to be able to ride this strike out in a way that a lot of other people weren’t. I try to be Zen about it. There are people that think about others and understand that the strikes are not just about today, they’re actually about tomorrow, and so this will affect me to some degree, but it’s gonna affect the younger generation far more, hopefully.

John: Writers who are not even in the Guild yet. Writers who are still in high school are benefiting from this. It was during the strike, not only were you part of the negotiating committee, you also had to work with the Strike Fund, the Good and Welfare loans. And I bless you for that, Betsy, because that’s such tough work.

Betsy: Thank you.

John: You were constantly being confronted by folks who were greatly struggling because of – as you said, it wasn’t just the strike. They were struggling before the strike, and the strike made their lives even worse. Can you just talk us through what those two programs are and how it worked?

Betsy: The Strike Fund committee, which is made up of the membership of finance committee and then we added a couple more people because of the workload. There basically are two pots to take loans from. One is the Strike Fund loan. You have to be a current active member. That loan is available to people who have been directly impacted. Their work was stopped because of the strike. You apply for that loan, and then there’s a repayment schedule. It can recur. The Good and Welfare loan is actually available all the time.

John: It’s a fund that’s always there.

Betsy: It’s a fund that’s always there. It’s a lifetime maximum of $14,000. Once you reach that, you’ve capped. You can’t get more. That does not require your work being interrupted by the strike. This could just be you’re showing financial hardship. Generally, people go to Motion Picture, and then we get handed people from that. But in this case, it was such an overwhelming need, and also, Motion Picture was so overwhelmed.

John: We should explain Motion Picture Television Fund. That’s an overall umbrella organization that helps people in the film and television industry suffering hardship.

Betsy: They were handling so many loans for so many different people and from so many different unions that their backlog was… We just then started handling it directly so that people could have answers and money quicker.

John: Great. Good and Welfare runs all the time. Strike Fund was just for this. But important to note, it’s not that we’ve burned through all the Strike Fund. We helped a lot of people, but it’s not like we zeroed out. It’s not like we ran out of money.

Betsy: I think in total, I think we had 20 million dollars in the Strike Fund, and I think we gave out 6. Some people are like, “Why didn’t you empty it out?” Because if you empty it out, then we don’t have anything for another strike. What it takes to build that fund up… It is one of the powers we have is knowing that we have the ability to help people. The AMPTP knows that. Our ability to be able to help people and weather the storm was a lot of our leverage.

John: For sure. In addition to writer income that’s happening in the course of the year, the report also talks through residuals. Residuals are this godsend that we have, thanks to previous strikes. For folks who are brand new to all this, residuals are like royalties that writers get in the film and television industry.

In 2023, the WGA collected 598 million dollars in residuals, which is up 3.5 percent. Feature residuals were down 14.5 percent. Basically, we talk about this all the time. Home video is in a freefall. It’s nowhere near the market that it was before. But this year, even streaming and new media residuals were also down for features. That’s the one place of hope people always had for feature residuals, and those were down a bit too. Again, those numbers are likely to drift up a little bit as more stuff gets reported, but it’s good to get an overall sense of where we’re at with residuals.

Betsy: I do want to point out one thing. The total amounts collected in residuals and interest from 2022 to 2023 almost doubled. It almost doubled in 2023. That’s extraordinary. The fact that it then came down a little bit in 2024, obviously year to date, is not as alarming. I don’t think it was ever gonna keep up with that pace of doubling. Part of that was because there were so many shows that had been grandfathered in to the old rates, but then we got those gains in streaming in 2020, and so for the new shows, those residuals finally kicked in. Think about the delay and once it finally is dropped in streaming. That was what was going to happen, hopefully, and it did.

John: The big things that the Guild does money-wise is it’s setting minimum rates, it is collecting residuals, but it’s also going after and enforcing the contract. The enforcement is real dollars here. For 2023, the Guild collected 75 million dollars in underpaid residuals, along with 2.3 million dollars in interest. Already for 2024, it’s collected 45 million dollars, and 1.7 million dollars in interest. That’s money that – no one else is gonna get that for you. The Guild has to go out there and shake people down and say, “No, you owe this money.” God bless. Some of our ability to do that, both in residuals but especially in late payment, is because we now have contracts for everybody, and we can see, “No, this person was due this. You gotta pay them.”

Betsy: The Guild just did a press release about just the late pay, just the fees that they went after because they had the contracts. They were able to actually enforce something without even needing the member to do anything. It was a benefit of the agency campaign. It was something that we won when we renegotiated that contract. It’s been huge in terms of getting writers late pay. Also, this is a thing now that is in the Guild’s system to be able to constantly be policing.

John: Absolutely. The email said the Guild collected more than 1.5 million dollars in interest for late payment for more than 1,000 writers. Some examples would be $14,400 for one individual feature writer. You add all those up, that’s a huge change for somebody, like, “Oh, here’s money I didn’t know I was owed. Here’s a check for $14,000.” That’s great.

Betsy: I would like that.

John: I would like that. Everyone would like that. This is also why you have a guild, because your agency is never gonna collect that money, or your manager, because they have relationships with those studios and they don’t want to piss them off. The Guild does not care about pissing off anybody. The Guild’s not mean, but the Guild’s gonna get money for its members.

Betsy: That’s the only thing they do. Literally, the people that work in that building, this is their entire career is just worrying about writers. I think when you’re on the inside, which, John, you having been on the board and negotiating committees – you really get to know the staff, and you really see how much long, hard work goes into trying to protect writers, deal with them in the kindest and most helpful way. It’s a staggering achievement, I think, what that building does on a day-to-day basis.

John: 100 percent agree. Let’s wrap this up. The back part of the Annual Report talks about the Guild’s financial situation. You’re on the committee. You’re a person overseeing this on a regular basis. Total assets, 137 million dollars. Total liabilities of 37 million dollars. That works out to 100 million dollars left around. I looked it up in 2022. That equivalent figure was 92 million dollars. Even despite the strike and everything else, we’re doing good.

Betsy: We’re doing great. The fact that we weathered that strike and we still have this kind of financial stability is because of the assets and the investments and very, very careful… It’s why we have the Strike Fund. The finances of the Guild are really healthy. I know that was one of those great rumors that people liked to spread during the strike, like, “Oh, this is gonna bankrupt the Guild.” The whole time, I’m like, “I’m looking at the figures every single month. We’re fine. We’re good.”

John: We’re good. Let’s get to non-WGA topics. Let’s talk about multi-cam, because over the course of doing this podcast for 12 years, we’ve talked to a lot of feature writers, lot of TV writers, but they’ve mostly been TV drama writers, or they’ve been single-camera comedy writers. We’ve talked to very few people about multi-cam. Multi-cam is your bread and butter. That’s where you’ve made your –

Betsy: It’s a mix. I do both. I think it’s partly because a lot of them are dead.

John: That’s why we’re not finding so many of those writers. But we definitely grew up on them.

Betsy: For sure, and they still exist.

John: They’re still exist, and they’re still hugely popular in reruns, but the current ones are still going. Big Bang Theory is a classic multi-cam.

Betsy: But also, The Neighborhood’s been on CBS – I think this is Season 8, 7, something like that. Night Court’s been a bit hit for NBC. There’s a new one just got picked up on ABC. Tim Allen. He’s a new talent that they decided to give a shot to.

John: A rocket ship to the stars. Definitely, I could see him. Really, it comes down to him and Glen Powell. Who is the hot new face? I made Betsy laugh.

Let’s talk through development process, because we have a sense of how stuff works in one-hours now, where there’s a writers’ room that’s putting stuff together, and then you build up a bank of scripts, and then you just go forth and shoot. You try to keep on top of stuff while shooting. Classically, multi-cam has been much more week by week by week, like we’re putting a thing up on its feet and then we’re writing the next one. Is that-

Betsy: Accurate?

John: Yeah.

Betsy: I think to some degree, yes. But I think you hope that you bank a bunch of scripts before the beginning of the year. It’s done a lot of different ways. I worked on a show called Superior Donuts. The way that show worked is we all group-wrote, which I think is really how Chuck Lorre does it too. By nature, you have to have several rooms going, because you’ve got one room who’s working on a script, a future script, you got one room that’s working on the current script on the stage, and so you have that.

It necessitates, I think, a lot more collaboration, multi-cam, because the problem is – it’s not like single-cam, which is why I like single-cam, because you write your script, and it goes to the table read, you have several days or whatever you need to do that rewrite, and then you’ve got your shooting script and you’re off to the races.

But in multi-cam, you get your notes from the network or the studio and everybody. “Okay, here.” Now, you do table read. Table read, you get notes. Then you do a rewrite. You have to get it done by the morning, because it’s gotta be on the stage when the actors get there at 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. That’s why sometimes you’re there late at night, because by the time –depending on when your table read is – and you get notes, and you get back to the room, and it’s 3:00. And then you gotta get Pinkberry, and so now it’s 4:30. It’s easy to be there at 11:00 or midnight. I think in many ways, multi-cam is a lot harder, in my opinion, job.

Then the next morning, you gotta be working on breaking Episode 3 or 4 or 5 before you go to run-through, which is at 2:00. Then the whole thing, you get another rewrite, another set of notes, rewrite. Same thing Wednesday, and then you get another set of notes. And then Thursday’s pre-shooting and camera blocking. So you need to have basically as much of a locked script as you can. Then you shoot on Friday. Let’s just say that’s the week.

John: Let’s talk about the difference between multi-cam versus single-cams. I think about a Modern Family as a single-camera show. In theory, they could’ve written the script well in advance and they made up a schedule. These are the sets we’re shooting. This is how we’re making this whole thing work.

When you think of multi-cams, you think of, okay, now the whole writing staff is there for tape night and where you’re actually shooting the whole thing and you can make those changes on the fly. But generally speaking, multi-cam’s all done in just one shot. You’re just doing the whole thing at once, versus splitting it out like normal production.

Betsy: Yes.

John: Those shooting nights must be really exciting but also terrifying, because if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, and you’re screwed.

Betsy: Yeah. There’s a famous story I’m gonna butcher, but it illustrates this. I think it was Bob Newhart. I think The Bob Newhart Show, in the episode, they had a character, and they kept calling him back. I think his name is Mr. Nakamura. I think I’m right, but I just pictured all these comedy writers going, “That’s not it!” The very first joke died. The writers were all like, “Oh, no. We have four callbacks coming.”

Sometimes it doesn’t go well, or you get a groaner or you get something and you’re like, “Uh-oh.” Then everybody furiously is getting together to try to figure out – “Let’s fix it. Let’s fix it.” In general, I think jokes are what you want to be fixing, not like, “Oh, they don’t understand. They don’t even understand this plot point.” That’s really bad. I’ve not been on a show like this, but I know friends, from what I’d heard, they would shoot the show, let the audience go, then rewrite whole scenes and reshoot them completely differently.

Megana: Wow.

Betsy: That gives me anxiety. I can’t even imagine that. I like to be prepared. Not that they weren’t prepared. I can’t work that way. It’s too chaotic for me.

John: Yeah, that sense of, this was the plan going in there, and it’s suddenly not working, and you’re just under such pressure, because you actually have your entire cast, you have the entire crew, and then in theory, a studio audience. Talk to us about studio audiences now. The shows that have laughter in the background, are most of those shot with audiences now?

Betsy: Yes. They have been. People talk about the laugh track, but the truth is, it’s not really a track. There’s mics. That’s what the studio’s done. Sometimes if you’re using something from the pre-shoot date – oftentimes you’ll pre-shoot scenes, get them in the can, and then you shoot it once in front of the audience, just to get their response and their reaction. Sometimes the audience show performance wasn’t as good or the camera had a bump on it. For some reason, you need to use the one from the – so somebody will borrow the laugh from the – even though that’s not what was under the original. It isn’t really a laugh track. It’s a falsehood. Those laughs are all from the audience itself.

John: Melissa McCarthy was talking about how on Mike and Molly, they would pre-shoot some stuff. If there was a scene where they were driving in a car, they would pre-shoot that, but then on the night of actual filming, they would just be sitting on apple boxes and doing the same scene so they could get the laughter and get the real audience reaction from that.

Betsy: That’s right. Some stuff you’ll play back, and then you’ll get the audience laughs for the thing you’ve played back – that car scene.

John: Shooting some multi-cams, because you’ve also directed, can you talk to us about how you approach shooting a multi-cam scene? Because we’re so used to the camera’s here or the camera’s here, but you’re having to watch a bunch of stuff simultaneously. You’re trying to make sure the performances make sense, but also that the cameras are capturing the performances in the right way. What are you thinking about as a director looking at a script?

Betsy: I was a theater major, so multi-cam is really natural for me, because it’s just a recorded play. That’s really all it is. You’re in this set. The way I always work – and I do this a lot of times with single-cam too – is I go to the best joke in the scene and I work backwards from that.

John: Interesting.

Betsy: Because I always feel like you want to make sure that that thing that it’s building to is landing in the best possible way. A lot of times I’ll look at that and I go, “I know I want this here. I know I want him leaning over the kitchen counter and grabbing for her at this moment.” Then I’ll try to go, “If that’s where I’m ending, where do I start, and where do I have everybody go?”

I like to have a lot of movement in scenes. There are directors that just put two people on a couch. As a writer, that’s death. I know how many scenes have died because a director… Because let’s face it – no offense to actors – with the exception honestly of Helen Hunt, who always wants business and wants to move, a lot of actors are happy just to be sitting on a couch.

John: Park and bark, yeah.

Betsy: I think if you let them do that, sometimes a scene can really die. I always try to keep a lot of life. I like it to feel like it’s natural, not like it’s artificial. I try to help the actors by giving them business that feels organic to what they should be doing and gives them purpose. That’s the other thing that I always think about when I’m directing is figuring out…

Then I also like to be flexible, so that when we get to rehearsal, I can say, “I was thinking this was my plan. What do you think of this plan?” Sometimes they love it and they’re like, “I was feeling like I didn’t want to walk on this moment. I wouldn’t want to be near him.” You’re like, “Great, then don’t do that.” Then you gotta just be flexible with the plan.

John: I want to rewind back. Let’s say this is a script you didn’t write, but this is a script you’re gonna be directing. You’re handed the script. You’re visualizing in your head, “This is the biggest joke. This is where I would see this going.” Are you then having a conversation with the writer, with the team, about putting that stuff in the scripts, putting the business in the script, or is that something you’re holding onto for yourself?

Betsy: No, I just have it, because we’re gonna rehearse, and it may or may not work. We may not like it. They’re gonna see it the next day. They’re gonna either go, “God, that scene worked great,” or…

Occasionally, if we’re deeper, it’s Wednesday night, I’ll say, “For him to get to the door in time to open the door and she’s there, I need one more line, because it’s too big a cross. He can’t get there.” That stuff I’ll say. I try to go up to the writers’ room after on multi-cams. I try to go up after our rehearsal day and go, “Everything worked great. This was beautiful. This thing is wonky. You’ll see tomorrow. But I think we’re missing some words here,” or whatever. I’ll give them a head’s up, because I liked that as a showrunner when I would get that head’s up, because it helps you start to think about and prepare as you go through the rewrite.

John: How do you as a director interact with the showrunner or other writers on rehearsal day? Basically, we recognize this thing isn’t working. Is it their responsibility to notice that and point that out? Is it your responsibility as a director to figure it out? What is the communication there?

Betsy: I would say it’s normally just like you put up the play, the thing, and then the writers are looking at it like, “How do we fix the script to make it better?” I think there are times where they’ll say, “Hey, we actually were thinking this instead of the way you staged it.” They’ll say that to the director. Then sometimes I’ll say, “I tried to make this thing work. We had it this other way. Do you want me to show you that? That didn’t feel right either.” We have a conversation.

I would say because I’m a writer – and I would even say I would identify as a writer principally. That’s where my heart is. That was my first guild. I always try to make the script work as best as I possibly can, and I’m super collaborative with the showrunner. I’m always like, “Come down to set. Come watch rehearsal. Do you want to just come down and be here for this scene? I can let you know.” I like to have them as involved as they possibly can be.

The other thing that sometimes happens with actors occasionally is, there can be some badmouthing of jokes or a little bit of eyerolling. I don’t like that. No one tried to do anything but a great job in the script, so you gotta give them what they wrote.

John: You talk about it’s basically putting up a play, but the difference is, of course, you then can go into the editing room and change the play after it was put up. Can you talk to us about the editing process as a writer, as a director? How much flexibility do you have in the editing room to improve something that was like, eh, on the day? Have you found things in multi-cam where that didn’t really work in person, but then it just killed in the edit? Is that a thing that’s possible to do?

Betsy: Yeah, I think it is. I think it’s less likely in multi-cam. I think there’s definitely more in single. Smash cuts don’t really work in multi-cam the way they do in single, but I will say there’s a couple things that do matter. I worked on a show called Outmatch. They would oftentimes be pretty long. The cut would come in long. I started saying to them, “If you think you’re gonna lift this page, you won’t be able to do that in editing, because people are making crosses.”

What I hate is, unlike single, it can be very difficult to make cuts, because people jump space and because it is a play. You have to be a little more disciplined as a writer to get a little closer to time. Obviously, you want a little bit of fat. Then I always try to think, “What are some things that might go away?” and making sure that two people are not moving during that, so if you want to take that lift, it won’t be hard in the editing room.

John: It’s a thing I hadn’t really considered, but shooting multi-cam, you’re not gonna have the clean singles often that you could use to jump people around in space. They would exist naturally.

Betsy: Yeah, you don’t have as many options.

John: When you are doing multiple takes in multi-cam, let’s say you run that, like, “Oh, that’s pretty good. We’re gonna do it again.” Will you change up cameras just so you have more options in editing?

Betsy: We do. The idea is you got the four cameras. Sometimes it’ll be like, the best two shot is over here actually of these two, so we’ll do a single and a single, but even maybe we’ll do I’ll say a two. But we work with a camera coordinator, and they really helped. You say, “I know I’m gonna play this joke in a two, so let’s make sure we get that in front of the audience the first time,” because it’s the first time they’re seeing the joke, which tends to be the biggest laugh. I don’t want to start in a single. I want to start in a two shot, so I make sure I have that.

John: It does feel weird that we bring in an audience to watch this thing and they’re seeing the action in front of them, but you also want them watching the monitors.

Betsy: It is, yeah.

John: Because that’s the show.

Betsy: I think in general they do seem to watch the monitors. They’re watching the actors, but I think when you’re rolling, I think they go to that, which is good, because a lot of times you need somebody in a close-up for something to play.

John: Now, Megana, you’ve been reading through a bunch of sitcom scripts. Can you talk through about what you’ve learned? We’ll put some of these examples scripts in – put links to them in the show notes. Talk to us about what you’re seeing on the page, because they look different than what we’re used to in single-camera.

Megana: Yeah, they look different. The ones pre-2000s are all two acts with a cold open and maybe a tag, and formatted differently. The action lines are all capitalized, mostly interiors. I was very surprised, roughly six scenes in a script.

Betsy: Depends. How I Met Your Mother was one that really broke that, where they had a lot of scenes. It was a single-cam multi-cam. Yes, the old-school way to do it is to do far fewer scenes. By the way, that makes for a lot more fun show night also, because you get through it quickly. The audience is completely engaged. If you don’t have to wait for a wardrobe change, if you’re able to keep it in that, it really makes the show, I think, really sing.

Megana: Much more characters, I’ve realized, than in most of the single-cam scripts that I’m reading. In a multi-cam, obviously, you’re gonna have a bigger ensemble, typically.

Betsy: Yeah, I think that’s true. When I think about my favorite moments in multi-cam, I directed a few episodes of The Carmichael Show, and there were some scenes in their living room which were hard to stage, because it’s a lot of people in that scene. You have Tiffany and Lil Rel and Jerrod and David and Loretta. It’s not that big a set. You’re also like, “How do I keep it where not everybody’s just sitting down?” because then it gets stagnant. It was really hard to direct.

Those scenes, sometimes they were seven, eight pages long. That’s a lot for actors to get through. Old-school ones, David and Loretta, who come from theater, who come from the stage, it’s not as difficult for. But I think a younger generation, they’re not used to that, particularly if you’ve not come from stages. But those scenes just pop. The audiences love them.

Megana: You mentioned being able to do smash cut jokes in single-cam. Are there any other differences you think of between multi-cam versus single-cam comedy when you’re writing?

Betsy: I worked on a multi-cam called Abby’s that was short-lived. Mike Schur was the EP. Josh Malmuth created it.

John: Is that the one that was all in a backyard?

Betsy: Yes, with Natalie Morales. Josh had a little bit of multi-cam experience when he was much younger, but I think I was the only other person that really had… The rest of the staff was young, and they only had had single-cam experience. I found myself a few times saying, “That doesn’t really work, and the reason it doesn’t work is because you have these run-throughs.” To stage a smash cut is weird. It’s like, smash cut to the car. Where is the car? We don’t have that set. Then you’re having two actors run over to sit in a… I don’t know. It can be really awkward, which doesn’t mean that you can’t do it in the cut. But it can be awkward in terms of the run-throughs and things like that.

Megana: I didn’t realize that all of these scripts were filmed sequentially when you shoot them in front of the audience. I don’t know why I didn’t put that together.

Betsy: Yeah, they are. There are also things that they’d say, “Oh, and then he blows up the mailbox.” I’m like, “How is that gonna happen in front of an audience? It’ll look terrible, because we can’t really do… ” I think there are ways to do things in multi-cam with special effects in post that didn’t used to exist, so I think there’s a lot more flexibility now, but there’s a reason that the great multi-cams were Mary Tyler Moore Show and Cheers. They were people just doing their thing, walking through telling funny jokes and leaving.

John: Absolutely. I want to talk about entering and leaving, because I think that’s actually a difference, because there’s the expectation in multi-cam that people come in, people enter, and they exit. That’s a thing that actually happens, which you just don’t see as much in single-cam. People are already seated or they’re already in the middle of a thing versus walking into a thing. Entrances and exits are so important and so funny, hopefully, if it works well.

Betsy: I think it probably comes from the energy that that brings to a scene, because again, it’s just like theater. If you’re watching a theater scene of four people sitting around a table for 10 pages, it’s fine, but it’s a different energy when somebody walks in with news, somebody walks in with a complication. It has a really different energy.

John: A lot of the things we’re gonna be linking to are older things, so Cheers or Friends. But this Night Court reboot is new. It’s from 2021. A thing I do notice is underneath the scene header, in parentheses, it says which characters are in the scene. Is that a common thing?

Betsy: Yeah, always.

John: Always. Cheers and Friends don’t do it, but this one does.

Betsy: They must’ve added it later, but it is part of what the coordinator does. Obviously, it’s because it gets back to this thing of all the departments want to just see, “Who’s in this scene? What cats do I have wrangle?”

John: The decision to make dialogue double-spaced, it looks so terrible to me, but it’s convention.

Betsy: It is. It’s a lot easier for an actor to read when they’re walking through with their script, because they don’t have it memorized. All these run-throughs, they’ve got their script.

John: They’re just holding it.

Betsy: They’re walking through the scene on the run-through day, reading from their script while – “And I love you too, sweetie,” and then they… We encourage them to not try to memorize it, because we want the words. I don’t want an approximation of the words. I want to know the exact words, because then I know what I have to fix. Somebody’s saying, “I really like you too, sweetie,” that means something very different.

John: Parentheticals are part of the dialogue block itself. Things just look different in ways that just feel arbitrary.

Betsy: I know. I know.

Megana: Your scripts end up being 40 to 60 pages long.

Betsy: Hopefully not 60. That’s really long. But yes, I would say in the 38 to 42 is the sweet spot, depending on the show. Then some shows, they spread. Who knows what? They just spread, and so it’s just better to have shorter page count. Other shows can get away – I think Friends scripts were usually pretty long, because that dialogue just went so quickly.

John: Let’s say you’re a listener to the show who really loves the multi-cam format and wants to work in that. Would you recommend they write a multi-cam script, or should they write something that’s more single-camera-y but has funny jokes in it? What’s gonna be a better thing to get them noticed and read?

Betsy: A time machine.

John: That’s a good one. First, invent time travel. Then show them your Friends script.

Betsy: I don’t think it matters anymore, from what I can gather. I just had this conversation with my husband last night. He said, “I hear spec scripts are coming back.” I was like, “Really?”

John: Specs of existing shows?

Betsy: Specs meaning specs of existing shows, so you write a Night Court. My friend Corey Nickerson wrote her spec years and years ago. She did a spec Mary Tyler Moore.

John: So exciting.

Betsy: But it was R rated. It got her a lot of attention, because it just was a really cool way to reinvent that idea. For example, I think if you wrote a Modern Family spec, I think that’s gonna work for a multi-cam just great. I don’t think you have to do one or the other. I think if you wrote a Baby Reindeer spec, I’m not sure that’s gonna really translate to the Tim Allen thing.

John: Yeah, somehow, yeah, I could see that being a talent. A guy who we were on the negotiating committee with was working on the new Frasier. That’s another example of a present-day sitcom that’s out there.

I remember when my daughter was young, she was obsessed with one of the Nickelodeon shows, and so I got her onto the set of one of the Nickelodeon shows. It was very much a classic sitcom-y kind of thing, but they filmed it arbitrarily in the afternoons. There was a laugh group. It was just a bunch of people in lawn chairs who’d sit at a TV and laugh with the jokes. It was the most uncomfortable thing I’ve ever experienced in my entire life.

Betsy: I’m trying to think of what the equivalent is. It feels like there’s some sort of sex worker equivalent. As a copywriter, you feel so cheap, because you’re like, “I didn’t earn that.” That’s what we had in COVID. We had the laughers in COVID, because you couldn’t have an audience. They would hire these, because then you could test them all. They could be properly COVID tested in the audience. I think it bothered all of us, and particularly actors or standups who are used to earning those laughs. It feels real dirty just to get a big guffaw. You’re like, “It wasn’t that funny. Now it feels like you’re mocking me.”

John: I just remember the producer would walk over to laughers between, like, “Can I get a bigger laugh on this joke?” I’m like, oh, no. Finger on the scale there.

Betsy: It is. It’s got real fake orgasm vibes.

John: It does. Let’s talk about some listener questions. Megana, can we start with this one from Annie?

Megana: Annie writes, “I hooked up with a director who loves one of my scripts, a feature film. He’s put a lot of work into moving the project forward and recently found a producer who’s on board. I trust the director’s taste, and we have good communication. The producer, not so much. I don’t want to be all precious. After all, a script produced is better than one on your hard drive. On the other hand, if the result is completely awful, then what? Any tips on how to navigate this process?”

John: I think we’ve all been in situations where like, “Oh, I really like your perspective, and this other person’s, I don’t, and I am stuck with both of you.” It’s a tricky place to navigate.

Betsy: My advice would be talk to the director as politically savvily as possible. Just say, “Here’s where I’m struggling. I feel like we’re very much in the same page of what this movie is. I’m not feeling like the input from the producer is rowing in the same direction. Tell me how you feel about their notes, how you’re experiencing. Maybe I’m not understanding something or I’m not seeing something,” and see if they can be – because they may be feeling the same way, and by you saying that, be like, “You know what? I actually feel the same way.” Or they may say, “Oh, I’ve worked for this person before, and take this with a grain of salt.”

John: The opposite situation is worse, when you agree with the producer, and the director has terrible notes and terrible instincts. Then you’re gonna get replaced and things are bad. It’s not gonna work out well. Ultimately, that director is responsible for executing your script. Yes, the producer’s gonna have an important function, but you’re better off seeing eye to eye with the director than with the producer.

Betsy: Yes.

John: A question here from Cayenne.

Megana: Cayenne asks, “Sometimes when writing dialogue, I find my characters being sarcastic or deadpan, saying what is phrased like a question but flatly and more as a shady statement. I like to write these with no question mark, because it feels like it makes their tone much clearer. For example, ‘Oh, really?’ versus, ‘Oh, really.’ But I’ve had a friend proofreading catch these, insisting that they’ll snag a reader out of the scene more than help. Do you have any opinions on when or when not to break grammatical norms to communicate tone?”

Betsy: I use punctuation however the hell I want. But also, you can say “flatly.” You’ve got parentheticals available to you. I usually do a combination of parentheticals and punctuation. I don’t know. I hear what the person proofing it feels, but I also think I want to know what the tone is more importantly than anything else.

John: I agree with you. I think if it’s crucial, then that parenthetical could be in there. But I do like that question marks actually kind of have a sound now. Putting a question mark on or taking a question mark, you can kind of hear it. We mentioned a couple weeks ago, someone had two question marks at the end of a sentence. I can hear what that sounds like. It felt appropriate.

This last week there was a press release that came out from Kamala Harris’s campaign, and one of the bullet points was, “Trump is old and quite weird?” with a question mark. That question mark was absolutely perfect. Choosing to put the question mark there or put a question mark on a thing that’s otherwise a statement is a total valid choice. Everything on the page matters. Don’t worry about it being grammatically perfect.

Megana: Just an example to look at, because we’ll probably link the Friends pilot in here, they set up Chandler as droll, and he doesn’t have any question marks in his sarcastic statements. It’s just a period.

John: Let’s do one more. This one from John.

Megana: John writes, “I’m writing a screenplay where, in Act 3, the protagonist is hit with a massive flashback of memories while standing in a room with other people. Like 5 to 10 pages of flashbackery. It’s important stuff and informs what happens next in the story. My question is, during the flashback, what’s happening in current time and space? Has it been presumably caused? If so, can you return right from a flashback and assume no time has passed? Is it better to return by jumping forward a bit in time, or is there a better way to handle this?”

John: I definitely have felt this, where I was like, “Oh, wow, we’ve been gone a long time. Was he actually in real time experiencing all this together?” If you’re gonna be gone for more than a minute, I think you gotta return to the present tense with some sense of, okay, just tell us whether he was experiencing this too, or was this flashback for us, or was it the thing that he was experiencing at the same time.

Betsy: I agree. I would also say use it to the advantage of the scene, in other words that time didn’t just stop for everybody. But it’s like, were they boring? Was somebody in the middle of telling an incredibly emotional story and you just went into flashbacks? Then you come back and they’re like, “And then he died.” You can use it in all kinds of different ways. I would say I always try to think what is the real. Then the real is, if I’m going into a bunch of flashbacks that take three minutes of screentime, that’s three minutes the other person has been doing something, or the other people have.

John: It is weird to do the introspection of what was actually happening while I was having these thoughts. Sometimes it’s in a place where nothing else was happening. I will time travel while I’m in the shower. Nothing else was happening. But if I’m time traveling during the middle of recording this podcast, you two would notice that.

Megana: It happened a few times actually.

John: It has, where I’ve just been like, “I’m not in here anymore.” It has come time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is this article by Mary HK Choi for New York Magazine, or The Cut. I always get confused what’s what there. The headline is What My Adult Autism Diagnosis Finally Explained. I’ve seen other people talk about adult diagnosis of autism. It’s like, okay, sure. But her description of where she was at and how it made things click together was really fascinating. Then I like that she also pushed beyond to say, yes, but also I’m an immigrant and some of what you’re seeing here is also just a pretty understandable response to what my situation was. Yes, there’s probably some brain stuff, but there’s also probably some cultural stuff there, and it’s impossible to disentangle them.

I thought it was a really great article. There were so many things I wanted to highlight and underline. She’s a workaholic who’s, quote, “bad at Christmas,” which is such a great character description.

Betsy: That is great.

John: It’s so good. This is a article by Mary HK Choi. Everyone should look it up.

Megana: Awesome. My One Cool Thing is Season 2 of Unstable.

John: Tell us about Unstable. You watched the whole first season, and you should watch the second season now too?

Megana: Yes, I watched the whole first season. Everyone should watch the second season. This is the show that I had to leave my beloved Scriptnotes producing job for.

John: Absolutely. You can see Megana’s name on screen as a staff writer on Unstable Season 2.

Megana: Yes. It is a single-cam comedy on Netflix starring Rob Lowe and his real-life son John Lowe. There’s also Fred Armisen, Sian Clifford. This season has Lamorne Morris. It’s a delightful, quirky comedy. The episodes are 20 minutes long. Check it out.

John: Delightful and very exciting. Here’s the secret about Netflix, which we should just tell everybody. Start watching it and just watch the whole thing, because they really care about things being completed. Be a completionist. If you don’t have a chance to watch it all when you first sit down, maybe just let it play, so you get credit for it. Then you can go back and watch the episodes again.

Betsy: Who has time to watch an entire series in one sitting? I’m lucky to get through one.

John: I know.

Betsy: I don’t know. I guess people who don’t have kids. I don’t know.

Megana: I have a lot of time to do that.

Betsy: If you’ve had a couple glasses of wine at dinner and it’s… If it’s 9:45 and I’m not on my way to bed, something’s wrong.

John: You and me, we’re right in that zone. I could start watching something, but it’s already 9:00, so soon that means I’m gonna be tired and I’m gonna want to be upstairs.

Betsy: That’s exactly right. I feel bad, because you guys had cool things. But you could prepare. All I’ve done – this is a callback to the flashback.

John: Please.

Betsy: All I’ve done this entire time you guys were saying yours was – my brain was racing through, “Come up with a cool thing!” I barely heard either one of you. You know what I saw that I really enjoyed is a little movie called Wicked Little Letters.

John: Tell me about this.

Betsy: It’s a English movie – as John knows, we love all things English – with Jessie.

John: Jessie Buckley?

Betsy: Yep.

John: Jessie Buckley from Chernobyl.

Betsy: Yes. She’s delightful. It’s Olivia Colman.

John: Come on.

Betsy: It’s written by this fantastic writer, who’s also an actor, named Jonny Sweet.

John: Great.

Betsy: That we’re somewhat obsessed with. It’s a delight.

John: Great. Wicked Little Letters.

Betsy: It’s on streaming now.

Megana: It’s on Netflix. I’m glad you recommended it, because I saw it and I was like, “This looks really good,” but I haven’t heard people talking about it.

Betsy: It’s a delightful romp. It has some serious stuff, and it’s also loosely based on a true story.

John: Fun. You’ve not heard anybody talking about it until Betsy Thomas shows up to talk about it. Now, that broke the dam.

Betsy: Exactly. I just made Jonny Sweet a billionaire.

John: Absolutely. The little title will go to the top, what’s trending now on it, just because of your recommendation.

Betsy: Exactly.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with, this week, special help from Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli, who also did our outro this week. A special outro in celebration of the Olympics. It’s Scriptnotes themed in celebration of the Olympics.

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’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com, where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies and other gear that’s all great. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net. You get all those back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on golf. I want to hear about golf.

Betsy: That’s the least honest thing you’ve ever said.

John: Betsy, as always, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.

Betsy: I had a blast, you guys. Thank you so much.

Megana: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: I actually am genuinely curious about golf, because there’s things that I probably never would do myself but I’m still curious about, and golf is one of those, because this is my perception of golf: It’s hot and sunny out, two things I don’t like. I’m gonna go walk around carrying a bag of things, trying to hit a ball poorly while talking with people. None of these things are clicking for me, but they do click for you. Tell me, what got you into golf?

Betsy: First of all, the birthplace of golf, it’s not hot and sunny. It’s actually the opposite.

John: It’s Scottish.

Betsy: It’s cold and windy and rainy. What is it? A lovely walk spoiled is what I think somebody called golf. Of course I can’t remember who. I’m trying to think of how to say to somebody who doesn’t play golf what’s good about golf.

Golf takes extraordinary amount of skill, practice, discipline, mental tenacity. You are always kind of just playing yourself. Even when you’re playing in a match, you’re playing competitively, the person you’re trying to beat is usually the person in your own head. That’s what I struggle the most with.

You have however many shots to get to the hole. But there are so many different versions of those shots. Tennis, you’ve got however many you have. But golf, it’s so much more complicated and more difficult. It’s a game that is very difficult to master. You can continue to play it until you’re old. It’s very social. You get four to five hours with your loved one, your friends, whoever.

John: A thing you brought up today, which I’d never really considered, is it’s less like poker and more like Solitaire, because you’re really just playing yourself. It doesn’t really matter how everyone else does. Ultimately, you’re gonna compare your scores, but you’re not playing against each other directly, the way you are in tennis or really almost any other sport.

Betsy: You are in match play. I’m playing in our club championship this weekend. Tomorrow’s my first match of match plays. It’s a bracket, and you have to win. When you are playing somebody else in a match, you are playing them directly. Hole by hole is what you’re winning.

John: How they perform really has no bearing on how you perform directly.

Betsy: No, except for if they’re on the green in two and they’re putting for birdie, and I’m in the fairway, I’m like, “Uh-oh, I have to get up and down, or I’m gonna lose this hole.”

John: Megana, you said your dad is a golfer?

Megana: He is a golfer. He’s a big-time golfer.

John: Did he golf before he came to the States, or how did that all start?

Megana: No, it’s really a hobby that he picked up, gosh, I think when I was like – it was once we moved to Ohio. Him and his friend just started golfing. Now they’re out there on all of the hot and sunny, humid days in Ohio, because there’s very limited days that you can golf there.

John: Your dad’s a doctor, so that also ties in. I think about doctors golfing.

Megana: Yeah, I guess some of his friends who are doctors also golf. My mom’s gotten into it recently.

John: Oh, interesting.

Megana: It’s a cute thing they do together.

John: My dad golfed some. I remember my mom decided, “I’m gonna take lessons so I can golf with him.” I would sit in the car at the edge of the golf practice range where she’d have her lessons. She just hated it. I really respect my mom for just stopping. She was like, “I don’t like this.” She just stopped. Learning it’s okay to quit was just such an inspiration to me.

Megana: I do feel really inspired when I see that. Betsy, when did you start golfing?

Betsy: I got clubs for my 30th birthday.

John: So not as a child then.

Betsy: So four years ago.

John: Four years, you’re already playing in the championship. That’s really great.

Betsy: Yeah, I’m the wunderkind.

John: Why did you get clubs? Did your husband golf?

Betsy: No, my friend JB Roberts, who is a manager here in LA, but we went to college together, he just decided I should be a golfer. I was an athlete. I was always an athlete. I was a tennis player. I played lacrosse growing up. I had hit the golf ball. I’d hit around a little bit. But I was not a golfer. I had no clubs, whatever. He had decided I should be a golfer. He got my friends to all pitch in and buy me clubs and lessons for my 30th birthday. That’s what began it. It was great though, because I really did enjoy it.

Then when I met my husband, Adrian, he is a very good golfer. We found that out on our first date. Then that gave us a thing to do together. We’ve been able to have that, and now our son is an excellent golfer. The three of us do golf trips all the time. We’ve been to Scotland. We get to travel.

One of the things I love about it is, A, you can drink. It’s like, oh, I’m getting my steps in and I have a vodka tonic. But here’s the terrible thing about the elitism of golf. It has some of the most beautiful land in the world – are golf courses. You get to see spectacular places wherever you travel. You get to see some of the most gorgeous landscape. As a family, we travel, and we always have this thing that we do together.

I know it sounds weird. It’s like, how is that romantic? Adrian and I are going to Ireland in October for our 25th wedding anniversary, and we’re gonna play golf. It’ll be just the two of us walking around a course together for five hours or four and a half hours. It’s actually beautiful and lovely. I know it sounds strange, but it is weirdly romantic.

John: You’ve done a really good job selling golf. I actually am much more appreciative of a thing now. The other perception I have of golf has always been people making deals over golf. How useful or not useful has it been in terms of the industry that you work in to play golf? Do you golf with industry folks? How does that tie together?

Betsy: I don’t really, but I think it’s more of sexism, because there aren’t that many women that play golf. I think that it’s a thing that guys do, because the guys all play Saturday morning together. In the club we belong, there are a lot of showbiz people. I don’t really have that, because I play with my family or I play with the ladies. We’re not normally doing that kind of thing. But I do think that is a real thing. I think there’s a lot of friendships that are formed through that.

John: Megana, was your dad golfing – do you think it was also part of, not even assimilation, but just a way to become more American? Was that a goal at all?

Megana: That’s an interesting question. I’m from the suburbs in Ohio. There is one really big golf course in the middle of our town.

Betsy: Where?

Megana: It’s Yankee Trace Golf Club in Centerville, Ohio. Are you familiar with Ohio at all?

Betsy: I am.

John: You’re saying you and Adrian are not gonna be traveling to Centerville, Ohio on your next romantic golf trip?

Betsy: I don’t think so. I’m not thinking. But there are some amazing golf courses in Ohio, actually. That’s why I was asking.

Megana: Yeah, there’s the NCR Country Club golf course, which is the National Cash Register, which is a huge part of Dayton, Ohio lore.

John: I love it.

Megana: But a lot of his friends that he golfs with are Indian, so I don’t know if it was totally an assimilation thing. He really wanted me to get into it because it is such a mental game. I don’t know. I was just such a hormonal teenager. I think he was like, “This will help,” and it did the opposite. It made me so mad.

John: It wasn’t a Venus and Serena Williams situation where suddenly-

Megana: No, absolutely not.

Betsy: I will tell you about the doctors thing that it is one of the great things. There actually are a lot of doctors who play golf, and it’s one of the great things about golf, because I turned my ankle really badly and couldn’t put weight on it, and it was like, “Oh good, there’s Dr. Dave. He’s head of orthopedics at Children’s.” I was like, “Hey.” He checks it out. Then the guy we were playing with is actually an acupuncturist and a Chinese medicine doctor. He took me into the gym, and he did a bunch of pressure point stuff on me. I said to Dave, “What should I do?” He’s like, “Ice and vodka, in any combination.” See?

John: Absolutely. The cure for most issues though really.

Betsy: That’s so true.

John: Betsy, an absolute delight having you on.

Betsy: I just had a great time.

Megana: Thank you.

Betsy: Unstable, I’m gonna watch it.

Megana: Please.

Links:

  • Betsy Thomas on Wikipedia and IMDb
  • Megana Rao on Twitter and IMDb
  • WGA West Annual Report
  • Writer Earnings Fell $600 Million Due to Strike and Industry Contraction, WGA Says by Gene Maddus for Variety
  • Cheers – “Give Me a Ring Sometime” by Glen and Les Charles
  • Cheers – “Father Knows Last”
  • Night Court – “Pilot” by Dan Rubin
  • Friends – “Pilot” by David Crane & Marta Kauffman
  • What My Adult Autism Diagnosis Finally Explained by Mary HK Choi for The Cut
  • Unstable – Season 2 on Netflix (hooray Megana Rao!)
  • Wicked Little Letters 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, X and Mastodon
  • Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, with help this week by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 652: Rituals, Transcript

October 7, 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 listening to Episode 652 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, what things are characters doing out of habit or tradition? We’ll look at rituals to see how they can illuminate your hero’s background and provide a jumping-off point for your story. We’ll also answer some listener questions, including how to move from writing plays to writing movies. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, since we’re talking about rituals, how about bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs. My guess is, Craig, you had a bar mitzvah.

Craig: I sure did.

John: Let’s look into that, because Megana and I didn’t have a chance to do that. Here’s why I say that. Megana is filling in for Drew, who’s off this week.

Craig: Yay.

John: Megana Rao, welcome back.

Megana Rao: Thank you so much. Here by unpopular demand, I guess.

Craig: I don’t know about that. From what I understand, Megana, you are popular. You’re somewhat of a celebrity amongst the millennials.

John: Even non-millennials. This last week, Megana and I went to see Taffy Brodesser-Akner at a book launch party for her new book, Long Island Compromise, which is fantastic. It was my first time meeting Taffy in person. She’s come on the episode. I guess you weren’t there, Craig, so it was just me and Taffy.

Craig: I wasn’t, yeah.

John: Megana was, of course, producing that. I got to see her in person. We hugged. It was lovely. I said, “Oh, and this is Megana Rao.” You should’ve seen the hug that Taffy gave Megana, because Megana is, of course, the true star of Scriptnotes.

Craig: Unquestionably.

John: No question.

Craig: She’s real quiet because she’s so uncomfortable with it, which I love.

Megana: I’m really glad the video’s not on.

Craig: Just squirming. Just squirming. By the way, I do the same thing. Just, “Don’t look at me.”

John: We’ll let her squirm quietly while we do some follow-up here. Craig, you and I have been talking about locked pages and colored pages and things that we should be moving on past. We asked for ADs and script supervisors and other folks who need to work with locked pages and colored revisions, “Okay, tell us what your objections, your concerns are. Are you for this?” We got a couple people writing back with good feedback. Megana, could you help us out with some of these responses we got?

Megana: Yes. I guess I’ll start with Adam, who’s a first AD.

John: Great.

Megana: Adam writes, “I loathe locked pages. They served a purpose when there were printed pages. Now, however, digital distribution/Scriptation has made them completely moot, so I would happily eliminate them. Colored pages still serve a purpose, as they allow crew to specifically target changes and the new elements they bring. Again though, digital distribution has made this dramatically easier.

“I don’t think shared documents are useful, given the number of department-specific notes that people make in their scripts. For me, keeping the script coordinator position is extremely useful when they’re good, as they track and list changes, on top of releasing the new pages, etc. Keep colored pages, eliminate locked pages, and still have a small number of paper sides available on set for us Luddites.”

Craig: Amen, Adam. By the way, completely agree about the script coordinator position. On The Last of Us: Season 2, the script coordinator position is occupied by Ali Chang, who also works as my assistant, so she does two jobs.

Megana: Oh, wow.

Craig: She’s very, very good at it. I’m pretty good at it too, meaning it’s not like I hand her a mess and then she has to clean it up. But she proofreads and she makes sure there aren’t any errant asterisks, and then she also pipes it through – I guess we use Scenechronize. Scenechronize. That is absolutely essential. I’m curious about colored pages here.

John: I want to talk a little bit more about that, because I think – and we’re gonna see this in other follow-up here – when we’re saying throw out colored pages, we’re not saying get rid of the idea of this is a set of revisions that are complete and intact. I think we’re for numbering them, dating them, making it clear that this is a revision. We just think the concept of color is silly.

Craig: Yes. There are options in all the popular screenwriting software to issue revisions either with text in color and asterisks, or text not in color and asterisks, or both or either of those and then the page itself being a color. I don’t issue pages in colors, and I don’t issue the text in colors either. I simply indicate the asterisks.

When we distribute this, there are two versions that people get. They get the full script, and they also get just the pages that have changed. I don’t think the actual color itself is necessary.

John: I think it was a very useful thing back and the day when everyone had a printed script. They’d say, “Okay, why is the page you’re looking at a different color than mine?” But that’s not the world we’re in right now.

Craig: It sounds like Sam, the first AD, has a different point of view.

John: Megana, can you help us out with Sam’s response.

Megana: Sam reads, “It’s the ADs, script supervisors, and script coordinators who most value the standard, so why are the people who cling to these messy remnants of a bygone era also the people who are in charge of efficiency and accuracy? The answer is efficiency and accuracy.

“Once pre-production begins, the script becomes a technical document, providing the necessary scaffolding on which all plans are made. Strange as it may seem, the physical position of the text on each page is a pretty critical component of that scaffolding. There are several reasons, but the big three I see are: one, page aids; two, line script coverage tracking; and three, preserving annotations.

“With unlocked pages, even small revisions will cause a chaotic cascade throughout the entire document, forcing the AD and continuity departments to re-break down the entire script, update all their documents along the way, and exchange notes with one another, so both departments’ accounting of scenes to be shot are synchronized. Not only is this immensely tedious, but it will inevitably cause discrepancies down the road.

“These discrepancies risk miscommunications, wasted resources, and a lot of personal anxiety, not to mention lost sleep, because when the revisions come in, they generally have to be processed outside of production hours, which are already brutal enough.

“ADs already sacrifice more sleep than you could imagine, to protect the creative vision that the writer dreamed up from shattering against the rocky shoals of reality. The last thing you want is to break down one of the few levies they have to keep the tide out, if the only benefit is doing so is that the pages feel nicer to read.”

Craig: Sam, I have a question. The question is, don’t scene numbers handle all of this?

John: That’s what I was going for also. I worry that there’s a lack of imagination happening here, or just a dismissal of the fact that we do have another system already in place there for keeping track of what is the thing you’re actually shooting, because remember, you’re not shooting a page; you’re shooting a scene. If that scene has changed and if it’s now two-eighths of a page longer, that can be denoted and seen. It’s not just that it’s breaking across four AB pages in different colors in different ways.

Craig: Yeah. It seems to me that it’s easier to track the length of scenes when they are broken up across pages, because ADs do divide pages into eighths, and it is a lot easier to divide a full page into eighths than it is to divide lots of little bitsy bobs into eighths.

Line script coverage tracking. If the documents that people have, if they are taking notes, I can understand that, meaning if the notes are tied to not necessarily physical pages but virtual pages.

John: Yeah, or a pdf with handwritten stuff on it from an iPad or something.

Craig: Right, I can absolutely see that that could be a thing. That’s the one thing that Sam’s mentioning here. I would probably check with my script supervisor, because I believe that he brings everything into his own software. When he’s going through the script – and I watch it on his iPad, because he’s got this fancy script supervisor software on his iPad – there are never broken pages. I think he’s unlocking them himself. Not quite sure if I agree here, but fair to say that unintended consequences must be investigated.

John: So far, we’ve been talking about pre-production and production, but Eric brings up issues with post. Megana?

Megana: “As a post supervisor, it was always helpful to have the locked pages, and then scene changes to the script as a new number, 13-A, for example. Also, most editors I’ve worked with print all the pages with scriptie notes for their binder and have the pages in front of them while they work.

“When considering whether to scrap locked pages for the benefit of production, please also consider the needs of post. There might be a future where editors are solely working from a digital script or digital scriptie notes, but feels like it won’t happen until those habitually using papers are retired.”

Craig: Again, I don’t understand this. I don’t see why, as a post supervisor, it’s helpful to have script changes as a new page number, because sometimes script changes don’t generate a new page number. Also, yes, editors do receive the printed scriptie notes for their binder, but almost every script supervisor right now is using software that then generates all of that. I believe it generates it without the broken pages. They don’t need broken pages. They just need the script supervisor’s notes.

Also, Eric, I will say, if there’s one thing I have complained about to every editor with whom I’ve worked, it’s that they do not look at the script supervisor notes, ever. I’m begging them. I’m like, “You have this huge binder over there. Look at it.” But the binder would be smaller and easier to read if the pages were unlocked. Again, the scene numbers are the key. That’s what editors go by, scene numbers. They do not go by page script numbers at all.

John: Craig, I think one other thing we’ve talked very much about on the show is that there are times when it becomes really a judgment call whether something is a revision to a scene or should just be a brand new scene with a new scene number. Can you think of examples on The Last of Us where in the edits you made to a scene, you realize, “Okay, it’s silly to be calling this the same scene number. We should just make it A-52, rather than Scene 52.”

Craig: In post?

John: In post or in production or heading into production.

Craig: Certainly in production, when we’re making revisions. I may look at something and say, “Look, this person actually is gonna dip outside of the room, look at something, and then head back in.” And when they go out, they see something. Then, yes, I will split it. It’s uncommon, but sure, I generally tie scene numbers to spots.

Our first ADs don’t break up large scenes into lots of scene numbers. I’ve seen other ADs request that. We just do scene part 1, scene part 2, scene part 3, scene part 4. That’s how they organize it. In post, we never mess with scene numbers, because they’re going by slates. Everything in their bin is connected to the scene number on the slate. The one thing that the script supervisor will occasionally do is decide whether or not this should be a different setup or a different take.

John: Of course.

Craig: We’ve done scene 238-A. Then we all decide, you know what, let’s do this next take but just change a lens here on the third camera, on C camera. Then they come, “Are we lettering up, or are we just going take 4 and then the script supervisor will decide?” But yeah, in post, never.

John: Never. A thing that happened in a couple movies I’ve worked on, Charlie’s Angels being most notable, is that a scene, a sequence was given one number, and based on who was in the scene, what the scene was actually doing, what function it served, you could’ve said, “This is the new version of scene 63.” But instead, “Cut scene 63. Here’s a new scene, A-63, that takes its place,” because I think the decision was that it’s better to tell people this is a whole new thing, and so don’t carry your previous considerations of that previous scene into this new thing that we’re doing.

Craig: That probably happens more frequently in movies than it would in television. The weirdest thing is – I think we’ve talked about this before – the crew is really good at learning what scene numbers are, and then sometimes they’ll come to me and say, “Hey, I have a question about 338.” I’m like, “No.”

John: No idea what that is.

Craig: “Please tell me what that is. I just don’t know.” But they all do.

John: Craig, is 338 the scene in that episode, or would that be Episode 3, scene 38?

Craig: That’s Episode 3, scene 38. That’s how we work it. Every episode starts with 300 or 400 or 500 and goes from there.

John: You can’t have more than 99 scenes in an episode?

Craig: We could. We could.

John: It would go 10-100 or something?

Craig: I think we would probably start using letters is my guess.

John: Cool. We have one bit of follow-up on industry software. We’ve talked about our frustrations with the current state of industry software and how difficult it is to make economically viable products here. A point from Pontus in Västerås, Sweden.

Megana: “I work in software, and in software we use version control systems like Git to keep track of changes in the code. This should be very easy to use for scripts. It should be a no-brainer to merge the two. The only thing that is required is that the doctors are in xml, json, or some other text format, and that someone needs to make an interface on top of Git to make it easy to use for a non-programmer.”

John: There, Pontus actually ran into the issue here. The idea of using version control for code for text documents, like scripts or like books and other things like that, is a longstanding idea. There are writers out there who really use version control for their own projects.

The issue is Git is just complicated in its own ways. You check something out, you put it back in. You have to merge branches. I’ve seen some clever ways of simplifying that, some UI things to make it a little bit easier. But keep in mind, screenwriters get fussy over the smallest things. I do wonder, Pontus, if the actual folks who would be using this would be willing to use it is just frankly my concern.

Craig: We won’t. What we do have is version control through the user interface of the various screenwriting softwares that are out there, the commercial software that’s out there. How they keep track of it may be some application of this. Every now and then, I end up in Github for some reason, and I just start running away.

John: I’ll say that under the hood, Highland actually does do some version controlling that would allow you to go back to earlier revisions and can do snapshots and that kind of stuff. The reason we don’t surface it for users is it’s actually just a difficult interface for people to grok. It’s hard to understand exactly what this means.

I think screenwriters have this habit and tradition of, “Okay, I want to save as a new file with a new date on it.” That’s the kind of version control that we’re used to doing. One screenwriter working by yourself, that’s okay. That’s actually very doable. The challenge comes when you have many people working on a document simultaneously, like a Google Doc situation. That’s where the online services, like WriterDuet or Scripto or other things like that, do have an advantage, because there is one central source of truth, and they can do some stuff around that that makes more sense. But it’s a challenging problem.

Craig: We also have a bit of version control through the commonly used backup systems. Dropbox, for instance, will hold 4 billion versions of something, all of which are indicated by date and time. I understand, Pontus, from your point of view, this makes absolute sense, but that is because you work in software. Generally speaking, screenwriters do not. There are screenwriters who barely can handle working with screenwriting software, much less Git.

John: When we had Eric Roth on the show – I just remember this because I saw his chapter in the Scriptnotes book – he was talking about this ancient system he still uses for typing screenplays that can only hold 30 pages at a time. I love it. I love that kind of kooky thing.

Craig: He’s still out there writing Killers of the Flower Moon and all these amazing movies. We don’t need to burden Eric Roth with Git.

John: For this next bit of follow-up, there’s a long email here. I think rather than read the whole thing, I’d rather summarize it, because it’s gonna be more instructive, I think, if we do summarize this. Phillip wrote in because back in Episode 613, you and I, Craig, we talked about the wins for writing teams in this most recent contract. You said, “For as long as I’ve been in this union, for as long as you’ve been in this union, teams have been penalized, essentially. They had a different deal for how much money they could receive healthcare contributions for, and now, finally, at long last, we have won that, which is not only fair, which is that if you write something with somebody else as a team, you are treated individually for the purposes of qualifying for pension and health care.”

Phillip, who’s a member of a writing team, says, “No, guys, you’re wrong. You guys are wrong, and everyone is reporting this wrong. Variety was wrong.” He called the Guild, and this is not what it is at all. He says, “With regards to minimums, nothing has changed. Each writer still needs to earn exactly what they needed before the strike, or to put it more succinctly, we need to make twice what a single writer would in order to qualify for pension and healthcare.”

Basically, he’s angry and upset, because he believes that we have misinformed the listenership of what actually was gained in this. He’s wrong, but I want to provide some context around this, because I think I understand how he got the wrong conclusion.

Craig: I understand. Yes, I do too.

John: I want to be generous here and say, listen, I’m sorry you thought this was a different thing than it was. I’m sorry you didn’t get the answer you wanted out of the Guild. But I also feel like maybe you were specifically asking one question that they answered specifically and didn’t provide a different context around things.

Craig: Phillip is talking about two different things. He’s saying, “Look, you guys got it wrong because of this thing,” but really, we were talking about the other thing. You qualify for pension and healthcare by earning a certain amount of money, but there is a cap on how much of that money the companies will pay fringes on. For every $10 we make, they will add – let’s make it $100 is a better way. For every $100, I believe they add something like $8 for health and $8 for pension, something like that.

John: It’s a contribution based on the earnings.

Craig: It was a contribution. But it stops. At some point, it stops. Pension, it stops at 225. After you hit $225,000 in earnings, they stop paying fringes for pension. After you hit $250,000, they stop paying fringes for your healthcare.

That amount isn’t just something that goes into the general pot for everybody, but also, the amount of covered earnings you have also generates these points that if you were to, say, have a down year, you could draw points to keep your health insurance going.

Now, it used to be that if you were writing as a team, the maximum for the team contributions would be $250,000. That’s it. But you’re only making 125. It’s not fair. You’ve only got contributions up to 125. That’s what changed. They decided incorrectly that if you’re a member of a team, the cap on benefits should not be halved for you simply because you’re making half of the money that the team is making.

What Phillip is saying is that there is an amount of money you need to earn to qualify for healthcare in the first place, and that doesn’t change for a writing team. For a writing team, the qualifying amount for pension and health is currently, as he points out, $45,000. If a writing team earns, collectively, $45,000, then what happens is one person gets paid $22,500, and the other person gets paid $22,500, and neither one of them are qualifying.

It can’t work the way he’s suggesting it should, because a certain amount of money has to be earned for a person to get health insurance. You can’t split health insurance in halves. You can’t give somebody half health insurance. In fact, each person does have to make that amount to get healthcare. That didn’t change. We didn’t think it would change. We didn’t ask for it to change. That’s not a possible thing.

John: I think it’s important for folks to understand where we were at before this contract. There was even a thing called a married writing team exemption or a special case. There were situations where this writing team, they’re married to each other. They know that one of them gets health insurance, they’ll both get health insurance, because your spouse gets health insurance. They would go and say, “Hey, give me an exemption here, so rather than splitting 50/50, we can split the income 80/20 or 90/10, so that at least one of us can earn over that threshold and therefore qualify.” It’s crazy.

What this deal did is that – you’re not getting double the money, but it’s making it possible for writers in that situation to earn enough to get their healthcare covered. It’s an important win, but we didn’t change the minimums for a writing team. It’s still $45,000 per writer, whether you’re part of a team or not part of a team.

Craig: The good news, Phillip, is that if you go past $45,000 – and most writers will – then they keep paying fringes, so your pension grows bigger, all the way to $225,000. It used to go only contributing up to half of that, and similarly for earning points for healthcare. It is now double what it used to be. When Phillip says, “Other than,” in all caps, “VERY successful writers, this isn’t helping teams.” I have to push back there.

John: I do too.

Craig: We’re talking about minimums here. If you’re working on staff as a team, I think you’re gonna hit 90 grand over the course of a season. That does not seem to me like what I would call the threshold of very successful writer. Very successful writers are earning millions of dollars. I don’t know what the average income is for a WGA member. I’m actually looking it up. Average income. Now, average is a weird way to put it.

John: Median probably, yeah.

Craig: Median. They haven’t released median. The last time they released a median figure was 2014. In 2014, in 2021 dollars, so it’d be a little bit more now, the median was $140,000. I don’t agree, Phillip, that only very successful writers in teams are making healthcare minimums for both.

John: The other thing I want to make sure we’re framing this as is, Phillip is right to feel frustrated about how hard it is to get health insurance, about the weird penalties we put on writing teams in the Guild. Structurally, we’re the only guild that has teams where they have to split an income. It’s nuts. All these things are real frustrations.

But in this one case, I think your anger is misdirected, because this is a genuine gain for a lot of writing teams. A lot of writing teams were overjoyed when this happened in the contract this year.

Craig: Yeah, probably most. What I will say is, Phillip is putting his finger on a problem that we have danced around at the Writers Guild, that has never changed. But the Writers Guild approaches healthcare in a different way than the Directors Guild does.

The Directors Guild offers two tiers of healthcare. It is much easier to qualify for the lower tier than it is to qualify for WGA health. The number is just lower. In part, this is because they also have a lot of first and second ADs. That lower tier of healthcare becomes available to you more easily. However, of course, it is not quite the limousine healthcare that the Writers Guild has, for instance. Then the idea would be that the second tier would probably be a higher number to qualify for.

The Writers Guild, as a matter of policy, has resisted doing this, because they don’t like the idea of first and second-class citizens within the Guild. I’ve always felt that that’s fine unless you don’t have health insurance, and then maybe it’s not fine. It’s a philosophical argument. I don’t know if it will ever change. But I guess I would say if I were in a room having a vote on that, I probably would vote for a two-tier system to get more people covered.

John: It’s a real challenge thinking about healthcare in a union environment, because unions overall, I think, want to see all Americans get great healthcare and great coverage, and at the same time, they want to make sure their members are protected to the standards they’ve always been protected. Sometimes those are not compatible goals.

If you really want Medicare For All, for example, that would mean unions having to address the fact that they’re on these plans that are way beyond where Medicare For All would be. It’s a challenging situation. Always has been.

Craig: It always has been. Also, Phillip, one thing to note is that the amount of money that somebody has to earn to actually pay for their own healthcare is not $45,000. It’s quite high. It’s probably more like $80,000 or $90,000.

What happens is, the people who are over-earning, all the way up to the cap of $250,000, they’re paying for themselves and they’re also paying and subsidizing other people who are below the break-even line, which is, again, probably 80 or 90. One other thing that’s great about this is by raising those caps for writing teams, we have the ability to subsidize more people, which may ultimately lower that number. It certainly will help keep the minimum number from ballooning as fast as it has.

But I commiserate here. We would love for every single writer to be covered by health insurance. Part of the problem, I suppose, is that our health insurance at the Writers Guild is so good, and the people who have it are so used to it and would be so upset about it being diminished, that nothing is probably gonna change, unless they did go ahead and adopt a two-tier system, which I suspect they never will.

Megana: I just want to say that $45,000 in the year 2024 is a hard thing to hit, with the climate and the way the jobs are. So I do really feel for Phillip and, I feel like, a lot of people listening. I just want to make sure that I’m saying that.

Craig: I agree with you. Meaning if you’re trying to get work, absolutely. If you have work on a staff, my question for you, Megana, is does $45,000, if you’re working on a staff, still feel out of reach?

Megana: In previous years, with mini rooms, yes. Moving forward, I don’t know what the shakeout’s gonna be with mini rooms. I still think that being on a staff position, $45,000 is still a pretty tough goal to get to.

John: As part of that, if you’re not hitting $45,000 in a year worth of earnings, beyond your health insurance, that’s a hard number to survive at in Los Angeles overall. It’s part of a larger systemic frustration.

Craig: What is the minimum for television work per week?

Megana: It’s $5,300 for staff writers.

Craig: So you need eight weeks, basically.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Got it. If you’re a team, I can see where that becomes an issue. You’re right, mini rooms really did screw that up. I’m hoping that part of the restructuring that we gained in the last strike and negotiation will do what it’s supposed to do with mini rooms. It seems like it should.

John: In terms of longer guaranteed terms of employment, mini rooms have to segue into the real room in most situations. Those are things that could structurally help some of these problems, and at the same time, it doesn’t get a writer hired. If you’re not hired on a job, making the $45,000 or whatever number is going to be really challenging.

Megana: Right. Mini rooms versus no rooms.

Craig: Exactly. I will say as a showrunner, and now I speak to fellow showrunners. Don’t do this to people. Know the number. It’s actually very important to know what the number is and get them to that number. There really isn’t much of an excuse as far as I’m concerned, because I don’t care what the show is. If you’re bringing somebody to $40,000 and then letting them go, you’re a dick. Get them there. It shouldn’t be hard. It is not a large amount of money. It is absorbable. Just to sleep at night.

Listen. Now, I do have a very small room. It will be one person larger. We run it really for about eight weeks, at which point I go and write everything, or Neil and Ali. But I make that over the course of those weeks that our hire qualifies for pension and health. It’s essential. At least for one year. It gets them health for a year.

John: I don’t know if you guys saw that Jimmy Kimmel does this thing where he will go to actors, and basically he’s looking for actors who are $1,000 away from qualifying for health insurance. He’ll bring them on for a line on the show, to pay them, so that they get paid enough to qualify for health insurance. That’s the silly system we’re in right now.

Let’s get to our main topic here. Let’s talk about some rituals. This is also inspired by our visit to Taffy Brodesser-Akner’s book signing event. She was talking about, in her book Long Island Compromise, there are two different bar mitzvahs, which makes sense, because it’s multiple generations of a wealthy Jewish family in Los Angeles and Long Island. It got me thinking about useful rituals are when I’m trying to establish characters and what the normal life is of these characters before the story has started.

I wanted to break rituals into two big buckets. The first is what I’ll call routines, which are the things that characters do every day – we see that this is their normal standard operating procedures – and rites, which I would say are the special ceremonial things that have significance to the characters but only happen occasionally.

I want to differentiate the two of those and really talk through how it can be useful to be thinking about what the rituals, routines, and the rites are of these characters we’re establishing, our heroes and everyone else around them, so we get to understand their world and specifically where they’re coming from.

Craig: Routines are maybe the most important, because we all know from Joseph Campbell and every other writing book and just from watching TV and movies, that when we meet people, we’re trying to meet them in their normal life, because we want their normal life to stand in stark opposition to the insanity that occurs once we throw the proverbial meteor at them.

These routines help ground us and explain who these people are. They are oftentimes routines that the characters detest. There are two kinds of normal lives. The, “Ah, I love this. I hope this doesn’t change.” Then there’s the, “Ugh, I’m going nowhere fast. This is my life day after day after day,” and then something changes.

John: Thinking about what is the checklist that the characters are going through – are they doing this by choice? By force? Just out of habit? Are they stuck in a rut?

We have an expectation of what a parent’s routine is going to be, which is basically, gotta wake those kids up, gotta get them fed, gotta make lunches, get them to school. You have dinner. You have bath time. You had bed time. Those are the rituals, the routines that we’re used to seeing parent characters in our stories do. As an audience, we have an expectation of like, this is probably what it’s like.

If you show us then what specifically it’s like with these characters or the ways that it’s different than usual, we will lean in, because it’s a surprise to us. It gives you a backdrop on which to show what is different about this version of the character than every other version of the character you’ve seen before.

Craig: Sometimes the normal rituals themselves give you tremendous insight into a character. One of my favorite ritualized introductions is Pee-wee’s Big Adventure. Pee-wee wakes up in the morning, and his entire house is rigged as a Rube Goldberg machine to make breakfast for him. Him watching it and his delight interacting with it tells me so much about him, including the fact that even though this is clearly the same thing that happens every day, he’s thrilled as if it’s the first time. You can learn so much from even the way people interact with their own rituals.

John: I’ll put a link in the show notes to this one card from Writer Emergency Pack. We have one called Standard Operating Procedures. I think what’s good about that is also to look at what would be in the guidebook for this character. What do they know how to do? What is the way they would approach the situation based on how they’ve been trained, what they actually do? If you have a paramedic character, they’re going to have a standard operating procedure, a routine they go through, which is how they work.

It’s good for you to know that, for us to be able to understand it as an audience, partly because when something goes wrong, goes awry, which it probably should in your story, we’ll understand what the expectation was going into it – what the character’s expectation was and what the audience’s expectation was.

Craig: For instance, in Crimson Tide, there is a missile drill, where they get a notice to run a missile test as if they were gonna launch their missiles. We watch the routine of getting the things out of the safe, comparing the numbers, communicating to the missile team, the executive officer concurring, which is incredibly important for the story. And then, great, we did it. The context was we didn’t do it fast enough. It had purpose. But then when it happens for real, we know. We’re not distracted by a lot of things.

Same thing in War Games. The opening of War Games was a ritualized launch of missiles that fails. It fails at the last moment. The failure of the ritual is what obsesses people and causes a change in the story.

John: So far, we’ve been talking about routines, really. These are things that would happen on an ordinary day. But I think rites are a special case of things that happen every once in a while. These are ceremonious, so things like weddings, funerals, bar mitzvahs, christening, quinceañeras , Lunar New Year celebrations, trick-or-treating, Christmas.

These are things that have special cultural significance to the audience maybe, but to the characters within the story definitely. Do they love these things? Do they hate these things? Is this a tradition? Are they a spectator to it? Is this already part of their culture?

I think some of the success of Midsommar was we have characters who are entering into this strange Swedish midsummer festival, and they don’t know how normal this is. This seems really strange, but maybe it’s just their culture. It’s like, oh, no, you were mistaken. This is deeply dangerous and weird. They don’t know how to react to it.

I think rites are – you think about them as bigger, more mythical things, but really, anything you do seasonally is probably a rite. We all have traditions that we do that we’re not even quite sure why we do them.

Craig: That’s part of the waking up of a character, to suddenly realize, why do I do what I do? The Truman Show is a guy going through an incredibly ritualized life and then suddenly asking the question, “Why? Why does all this happen this way? Why am I living this way?” We’ve all felt this; this sudden awareness of how mechanized we can be.

I noted once when I shower, I do everything in the exact same way. Literally in the exact same way, in the exact same order. Not all of it is perfectly efficient. Some of it’s just oddly – it’s just odd, like, “I gotta wash this part a little bit extra.” Why? The right side of my head? Why? I don’t know. It’s become ritualized.

John: There was an episode of The Office in the first season about Diwali. I think it’s called just Diwali. It was a Mindy Kaling episode where she takes the whole office to a Diwali celebration. What I thought was so smart about it was that it was a chance to see these characters who know their office environment so well reacting to an environment that was new. It was so great to see it. It was such a great reminder of, taking people outside of their normal comfort zone can be a great way to actually show how they work and how they really function outside of normal, everyday things.

Megana, we saw Diwali on that episode. Was it accurate? What was your experience watching that episode? You remember it, right?

Megana: Yeah. It takes place, I think, in a school gym or cafeteria or something, which felt so true to life, growing up in the Pennsylvania, Ohio area. Like Craig pointed out, the characters’ attitude towards rituals is so telling. I think you learn so much about Kelly Kapoor’s character based off of how she describes Diwali to the office. I think she says something like, “You dress up and there’s fireworks, whatever.” But I think it’s such a useful insight into who she is as a character.

John: Think about how different characters would describe Christmas. Christmas comes once a year, but it means a very different thing to different characters in different specific situations. You learn a lot about a character by what they think of Christmas.

Some other common aspects of rituals, be they rites or be they routines, is a lot of times there’s an unclear history or purpose, like, why do we do it this way? Why does Craig wash one side of his hair more than the other? He can’t explain it. But if there was a reason, he’s forgotten what it is right now.

A lot of times, these routines or rituals are a coping behavior. There’s some irritation in the world. There’s something that’s wrong. This is a thing you do to cope with it. If the character’s functioning on autopilot – and generally, in our stories, we’re trying to get characters off of autopilot, but just show what the autopilot was.

I think a lot of times, rites specifically are about attachment to the community – so either a community of choice or the community that you grew up in – or it can also be about escaping that community. Drinking can be a way of bonding with your friends or drinking alone to hide your problems. The same behavior can be a positive routine and ritual or a negative one. It’s your job as a writer to describe what that is.

That’s, again, why specificity is so crucial. If you’re showing a wedding, what is specific about this wedding? What are you showing us that is different than other weddings? Because otherwise, we don’t want to watch it.

Megana: I think even a character’s drink order is such a small aspect of a ritual or routine that I hadn’t thought of before, like the White Russians in The Big Lebowski or something.

Craig: All of these things provide us some sense of safety. That’s why we do them. We want to be fascinating people, but we do have these little Linus blankets that we have to clutch to. Sometimes you can tell an entire story about somebody who is routinized because of fear. The movie that’s coming to mind is The Others, the Nicole Kidman film.

John: Oh my god. She’s locking the doors.

Craig: It’s written by Alejandro Amenábar, also directed by him as well. I think it’s been enough time. It’s been 23 years, so we’ll go ahead and spoil it. It’s a ghost story. Nicole Kidman lives in a house with her children. She believes they are being haunted by people, which they are. But it turns out that in fact they’re the ghosts. She and her kids are the ghosts. Everything that they do is this ritualized existence to serve the denial of how they died and the fact that they’re dead at all.

Same thing with Sixth Sense. Just a guy going through this very ritualized, quote unquote, life, because he can’t accept what he has to accept. When you do, that’s when you let the rituals go.

Megana: There’s this book called Chatter. John, you’ve read it, right? This book called Chatter by Ethan Kross. It’s a pop psychology book.

John: I remember the book. I don’t think I actually read it. But I remember the conversations around it.

Megana: A point that he made in that is that rituals can be really helpful for anxious people, because it helps you assert a sense of control or order over your world. It’s a thing that helps you switch into muscle memory. Craig, as you were talking, I was like, oh, a ritual’s a really helpful thing to establish for characters around things that they’re anxious around. It can be a useful shorthand for that.

John: Absolutely. For people in the real world, we want them to find rituals that are effective for them and constructive. As people who are creating characters in worlds where we need everything to fall apart, we need to find ways for the rituals to fall apart or be destroyed so we can actually tell our stories. Again, as writers, we want bad things for our characters, at least at the start.

Craig: We’re bad.

John: We’re bad.

Craig: We’re bad. John, in order to not be bad, segue boy, why don’t we answer some listener questions?

John: Let’s do that. We actually have an audio question. Let’s listen to a question from Bethany.

Bethany: I’m an actress, and my training is in theater. Most of the work that I’ve done is in theater. I’ve only recently started to get the courage to start writing, which is what I’ve always wanted to do. I was able to stage a few one-acts. They did really well. I had interest from some filmmaking friends in turning one of them into a film. But I feel like I just can’t think like a screenwriter. All my story ideas involve putting everyone into one room and just putting a bomb off and seeing what happens. When I try to spread things out in time and space and try to see them progress that way, it feels like it just gets watered down.

I’m developing one play right now. A friend of mine is looking at it with me. He is in filmmaking. He suggested cutting away and adding some scenes connecting the characters to their history or to other parts of their life, letting us see more of that. I can’t see it. I can’t see that working, because it still just feels very much like a stage play.

So what do I do? Is there a way to start thinking differently? I feel very confident in my ability to write dialogue. I’ve heard you all say that’s one of the most important things, so that’s encouraging. But I just don’t know how to think like a screenwriter. So any advice? Thanks.

Craig: Interesting, Bethany. Here’s a provocative thought. Maybe you’re not a screenwriter. Maybe you’re a playwright. What’s wrong with that? There are some things. I worked with Lisa Kron as she was adapting her book and her lyrics for Fun Home into a screenplay. She was doing all the writing. I was just an advisor, a friend. One of the things I remembered saying to her was, “Plays are inside and movies are outside.”

Even though we shoot interiors all the time, of course, think about going places. Think about all the places you can be and how you can move through space and time, and also, how much closer you can be to somebody. Plays are presentational. Everybody in the audience is the exact same fixed length from everybody on stage, other than the rows of seats. But when you are thinking like a screenwriter, you can get very close, and you can be very alone. You can see tiny things. You can see enormous things. But Bethany, it’s also okay to just be a playwright, especially if you’re a good one. It sounds like you are.

John: I want to underscore what Craig just said. It’s entirely possible that writing plays is where your strength is, and you should completely pursue that if that’s something you enjoy. But it sounds like you’re curious about writing films and writing stories that move from place to place to place.

A couple things that you might want to try doing is just, to get a sense of what this feels like on the page, take your favorite movie or a great episode of a TV show and try transcribing it, which sounds crazy. But you’ll get a sense of what scenes look like when they are moving from this space into that space and how a scene connects to another scene, because when you’re doing a one-act play, it’s just a scene. It’s just one blob of a thing. There’s power in that, but there’s also a lot of power of cutting from one thing to the next thing to the next thing.

Transcribing something might actually be a good place to start to give you a sense of what that feels like. Obviously, read a lot of real scripts and see what that looks like on the page. Just try doing little, short things – try writing a little, short film that doesn’t sit in one place but has a character literally moving through space and time, so you get a sense of what that actually feels like on the page for you.

Megana, any thoughts for Bethany here? In your writers’ group, do you encounter people who come from a playwriting background?

Megana: Yeah, sometimes. I have a friend who has a theater company that does one-act plays every month, called Public Assembly. I think it’s such an interesting question. I like, Craig, what you said about the inside versus outside. But I have a follow-up question, which is – these are two very different things. Why do you think there’s such an impulse from – I don’t know what – it seems like executives, to bring playwrights over to become screenwriters, when they are such different mediums?

Craig: Executives don’t know. They don’t know. They see success and they think some of these will work. Sometimes they do.

John: They really do.

Craig: Sometimes they really do. But a lot of times, they don’t. There are some playwrights who very famously were excellent screenwriters. Tom Stoppard, for instance. They’re out there. Jack Thorne works in both, of course, being the genius that he is.

It is interesting that Bethany feels a kind of pressure. I’ll tell you, I’ve never felt pressure to be a playwright. Probably would be bad. That’s how I feel about everything. Probably would be bad. But I guess I would say to Bethany – sounds like she’s fairly early on in her journey as a writer, because she was an actor first. I would say let’s get plays mastered and then see. If you want to transition, transition.

John: I’ve done, obviously, a ton of movies. I’ve done some TV. I did a play. I did a Broadway show. Learning the differences between how we tell a story on a stage versus screen was a real education. I approached it with curiosity, interest, and a real understanding that I couldn’t do things the same way. I need to look for what is the theatrical solution to an issue that comes up, rather than going to a cinematic solution to those issues.

I’ve done books, of course, and that’s a different kind of storytelling. I’m doing my first graphic novel, which again, is a very different way of moving through a story. You’re always looking for what is it panel to panel and what is that page turn gonna get you.

These are all exciting new things to try, but that doesn’t mean you have to try all of them. If you like writing one-act plays where everyone’s in a space together, and that works for you, there’s no requirement that you do something else.

Guys, I think it’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing – we’ve talked before on the show, I think, about non-alcoholic beers, which used to be just terrible, and in the last few years have gotten much, much better. There’s really compelling non-alcoholic beers, to the point where I basically only drink non-alcoholic beers now. The same could not be said for cocktails in general.

But there’s a brand out that I think is actually really good – at least some of their things are really good – called Free AF. We’ll put a link in the show notes to it. But their cucumber gin and tonic is a canned cucumber gin and tonic with no alcohol, which is surprisingly compelling. They found some way to make the bite of alcohol without the actual alcohol in it. It’s just delightful. I’ve been having quite a few of these and really enjoying them.

If you’re looking for a non-alcoholic alternative, obviously, there’s a gazillion really good fake beers out there, but I would say try these Free AF non-alcoholic cocktails. Megana, you were over, and I think you had a different one. You had a mule, which we didn’t like as much, correct?

Megana: Correct, but just looking at their website, it is pulling me in. I want this beautiful marbleized, minimalist can. I need it.

Craig: Marbleized.

John: Megana and I were talking about the degree to which the fancier a product is, the more plain its iconography is, the plainer its label is. It’s just a psychological thing. The less crud is on a label, the higher quality you assume it is. It’s just this time that we’re in.

Craig: Do you guys remember, many years ago, somebody did a spoof thing where they took the packaging for, I think it was the old iPod, which of course was incredibly minimalist. It was just white and had the Apple logo, and then I think it said iPod. They said, what if Microsoft had put this out? There was this wonderful thing where they just kept adding stuff, badges and versions. There’s people enjoying the product. It’s hysterical. When you see what it ends up as, you’re like, this is ridiculous and also exactly what Microsoft stuff looks like, exactly, with reams of tiny words of explaining and all. Microsoft, never known for their taste.

John: Craig, I will say, as you love an old fashioned-

Craig: I do.

John: I’ll say it appears that brown liquors are just harder to fake. I’ve not seen a compelling version of this yet, but it doesn’t mean that we won’t somehow get there.

Craig: It’s certainly possible. I am not cursed with alcoholism. I don’t have a problem drinking in moderation whatsoever. In fact, I specifically have a problem if I try to not drink in moderation – it’s been a long time – because three drinks and I’m in trouble. I don’t feel good. I don’t drink much, but DnD is an opportunity to have a drink or two, and going out to dinner on a weekend, have a drink or two. It’s not something that I am ready for. But I’ll tell you what. When they come up with a healthy cigarette, oh my god, I’m first in line. Oh my god.

John: It’s going back to the early episodes where you can hear Craig smoking in the background.

Craig: Oh, man, I’m telling you, if they can invent a healthy cigarette – and vaping, I guess, but it’s not a cigarette.

John: Actually not healthy.

Craig: I want them to create a thing where I can light it on fire, inhale it into my lungs, and it’s actually good for me. Now. Now we’re talking. Oh, buddy.

Megana: A ritual.

Craig: That is the ultimate ritual.

John: That’s a ritual.

Craig: It’s the most ritualized ritual.

John: In previous years I’ve done Dry January and stuff, and it kind of sucked. I felt like I was not doing a thing. This more recent not really drinking much has been much easier, I think because there’s less structure and framework around it, but also – and this is, again, maybe just the age that we are now – I just feel the remnant effects of a drink the next day much stronger than I used to. That’s no bueno.

Craig: That’s me all the time. My body does not process alcohol quickly, and so it’s not like I get drunk really fast. But one or two drinks hang around for a really long time in me. The only way I’m ever gonna get past that is if a mistake occurs or if I’m at a dinner with a couple of my Irish friends, who fill your glass when you’re not looking. It’s their thing. It’s just a thing. No one hits the bottom of their glass.

I was at a dinner once and had what I thought was one glass of wine, and I was completely bombed at the end of the dinner. They were like, “Oh, no, we’ve gone through four bottles.” I’m like, “What? No. No!” Of course, they woke up the next morning at 8:00 a.m. I was in bed feeling horrible until about 2:00 p.m. I just can’t do it.

John: The drunkest Craig has ever seen me was at an Austin Film Festival.

Craig: Oh my god, that was the best.

John: I had more than I would usually drink there, and I was fine, but it was more than I feel comfortable being in public around.

Craig: But you were great. Drunk John was amazing.

Megana: Oh my god, I want to see it.

Craig: Megana. They say people sometimes become mean when they’re drunk or they can be sloppy. John was just the most charismatic. Basically, he was great.

John: Wasn’t Birbiglia there that year too?

Craig: I think it might’ve been. Drunk John August was just spectacular, just really fun. Megana, let’s figure out how to get that going again.

Megana: It sounds like we need a party.

Craig: We need a party. You know what? I’m coming back soon. I’m back in a month.

John: We’ll play some games, have a party.

Craig: We’ll have a party. We’ll just keep slyly feeding him drinks.

John: Absolutely. Keep my glass full there. Craig, do you have a One Cool Thing?

Craig: My One Cool Thing is Megana Rao. She’s here, so I’m gonna let her take over and do the One Cool Thing.

John: Megana, do you have a One Cool Thing in Craig’s stead?

Megana: I do have a One Cool Thing. I hope it’s a One Cool Thing that Craig might like. Have either of you watched Julio Torres’s new show, Fantasmas, on HBO?

John: I have not watched it yet. I think he’s great and just so specific and absurd.

Craig: I have not seen it.

Megana: It’s certainly within his world. It’s a sketch comedy show. It’s surreal and brilliant, like everything he does. But he captures what it feels like to just live in a bureaucratic state that makes it funny and fantastical. It’s so absurd it’s hard for me to even describe it. One of the characters is his friend who’s a performance artist, who’s been performing as his agent for so long that it’s unclear whether she’s actually his agent, because she does book him things. Check it out. I feel like it’s not getting as much love as it deserves. It’s on HBO and it’s fantastic.

Craig: Melissa loves, loves Espookys. Obsessed with-

Megana: This is why I love Melissa.

Craig: We all love Melissa.

Megana: We all love Melissa.

John: I will say that Megana Rao was very early on the Julio Torres bandwagon. Years ago, she was singing his praises. Don’t think she’s a latecomer here, because she’s always been into his-

Craig: Megana was into Julio Torres before he was cool.

Megana: I would say that he was always cool, but yes, cool to the wider public. I was showing John random lo-fi videos of him doing stand-up in a dark bar in New York, and being like, “This is incredible,” and John was like, “The audio quality on this is horrible.”

Craig: You’re just cool. Hey, Megana, here’s the deal. Millennials are old now.

Megana: God, I know.

Craig: Gen Z is taking shots at them all day long for being old. Welcome to our world. But you’ve always been cool. I don’t care what generation. There are some millennials who are actually legit cool, and Megana Rao is one of them, for sure.

John: 100 percent. Now she’s blushing again. Craig, you’ve done it.

Craig: Aw.

John: Aw.

Craig: Aw. You know what? Let’s let her off the hook by doing some boilerplate.

John: Here’s the boilerplate.

Craig: It’s a ritual.

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with special help this week from Megana Rao. It’s 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. It’s also a place where you can send questions.

You’ll 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 our weekly newsletter called Inneresting. There’s lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkware now for alcoholic or non-alcoholic choices. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau.

Craig: With that hat. I got that hat, by the way, John.

John: You got the hat. I got the hat too.

Craig: I got the cool S hat.

Megana: I need a hat.

John: You can find our great word game called AlphaBirds at alphabirdsgame.net, also on Amazon now. Thank you to everybody who bought it, but also who left reviews, because, god, reviews really help us a lot, because it makes it feel real out there.

You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs. Craig and Megana Rao, an absolute pleasure talking to you both.

Craig: Likewise, John.

Megana: Thank you both so much. The coolest guys.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Okay, Craig, so we are gonna time warp back to – let me see if I can get this right – was it 1983 or 1984 when Craig Mazin-

Craig: 1984.

John: Oh my god, what an incredibly iconic year and a year to have a bar mitzvah. Can you talk us through the experience?

Craig: Sure. First of all, it was mandatory. I just want to be clear about that. A bar mitzvah or a bat mitzvah is the coming-of-age ritual in Judaism. When a boy or girl is 13 years old, that’s when they become, quote unquote, an adult. They do that because I guess the Bible says so. That’s so problematic, and no one ever talked about it. Ever. No one ever. They would just make a joke, “Oh, you’re an adult now, LOL.” I’m like, “Yeah, but no, I’m not, and none of us are. What are we talking about exactly?” Nothing changes whatsoever.

But everybody thinks that a bar mitzvah is just a huge party. If you live among rich people, it is a huge party. My family’s not rich. It was just a party, which your parents spend money they don’t have on. It’s kind of tricky.

Then the part that people maybe don’t know about is it’s also a lot of work for the kid. The idea is that, at your bar mitzvah, you get up there, and if you go to a conservative synagogue like I did, in the middle of a three-and-a-half-hour Saturday morning service.

Megana: Wow.

Craig: Endless, most of which is in Hebrew that no one understands. Then at some point you get up there to do a little speech. But the centerpiece of the bar mitzvah is when you, the boy or girl, reads your Haftorah.

What is the Haftorah? Every Saturday, the real Sabbath – because honestly, literally, it says on the seventh day God rested, and then I don’t know what Christians were doing with Sunday. So anyway, on the real Sabbath, Saturday, a portion of the Torah is read. The Torah is the first five books of the Bible. The year covers all of it. There’s a section that’s called the Haftorah. That’s what you’re reading that Saturday.

The bar mitzvah boy or the bat mitzvah girl has to read that section in Hebrew. They also have to sing it, because you don’t just read Hebrew; you sing it. There is a specific cadence and melody to this. You have to learn what amounts to, I don’t know, five minutes of singing in a language you do not understand.

By the way, when I say the first five books, I don’t even think that’s right. I think maybe it’s more books in the Bible than the first five. Honestly, I really don’t know. I don’t know. I gotta be honest. I went to Hebrew school. I was not paying attention. But I had to learn this thing.

John: One thing we should stress though is it’s a specific section of it, and you know going in what section it’s gonna be, because it’s basically what that week’s section would be. You got to prepare for that specific section.

Craig: Yes.

John: What was your section about?

Craig: Can’t remember. I can’t remember. I don’t even remember what it’s from. Maybe it was from Jeremiah. It’s not the first five books. It’s all of them, which is insane, because there are so many of them.

But here’s what was weird. My birthday is in early April. My father’s birthday is in early June. He was bar mitzvahed as well. Because the Jewish year doesn’t line up with the normal year that we use – it’s lunar months, and I don’t know what year it is, 5,000-something – that means that on any given Saturday, it shifts. It’s not like, oh, okay, it’s always gonna be the same thing, because the year is different. My father’s father forced him – a lot of forcing in this – to go to a recording booth in Manhattan in the 1950s and sing his Haftorah, and they made a record. My father had it.

John: Incredible.

Megana: Wow.

Craig: It was the same one that I had.

John: You had the same passage.

Craig: We had the exact same passage. Party has a theme. Do you know what my party’s theme was?

John: Would it have been Star Wars? What would it have been?

Megana: Dungeons and Dragons?

Craig: Computers.

John: Computers.

Craig: Such a nerd. You have to give people a little thing to take with them. I remember our thing, it was a pencil holder with these slidey bits where you can line up units. It was so dumb. Oh my god, I’m such a dork. It was computers. They got a pad that looked like the dot matrix paper, green, white, green, white, green, white. Oh my god.

Megana: This is so cute.

John: It’s adorable.

Craig: It was crazy.

John: Growing up in a non-Jewish household and without any Jewish friends in Colorado, I didn’t go to any bar mitzvahs as a kid. It was only when we got to Los Angeles I had a bunch of Jewish friends that I would go to their kids’ bar mitzvahs. Of course, my daughter, Amy, when she was 13, she was going to all these girls’ bat mitzvahs, and some boys’ bar mitzvahs as well. I got to see what the whole process was like. Aline graciously invited us to one of her son’s bar mitzvahs. Got to hear him give his little Torah reading on menstruation. That was just so ideal.

Craig: “You are unclean. You must go into the bath.”

John: How are we gonna take this Torah passage and make it meaningful for whatever, 2019 or whenever that was. Great. Love it. Love it so much.

What got me thinking about bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs was Taffy at her signing was talking about how she hadn’t really thought about the bar mitzvah until her sons went through it. She realized, “Oh, there’s no other time in my life where we’re gonna get a bunch of people together to say I am so proud of this kid, that I want to celebrate everything this kid has done and his transition from who they were into this thing that they’re becoming, and they’re so excited about their future.”

That got me a little goosebumpy, because I didn’t have any of those moments for me. We had high school graduation, but that felt a little bit late. It was nice to have a moment to celebrate at least the end of childhood, if not into adulthood. That felt kind of cool. I felt like I’d missed that experience growing up.

Megana: I would say that you have your Eagle Scout experience must’ve been similar, right? That’s you graduating into…

John: I got my Eagle when I was 17. But along the way, I guess Boy Scouts did have a lot of rituals and courts of honor, so you got to do things. You were moving up in ranks. Certainly, that was serving some of that same function, for sure. How about you, Megana? Did you have things you went through that were those coming-of-age moments?

Megana: Yeah, I think the closest thing is, in South India they do this thing called the sari ceremony. There’s a more formal Sanskrit name for it. But I was 12 years old and had to wear a sari for the first time. There was this puja and this whole party around it.

John: Did you do that in India or in Ohio?

Megana: We did it in India. There was a lot of family members that I didn’t know. I think that the ritual is that after that point you’re a woman and you start wearing saris. I was like, “I’m absolutely not wearing one of these.”

Craig: I do like a sari, I have to say. As you were talking, I was looking at the Wikipedia page for samskara, which I guess covers various rites. I just love this. They have an image. For Jainism, there’s a specific garment that they wear for one of the passages where they have the hand with the beautiful circle in the middle. And then above it, there’s a swastika. I know it’s not a swastika. But still, that’s awesome. Oh, man, that would be really weird to wear.

John: Yeah. I think you’re making a different choice.

Craig: The Nazis ruined everything.

Megana: I know. They really did.

Craig: They ruined it.

John: Hey, are we gonna come out on the show as being anti-Nazi?

Craig: I think so.

John: That’s a bold stance to take.

Craig: Based on my bar mitzvah, I think I probably should be.

John: You probably should be. For your bar mitzvah, you had the service, and then did you stay in the same venue for your party, or was the party someplace else?

Craig: The party was in our backyard. Everybody is finally released from the prison of the endless service. Then people go to your house and they shove into the backyard. We put tables in the backyard and stuff. It was a lot of people that I knew and a lot of people I did not know.

John: Did you invite your entire class? I guess you were in junior high.

Craig: Oh, god, no.

John: You invited close friends.

Craig: I did. Our backyard was not large. There was a real limit. One of the things you realize very quickly is that even though this is about you becoming an adult, you are not in charge of the bar mitzvah whatsoever, and that in fact, most of the people there will be people that your parents are inviting, because it is for the parents to go, “Look at our kid.” It is a little bit of displaying. It’s a slight zoo aspect to it. I felt the same, honestly, at my wedding. I remember there were just so many relatives that I didn’t know or care about, who were just observing, like, “Look at them. They’re married now.”

Megana: I need to know more about this computer theme though. Was there a computer present? This is 1984.

Craig: Oh, god, no. Are you kidding me? No, we didn’t have money for that. It was really more like, oh, on every table, the paper plates have a robot on them. They didn’t really cohesively present a theme. Themes back then were like baseball, computers. I think I wanted baseball. My parents told me no, because they thought it was stupid, so I had to go with computers. It sounds like the kind of thing my parents would’ve said no to. It was very mild. I’ve actually never been to a rich person LA bar mitzvah.

John: Oh, wow.

Craig: Someone sent me a video of one. I was like, “We shouldn’t be doing this. This is too much.”

John: I went to one at Henson Studios.

Craig: Oh, god.

John: It was bigger than most movie premiers I’ve been to. It was wild.

Craig: I think that’s problematic. I really do. In general, I think giving a kid a party, a rite of passage is great. Every culture has these beautiful rites of passage, especially when they’re around children growing up, because everybody loves embracing the innocence of that and the hopefulness of that. But then, especially in Judaism, where the concept of tzedakah, which is charity, is so high, the notion that you would – it’s too much. What I’ve seen, I’ve just been like, “Oh, or not do that.”

John: We talk about rituals as often having a purpose, that you forget what the original purpose was. I do wonder, with both the sari and the bar mitzvah, at 13, it’s not that you’re necessarily an adult, but you’re probably not gonna die in childhood. Basically, you made it through the period where a lot of little kids are gonna die. This is a real human now. This isn’t some transitional thing that’s gonna maybe die next week. If they made it to 13, they’re gonna stick around.

Craig: Yeah, and I suppose 13 was adulthood way back in the day. There were children having babies at 13. But it doesn’t make much sense now. What it is now is a party. It sometimes strikes me that it can be a competitive party situation, especially when you’re dealing with wealthy people, who are like, “Look at my huge party.” “Look at my huger party.”

John: My Super Sweet 16.

Craig: I don’t like that. I think there should be some modesty with these rituals, myself. But then again, I’m sure people might think, “Oh, you’re just bitter because your parents didn’t have any money and your bar mitzvah sucked.” But I don’t know.

Megana: Also, at 13, still now, but the last thing I wanted was anybody to look at me.

John: I get that.

Craig: You’re so awkward. You’re like, “Oh my god, you’re a man.” Look at me. Do I look like a man? Really? For girls, sometimes even worse. I don’t know. There’s just this awkwardness of everything. All of it is just bizarre to me. Then you throw on a boy reading a passage written, whatever, 5,000 years ago about menstruation. At that point, just throw up your hands and say none of this makes sense.

John: Craig, Megana, always a delight talking to you both.

Craig: Same.

Megana: Thank you.

John: Bye, guys.

Craig: Bye.

Megana: Bye.

Links:

  • Standard Operating Procedures from Writer Emergency Pack
  • Long Island Compromise by Taffy Brodesser-Akner
  • Free AF non-alcoholic cocktails
  • Microsoft Re-Designs the iPod Packaging
  • Fantasmas on HBO/Max
  • AlphaBirds
  • 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, X and Mastodon
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with help this week by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 651: The Live Edit, Transcript

September 10, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2024/the-live-edit).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 651 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we’ll do a live edit of a chapter for the forthcoming Scriptnotes book and answer a bunch of listener questions that have stacked up. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, card games. We’ve talked a lot on the show about word games and role-playing games, but I have no idea how Craig feels about poker and the like.

**Craig:** Woohoo.

**John:** Woohoo. But now, Craig, we can finally reveal what you’ve been up to, because people have been writing in to say, “Where the hell is Craig? It’s been four weeks since Craig has been on the show.”

**Craig:** Where is Craig?

**John:** Where is Craig? I think we can say this. We can’t say everything now, but we can say you were cast on this next season of Survivor, and so you’ve been off on an island in Fiji. I obviously can’t tell how you did, but wow, Craig, I’m so impressed.

**Craig:** Got voted off first. Did I just ruin the show? There is nothing less likely than me being on Survivor. Maybe Love Island. That might be slightly less likely.

**John:** I bring this up because Jon Lovett, who’s the host of Lovett or Leave It, a show that you were on, he went on Survivor, and that was crazy.

**Craig:** Wait, he did the whole thing?

**John:** He did the whole thing. He disappeared off the face of podcasting. It was like, where the hell’s Jon Lovett? Matt Rogers, who had filled in for you one time before, was filling in for him. Everybody was filling in for him.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** They revealed, oh, he’s on Survivor.

**Craig:** Wow. I had no idea. My new neighbor, because I live near you now, and my across-the-street neighbor is Jon Favreau, not the actor director, but the podcaster, Pod Save America guy. He didn’t mention this. Was it a secret?

**John:** It wasn’t a secret that he was on it. It was a secret that he was going on it. But once it was revealed that he was, basically, once he showed up in a promo for the new season on the Survivor season finale, everyone was like, “Oh my god, that’s Jon Lovett.” And so then the cat was out of the bag.

**Craig:** Just to be clear, he wasn’t on the run of the season? He just appeared once?

**John:** No, he’s going to be on an upcoming season of Survivor. He was gone for four weeks to be on Survivor, just like you were gone for four weeks. Apparently, that’s the official canon explanation of what Craig’s been up to.

**Craig:** We’re getting there.

**John:** You’ve been busy making a TV show. You’re making a different TV show.

**Craig:** Making a different TV show.

**John:** Honestly, just the same way that people get voted off of Survivor, not every cast member is going to survive your season of The Last of Us. That’s no spoilers. I suspect that’s going to happen, because it’s a show where bad things do happen to people.

**Craig:** If anybody watched the first season, they know that death is in the air. People are going to die. Of course people are going to die. We killed almost everyone in Season 1. We really did.

**John:** Absolutely. If you want to think the time jump, yes, that really did kill almost everybody.

**Craig:** That killed really almost everybody. Then of the remaining people, anyone that we featured, whose name we gave you, there’s a decent chance they’d die.

**John:** The clock starts ticking the minute they have a name. Craig, since you’ve been gone for a minute, I want to catch you up on what’s happened on the podcast since you’ve been gone, because I know you don’t listen to the show.

**Craig:** True.

**John:** Last week, Mike Schur came back on.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Mike Schur was fantastic, so good.

**Craig:** Terrific.

**John:** We talked a bit about locking pages and color revisions and that stuff, because he just finished a show for Netflix. We did all that. It never really occurred to him that he could just say no. But I want to keep this ball rolling in terms of just saying no, because you brought up before, maybe your next season you just won’t do those things anymore.

**Craig:** I won’t. Interestingly, one of our first ADs, Paul Domick, listens to the show. He listened. He knows everything. He knows.

**John:** He tells you what happened [crosstalk 00:03:45].

**Craig:** He tells me the things I said, which I forget. He said, “You want to unlock pages?” I’m like, “Yeah.” We had a conversation. Basically, the upshot was yeah, there’s really no reason to keep pages locked anymore, and there are a ton of reasons to keep them not locked. As long as the scene numbers stay locked, there is no reason.

I’m not sure there is a reason even to assign colors to revisions at this point. Revision 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Just do levels. This way, you don’t have to come around to double color or something. You just go, “Oh, we’re at Revision Level 28.”

**John:** I think we can accept that locking pages and color revisions were a very clever solution for the issues that were a problem 30 years ago. They’re not the solution we need right now.

**Craig:** Brilliant solution, actually. I remember thinking, “Oh, this is so smart. Instead of having to print everything, we just take these two.” Yeah, we’re done with that. It’s over.

**John:** What I would propose is, if you are a showrunner who is thinking about stopping locked pages and stopping color revisions, write in to us and let us know what you’re thinking and what your concerns are, or if you are a person who is responsible for production, so in feature films, the line producer, the first AD who is hearing this and excited or terrified, write in to let us know. What are we not thinking about? I want to make sure this momentum keeps building so other people feel like maybe we can stop this silly thing that we’re doing.

**Craig:** We are stopping. I’m stopping. I’m just saying, it’s going to happen. I didn’t even realize that until this moment while we were talking that revisions in everything else are enumerated. Revisions for cuts, for visual effects shots, “Oh, we’re on V219.” Scripts should just simply be Draft 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and so on. Why would we not?

**John:** You know what else is enumerated, Craig?

**Craig:** What?

**John:** The literal slate that claps in front of a take.

**Craig:** That is enumerated. There’s time code on it. There are scene numbers on it. Everything has numbers. It is true that we assign letters sometimes.

**John:** We use some letters. It’s true.

**Craig:** But nobody else does colors. Nobody, period, the end. It was only because of different colored pages. That it. It’s over. We’re killing it. This is now what I do. Killing that.

**John:** Part of our conversation about this idea of moving past locked pages and color revisions was really about this notion, like, there needs to be a central source of truth, like, what is it the hell that we’re shooting?

John in Chicago wrote in with his experience working locations in Chicago. “In locations, we are responsible for informing production, the location, the public, and the police and the government of our parameters. One can easily see how a lack of centralized information puts us in a precarious position. The amount of time I spent hounding departments for exact information is incalculable. But more nefarious is the general disorganization, such as, no one told us that we were using simulated gunfire at 1:00 a.m. in the most dangerous neighborhood in America. People who actively use disorganization to avoid us knowing what we are doing, thus putting the crew and public in real danger, while knowing it is me, not them, who is responsible for the repercussions. In an industry so competitive, one major instance like this can make all the difference. My advice to producers with an assistant is to have them take minutes at all meetings, pack them up into single documents sorted by filming day, and distribute daily to departments.”

**Craig:** I’m a little puzzled by this, I gotta say. John in Chicago is suggesting this as if this isn’t the standard operating procedure for everything and always has been. We have production meetings. In movies there’s a big production meeting, but there are tons of meetings for prep. The ADs will go through the script scene by scene with all the departments. Everyone will ask their questions. Everything like, for instance, gunfire and things like that are printed on the call sheet, especially when we’re dealing with firearms, blanks, cold guns, hot weapons, etc, all of this is documented at length across multiple, multiple meetings. I’m not sure what production John is working on, but yikes.

**John:** This feels like a yikes to me. My guess is it’s not one of the Chicago shows, not one of the ongoing series, because they would have a whole protocol for this. My guess is that it’s some indie feature or something else that was shooting there and did not have its act together. I want to be sympathetic to John in Chicago. This was a bad situation. It puts you at risk, can put other people at risk. It should’ve never happened. That said, I feel like an ongoing production would recognize this and address it. This is the kind of thing, it would absolutely be on the call sheet.

**Craig:** Yeah. There would’ve been a meeting where the locations department would’ve been present, along with special effects, along with props. Props typically handles weapons. It would be understood that there would be gunfire. Locations would be aware. They would take their own notes. It is not up to the producer’s assistant to document things for the locations department.

I do not know what’s going on here, other than to say I don’t want anyone listening to this to think, oh, that’s how it goes, just people running around going, “Wait, we’re shooting stuff tonight?” No, that is not how that works.

**John:** That’s not how it works. Also, while you were gone, Simon Rich came on the show.

**Craig:** Brilliant.

**John:** Simon Rich, delightful, so funny. We talked about his new book that’s coming out or actually will be out by now. We talked about really the differences between a story/sketch and a movie or a novel, because a person who’s writing short stories, he has to have a premise and development and a conclusion. The amount of energy going into it is just a very different thing. It’s a very different structure behind the comedic premise. It was a really good conversation.

**Craig:** He’s a brilliant writer, super funny. I’m sorry I missed him.

**John:** Aline was here, which is a “this kind of scene,” where we did farewell scenes, which was nice. It was also just looking at the whole range of farewell scenes and whether characters know it’s the farewell at the start of the scene. So often, one character knows it’s the farewell and the other character’s learning about it in the course of it. Characters are also aware that they’re in a farewell scene moment and that there are expectations built upon movies that they’ve seen themselves that they know they’re in. It’s a meta situation whenever you have a farewell.

**Craig:** No question. That’s an interesting discussion. I’m sorry I missed that one.

**John:** Also, we finally launched AlphaBirds. This is a game you played a bazillion years ago.

**Craig:** Oh my goodness. In Austin, with you, I believe.

**John:** Absolutely. Back then, it might’ve still been called Sparrow, but it’s now called AlphaBirds. We got the full trademark on it. If people want to play it, you can buy a copy at alphabirdsgame.com. We’re also on Amazon. We’re finally out there in the world, which feels really good. The final version of it is in a nice little box. It has little wooden tokens that you move on your cards. It turned out really well. In a world of Wordle and Scrabble and other things like that, it’s just a good game to play with friends. I will send you a copy up to Vancouver so you can play it with people on breaks.

**Craig:** That’s fantastic. I love that. I’m looking at your website. By the way, the artwork and the style of the name is adorable and catchy. Well done there.

**John:** Thanks.

**Craig:** This looks like a great game for an airplane. This looks like such a good airplane game. Very cool. Exciting.

**John:** Things have been getting done. Let’s do a little bit of other follow-up here. In Pay Up Hollywood over the course of years, we’ve talked about the need for assistants and support staff to be paid a living wage, pushing up to $20 an hour, $25 an hour. There’s reasons why it’s impossible to actually live in Los Angeles at California minimum wage. Hilary wrote in with her experience, which is unfortunately not what we want to see.

**Drew Marquardt:** Hilary writes, “I’ve been working as an assistant for two years now, and I’m also a screenwriter. I finally purchased a Premium membership, and upon diving into the glorious backlog of episodes, I was enraptured by your discussion of assistant pay. Unfortunately, not much has changed. I can tell you both that I am still not making $20 an hour as a busy, dedicated, hardworking literary management assistant. I love my boss, and I like a ton of parts of my job, but it’s quite harrowing that I’m stuck at $19 an hour as I see my friends at some other agencies in other roles taking $23 an hour or more.

“I started at $17 an hour two years ago when I came on board, and there were assistants making less than me who had been there for years. Now the tides have changed, and newer assistants are making more than me. We’re lucky that our company pays for our health care. I know of another management company that offers their assistants either a higher hourly rate with no insurance, or insurance with a lower rate. At a year or so, it’s traditional to get a bump, but there are other rules and politics that have kept me from asking for more. The higher-ups take note and do look down on you for asking for said raise. I have to say, I still consider myself one of the lucky ones, since my boss is so wonderful, but god, it sucks being paid so poorly.”

**John:** Oy. Hilary, this is not exactly advice, but I want to contextualize what you’re feeling. To be frustrated at being paid $19 an hour is genuine and real. You should be paid more than that. The fact that you’re getting health insurance is a really good thing. I’m sure that’s what you’re weighing is how much per hour is that health insurance worth for you, is it worth searching for a different job that could pay more per hour but wouldn’t give you health insurance.

If you’re 19 years old, that’s great. You’re at this period in time where you can live a ramen lifestyle. But the point we’ve been trying to make with Pay Up Hollywood throughout is that this shouldn’t be survival work. This should be the first rung of the ladder that lets you start climbing. It doesn’t feel like you’re being paid enough to start climbing.

**Craig:** Hilary, I’m glad you’re listening. Now I feel bad that you’re paying $5 a month. I’m glad that you listen to those back-episodes. We never thought that we could impact Hollywood in such a way that every employer would hit the $20. I think we were saying $20 an hour was what we were going for. But I think a nearly direct result of our work was that the large agencies did increase their rates. Yes, when you know the other agency’s $23-plus an hour, that’s a sign that things can change, because that was not the case, what, four years ago, five years ago. The fact that assistants that are coming on now are getting higher rates, also a sign that there’s positive change.

I’m a little concerned that you find yourself in a strange nook. You’re a little circumspect about it. It’s hard to tell why you just mentioned politics and other rules.

But I think it’s fair to say, “My boss is wonderful, but also I should get paid more.” If your boss really is wonderful, she or he will stick up for you. Here’s the deal. If you’re making $19 an hour and you’re looking for another $4 an hour, and you’re working let’s say 60 hours a week, that is not an amount of money that is going to send your employer into red ink. It’s just not. I think it’s a fair thing, especially because you’re hurting. It’s not even just financially hurting, Hilary. I can tell that you’re also just – this doesn’t feel fair. That’s going to impact also how you approach the job and how you work there.

You can say you’re one of the lucky ones, but I don’t think we should say, “Hey, my boss is a good person. That makes me lucky.” That’s supposed to be standard.

**John:** Agreed. It’s a good reminder though, so I thank her for writing in, because it’s a reminder that things can improve. It doesn’t mean it improves for everyone. It doesn’t mean improves across the board for all parties.

**Craig:** That’s right, especially, as is always the case, the smaller employers are always going to be the harder ones to get. There’s downsides to working for large mega corporations like CAA or something like that. But on the plus side of the large mega corporations, they probably do pay a bit more than some of the mom-and-pop shops.

**John:** Hilary was looking through the back catalog. We’re doing the Scriptnotes book now, which is a look through well over 13 years of Scriptnotes, and putting it in book form. Craig, at some point when you are done shooting your show, you will get the whole manuscript to read through and do your edits upon. I thought I might take advantage of your intention at this moment to just do a little bit of a live edit of one of the chapters, so we can talk through how we go from transcripts to actual prose and sentences that make sense in a book. I’m going to share a screen here. This is going to be your first time looking at the chapter.

This chapter comes from a couple different episodes we’ve talked about. In the book, we’ll probably link in a little sidebar to what episodes this came from. This I believe was a topic that you really wanted to focus on, because one of your frustrations has been that so often we talk about character as if they are a person by themselves, when really it’s their relationship that we care about. I would say maybe do you want to start reading and then we’ll stop at some point where you have a thought?

**Craig:** Sure. “Harry and Sally. Buzz and Woody. Watson and Holmes. Indiana Jones may have his name in the title, but it’s his relationship with his dad that carries us through the third film.”

Oh, right there, for instance, I’d probably say, “Indiana Jones may have his name in the third Raiders title.” Oh, I see, “carries us through the third film.” I see. There’s something odd about two names, two names, two names, then one name all of a sudden.

**John:** Oh yeah, I see that.

**Craig:** “A dozen different things can convince us to sit down and watch something, but we stay in our seats for the relationship we see on screen.” Then there’s a quote from me. Should I read the quote?

**John:** Read your quote.

**Craig:** “So often when I skim through screenwriting books, they talk about characters and plot. They don’t talk about relationships. I don’t care about character at all. I only care about relationships, which encompasses character.” Continue. I was just wondering, should it be “which encompass character.”

**John:** It’s one of the continuous choices Drew and Chris and I are making as we’re going through even our direct quotes, because you say things differently than you would actually write them in. “Which encompass character.”

**Craig:** Yeah, I think so. You can think of a relationships as a singular concept and then it’s okay. That’s probably what I was doing when I was talking. But this feels a little neater.

“Studio executives make this mistake.” I would say, “Studio executives make a mistake.” “Studio executives make a mistake when they talk about character arcs. I hate talking about character arcs. The only arcs I’m interested in are relationship arcs.”

**John:** Do you stand by that sentence?

**Craig:** I do. Then it continues off the quote. “Consider the word chemistry and how often we apply it to the actors performing these relationships.” I don’t know if you can perform a relationship.

**John:** Embodying these relationships?

**Craig:** Engaging in these relationships?

**John:** Yeah, but it’s-

**Craig:** But they are performing it, aren’t they?

**John:** But they are performing it.

**Craig:** How about this: “How often we apply it to the actors bringing these relationships to the screen.”

**John:** “To life on screen.”

**Craig:** Yeah. “When chemistry is there, what do we… ” Oh, that should be, “How do we describe it?” “How do we describe it? Sparks. We feel that energy bouncing back and forth between them. And when it’s not there, we feel nothing. Chemistry is fundamentally the combination of elements that by themselves would be relatively stable. When you put them together, they create something volatile and new. That’s what we’re really talking about in relationships, that fresh substance created when characters are interacting and challenging each other.”

That’s pretty good. Not all chemicals put together create something volatile, but I think they certainly create something new. If you were stuck with actual commenting – it depends on how far you want to extend the metaphor. I get what’s going on here. I think maybe some chemistry teachers in high school might get a little grouchy, but that’s fine.

“Writers are emotional chemists. We select and combine characters and scenes, then apply heat to create something exciting, unstable, and potentially explosive.”

Maybe I would add in heat “or pressure.”

**John:** “Then apply heat and pressure to create something new.”

**Craig:** Yeah, “and pressure,” yeah, because sometimes it’s heat and sometimes things are squeezing them. That’s good.

**John:** You’re feeling a good launch into the relationships chapter?

**Craig:** Yeah, this feels great. Should I finish with the rest of the page?

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** The next thing says, “Establishing relationships. How do you get the audience up to speed on relationships that began before the movie started? Literally, how do you let the audience know the way these two people are related?” I don’t know if we need the word “literally.”

**John:** Unfortunately, without the “literally,” we’re starting two sentences with “How.” You see that stack there?

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. Let’s fix that. “How do you get the audience up to speed on relationships that began before the movie started? What methods do you use to let the audience know the way these two people are related? Are they siblings? Are they friends? Are they a couple? Are they ex-spouses?” Should we say “partners”? Is that more inclusive?

**John:** Spouses can be partners too.

**Craig:** I’m with you.

**John:** It’s not gender-specific.

**Craig:** Couple of married guys are like spouses.

**John:** Spouses.

**Craig:** “We have this wonderful opportunity when a movie begins. The audience is engaged. They’re leaning forward in their seat. They haven’t yet decided that this movie stinks. This is your invitation.” That sounds like it’s an invitation for us as opposed to the audience.

**John:** It’s an invitation for the screenwriter to have fun.

**Craig:** “This is your opportunity,” I think, “to have fun, to tease, or misdirect what relationships are.” Probably “the relationships,” right? “And then reveal them in exciting ways. Too often, as we read through Three Page Challenges, it feels like the screenwriter is working hard to establish relationships when it could be done more effectively visually.” It’s always tough when you got two L-Ys next to each other. “Could’ve been done more effectively-”

**John:** “Through visuals.”

**Craig:** “Visuals” is always tough. Maybe, “When it could’ve been done better visually.”

**John:** “When it could be done better visually.” That?

**Craig:** Yes. That’s parallel, “When it could be done better visually.” “Consider the following snapshot. You see four people seated at a table in an airport restaurant. They’re all African American. There’s a woman who is 35 and putting in eyedrops. There’s a man who is 40, a little overweight, who is trying to get a six-year-old boy to stay in his seat. There is a girl who is nine and playing a game on her phone. Your default assumption is this is a family.” I would probably put a “that” instead of a comma.

“Your default assumption is that this is a family. They’re traveling someplace. That’s the mom, that’s the dad, those are the kids. That visual gave you all that stuff for free. Therefore, you can spend your time in dialogue doing interesting things with those characters, rather than establishing that they’re a family.” Maybe the word “now” instead of “therefore.”

“You don’t need to have a character say ‘Mom’ or ‘Son’ or any of those annoying things that hit us over the head.” This is going to be a very good book, I think.

**John:** I think this is going to be a really great book. What I wanted to talk for a minute is how we go from you and me having a conversation to something that feels like a synthesis of both of our voices, because there’s moments in here which I read as your voice and a little bit more my voice, but we’ve tried to find an effective middle ground. Things like, “They haven’t yet decided this movie stinks,” that was your voice. That’s literally taken from transcripts, from you. But on the whole, I think it feels like a synthesis of both of us talking.

**Craig:** I agree. This feels informative. I can see here that this book is not trying to do what the transcripts do or what the podcast does, which is for two people to relate to folks at home in a personal way through conversation. This is a proper book that has, we’ll call, a neutral teacher voice. This is good. This is a good book.

**John:** I think it’s going to be a good book. Even as you’re going through your edits there, what you’re finding is those moments that feel like that’s a little bit too much spoken John or Craig and not quite the written version of John and Craig. That’s really been some of the slog of this.

This is a chapter that I’ve been poking at for two or three days to get – not full-day sessions – but to get stuff feeling right. Chris and Drew and Megana have done a heroic job assembling stuff together in a flow and a document, but then actually getting it to read like us is a more challenging thing. That’s been most of my job here.

**Craig:** You guys are doing great. Finally, there’ll be a good book on screenwriting.

**John:** I’m excited. This draft that we’re talking through right now is going in to the editor on Monday. Then we’ll get notes back from that. There’ll be more revisions. But the goal at this point is August 2025 for a book in people’s hands.

**Craig:** That’s amazing. What you’re saying is Christmas 2025. What a great gift.

**John:** Part of the reason why we picked August 2025 is it’s a good time for this kind of book, but we also believed that it’s going to be a time when you’re going to be available to promote it and I should also be available to promote it, because we would love for people to actually buy the book.

**Craig:** I will indeed be available to promote it. What do we do to promote a book? I’ve never done that.

**John:** We do some live events. We’ll probably do a live show where people can buy a ticket and they get a book as part of that. We might do a live show in Los Angeles. We might do one in New York. We’ll probably guest on a whole bunch of other people’s podcasts. We’ll do stuff to get it out that will try to seat it with the right smart people, who will review it and give us good reviews.

One of the things we talked about off mic is who are we going to get to write the introductory chapter, the little preface from some other famous person. We’ll find who that person will be.

**Craig:** I had some ideas.

**John:** We’ll continue to discuss. I don’t want to spoil them on the air when we don’t get James Cameron to do it.

**Craig:** He’s not going to do it.

**John:** I don’t think he’s going to do it. We haven’t even gotten him on the show yet, so that’d be hard.

**Craig:** He’s busy.

**John:** He’s busy. The ideal person would be somebody who was like, “Oh, wow, they got that person,” but also who would listen to the show or at least know about the show. Craig, how often do people that you talk to in professional settings, they’re like, “Oh, it’s so weird hearing you in person, because I listen to you on Scriptnotes,” or, “I love Scriptnotes.” Do you get that a lot?

**Craig:** I do. I’ve said this many times. Every time it happens, I’m shocked. I will be forever shocked. People generally seem to now know my face a little bit better.

**John:** Yeah, also because when you do the after-the-episode interview things, that’s how people recognize you.

**Craig:** Yeah. Now I’m quasi on TV for a little bit out of the year, so people are familiar with my face now. I never know how to take that. It’s probably not good. You remember when everyone was wearing a mask, we would just emotionally, mentally, visually fill in a blandly handsome or beautiful face?

**John:** Yes, totally.

**Craig:** Then you would see somebody without their mask and go, “What the hell?” I feel like that’s probably…

**John:** Your mental auto-complete was much better than the actual text underneath that mask.

**Craig:** I think people’s mind-image impression of you and me, it’s probably a disappointment when they meet us.

**John:** I’m more often recognized by voice in those situations. We’ll be out at breakfast someplace, and I’ll be talking with Mike, and he will clock somebody who will turn in their seat like, “What?” He’s like, “This person’s coming over.” They’ve heard my voice, and they’re coming over to say hi, which is fine and lovely, all good.

But then I’ve also been on a lot of Zooms lately with executives who I’m meeting for the first time. It’s like, “Oh, it’s just so weird seeing a face with a voice.” Like, “Yeah, there’s actually a human being here. Now, I’m going to pitch you a movie. Please buy my movie.”

**Craig:** It would be nice if the romanticization of you carries over and they just start writing some checks. You like my voice so much, wait until you see my writing.

**John:** I think I did actually say on a pitch this last week, I was like, “Yeah, and now I’m going to use that voice to tell you a story.”

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** Let’s answer some listener questions that will probably be in the sequel book.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** We’ll start with Carly, who asked a question about personal stories.

**Drew:** Carly writes, “I have recently started writing a series based on my own life events. It’s not exactly the same but includes some similar themes and such. I’ve run into the problem of who the other characters will be in this series. I’m finding it a creative struggle to make up brand new characters and relationship dynamics. Alternatively, if I choose the similar-to-my-life route, I worry I may accidentally paint real people in bad lights. I feel very inspired to write this series, but this debate has been getting in the way of my brain. Do you have any insights?”

**John:** Craig, always valid to write about your own experience. But your own experience doesn’t involve people around you, and so you have to make choices about how much you’re going to portray them in any story that you’re telling.

**Craig:** Carly, you’re right to be a bit terrified here, because you have two obligations. You have an obligation to the people that are around you. You also have an obligation to the truth. Truth is obviously something that goes through a process when you’re fictionalizing something. But you’re still going to have to see somebody, look them in the eyes, or if they are no longer with us, look their children in the eyes, and say, “I did this.” It is very tricky to do.

I think everybody’s followed the hoopla and controversy surrounding the Netflix series Baby Reindeer. We especially now have to be concerned about this, because back in the day, you’d put a movie out, “Oh, it was real,” and then 20 years later somebody would write an article in The Atlantic saying, “Not really.” 20 minutes after something becomes popular, people are investigating.

It is a very tricky thing to do. I would start with the question, am I sure I need to do this? You may be inspired to do this, but do I need to do this? Am I maybe giving this extra weight because I feel like I know a lot of it already because I’ve lived it, as opposed to trying to do something else? I would weigh it very carefully. Then if you commit, commit.

**John:** We’ve had some great guests on previous episodes who I think are worth going back to revisit. I’m thinking about Mike Birbiglia, Alex Edelman, both talking about how they use their own stuff that actually really genuinely happened to them in their writing, in their work, and yet they’re also careful to keep their own real-life people out of their stories to the degree it makes sense to. They’re also up front about the fact that they are re-framing certain events to have them make narrative sense. They’re not trying to be documentarians. They’re not trying to fact-check every little thing. What they’re really doing is they’re telling a story that is inspired by things that actually happened to them. They’re not trying to literally do journalism. That’s the balance you need to find there.

What is it about this story that’s inspiring you to tell it? Is that central character, your protagonist, really you or is it a person who is like you? If it’s not literally you or a person like you, likely the people around that central character are not going to be the same people that existed in your real life. Just give yourself permission to let go of some of those anchoring points of, this is exactly how it really happened.

**Craig:** It sounds like Carly’s struggling with that very issue. She’s struggling to figure out how to fill in those gaps where she removes the reality of what occurred and replaces it with, as she says, brand new characters and relationship dynamics. It can very quickly turn into this strange fish with feathers. It’s real. It’s not real. It’s partly real life. People will be able to tell if there are seams between what feels effortless and true and what feels contrived.

All I can say is I commiserate. I’ve thought about writing some things that are connected to my personal experience. I’ve had the same debate in my brain. This is a natural thing. I would think twice, measure quintuply, and cut once.

**John:** Corey has a question about cold opens.

**Drew:** “Over the weekend, I saw two summer movies. Both had me thinking of how features use cold opens. One starts with a five-minute montage establishing the protagonist’s family history and life-changing moment that defines her character flaw to be overcome. The other took an hour before the lead actress appeared on screen to drive the film to its narrative end. This left me thinking, how much backstory is too much versus what’s essential to get to the film’s main story? Also, are there any screenwriting tools or tips or tricks to make sure we’re not bloating our story with unnecessary context or visuals or what have you?”

**Craig:** John, it’s an interesting question Corey’s asking, because there’s two aspects. One is, where should the backstory go? The second question is, how much is too much, and how do we slip that stuff in there in a way that feels informative and valuable?

**John:** I wonder if Corey is mistaking backstory for really the first act. It says, “It took one hour before the lead actress appeared on screen to draw the film to it’s narrative end.” I doubt there was really a full hour of backstory. It was a first act that took place in the past, but it was the same character moving forward, and that was the nature of how it works.

At a certain point though, you have made a contract with your audience that this is the story I’m telling you, that this is not just the past, but it’s actually the question I’m proposing to you. This is the thing the character’s going after. You’re saying this is the engine of the movie, and you’ve revealed that to the audience.

It’s not going to be generally an hour into your movie. It’s going to be pretty quick in, because we’ve talked so much on the podcast about how you have those first 10 minutes or so where the audience will go with you anywhere. But at a certain point they’re going to say, “I don’t know what’s happening here. I don’t know how to watch this movie.” Too much backstory that feels like it’s not connected to a forward-moving plot, it’ll become a problem.

**Craig:** I agree with you. I think Corey is conflating a couple of things here. There’s background, which is different than backstory. Background is, okay, what is the context of this person’s life? The first 10 minutes of a movie, traditionally, you meet the character in their normal life. You get their background. Shrek begins with an understanding that he’s an ogre, he was driven away, he lives in a swamp, he’s alone, everybody hates him. That’s background. Backstory to me is something that is told to you after you already know somebody, and then they reveal something about their past that recontextualizes for you who they are right now. That’s very different.

Screenwriting tools, tips, and tricks. The number one tool, tip, and trick I have for you is to make it interesting. If it is interesting, then people will like it. It will be particularly interesting as backstory if it makes us see somebody in a very different way. I wrote an episode of Mythic Quest called Backstory.

**John:** Yes, and starred in it.

**Craig:** I don’t know if I would say starred in it, but I had a small part. But the purpose of that episode, Rob McElhenney wanted to tell a story about a character who is part of the comic cast, one of the broadest characters they had. That’s an interesting idea, to take somebody that really does work as a full joke character who doesn’t have dramatic stories built around them, and then go, “Let’s actually tell a dramatic story about this person.”

We have a running joke about how he’s an alcoholic. We have a running joke about how he lives in the office, in a closet. We have a running joke about how he’s basically an emotional wreck and lonely. Now, what if we took that all seriously? We certainly have this endless joke that he’s a pompous writer who is obsessed with giving characters backstory in a hacky way.

That inspired the idea of saying, okay, what if we told the story, so the next time you see that character, as ridiculous and over the top as he is, you’ll see a human being there. That’s interesting. It’s less interesting to get backstory on people that you know plenty about.

**John:** Agreed. I think one of the reasons why backstory gets a bad name sometimes is that, done poorly, it has just stopped the forward momentum of the plot and the story. It’s just like, okay, we’re going to take a pause here and just watch this thing and then come back to where we left off. If it has not changed the dynamics of the present tense, there’s really no reason for that. It’s not serving a purpose in your story.

**Craig:** That’s right. Typically, backstories are relayed from one person to another. It’s not done as a little mini movie. You’re on a date. You’re walking around. You say, “I never told you about blah da da da,” and that’s relayed. But there are times where the backstory is kept from other characters and is only relayed to us in the audience. None of the characters on Mythic Quest were there to see the backstory of that character. We were. We have a privileged view at that point forward. We feel a little bit more sympathetic or empathetic with that character than everybody else around them.

**John:** We have a question from Football Dummy about sharing credit.

**Craig:** Great name.

**Drew:** Football Dummy writes, “I recently pitched a show to a major studio, and they want to move forward with developing and purchasing the show. The idea is one I conceived about a decade ago and have been nurturing it over the years. But at a certain point, I recognized that I needed a potential collaborator due to the fact that it is partially set in the world of football, which I am not well versed in. But the other aspect of the show is loosely based on personal experience, which is really the heart of the show.

“My collaborator has been great, and he asked if I’d be willing to share a co-created by credit with him. The truth is the football beats of this pilot do need to be punched up. Should I share this credit with him? I’m having a hard time quantifying how a 10-year endeavor can be shared with someone who’s just been in the arena with me for a year. I’ll say that he has been instrumental as a producer in moving the show forward and aligning me with the studio to begin with.”

**John:** Fundamentally here, the question is, at what point is someone helping you out versus being a fully ampersanded collaborator that they deserve co-created credit with you on this thing. There’s no magic formula. This isn’t even an arbitration-able kind of situation. This is what is the nature of your relationship? Are you boyfriend and girlfriend? Are you going to get married? What is this thing between the two of you? You have to make a decision. They have to make a decision. You have to figure out together, is this a partnership you want to fully engage in to make this into a show?

**Craig:** There are a lot of ways to go about this, but boils down to basically are you the sort of person who’s going to go along to get along, or are you the sort of person who’s like, “No, that doesn’t feel quite fair.” The problem that you have, Football Dummy, is that you do need help. You can’t do it on your own. You cannot create the show on your own, because you’re missing quite a bit of knowledge and insight about something essential to it. It’s set in the world of football.

Let’s use the example of Ted Lasso. If you have an idea about a positive person coming into a workplace and using the power of positivity to inspire people around him, even though the traditional environment in those situations is someone abusive and demanding, and you want to set it in the world of soccer, but you don’t know anything about soccer, it’s probable that, yeah, the person that comes to help you set it in the world of soccer is co-creating it with you.

It’s important to understand, co-creator is a credit that’s there and then it’s just sort of there. But it is not an ongoing writing credit. The scripts will need to be written. There is going to be an executive producer or many who are running the show. Also, as is the case with almost every television show, one or two people ultimately will be recognized as the prime movers of the show, regardless of the credits. For instance, if I were to say, “Who are the co-creators of Silicon Valley?” you’d probably say Mike Judge and Alec Berg.

**John:** Berg, yeah.

**Craig:** But they’re not. The co-creators of Silicon Valley are listed as Mike Judge, John Altschuler, and Dave Krinsky. But shortly after the act of co-creation, John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky I think left, and Alec Berg joined. Alec and Mike ran that show, wrote lots of episodes, directed lots of episodes from that point forward. It’s a credit that indicates the moment of birth.

I’m not sure in your situation it’s worth going to war over this. Feels like this person is a good collaborator. They are helping. The fact that you worked on it for 10 years – you said, “It’s an idea I conceived about a decade ago,” and then you say “a 10-year endeavor.” It’s not quite the same, is it? Then also, “someone who’s just been in the arena with me for one year.” One year’s a lot. Also, this isn’t a quantity game. It’s a quality game. My instinct would be to be generous here.

**John:** I think generous is the right instinct here. We don’t have all the information about who this collaborator is. If this person is not really a writer but is actually just a person who knows a bunch about football but cannot write a scene, that gives me a little bit more pause. The fact that Football Dummy pitched and set up this show without this person does make it a little more cleanly his or hers, but I don’t know. I think you have to really look at what is going to be the right choice for you and for this show. My instinct is to probably be generous. If you think this person has been helpful not just to this point, but helpful going forward. A question from Daniel.

**Drew:** Daniel writes, “As someone who’s just had their first taste of professional success writing a feature for Lifetime, I’m fearful of mismanaging my next moves and stalling out or getting trapped in a loop of financing my own short films in between non-union romantic comedy rewrites. How can I capitalize on this minor inertia I’ve generated for myself?”

**Craig:** This is an interesting one, John, because Daniel’s defining a loop that I didn’t quite know was a thing. But I guess the bigger issue is he’s done a feature for Lifetime. How do you convert? How do you capitalize?

**John:** Listen, you’ve had something made. You’ve had something produced. It was for Lifetime, but still, it counts. Your name is on a screen someplace. When you’ve just written scripts and nothing’s been produced, it’s like, can my work even stick to the screen? There’s this weird sense of am I even producible? You now know you’re producible.

It sounds like you’ve made short films yourself. You presumably have reps. Talk to them about what rooms they think they can get you into, who you can be meeting with so you can get that next job and the next job and the next job, in places that can be beyond the Lifetime. Get into the Netflixes. Get into the other places, because having some success, a little bit of heat is really good. This is a moment to capitalize on it.

**Craig:** I would suggest, Daniel, that it’s important to stop doing non-union work. First of all, you really aren’t allowed to. Pretty sure. So stop. If you are in the Writers Guild, you are not allowed to do non-union writing in areas that the Writers Guild covers. If you want to go work on an animated film, sure, the Writers Guild doesn’t have full jurisdiction over stuff like that. But romantic comedies that are made for television or film, if they’re being done here in the United States, you in fact are definitely not allowed, per the Writers Guild working rules, to do that stuff. Step 1, don’t work on non-WGA stuff. It’s bad for you, and it will undermine your professional status.

**John:** Absolutely. We’re assuming, Daniel, that you are an American writer working on a US-based production. If you’re Irish and you did an Irish movie for Lifetime, different rules.

**Craig:** Different deal. Then the way to capitalize, I guess, on this minor inertia is to use the opportunity now to show people some of the things you’ve written. Hopefully, you’ve written some other things.

If you need to pay your bills, as almost everyone does it would probably be better – hang on, Daniel, get ready – to write another feature for Lifetime than it would be to finance your own short films or work on non-union stuff. Financing short films is a fantastic way of lighting somebody on fire. We’ve talked about the short film thing before. If you can make a little short film and it costs you, I don’t know, 1,000 bucks, and you happen to have 1,000 bucks, great. Spending real money of your own on a short film, that’s bad.

**John:** I think you have to look at anybody that’s spending on a short film as like, “This is money I’m spending that I know I’m not going to get back, in the pursuit of some greater goal.” If your greater goal is to show that I can direct, then that’s a valid goal. But as a way to show my writing ability, no.

**Craig:** I agree. Also, Daniel, again, hang on. You wrote one Lifetime movie. The next one will be better. There is no shame in any Guild-covered work, as far as I’m concerned. Your craft will get better. You probably learned a lot seeing your first work on screen. It will make you a better writer. Convert that. Make some money. While you’re making some Lifetime money, use the fact that you’re a working writer now with representatives, that are probably pleased with the fact that you’re generating income for them as well, to try and get some of your own work through the door or get some pitches in or get some open writing assignment meetings and just work it.

**John:** My friend Rex writes children’s books. He writes middle-grade and some young adult fiction. One of the things I admire so much about Rex is he has his list of here are the 30 things, here are my 30 ideas, here are the 30 books that I want to write. He will, with his reps, go out and figure out homes for each one of them. He’s always stacked up with four books he needs to write. But he gets some written and he gets them in, there’s always something under his fingers.

That maybe needs to be what Daniel is thinking about is, what are the movies that I want to be writing? Who are the places I should be meeting with and just going in there and systematically finding homes for those movies. Because if you have written a thing for Lifetime, Lifetime seems like its own brand, but Netflix has a whole department that is just that. If you get in there and you’re talking with them, you have five things to pitch them. Find the one that they want to hire you to do, and do it for them. You may not want to do this for the rest of your life, but getting a few things under your belt to show that you can make stuff is going to be a huge service for yourself.

**Craig:** Agreed. Agreed.

**John:** Let’s take one last question. Zach in Toronto.

**Drew:** Zach in Toronto writes, “Have you ever written a script where you strongly disliked your protagonist or one of the major characters of the piece?”

**John:** Craig, I can think of one example of this. It’s a movie I wrote for the wrong reasons. I wrote it just out of pure anger about some career stuff that was happening and as a middle finger to certain forces around me. I really did not like the central hero. I was trying to prove that I can write in a genre that I was not being considered for. I guess I did dislike the protagonist. Spoiler, it didn’t turn out great.

**Craig:** Was it me?

**John:** Yeah, I think it was. Actually, it was all about how Craig disappears off the grid for a while, then he comes back, yes.

**Craig:** That MF-er. I have to say, Zach, I don’t think I have. I have written some characters that are awful. Thinking, for instance, of the character of David in Season 1 of The Last of Us, who’s just horrible.

It seems to me the only way to write any character to be engaging and interesting and challenging is for that character to believe in what they’re doing and saying. They need to make an argument. They need to make a good argument, at least an argument that feels correct to them. They need to be committed. That means as I occupy that space, I turn certain values off and I turn certain values on.

There are people out there that are wearing MAGA hats and stuff – a lot of them. I don’t like that. I’m not like them. I don’t want to be like them. But I can write that character. I could get in their head, and I could turn things off and turn things on. Of course, as a human being, I know that in almost all cases, when they put the MAGA hat on, they’re not doing so out of this dry political analysis. They’re doing so out of emotional response, needs, and drives. That’s universal to us all. How does the fear in you turn into putting a MAGA hat on? It’s not even a question of like or dislike your protagonist or the antagonist or any character. You have to be that person when you’re writing them. You just have to be them. It’s funny; I’m not a good actor. I’m fine.

**John:** You’re a fine actor.

**Craig:** I’m fine. No one’s nominating me for anything. I watch good actors all day long up here on our show. I’m watching Pedro Pascal. I’m watching Bella Ramsey do what they do. I’m watching Kaitlyn Dever. They become people in an incredibly thorough way, in an incredibly believable way. I can’t do that like them. But I can do it with words. That’s where I do it.

I would say, Zach, if you strongly dislike your protagonist, I think you may have not gotten under the hood of why they are who they are and why they want what they want.

**John:** I also wonder, why are you writing this? It’s such a fundamental question. Why did you choose to write this thing with this character you don’t want to be with? Because you’re going to be with that person for months and months, you’ve got to learn to find what’s interesting about that, watching and having a space with that character.

It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is an article that I was going to save for a How Would This Be a Movie, but there’s not a story there. But it’s really interesting. This is Max Bearak writing for New York Times. Headline is “AI Needs Copper. It Just Helped Find Millions of Tons of It.” It’s about this new deposit of copper ore that they were able to find in Zambia. It’s a mile underground. Copper is, of course, essential for making all the electronic stuff that we need to make a lot more of; for batteries, for computers, for everything else we need to do. The article talks through how they’re actually tracking muons, these subatomic particles that pass right through the earth. But by looking at how they’re displaced, you can find big sources of underground metals, including copper.

We crap on AI, I think reasonably, for all the crappy things it does. That’s generative AI that is taking potentially work of writers and artists for their own purposes. But the truth is, AI can be really good at finding patterns in things that humans can’t spot. This AI system can find these weird fluctuations that reveal, oh, there must be a giant pile of copper a mile underground, and now we will find ways to dig it out.

All that said, this is in Zambia, which is one of the poorest nations on earth. It’s a real question, how do people of Zambia benefit from this giant amount of copper that was found in their land. It embodies all of the issues of the future and the past and colonialism, all in one nice little bundle here. The article scratches at it, but it’s just a fascinating space I think to look at this moment that we’re in.

**Craig:** First of all, I guess, a tip of a hat to this company’s name, KoBold.

**John:** That’s the other reason I want to talk to you about this. KoBold, of course, is the mining character, the little mining monsters in Dungeons and Dragons lore.

**Craig:** These guys are clearly dorks, although we knew that already, because they were using AI to track muons to find copper, but certainly our kind of dorks.

I think the use of AI here feels like an extension of the kind of analysis that we first were able to do when the original computers were set up. People were running punch cards into computers to get things done faster that in theory could be done if you had a billion years. That makes sense to me.

It’s really interesting to see – just looking at the images in this Times article, you are immediately struck by what’s going on here, which feels like an all too familiar story. There are fresh-faced White people looking at computers and screens and whiteboards, and then there are Black people who are lugging stuff around. They don’t look like they own anything, nor do they look like they’re going to benefit at all.

The state of Zambia owns 20 percent of this mine. But African governments are not generally known for their stability, nor their service to the people that they govern. The article is questioning how that 20 percent ownership – 20 percent of what they’re saying could be billions of dollars – is in fact going to benefit the people of Zambia, or will it merely benefit the people that run the government of Zambia, or at least the state mining company. If past is prologue, this is not going to go well. But maybe, fingers crossed, it could work well for the people of Zambia. It is a very poor nation.

**John:** For a different project, I was having to do some research on copper mines. The copper mines are fascinating, because it’s not the surface strip mine thing that we’re used to. It’s a very, very deep shaft. It doesn’t actually require that many people. There’s a lot of automation behind it. It’s not going to be a great work-maker for the people of Zambia. It’s really going to be about the ore coming out and the money coming out that’s going to be benefiting the country, rather than people with jobs.

**Craig:** It literally would be, “Okay, we’re going to use all this money to build better schools, better hospitals, raise the wage, the minimum wage for people who do work, and just improve quality of life.” It wouldn’t take much in a country like Zambia to do that. I hope that the people that run KoBold are, like so many of us who play DnD, kind.

**John:** Craig, a little sidebar here, KoBold, which is the name of this company but is also the little lizardy dragon-worshiping creatures in Dungeons and Dragons, you realize that KoBold is actually the same word as “goblin”? They’re actually etymologically the same way. In certain countries it became goblins, and in certain countries it became kobold.

**Craig:** I only knew this because you’ve told me this. You’ve told me this before. That’s fascinating. It’s also a little upsetting, because kobolds and goblins are not the same.

**John:** They’re so different. They’re little creatures, but they’re very distinct in DnD lore.

**Craig:** Different stat blocks, guys.

**John:** Different stat blocks.

**Craig:** Different stat blocks, linguists. But it makes total sense.

**John:** What do you got for a One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** John, every now and then, I do a little One Cool Thing for my diabetes friends out there. Protein bars are often disgusting.

**John:** They can be.

**Craig:** But they’re very useful. The useful kinds for people who are trying to manage their blood sugar are the kinds that are, of course, low in sugar. Those are the ones that taste the absolute worst. There is one brand – and I don’t know if this is in the US, but it’s definitely here in Canada – that is fantastic, I think. I think the brand is Love…

**John:** Love Good Fats, I think.

**Craig:** This bar that I’m looking at is Love Good Protein. It’s cookie dough flavor. It’s actually really good. You can hear the wrapper going crinkle, crinkle.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** When we look at the nutritional information, in one bar there are 21 carbohydrates, but the good news is that two of those carbs are fiber, 16 of those carbs are sugar alcohols, which are altered sugar molecules that we cannot digest. There are two grams of sugar in this bar, which is negligible. It actually tastes good. I don’t know how they do it. Sometimes when I eat these things, I think we’re going to find out later. But this one is-

**John:** The input is delightful; the output is not.

**Craig:** I haven’t had stomach problems. It’s really good.

**John:** Good.

**Craig:** If you’re watching your carbs for any reason, Love Good Protein, cookie dough flavor, outstanding.

**John:** Sounds great. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Tim Englehard. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions.

You’ll 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 our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies and hats. They’re all great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. If you want to get a copy of AlphaBirds, you’ll find that at alphabirdsgame.com.

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 card games. Craig, it’s a pleasure having you back.

**Craig:** So good to be here.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, so this topic, in a roundabout way, came because I finally got a Steam Deck, which you had recommended a Steam Deck, because there was a Steam game I wanted to play, that I could not play on the Mac, or I couldn’t play on the Mac without terrible black magic stuff that I did not want to do to my Macintosh. I got a Steam Deck so I could play on it.

It’s actually a card game that I’m playing on Steam called Balatro. I don’t know if you’ve heard of it yet. It is a fun card game that is taking the hands of poker but using them in a very different way. You’re trying to build all these poker hands and collect points from it. It’s a very smartly done game. But I realized that you and I have not talked about card games ever. We play DnD every week, but other people play poker, they play hearts and rummy and euchre. What is your history with card games?

**Craig:** When I was a kid, I would play gin rummy with my grandmother. That was her game. She played that with my grandfather. They lived with us. As far as I could tell, my grandparents spent their retirement just playing that one game. They would keep track of who won. I don’t know what for. I don’t know what the ultimate point was. But it was so much fun to go down there and play, particularly with my grandmother, who would get so flustered when she lost. It was fantastic. Grew up playing that.

When the poker craze hit, I started playing poker, and I played a lot. There was a game with some friends. We played every week. I would play online. Mostly hold ‘em, but also variants. Omaha hi-lo is a fun one.

I also learned to play bridge. My wife taught me. Then we would play with her parents, who were extraordinarily good bridge players. In their day, they actually were part of some circuit. They were just frighteningly good. I would usually pair with her dad, and she would pair with her mom, and then off we would go. I got super into bridge for a while.

If I go to a casino, usually I’m going to want to be social and play blackjack. But I’ve gone and sat down at a hold ‘em table and played. It’s fun.

**John:** I grew up playing Casino with my mom, which is a pretty simple card game. It’s not trick taking, but you’re taking what’s on the table. We would play also gin or cribbage, another fun building up to fives kind of game.

Then a certain point I learned to play pinochle. I would play it with my mom, my dad, my grandmother, my nana when she was around, my brother. Pinochle’s a great game. I’m not quite clear that we played the rules everybody else – I guess we did play the rules everybody else played, but I would look it up in books and it would seem vastly different. It wasn’t until the pandemic that I would play pinochle – Mike and I played pinochle with my mom online – and realized this is actually exactly the game that we played before. Pinochle I’d highly recommend to people who have not tried it before. It’s a very smart game.

In junior high we would play hearts sometimes at lunch. Hearts is another fun trick-taking game.

**Craig:** I love hearts.

**John:** Love some hearts.

**Craig:** Spades?

**John:** Spades I didn’t know so well, but we loved hearts. Then in college, for the first time, I learned euchre, which is a very Midwestern thing. Do you even know what euchre is?

**Craig:** I do, although I don’t think I’ve ever played it. But it’s one of those forerunner games like whist.

**John:** Absolutely. This coming week we’re actually having a euchre party at a friend’s house. Megana will be joining us, because also, as an Ohioan, she was indoctrinated into the cult of euchre. We’ll be playing that with her.

**Craig:** Is that the game that her mom plays with all the aunties?

**John:** I don’t think so. I think it’s probably a different game. But I’ll check with her to see what the game is that she plays with her-

**Craig:** Maybe they play mahjong. It might be mahjong.

**John:** They might play mahjong. Here, as we talk, I’m going to text Megana and see what game they play. I’ve never played bridge. My parents played bridge growing up. I always admired what that was like, because they would have bridge tables, card tables they would set up, and then they would have six different couples over. It was the most social I ever saw my parents be. Other than Friday night bowling, it was the most I saw them hang out with other adults.

**Craig:** I think you would love bridge. It’s a little intimidating at first, but it really shouldn’t be. In its own way, it’s a bit like chess, in that, okay, this does this, this does this, this does this. Great. Then you start playing and you start going, “Okay. Okay, I’m starting to see the interesting ways this works.” I think you would be very good at it. You have the right mind for it.

**John:** Absolutely. I know basically in bidding you’re trying to communicate information to your partner with a very strict set of rules behind it.

**Craig:** There are conventions.

**John:** There are conventions. That’s right.

**Craig:** There are certain bids that mean exactly what they mean, and then there are certain bids that mean I need you to bid something back that tells me information. There are contrived bids that don’t mean anything, other than to say, “How many aces do you have? How many kings do you have?”

The fun in bridge really is at some point you’re doing some kind of mind reading with your partner, that plus a little bit of luck, and then careful management of where you start. When you’re in charge of the board, and you’re going to play a card, do I play it from my hand or do I play it from my partner’s hand, if they’re the dummy?

It doesn’t take long to learn. The other thing about bridge which is similar to blackjack is you got a cheat sheet. You can have a cheat sheet. There are these place mats they make for bridge, where you can just go, “Okay, here’s how I analyze my hand. Here’s how I bid, based on this or this or this. Here’s what their response means. Here’s what I should do then,” which helps a lot.

**John:** I texted Megana as we were talking. She says gin rummy.

**Craig:** Oh, gin rummy, so what I was playing with my grandma. There you go.

**John:** Global sensation. Craig, always nice to have you back.

**Craig:** Great to be back. Thanks, John.

**John:** Thanks.

Links:

* [AlphaBirds](https://alphabirdsgame.com/)
* [#PayUpHollywood](https://www.payuphollywood.com/)
* [Scriptnotes Episode 427 – The New One with Mike Birbiglia](https://johnaugust.com/2019/scriptnotes-ep-427-the-new-one-with-mike-birbiglia-transcript) and [Scriptnotes Episode 640 – Can You Believe It?](https://johnaugust.com/2024/scriptnotes-episode-640-can-you-believe-it-transcript)
* [A.I. Needs Copper. It Just Helped to Find Millions of Tons of It.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/climate/kobold-zambia-copper-ai-mining.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb) by Max Bearak for the New York Times
* [Love Good Protein](https://lovegoodfats.com/collections/all-products?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=21152436871&utm_content=&utm_term=&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADAv3w3FMo4d0_swROGon2xFoOpM-&gclid=CjwKCAjwy8i0BhAkEiwAdFaeGDJ83TmFElX9D0vmsTnPV738scSFQZgM37pUQnFDugAwYBpsNqrSBRoC6a0QAvD_BwE)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* Craig Mazin on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@clmazin) and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/)
* John August on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@johnaugust), [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en), [X](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) and [Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Tim Englehard ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Drew Marquardt](https://www.drewmarquardt.com/) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/651standardV2.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 650: Overwritten, Transcript

September 10, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2024/overwritten).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 650 – wow – of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, how do you rewrite without overwriting. We’ll discuss tips and techniques for not bogging down your script. We’ll also look at a bunch of items in the news, including the sale of Paramount and a potential IATSE deal. And in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we’ll discuss the Recording Industry Association of America’s lawsuits against the AI music generators like Suno and Udio about copyright infringement and how this might relate to folks who write movies and TV.

To help us do this, we welcome back a very, very special guest, the creator of The Good Place, and all-around good guy, Mr. Mike Schur. Mike Schur, welcome back.

**Mike Schur:** I’m honored to be here for number 650. Nice round number.

**John:** Round numbers are our specialty here. We just love when we hit them. Chris McQuarrie always comes back for every 200 episodes, which is exactly how much you want Christopher McQuarrie. No more, no less. I could have you back every 50 episodes, it’d be great. Basically a yearly visit.

**Mike:** Could I come back every 650th episode?

**John:** Good lord, that would be a lot. Episode 1300, we’ll book you.

**Mike:** And 1950.

**John:** Drew, make a note now. Somebody will contact us down the road saying, “Hey, you said that Mike Schur would be back on Episode 1300.” We’ll try to hold to it.

**Mike:** God, that’s so many years away.

**John:** That’s 12 years away. That’s a lot.

**Mike:** I’ll be ready.

**John:** You’ll be ready. Let’s get into some news here. Mr. Mike Schur, you were on the WGA negotiating committee with me. We talked through a lot about all the stuff in the WGA strike and of course, SAG-AFTRA strike. IATSE was the next big union up. It looks like they may have reached a deal.

**Mike:** Yes. This is very exciting. Tentative congratulations to IATSE leadership and also all IATSE members. This was the last big piece of the Hollywood union labor negotiations that had to be completed. There’s a lot of consternation about whether or not there would be another strike at a fragile time in the business. It seems like they have reached an agreement, which is wonderful. I hope all IATSE members are happy with what they’ve negotiated.

This is an especially tricky one, trickier even than SAG or the Writers Guild or the Directors Guild, in part because IATSE itself is comprised of so many different sorts of people. It’s an all-purpose trade craft union. It represents a lot of different folks who do a lot of different jobs on movie sets and TV sets and stuff like that. To find an agreement that satisfies everyone is a very difficult task.

I don’t know if you’ve talked to folks about it. Anecdotally, the folks that I’ve talked to seem to generally be pretty happy with what was achieved. Is that your experience too?

**John:** That is my experience. As we’re recording this just yesterday, the full details came out, so I don’t know that people had a lot of time to parse every little bit of things. But let’s talk through some of the top line stuff that they’ve told us.

If you’re on a set and you’re working more than 15 elapsed hours, you move into triple time. This is an effort to combat the endless days of production. It’s a bigger penalty if you move into 15 hours. Now, there’s been some push back saying 15 hours, it still means that you’re working crews 15 hours. That’s still the problem. There was a desire for a hard cap on the hours, and they didn’t get that. But triple time should incentivize, hopefully, productions to stop at a certain sane hour.

There’s new protections around artificial intelligence. Obviously, that’s a thing we’re very focused on in the WGA negotiations. There’s new language that says that employees cannot be required to provide AI prompts in a manner that would displace a covered employee. That sounds complicated. But it was always going to be complicated with such a broad cross section of members who were doing this stuff. The AI concerns of an editor are not the same as the AI concerns of costume designer or a production artist. They’re all doing very different things. As a general solution, maybe this is helpful. Have you talked to any folks about the AI concerns here?

**Mike:** Yes. Your point is well taken, because just as one example, I’m finishing a show now that I did for Netflix. It’ll be on in November, I think. I was talking to one of our sound engineers. We’ve recorded a scene at Pier 39 in San Francisco, famous location in San Francisco where sea lions come and they hang out on these docks. It’s very cute. The problem with sea lions when they gather en masse is that they bark a lot and they make recording dialogue extremely difficult.

We looked at the first version of the scene, and it was nearly inaudible. Two actors are talking, and all you hear is “arr arr arr arr” in the background. I was like, “Oh my god, we’re screwed. We’ll never be able to use this.” The sound engineer, he’s like, “Give me four hours,” and sent it back, and it was completely audible and the sea lions were gone. I said, “How did that happen?” He was like, “We have tools for that now.” Those tools essentially are AI tools. It’s like this extremely powerful computerized program that finds the wave form of a certain sound, combs through the track, and removes it.

There are aspects of AI that these folks use in different capacities in different jobs that are wonderful, that are beneficial to productions, that help everybody. They help actors. They help writers. They help productions. Then there are ones that are meant to essentially replace those people. The idea of trying to legislate at this moment in a time a rule or a series of rules that does nothing but help and doesn’t hurt is a very tall order.

Again, we are just now going over the details of this agreement, but it appears that what IATSE has done is not that different from what we did in the WGA, which is to say we tried to put up some guardrails, we tried to put up some fences that loosely captured what it was that we were trying to preserve, and largely kept out what we were trying to keep out.

In places where it’s impossible to get granular and really pin down exactly what we’re talking about, we just reserved our right to continue to fight in the future. That is a huge key. That was a huge key for us in the WGA negotiations was that the staff did so much work in crafting language that essentially reserved our rights to continue to try to legislate what we thought needed to be legislated. It appears to me, at least from first glance, that that’s what IATSE did as well. Is that your read on the situation?

**John:** It is. Earlier this summer, I was at a conference in Italy, and I was on a panel talking about AI. I was the lone voice, weirdly, who had to defend, like, okay, we need to make sure that the AI that’s coming online is being used by workers rather than to replace workers. It sounds like that what’s they’re trying to go for here. Your example with the sea lions is exactly that. We want to make sure that this is a technology that’s being used in the furtherance of a person’s career and profession rather than to replace that person or profession.

One of the things I try to always underline when I talk about AI things is I try not to use the word tool, because tool is a positive term. No one is anti-hammer. But tools can be used as weapons. That’s why I always try to make sure that I’m saying technology, because technology is a more neutral term, and recognize that you can use technologies for good means or for bad means.

As people who are negotiating on behalf of workers, you want to make sure these technologies are being used by the workers in the furtherance of their job. It feels like that was the spirit of these AI protections. Again, language similar to the WGA, in the sense of they cannot require you to use AI technologies, and they may prohibit you from using some of these AI technologies, because they’re concerned about things like copyright infringement. Just like as we get into in our Bonus Segment, that’s going to be a real worry.

If one of their concerns is going to be like, okay, what if a director or a production designer uses one of these technologies to generate some image? That image ends up becoming ruled as being infringing on copyright. Yikes. There’s all these concerns they have too.

**Mike:** For the record, I am deeply anti-hammer. Nothing good has ever happened with a use of hammer.

**John:** Mike, your position as being team screwdriver is really well known. This is where it’s gonna go from here on out. Like all negotiations, they got wage increases, so percentage increases on the basic rates that go up. Theirs matched pretty close to what SAG-AFTRA got, which is great. It’s a bigger bump in the first year, smaller in the next two years. They got additional money for their health plan, which is important. Their streaming residuals, it’s important to understand, doesn’t go to the person itself. It goes to fund the underlying health fund, which is important. Keep them solvent.

**Mike:** I have heard a couple folks say that there was some ongoing debate and maybe a little bit of dissatisfaction – and I hope I’m not speaking out of turn here – regarding specific details of the VFX editors wing of IATSE. This is a big thing, because obviously, there are entire movies now that are essentially being made through the hard work and labor of visual effects editors.

I don’t think I can speak authoritatively about what exactly they got and what they didn’t get. That I would assume though will be something that is revisited in pretty much every IATSE negotiation going forward, because I don’t think that VFX editing is going to get less important over time in the movie industry specifically. But again, in the handful of folks that I’ve spoken to who are covered by IATSE, some costume designers, some hair and makeup folks, some editors, people generally seem to be pleased with the gains that were made, which is wonderful. I hope that that’s not a non-representative sample of the membership. I hope that most of the folks…

Like in anything else in the WGA, negotiations, for example, in SAG, there are always going to be some folks who end up feeling like they didn’t quite get what everybody else got. I think that’s doubly or triply so for IATSE, because again, you’re talking about grip and craft service and art directors and costumers and all sorts – studio teachers is one thing – groups covered by IATSE at all of these different individual important parts of the engine that drives the locomotive.

The thing that people should understand about IATSE is these groups of people are all individually vital to a production. It’s very hard to imagine making – take your pick – Bridgerton without costume designers. That’s not possible. It’s very hard to imagine making the Three Body Problem without video effects designers. Individually, all of these people are absolutely vital. It’s just that they are all collected into one union, and so it’s going to be very difficult at any moment for IATSE to reach an agreement that every group of people feels that their needs are addressed.

But importantly, it feels like this was a big step forward for them, especially compared to previous negotiations they’ve had that have left I think more people dissatisfied with the result than are currently dissatisfied with this one. Congrats to them again.

**John:** There are people out there who are trying to sell the narrative that the WGA strike and the SAG-AFTRA strike were basically giant wealth transfers from hardworking writers and industry people to Netflix and to AI, and that what should’ve happened is that the WGA should’ve partnered up with the studios to take on the AI companies, and it was idiotic to have ever gone on strike. Your opinion there, Mike?

**Mike:** A couple things. First of all, I think IATSE would be the first to say that a large reason that they got what they got was because of the strikes, because the WGA and SAG drew a line in the sand and said we’re not going to just take these minimal gains in the basic salaries of our employees, but rather, we’re going to fundamentally try to shift the way that studios think about compensating the labor who work for them. It’s a completely false read to say, “Look, IATSE did it. Why couldn’t you guys do it?” Because IATSE did it, because we did it. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is partnering with the studios to do anything is a pipe dream. It’s not like the studios are like, “Guys, please, I beg you, come partner with us to take on AI companies.” It’s quite the opposite. The studios are deeply interested in AI, for a number of reasons, some sinister and some not sinister, which I think you and I both learned.

I would say for those of you listening out there, John was the AI expert, so to speak, of the WGA negotiation committee. You were the guy I think who understood what AI was and how it was positioned to affect us as a union, and all unions, better than anybody. We all took our lead from you. I was very grateful for that. I think you educated a lot of us over the course of many months about what exactly AI was and what it was trying to do.

AI went from a thing – when we first got together to discuss our agenda, it was 23rd on the list of things that we felt was important. There were a lot more big, famous problems. So-called mini rooms were a huge problem in television. Free work was a huge problem for screenwriters. Minimum guarantees of duration was a huge thing for late-night and variety writers. Then 23rd on the list was like, hey, we should do something about AI. By the time I’d say we were deep into negotiations, right around the time when negotiations fell apart, most of us in the committee had come around to a position of like, oh, wait, AI is maybe the most important thing, or at least it’s a top five issue I think facing labor.

Part of the reason for that was that we came to realize through those negotiations how much it mattered to the studios. That was something that I don’t think we totally understood. But we were told flatly, “Stay away from this. Guys, don’t try to do anything with AI. That’s a nonstarter.” When your adversary in negotiations says don’t try to do anything with this issue, that’s how you know it’s a really important issue.

The idea that it is as simple as labor unions saying to studios, their employers, “Hey, let’s wrap our arms around each other and take on this other adversary,” that’s absurd. That’s such a facile way to try to understand the role that AI is playing in the world and in Hollywood in particular. That’s not an option.

It’s not an option to go to the studios and say, “Look, I know that we’re on opposite sides of a lot of issues here, but why don’t we team up and fight these companies against their advancements in AI,” because the studios are deeply interested and invested, financially and otherwise, in what AI might be able to do for them. The whole point of our approach in the AI negotiations was to say, “Hey, if we don’t do something about this, this is what will replace us.” Anyone who believes that it was as simple as us teaming up with studios to fight the advancement of artificial intelligence does not understand what is happening in the world right now.

**John:** I’m not quite sure what the name for the logical fallacy is. It’s not a straw man, but it’s things should just magically be different, basically like, “Oh, you guys should’ve done this thing, which I don’t know if it’s completely impossible or not, but that’s what you should’ve done.” It’s like, “Oh, okay, great, we’ll do that thing that’s actually not even a possible thing. That’s what we will do.”

**Mike:** It is at least adjacent to the content of a straw man, because you’re basically just saying, “Why didn’t you just do X.” It’s like, because X is not possible. That’s why. The one thing that I will say about the Writers Guild staff, which is a tireless group of people who are largely anonymous even to WGA members, but whose only purpose in life is to protect writers and help writers get what they deserve, is that in the years of study that went into the negotiation in 2023, they did not miss something as simple as, “What if we team up with the studios to [inaudible 00:16:49] AI?” I promise you that in all of the if-then scenarios that they worked out, that was not available to us as an option. Saying, “Why didn’t you just do that?” is very silly.

**John:** Absolutely. I think the other criticism I’ve seen about the WGA and “the strike was a mistake” was about this was a terrible time to go on strike, because the industry was going through a change and transition, and so you just made it easier for them to make the cuts that they wanted to make, and the idea that you’ve hastened the inevitable thing that was going to happen. You can’t hasten inevitability. It’s a weird place to land. It’s like, yes, things are going through a transition, and that’s probably why it’s very important to take a strong stand and defend what you can.

**Mike:** Of course. The number of things that contributed to what has happened to the industry in the last five years is large. It’s a large number of things. COVID, for example.

**John:** Oh, god.

**Mike:** If anything hastened anything, it was COVID, in my opinion. There was an out-of-control land grab that was going on where these companies were all starting their own streamers and they were all making this transition from over-the-air broadcasting or cable broadcasting to try owning all of their content in perpetuity in every territory on earth. In order to do that, they had to build up their libraries. In order to build up their libraries, they had to throw a ton of money at a ton of people to try to make a ton of stuff very quickly. Then COVID hit, and it really shook everything up.

One person I remember I talked to, a high-placed industry type person I was talking to right after COVID started, and I said, “What does this mean for us?” This person said, “It means Netflix wins forever.” The reason that they said that was that Netflix had a lead in the race. Disney Plus was racing to try to catch up. But in the race to be essentially everyone’s number one option for entertainment, they had such a huge lead. Then when COVID hit and everyone had to stay in their houses, the other companies hadn’t yet been able to get to the point where they had the same amount of stuff that Netflix did. As a result, everyone watched Netflix, and Netflix became even more indispensable to people’s lives.

That one thing that no union had control over led to the companies really taking a step back and saying, “Okay, wait a second. Are we gonna ever be able to beat them? Should we even be trying to beat them? Can we find another niche or another avenue that we can drive down in terms of making our in-house streamer more viable or more attractive to people?” Not to mention the fact that also coinciding with that was all production stopped for a very long time.

The same kind of person who says, “Why didn’t you just partner with the studios in order to team up against AI?” would probably say something like, “Why didn’t you guys just stop COVID? If you had just stopped COVID, then-”

**John:** 100 percent.

**Mike:** There were things that were completely out of anyone’s control, including the studios and networks. The correction that was happening was already deep into its history by the time that we were even able to begin negotiating. It’s also worth saying that a lot of the stuff that the Guild tried to do and accomplished in 2023, our original plan was to do it in 2020. We went into that negotiation saying, “Look, things are already changing. Because they’re already changing and we see where this is going, we need to make some moves here.” Then COVID hit. You can’t go on strike when you’re not allowed to leave your house and collect in large areas and have big discussions when there’s no cure for a very deadly disease that everyone’s afraid of.

Both WGA and I think SAG did what we did as quickly and efficiently as we possibly could have. It is not the case that there was an easy alternative to what we did either temporally or structurally. I was and will always be very proud of the union and proud of SAG and all of the other unions that fought for what we fought for. I don’t believe that there was any strategic mistake in what we did, in terms of when we did it or how we did it.

There’s always going to be naysayers or folks who look back and go, “You just should’ve done this.” But the number of moving parts here, the number of variables and difficult-to-control aspects of this situation that we all found ourselves in was so numerous, so enormous, that any reading of what we did, what all of the unions did, that falls into the category of like, “Why didn’t you just do X?” is just facile and unhelpful.

**John:** 100 percent. I think as listeners are hearing people give the, “They should’ve just,” or, “This was a mistake,” or, “This cost the industry X number of dollars,” just remember these were necessary things that were done in the time they needed to be done, and the gains that were made last for the next 50 years. Yes, there was short-term pain, and the pain was real. The strike lasted as long as it did because the studios chose to not come to the table and make a deal. That doesn’t mean you can just magically wave it all away. There were real, important things to be fighting for. Most of the things we fought for, we ended up winning.

**Mike:** That’s another important part of it, I think, is part of those arguments amount to, “Here’s how much you lost, and here’s how long it will take you to recoup it.” That is a classic management-side argument for why unions should never strike is, “You’re just gonna lose this and it’s gonna take you that long to get it back.” That’s true. That’s 100 percent true. The point is if you don’t give up those contemporary gains for future gains, that’s in some ways-

**John:** We would have no residuals. We would have no health plan. All of the things we have are-

**Mike:** All of the stuff we had were because people made short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. It’s a classic argument made by the folks who own stuff to the folks who don’t. That’s what they say is, “You’re just gonna lose all this money right now.”

I’m a big sports fan. I know folks who have worked in the management of sports unions. I talked to them a lot during the buildup to the strike and also during the strike about the similarities and differences. One of the things that I was told repeatedly was, one of the reasons it’s so hard, for example, for the NFL players union to go on strike is that NFL careers are so short. The average NFL career is a year and a half long. Guys wash out. They get hurt. They wash out of the league instantly. They’re always being replaced every year by younger guys because that sport is so brutal. A huge reason that it’s hard for them to have a massive labor action is that what you’re going to give up in terms of what you’re gonna have in the future, that could be literally the entirety of the earnings potential of a significant part of your union. It’s a much bigger problem.

It’s always a problem for a union. Always. The pain is real. The pain that was suffered by Writers Guild members was real. We knew it was real. We knew how serious it was. We thought about that probably more than anything else, I would say, while we were negotiating. But unlike NFL players, hopefully a writer’s career is more than one and a half years long, which is what it is in the NFL.

That was our job and the job of leadership was to weigh those things against each other, to say is it worth the pain, the real pain, the potential loss of apartments and houses or cars or people having to move or having to get other jobs? All that stuff that was very, very real and very painful, we’re weighing that now against what we want the union to get out of the next 25, 35, 50, 75 years. It’s a very difficult calculation to make. The Guild what not have done what it did unless we really felt like it was worth it.

**John:** In addition to sometimes calling for strikes, WGA also does things in between those periods, including going after people who violate the MBA. An announcement this past week that the WGA reached a settlement for a total of $3 million for 24 affected writers for CBS shows who were having writers doing writing work, covered Article 14 work, during times in which their writers’ rooms were officially closed.

This is a thing that the Guild does all the time. They’ve collected more than $100 million through enforcement of the contract over the past two and a half years. This is just another example of going after situations where writers come to the Guild and say, “Hey, they’re having me do this stuff. They’re saying it’s not covered work because the writers’ room’s closed.” The Guild won here.

**Mike:** I don’t understand why we didn’t just partner with the studios to get this money more easily.

**John:** Exactly. We could put up a phone call, say, “Hey, guys.”

**Mike:** “Guys.”

**John:** “You really should be paying them for this. You should be paying their weekly pay, their pension, their health, the parental leave contributions you owe. You should really be paying these things.”

**Mike:** I do a presentation every year at the Writers Guild Showrunners program, which is a wonderful program that helps people who are maybe just about to take over their first show or have recently become a showrunner for the first time. It amounts to just epigrammatic wisdom that has been passed to me from all of the people I’ve worked for and with over the years or spoken to.

One of the things that I like to say is that you need to think at all times when you’re a showrunner about to whom you are loyal. You have a loyalty to your show and the characters in that show and the writers who work with you and for you. You need to be loyal to the studio that’s paying you and the network that’s airing your show. But also, you need to be loyal to your union.

By the way, the point of this is sometimes those loyalties come into conflict in that moment of decision that you need to make about, “Where is my loyalty right now at this moment? Is it to my employees? To my studio? To my network?” Whatever.

The reason I add the union into the equation – there are many reasons, but one of them is decisions like this, because without maybe knowing it directly, or without closely following it, the union has your back all the time. It is constantly doing things like they just did, which is to say identifying places in which the studios have cheaped out, have tried to skirt the rules, have gone through the back door and are trying to get work out of you and your fellow writers that they’re not paying for.

I don’t even blame them. You don’t blame a snake in the wild for attacking its prey. That is just what it’s designed to do. These companies are designed. Their only loyalty is to their shareholders, really. They’re a capitalistic entity, like a company. Its only job is to figure out how to make more money and spend less money. They’re constantly probing and testing at the boundaries of what they’re contractually obligated to do, and figuring out ways to not spend money.

The union is the safeguard against that. That’s why we have a union is for things like this, where this staff put together this incredibly difficult presentation and arbitration case to say, “This is what they’ve done. This is why it’s not legal. This is how much they owe us.”

At the end of the day, it’s really wild. If you look at it, it’s one company – one of the many companies that employ writers – owed $3 million for this one thing. This is one aspect of the MBA that they were skirting, and it’s $3 million. $3 million for CBS, Paramount, whatever they are now, Skydance, I suppose, that’s a rounding error. That’s an accounting error on their annual report. But for the writers-

**John:** 24 affected writers. It’s not gonna divide evenly between them, but that’s serious money.

**Mike:** That’s serious money. That’s yearly income that makes an enormous difference in the lives of them and their children and their partners and their lives. Again, the reason that folks in this guild have to remember and keep in their brains that they are loyal to their union is because this is the function, the raison d’être of the union, is to find these places where writers are getting screwed and try to unscrew them. It’s really wonderful. Congratulations to the staff and the Guild in general.

**John:** These 24 affected writers first off may not have been aware that they were owed this money. But individually, they had no leverage to get this money. Their agencies weren’t gonna be able to get this money for them. Their managers couldn’t get this money for them. That’s the job of the union is to say, “Here’s the contract. This is the violation. Pay up.”

**Mike:** Yeah, and they did. The great thing about decisions like this, or the Bird Box decision, which was another huge win for the Guild in terms of money being denied screenwriters, is that now there’s precedent. Now, it becomes much easier to go to the other companies that are trying to pull similar shenanigans and say, “Listen, we know what you’re doing. We fought it once. Here’s what happened. Just don’t fight this. Don’t pretend like you’re not doing this. We know you’re doing it. Here’s how it played out. In the other case, save the money that you’re gonna give to your lawyers and just instead give that money to the writers like you should’ve the first time.”

**John:** Absolutely. You hinted at it, but the other big news of this past week is that Skydance has apparently purchased Paramount. The deal is so complicated. I’ve read a couple of explainers talking about how Skydance bought National Amusements, and based on voting shares and who has voting stock and non-voting stock, and there are three steps they have to go through. You have to close your eyes and turn around four times. But at the end of this, Skydance Corporation will in theory own Paramount, CBS, Viacom, which I think to me is really good news.

Of all the outcomes of this, I was happiest about this. I want to make sure that the Paramount brand stays. I want to make sure that not just the mountain logo but the idea of what Paramount is continues. It feels like this was the best way to see that happen.

**Mike:** I totally agree. Paramount is iconic in this town. It’s where Peewee Herman ended up in Peewee’s Big Adventure. It’s in Hollywood proper, which I think symbolically matters. It’s right on Melrose. Those gates are iconic.

**John:** Those gates in front of which you and I both picketed quite a lot. We had many conversations in front of the gates of Paramount.

**Mike:** We did. That was our home base during the strike. But I think more than symbolically important, this is important because among the many scenarios that we heard as possibilities were an extant studio buying Paramount and just folding it into – is Warner Bros gonna somehow borrow even more money and buy Paramount? Is Comcast gonna buy Paramount? Whatever.

The reason that that would have been worse is because consolidation is bad for labor. Consolidation means that there are fewer individual places who have the means and opportunity to buy scripts from screenwriters and from TV writers. Skydance, which has been their partner on some of their biggest movie franchises in their history, Top Gun and Transformers and-

**John:** Mission Impossible.

**Mike:** … Mission Impossible and stuff like that – the fact that Skydance is actually the company that’s buying them means that they stay an option, another option. It’s hard enough right now to sell anything, a TV show or a movie or anything. If Paramount had essentially been absorbed by one of the other places that buys stuff, that just means there’s one fewer place that buys stuff.

The independence of Paramount as a buyer and the installation of showbiz veteran types to run it would send the message of like, “We’re in the business of Hollywood. We are gonna keep buying stuff and making stuff.” That is only good for the writers and actors and directors and IATSE members who are hoping to have viable careers in the industry.

**John:** I’m excited to see what’s next. I’m excited to keep Paramount around as a company, as a brand, but also as a buyer, as you said, because it’s not a theoretical example. When Disney bought Fox, a bunch of people lost their jobs, but we also lost a major buyer. Yes, there are still things that are put out under the Fox brand. Great. But it’s not the same. We’ve lost a huge place to develop stuff.

**Mike:** You could argue that we lost more than one, because when Disney bought Fox, we lost Fox in general, but also Hulu became completely controlled by Disney-

**John:** Totally.

**Mike:** … where it hadn’t been before. I would have to think back, but I’m sure there were projects that I took out to the marketplace where I pitched individually to Disney, Fox, and Hulu, and then suddenly all three of those were one thing. You’re pitching just to Disney. If they want to buy it, they might say, “This is good for Fox network,” or, “This is good for Hulu,” or, “This is good for Disney Plus.” But it’s all one person. If that one company decided they didn’t want to buy it, it took three options off the table. That is nothing but bad.

**John:** I remember going back even further, there used to be a brand called Fox 2000. I remember projects which we pitched to Fox, Fox 2000, and Fox Searchlight. The fact that they’re all folded into one amorphous mass now is not good. The more buyers, the better.

**Mike:** Exactly. I’m happy, happy, happy that this worked out the way it did.

**John:** Drew, let’s have you hop on for a second, because I wanted you to talk about Weekend Read, because you are the person, along with Jonathan Wigdortz, who’s been assembling the scripts for people to read in Weekend Read. For folks who are not familiar with it, Weekend Read is the app our company makes for reading scripts on your phone. Makes it handy. But what you do, Drew, is pulling together a list of new scripts every week on a theme for people to read if they’ve not had a chance to read these scripts. Tell us about what you put into Weekend Read this week.

**Drew Marquardt:** This week’s theme is Frankenstein’s monster. I was thinking about all the different iterations of that myth or character. We have, of course, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Young Frankenstein, but also Edward Scissorhands and Poor Things and Ex Machina, Stranger Things, Rocky Horror, Weird Science, all that good stuff.

**John:** Fantastic. If people want to read these, Weekend Read is in app store. Just download it on your phone. Also works on iPad. You can take a look at all these scripts, which is great.

Drew, while we have you, last week on the show we asked if any of our listeners were experienced WordPress developers, because we were having a problem with the Scrippets plugin we use on johnaugust.com. Sometimes we want to put little short snippets of scripts in a blog post, and we developed this thing called Scrippets, which is no longer working within most recent versions. You guys are of course fantastic as always. We got, what, six or seven people write in to help us out.

**Drew:** Maybe more. Maybe a dozen.

**John:** We are good. We have solved the problem. Thank you to everybody who wrote in. You guys are the best. We have the plugin fixed. I want to thank again our tremendous listeners for getting that figured out.

Let’s do some more follow-up here. Back in Episode 646 we talked about script revisions. Drew, can you help us out with what our writer said here.

**Drew:** Unlocking the ADs wrote, “I’m producing an indie feature right now. As we’re shifting from blue pages to pink, lo and behold, the writer director did not lock the script pages when they made revisions over the weekend. So the second AD is kvetching, ‘In the production trailer, the pages won’t line up. Everyone’s gonna have to get a whole new script.’ I tried to broach the subject. ‘But aren’t the scene numbers still the same? Does it actually matter if the page numbers change? Who uses the actual page numbers?’ Needless to say, I got my head bitten off by the whole AD team, because it’s the way it’s done. However, I didn’t get an answer as to why it’s the way it’s done, and certainly no answer as to who uses the page numbers. If or when this comes up again, how can I approach this to try and convince some folks stuck in their way?”

**John:** Mike Schur, let me get you up to speed. When Craig was on the podcast most recently, we were talking about locked pages. Craig said that he is done with locked pages and that he believes that we should just stop doing that. For next season of The Last of Us, he says, “We’re not gonna lock pages anymore.” You just finished production. I assume you had locked pages. You were a traditional show. Tell us about that. I saw your reaction there when I said not lock pages. Tell me what you’re thinking.

**Mike:** I don’t know what it’s like in the movie world. In the TV world-

**John:** We lock pages in film too.

**Mike:** Right, but what I was gonna say is, I don’t know how you feel about it. I feel Craig here, because it’s basically this aspect of getting scripts to the set to be actually produced, where when you make a change, you end up with… Let’s say when you lock a script, you make a change. You add a back and forth in the middle of the scene. You end up with this weird thing where there’s one line and the rest of the page is completely blank.

**John:** With a giant Sharpie X across it to really show that it’s blank.

**Mike:** Yeah. It has always been a mystery to me of what the big advantage is. It has been explained to me before by ADs and by script coordinators. I have at various times been like, “Okay, yeah, I guess I understand what that means.” But it makes everything look chaotic to me, and odd. You end up with a lot of pages of different colors mixed into these scripts. It makes things look more – I don’t know if the word is unprofessional, but it makes it look like someone made a mistake.

**John:** Exactly.

**Mike:** It is one of these “this is the way things have always been done” old saws that you hear about all the time. I can’t argue for it. I really can’t. You should have a script coordinator or an AD come on and make the argument for locked pages. But to my mind, it seems like it creates more confusion than it does clarity.

I will say this though, to argue the other side. My first job was at Saturday Night Live. There was a Microsoft Word template that we use to make our scripts. That was a huge improvement over the previous version, which had been that writers in the early ’90s wrote their sketches longhand and then gave them to assistants who then typed them into the format. Writers in the early ’90s apparently didn’t even have computers in their offices. By the time I got there in ’98, we at least had computers in our offices. We all had this really primitive Microsoft Word template that we used.

There was this bananas system, because you talk about a show with a lot of changes. There’s changes happening 10 minutes before a sketch is made. The process by which we made changes in scripts or rewrote scripts or then handed those scripts to the script coordinators and script assistants, who then went over those changes with the cue card folks, it was so primitive and so bad. It was like, “Please, someone has to change this.”

The argument not to change it was, this show is chaotic by its nature. We have all learned this system, and this system, just barely, works. To change it or to try to improve it, the stakes of it were so high, because if it didn’t work on the season premier and everything was chaos and the cue cards didn’t get written properly, then it’s live TV, and everything would fall apart. The argument not to change it was, “Look, it’s not perfect, but everybody knows what this is and everybody functions with this system in place. And so we’d rather leave it in place than change it and risk complete collapse of the system.”

I don’t know if that’s why we do it this way still or whether an AD or a script coordinator would tell us right now, “No, you guys are idiots. This is the real benefit of this.” I don’t know which of those things is true, but one of them is true, or perhaps both.

**John:** So many things to respond to here. First let’s talk with Saturday Night Live, because we had Simon Rich on the show this last week, and he was talking about his time on Saturday Night Live, which I think was after yours. My belief is that the current system in Saturday Night Live is that they’re using Final Draft for most of the show, but the Weekend Update segment is being done in Scripto, which is the system that’s used to do a lot of late-night shows. Colbert actually I think owns or is an investor in Scripto. That’s the online-only software for writing that stuff, because basically, it’s like a big Google doc where everyone can throw in on the same thing. That segment is written in there.

But then as we look at normal scripted film and television, I really wonder whether we’re keeping this metaphor of colored pages, because they’re not really colored pages anymore and locking pages from a physical paper type of universe. We’re trying to drive this into this digital world that we’re in, because Craig says on his show there are no printed scripts. Everything is always a digital thing just for security purposes.

I really think we could probably break with this. Would it be an adjustment? Yeah, but I think we’d come out the other side better and we’d actually save money and save time, and there’d be less confusion rather than more confusion. I really think we can do it, because even the script supervisors, maybe some of them are still using paper, but from what I’ve heard, they’re all using iPad version stuff that they’re using to track what’s actually being done.

**Mike:** This show that I just finished the first season of on Netflix was the first time that I, when we would rehearse a scene, almost all of the actors who had scripts that they were referring to had them on iPads. A lot of the writers, most of whom at this point are way younger than I am, are following them on iPads and making notes on their iPads.

It was the first time that it really felt to me like I am officially a dinosaur, because I can’t do it that way. It’s too deeply ingrained in me. I have to be holding a script. I have to be able to flip pages. I have to be able to make notes on a piece of paper. Now, it should be noted in other areas of my life. I refuse to read books on a Kindle. It’s very hard for me to read on my phone. Just too many years of physical paper to make this change now. Just put me on a raft and shove me off the shore and let me float away and die, is the way I feel.

But when I saw the actors using the iPads to keep track of what they wanted to do, that was when I felt like we have crossed the Rubicon here. We are now fully in a digital world on the physical set of the show. It did make me feel like the idea of like, “Hey, can someone print out copies of these changes I just made and get them to me?” was extremely antiquated. I might as well have been saying, “Could you please shovel a shovel full of coal into the steam engine so the locomotive can move down the tracks?”

I think you’re right. I think that we’re probably two years away from most productions saying, “This is pointless. Why are we printing out these pages? Why are we locking these pages at all? Why aren’t we just refreshing the Google doc or the Scripto doc or the Final Draft document?” We’re just gonna text it to everyone, email it to everyone, and then everyone will have it on their individual device. Then we will know definitively. We’ll just timestamp it and everyone will know. “Okay, everyone refer to Scene 326, Version 6.4,” is what we’re doing now. That will probably ultimately be how it lives forever and ever afterwards.

**John:** How do we make this transition happen? I’m wondering whether we could actually just get together a group of showrunners and ADs and maybe some scriptees and other folks who really are affected by this and say, “Hey, what if we were to just actually stop doing this? How would this change your lives? What things do we need to be aware of?” Because maybe there are some aspects of that. I’m always mindful of the Chesterton’s Fence metaphor. Things were built a certain way for a certain reason. Don’t tear down that fence until you know why it was there. But I think we know what the fence was for, and I think we’ve realized we don’t need that fence anymore.

**Mike:** Saving paper is the 1,000th most important benefit of this, but it’s not nothing. Paper does clog up people’s lives. I have in my office still at Universal, stacks and stacks and stacks of scripts that I just don’t need and never really needed. It would’ve been a lot easier. I think probably the reason for the system remaining in place is just stubbornness or habit and that there is a better workflow.

I think it’s probably the case that if the show that I worked on were to go to a second season, I would probably sit down with the ADs and with the scriptees and with everybody, with the actors to some extent, to say, “What’s a better system we can devise? There must be a way that we can all get on the same page here.” The thing is, that better system will still allow – the folks who want to have a paper script can still have a paper script. You can still print out individual scripts. It’s just that the workflow will probably be streamlined a lot with a better, more digital system.

**John:** I’m finishing edits on the Scriptnotes book. One of the things I’m wrestling with is we have a little chapter about rewrites during production and A and B pages and how not to lose your mind doing this. I’m reading these paragraphs like, “Should this even be in there? Should this whole idea just go away?” Because no one benefited from A and B pages. It was a hack for a physical time that we’re just not in anymore.

**Mike:** You’re probably right. It’s a little bit sad, because there is something magical about holding a script in your hand. I honestly think that to me – and this is, by far, not one of the 25 most important aspects of the process – but I really like read-throughs with physical scripts. I think there’s something magical about holding a tangible product in your hand as the rubber meets the road, as it comes out of the theoretical work of the writers’ room and becomes the literal work of the whole staff of people, the actors and all of the department heads and everybody else. I think there’s something wonderful about holding that product in your hand tangibly.

I have this thing I do at the end of every table read. We get to the end, and I say, “End of episode,” or whatever, and everybody claps. I flip back to the front and I write my name on the front, which I started way back at I think Parks and Recreation, because I remember thinking there were so many copies of this script. I had made notes in mine, and I just wanted to write my name on the front, so that I could easily identify it in case it got lost in a shuffle. I get up and I hug people and I shake people’s hands and then I can’t find my script. I just wrote my name on the front right after we were done. I’ve done that every single read through of every single of episode of every single show.

I would be a little bit sad if I were doing that with an Apple Pen, flipping back to page 1 of a doc, of a pdf. But again, that is just habit. That’s not making anyone’s life easier. I think it’s probably time for all of us who live in this dinosaur age that I live in to give up on some of the little traditions or habits or whatever you call them, to make the workflow go a little easier for everybody.

**John:** Let’s get to our main topic for today, which is rewriting and overwriting. This comes from a friend of the show. Drew, would you mind reading this for us?

**Drew:** “I’m rewriting a project, and I am resistant, not because I don’t want to write more, but because I’m not sure that the rewrite is going to be better. It’ll just be different. How do you weigh that? I’ve watched a couple friends who have producers attached to projects, and they’ve taken on so much feedback that at this point in their rewrites, I’m like, this has lost the pacing and weirdness of your voice. It feels overwritten. In TV I’ve been in writers’ rooms where there’s also this balance of, we’ll write this thing for the executives and take it out later. So sometimes overwriting seems strategic. I’m curious to hear your take on how you’d weigh that as creators.”

**John:** Overwriting. I’ve definitely felt this in my own drafts at times. I’ve felt this in other people’s drafts too. I haven’t gone through and produced a lot of people’s stuff that wasn’t my own. But in looking at people trying to incorporate notes sometimes, they’re both trying to incorporate the new notes and preserve everything else that was in there. You just feel like a bunch of stuff is wedged in there that is not helping to serve the story. Mike, do you see this in TV happening too?

**Mike:** This is a huge thing in TV. Yes. A couple different things are being raised, I think, by this question. The easiest one to address is the thing of, “We’ll write this in for the executives and take it out later.” That’s not overwriting to me. That is strategic management of your relationship with your studio or your executives. I think that’s a separate issue.

The overwriting thing is a real problem. I think one of the most important skills you can learn as a writer and as a showrunner is the art of the surgical fix. Most of the lessons that I’ve learned about writing came from The Office, which was my first sitcom job.

I worked for Greg Daniels, who is a true genius of the genre. He’s got an enormous, juicy brain. He’s the guy who sees the matrix code of scrips and of storytelling. But he also has this thing where he would become fixated on a problem in a script and he would spiral. He would be like, “Oh, no, we’ve ruined this somehow. We did this. This character’s motivation is unclear,” or, “The plot doesn’t make any sense if you have this scene in it, because this is what the characters are going through.” Sometimes he would get so spirally that he would just lie down on the floor, and on the dirty, disgusting carpet of the office we were in.

There was this one moment in particular where we did a readthrough and it went really well, but this one piece of the story was, I would say, overwritten. There was too much stuff in it. He was a character who had a motivation. I don’t remember the details. There was a character who had a specific storyline, a specific motivation. We had written in this scene for this character where he was saying something to someone else that muddied that motivation. There was too much going on. We had added too much stuff.

Greg was really freaked out by it. It was late on a Thursday night. We were starting to shoot it on Monday. It was like, “Oh, god.” We were all texting our husbands and wives and loved ones and saying, “I don’t think I’m coming home for dinner.” Greg was expounding out loud, as he lay on the floor, the exact specific reasons why this scene was screwing up the story. I was like, “Oh, boy, we’re really screwed. We’re going to be here forever.”

Then I said out loud – and I thought I was being stupid – I was like, “What if we just cut those two lines?” There was a beat, and then Greg was like, “Yeah, I think that’ll work.” He just popped back up and he went into the script and he cut the two lines that we were fixated on. I was like, “Oh, okay. Thank god.” The surgical fix is a key weapon for writers, especially in TV, because I think a lot of overwriting comes with good intentions.

**John:** Totally.

**Mike:** You are trying to make everything really clear to the audience. Especially in comedy, clarity is vitally important. People have to know what the characters are thinking and feeling and why they’re doing what they’re doing in order for the jokes to land. Sometimes when you add a bunch of stuff to try to make it more clear why they’re doing what they’re doing, you end up with a bunch of just muddy, mushy stuff that actually does the exact opposite. The surgical fix, the, “Wait, these six words in the middle of this sentence are making everything muddy and stupid,” and if we just remove them, then you’ll breathe a sigh of relief, because the scene will flow so much better.

The fix to an overwritten scene, in my experience, can often be fixed with a good analysis of what’s wrong and a surgical strike on the dialogue. That’s my instinct every time I feel like something is overwritten, is to try to say, “What are the clauses or phrases or sentences that are making us feel this way, and what happens if we just remove them?” Very frequently, that seems to be the answer to how to fix it.

**John:** As a feature writer, a lot of times I’ll get a script for a rewrite, and it has been through multiple writers before. One of the things I’ll notice is it’s overwritten because the writers before me, with very good intentions, were trying to address the notes and problems of the script that they were handed, what they were being told to fix and to rewrite. They’re addressing those problems, but those problems aren’t the problems of the script right now. There’s all this digital crap in there that can just go away. What I’d love to be able to do is just go through and do a clean pass that just takes away all this cruft that’s built up over the months or years or drafts that this script has been around. When I give the script to the people, like, “Oh my god, this reads so much better.” It’s like, “Yes, because I took out all your dumb notes from all the previous drafts, because they were not important.”

Especially I think in feature land, so often you’re doing a rewrite, you’re doing a polish, you want to show how much work you’ve done. You’re making changes that show the work you’ve done, because literally, it makes a little star in the margin to show, “Look how much I did.” Often, the stuff that you’re doing is not actually really improving stuff. It’s just adding. When you talking about removing clauses, removing sentences, in a lot of cases I’m removing scenes that just don’t need to be there anymore. They’re repetitive. They’re not speaking into the actual story we’re trying to tell.

When it’s your turn and when you’re getting notes to address a thing, I really look for what are ways to do things in a better or different way that’s not adding stuff to it. How do you make sure that you’re best addressing both the note and what the movie wants to be, which could mean scrapping that scene that you have and doing a different scene actually to use these goals, rather than trying to graft on this idea to a scene that really wasn’t built to support it. It’s being smart. You say surgical, but sometimes it’s just rebuilding a thing so it can actually support this note, rather than trying to adapt what’s there.

**Mike:** There’s two things that I think are really important. One of them is, there’s different kinds of overwritten. The kind that you’re talking about is a bunch of different people have given a bunch of different notes, and a bunch of different people have then gone in and tried to address those notes. As a result, you get this mish-mosh of stuff.

The question that kicked off this discussion is that sometimes those rewrites, those endless patches that people have put onto scenes, have made it so that it doesn’t seem like there’s a voice in the script. You don’t get the sense that this is the result of a person’s idea or work. Those rough edges, those uniquenesses, are what can often make the difference between a movie that you as a viewer love and respond to emotionally and make you feel something, and a movie that feels like a processed hot dog that’s just bland and mushy and not very interesting.

Look, different movies have different objectives and goals. If you’re making a $300 million summer blockbuster, the goal isn’t to celebrate the uniqueness of the artist’s voice. The goal is to just make a giant, loud, fun, entertaining thing. But the movies that I think we as viewers really just connect with or respond to are the ones where it feels like, wow, one specific person did this one specific idea and executed it.

I don’t know, I think of Nicole Holofcener’s movies, which I love. No one can write a Nicole Holofcener movie except Nicole Holofcener. Part of the reason is because there are rhythms and specificities to her voice that make it unique. If someone came in and took a Nicole Holofcener movie and took a bunch of notes from the studio and addressed them, it would just smooth everything out and make it bland. There’s that kind of rewriting or undoing of overwriting, which is like, let’s try to get back to the feeling that this is a unique idea from a unique artist.

There’s another thing that happens in comedy, and it happens in comedy movies. I’ve been a part of a number of comedy movie rewrites. But it happens within writers’ rooms too. The people who are writing jokes for a TV script or a TV movie script when there’s a rewrite, like a round table rewrite, are coming into that process bringing with them the most recent shows that they’ve worked on.

You have a comedy movie, and you get a writers’ room together. The writers’ room has writers from Barry and then The Bear and The Great and whatever, Everybody Loves Raymond, going back as far as you want. When you’re going through a scene and you’re pitching different jokes for a different scene, those writers are going to write jokes in the style of the kinds of shows that they have recently worked on.

As a result, when you sit back and look at the entire script, you’re going to be like, “This is a joke from The Great, and this is a joke from Everybody Loves Raymond, and this is a joke from The Office, and this is a joke from Rick and Morty.” It’s going to have no thematic consistency to the humor. It’s going to be just this crazy hodgepodge of whatever tone and style was the funniest in that moment. Sometimes you’ll see a comedy movie script where that’s the problem. It’s not just that it’s overwritten. It was overwritten by people who had very different senses of humor.

The hardest thing to do as a comedy showrunner, or I would imagine as a comedy screenwriter, is to remove a joke that you know is funny because it doesn’t fit the tone of the project you’re working on. It’s a really hard thing. I have had to defend that decision to a number of writers in TV writers’ rooms over the years, like, “Yes, this joke is funny, but also, it’s tonally off,” or it’s a character-damaging joke. Suddenly, this character takes on a color that we don’t want him or her to, or it just screws something up.

The point of a comedy show isn’t to just make as many jokes as you can, regardless of what their tone or style is. The idea is to have the show feel holistic and feel like there is a singular humorous voice at work. There’s room for variance within that, of course. Part of the real joy of working on a TV writers’ room is that you know Megan Amram is going to write a very different kind of joke from Alan Yang or Andrew Law or Jen Statsky or whoever the person is. But all of those jokes have to feel like they’re part of the same general holistic crew of humor writers. If they don’t, if those jokes are too crazy, then they just shouldn’t be in the script.

A big part of undoing overwriting to me sometimes in comedy rooms is saying, “Is this joke funny? Yes, it’s hilarious. Should it exist in this script? Should it be said by this exact character at this exact moment? Maybe not.” It’s painful, because jokes are hard, man. They’re hard to come by. Removing one that you know is funny is a very hard task. But I think when you are the steward of the show, of the tone of the show, of the style of the show, it’s a decision you have to make a lot.

**John:** You and I both live in Hancock Park. Some of the streets in our neighborhood are traditional asphalt, and some of them have been replaced by concrete. The concrete streets are really, really nice. The problem comes though if they have to cut into the street or if there’s some damage to the street. They fill it with asphalt. Of course, other neighborhoods, you might have just potholes and things like that too. So often, I think when you run into overwriting and things that [inaudible 01:02:31] it literally is, you fill that pothole. You took out that hole, but the patch is really not feeling great.

I think what we’re asking for is – it sounds like a lot of work to actually go through and repave that street, but you gotta repave that street. You gotta make it smooth, because ultimately, you’re trying to deliver a nice, smooth experience for the reader and ultimately for the audience with this scene that you’re writing. Just avoid filling the potholes, if you can.

**Mike:** This is one of the most difficult lessons that I learned. I have to relearn it again and again and again. When you read a script through, which in the TV world you’ll read every script through 75 times. Every time you go through it, every time you do a readthrough, but then you do a rewrite or you’re reading it at home or whatever, there are moments in the script where you get a little feeling in your chest, where you’re like, “Eh, there’s something wrong with that. It’s okay. It’s okay. It’s okay.” Then you keep going.

You can convince yourself that that pothole was filled in the right way, but you’ll just keep having that feeling. If you don’t fix it, if you don’t do the work to really dig up all of the surrounding area and cut out the part that’s mushy and replace it with something more sturdy, you will have that feeling all the way through shooting, all the way through editing, all the way through sound mixing. You’ll never get over that feeling.

Paying attention to that feeling when you have it is a really good skill to develop, because you can convince yourself, because it sounds like so much work to dig up that whole scene or throw away that whole scene or conceive of a new scene or conceive of an entirely new chunk of a script. It sounds like so much work. If it’s a B-minus patch, it’s very easy to convince yourself that everything is fine. But if you have that feeling, that feeling is never going away. You’ll never suddenly read that part of a script and go, “Yeah, no, I was wrong. Actually, it’s totally fine.” You will always feel like it needed to be fixed. The sooner you fix it, the better off you will be in the end.

**John:** To continue this metaphor, there’s a hole in the road and you see it coming up there. One of your strategies might be like, “Okay, I’m going to just put up some cones and drive around that hole.” You can feel that. That often feels like, “Wait, why are we doing this thing? Why are we zigzagging around this thing that’s a natural place to go?”

I think what we’re urging you to do is – probably the goal is to drive through that place and build a new thing that can go through that. But if that’s not really possible, you probably need to back up and just take a different road. Rather than try to do a little zigzag around it, actually just take a different route to get there, because maybe there’s no scene that can actually do what you’re trying to do here and you need to just find a different way to approach it.

**Mike:** This metaphor is surprisingly resilient.

**John:** It really is.

**Mike:** It’s really holding up under the stress we’re putting on it. But yes, it’s a perfect way to put it, which is to say, if every time you drive down a certain route – which is to say get to a certain part of your script – you find yourself having to dodge and weave, and you’re barely hanging on as your car wheels around in this complicated way. You got to where you were going. You reach your destination on the other side. But you have to just understand that there is a better path.

I don’t know how far we want to extend the metaphor. But there’s no GPS. There’s no, “Hey, find me the best route here,” which is what makes it so annoying, because it requires you to erase six pages of your script and then pace around your room and think, “Okay, here’s where I am. Here’s where I need to go. How can I get there a smoother way?” It’s really annoying. It’s one of the most annoying parts of rewriting.

I would say that, going back to the original question, oftentimes the reason that there’s a problem in the route to begin with is it’s been overwritten. A bunch of different people did a bunch of different things and patched this route together. Someone needs to come in and say, “Wait, I’ve got a better path here.”

**John:** You also will recognize that there’s times where you read through the script, you’re like, “Wait, you actually took a whole loop there and then you finally made it. In trying to get around this problem, you went way out of your way to get there.” We feel that as an audience. We feel like we are repeating this moments. “We already saw that house before. Something is deeply wrong here.”

**Mike:** I will say, on the plus side, there are few things in writing as satisfying as realizing that you can cut-

**John:** I love it so much.

**Mike:** … six pages of a script and replace it with two lines. The earliest lesson of show business that anyone remembers is leave them wanting more. You would always rather do something more quickly, unless the whole point of it is to be patient and deliberate. If you’re talking about plot mechanics, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line is a good adage to remember. If you’re finding you’re taking this crazy, loopy journey to do something that isn’t that hard or shouldn’t be that hard to do, try to find that straight line. I think that’s a good lesson.

**John:** Cool. It has come time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. First off is the book Project Hail Mary, which is by Andy Weir. He’s the guy who wrote The Martian. I’m reading it right now, and I’m really enjoying it. I debated whether to read it or not, because it’s being made into a movie right now. Drew Goddard wrote the script. Chris Miller and Phil Lord are directing it. They’re all friends. They’ll all come on the podcast hopefully to talk about it. I could just wait and see the movie when it comes out. But I’m excited that I’m reading it now.

I’m going to encourage listeners to read the book, because it’s going to be a challenging adaptation. I’m really curious what they’re going to do with things that appear in the book and how they’re going to make it all work. I think if you read the book now, yes, you’ll be spoiled a little bit on some of the surprises that happen in the movie, but I think you’ll also be delighted to see, “Oh, they made this choice. They made that choice. This is what they did with point of view on things.” It can be a good exercise to have read the book first before seeing the movie. That’s my recommendation for that.

My second One Cool Thing is a game. It’s a game that we actually made here in the office. Pretty much every Friday we play this game called AlphaBirds, which is a word game. It’s like Boggle or Scrabble but much easier and simpler. You can drink a beer while playing it. Years ago, we printed 100 decks and sent them off to some friends and left it at that. But enough people asked for it that we actually went through and printed a whole bunch more. We got the proper trademark on AlphaBirds with a little TM at the end, so we can sell them legally. They’re now available to anybody. If you want to play this game, it’s a fun little card game. It’s available on Amazon, or if you go to alphabirdsgame.com, you can buy it through there. There’s a code, Scriptnotes, that saves you five bucks off of it if you want to play AlphaBirds. It’s a great little game that Drew can testify is quite a bit of fun to play.

**Mike:** It sounds like a fun office. You guys have a fun office.

**John:** Every Friday after 4:00, we stop and we play some games and drink some beers.

**Mike:** That’s fantastic. My One Cool Thing is when I was making the show The Good Place, we had a philosophical advisor who is a professor. His name is Todd May. He actually appears in the finale of The Good Place, playing himself. He’s the best kind of philosopher to my mind, which is to say he’s a philosopher whose writing you can actually understand when you read it. It’s a very rare thing in the world of philosophy. Todd has a new book. It is not out yet, but it will be out within a month. I think August 6 is the publication date. The subject matter is wonderful and hilarious. The title of the book is Should We Go Extinct? A Philosophical Dilemma for Our Unbearable Times. He is literally answering the question of would the universe be better off if humans just went extinct.

What’s great about him as a writer and what attracted me to him to begin with is he takes on these incredibly huge, thorny problems, but he writes about them with a tremendous amount of empathy and humanity, in a very clear and straightforward way that anyone can understand. You do not have to have studied philosophy in college or any other place in order to understand it. He argues the pros for us going extinct. He argues the cons for us going extinct. He makes compelling arguments on both sides. I read the book. He sent me a copy of it when it was in galleys. It’s 176 pages long.

**John:** Love it.

**Mike:** It is not overbearing or exhausting. I encourage everyone to check it out when it comes out next month.

**John:** Mike Schur, you introduced me to Todd May years ago. I just emailed with him this morning.

**Mike:** Really?

**John:** There’s a thing of mine that he’s reading through which is philosophically oriented. He’s giving me some notes and thoughts on that, so thank you for making that introduction.

**Mike:** Absolutely. I hope you enjoy his book. It’s really great.

**John:** I’m looking forward to it. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, with help this week from Jonathan Wigdortz. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Vance Lovett. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today.

You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies and glassware. They’re all cool and great. You can 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 AI music. But Michael Schur, what an absolute pleasure having you back on the show. Thank you so much.

**Mike:** It is an absolute joy to be here. I will see you for Episode 1300.

**John:** I’m so excited.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Mike Schur, we’re springing this on you. But about two or three weeks ago, the Recording Industry Association of America filed these two lawsuits against these AI music producers called Suno and Udio over copyright infringement. I was a little skeptical at the start, because in general, I think the music copyright stuff has been overblown and overdone.

I remember the Blurred Lines lawsuit. I thought that was actually crazy, because did the song Blurred Lines feel like a Marvin Gaye song? Yes. But did it actually infringe? Can you actually say this is the same notes, the same thing? Could it be mistaken for a specific Marvin Gaye song? I think not. I was skeptical of this lawsuit, and then I listened to some of the examples. Let me play a few samples here from this lawsuit.

(AI song samples)

What we just listened to, obviously, that sounded like Mariah Carey singing All I Want for Christmas is You. But that was not prompted for Mariah Carey. It was basically like, give me a Christmas song that’s a pop song that’s in this style, and that’s what it generated was something that was basically-

**Mike:** Whoa. Really?

**John:** Yeah, really.

**Mike:** Oh, no.

**John:** The prompt did not even include the words Mariah Carey. It just generated this. Apparently, for the one that sounded like Green Day there, “A reproduction of a nostalgic acoustic ballad by a pop band famous in the 1990s whose name rhymes with mean nay, whose lead singer has a name that rhymes with Millie No Marmstrong, with a sense of musical urgency.” They’re really trying to tip it in there. But for the one that sounded like the Beach Boys, it didn’t reference the Beach Boys at all, and it comes up with Good Vibrations.

**Mike:** Wow. That’s intense. I had not heard those before. That American Idiot is just the song American Idiot which a very slightly different chord progression, it sounds like. The Mariah Carey song was just the Mariah… I thought you were playing the Mariah Carey song so that you could then play a song that was a ripoff of the Mariah Carey song. I didn’t know that that was the ripoff. That’s intense, man.

**John:** What the lawsuit brings up, and I think what we’re grappling with, is it infringement to make these things or to use these things in other ways? Is the copyright infringement the existence of a model that could create these things, or is copyright infringement only when you use these things to create a knockoff of a song? I think that’s not quite clear where we’re at there, because it’s clearly not copyright infringement to listen to a song. If you then, having listened to that song, make a song that is functionally identical, that’s the problem.

**Mike:** I would say this entire conversation has to be prefaced, at least on my end, by saying, boy, am I not a lawyer and do I not know what I’m talking about. But this was the fear that the Writers Guild had. In fact, the two main fears I would say that the Writers Guild had were, one, how is the work that we have written being used to train AI, and two, what is AI going to do with that work?

The nightmare scenario is that they feed all of our scripts into a machine, and the machine breaks them down into their component parts and understands the mechanics of storytelling and so forth. Then someone says, “You know what we need next summer is a romantic comedy set in New York, featuring a character who is a police officer and a character who works in an advertising agency, and the meet cute is that the police officer arrests,” and then blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then the computer searches the database and finds 600 romantic comedies, Nora Ephron’s and yours and whoever’s, and spits out an entire script in .01 milliseconds that is a fully realized screenplay with story beats and moves and characters and jokes and whatever.

What has happened is a bunch of human-designed material has been mushed around and muddied up, and then something is spit out that is entirely derivative of that work. No one whose work went into the programming of that computer gets paid for it. Also, no one wrote that script really, and so they don’t have to pay anybody. That’s the nightmare that we were addressing.

The thing about songs that I think is different is that there’s only so many variations on a three-minute pop song. I think we’ve all had the experience of hearing songs and going, “You know what this reminds me of is this.” That doesn’t mean that the person who wrote the second song was consciously thinking of the first song. How many songs have the same chord progression? Thousands and thousands and thousands of songs.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Mike:** There’s a fundamental difference, I think, between pop songwriting and screenwriting. But at essence, the questions are the same. The questions are, should the people who are the humans who create these things be compensated for some way when those things are used to program a machine that could spit out versions of them that the people didn’t write themselves.

**John:** Absolutely. To that extent, I say A, yes, they should be compensated, but B, there’s this larger existential question of what are we losing. What are we losing from the fabric of being alive on earth? If we outsource the work of creativity to machines that are only creative inasmuch as we have programmed them to be creative, that’s the part of it that really makes me not sleep well at night is I don’t know what humanity is.

If the most fundamental work of humanity, which is to say artistic endeavor, is outsourced to a machine that only exists because we built it and we fed all of our previous creativity into it and asked it to kick out new versions of things, that’s the part that is so unsettling, so uncanny valley, and so unappealing to me. I think without being a lawyer, without knowing the legitimacy of these claims, I wholeheartedly support the idea that the recording industry is trying to stop this from happening.

**John:** So many different threads we can pull at. I’m going to try to pull at a bunch, and it’s going to probably be a very messy sweater by the end. As we went into the WGA negotiations, we talked about the Nora Ephron problem. Basically, if you train a model on all of the scripts of Nora Ephron and you ask it to generate a new Nora Ephron script, who should get credit for that? Literally, who should be credited as the writer of the screenplay? But also, shouldn’t she or her estate have some ability to determine how that all works?

Looking at the parallels between songwriting and screenwriting, one of the things about these examples we just played, All I Want for Christmas is You, it’s so clear that this is the same thing. It’s based on the same thing. Or even American Idiot, we can see this is the same thing. But that analogy does not hold especially true for movies, because so often, movies are referencing each other.

These movies are similar, but rarely do we have a situation where you say, “That movie is actually just this movie.” We will have lawsuits saying, “Oh, this was actually based on my screenplay,” or there was some sort of chicanery happening behind the scenes, but almost never do we say, “This movie is exactly the clone of this movie,” except for weird cases where it was some Nigerian knockoff of Star Wars, which we love for its just sheer ballsiness.

That’s not a thing that we’ve had to worry about so far, but in theory, we could be worrying about this, where the version of this software that’s not making songs but it’s making video could just say, “Make me a Star Wars,” and it just goes off and it makes you a Star Wars. That’s coming eventually. Music is always the canary in the coalmine for where these things are.

I want to play a little devil’s advocate here, because we say that these things are trained on all of the stuff and then they are generating new stuff based on what they’ve done. That’s also the process of culture. The process of culture is reading and watching everything that has happened out there. Then a human being or a group of human beings takes that and synthesizes it and creates a new version of it. I think our concern is that there’s not a human in the mix, and also that the new version in this case isn’t new enough. It’s not original enough. It just feels like a shitty copy rather than something new and a synthesis that actually pushes stuff forward.

**Mike:** This is the philosophical question involved in all of this, which is right now the technology in its nascency is bad, in the sense that if you say, “Give me a song that kind of sounds like a Christmas song with female voice,” it literally just spits out All I Want for Christmas is You by Mariah Carey.

Now, given the ways in which computational power advances, the speed at which software gets better, the difference between the iPhone 2 and the iPhone 15, which didn’t take that long to get from A to B, you would imagine that in three years if you say, “Give me a Christmas song with a female voice,” it’s going to just generate a Christmas song. There will be new lyrics. It won’t sound like Mariah Carey. But it will be the result of Mariah Carey’s work and the work of a lot of other artists, a lot of other songwriters, a lot of other performers.

Right now we are able to hear those clips and say, “Oh my god, this is horrifying.” In three years, I don’t think we will, because it’ll just play a song, and we will say, “I like that song,” or, “I don’t like that song.” But it will just be a song. It won’t be so obviously derivative and ripped off.

The philosophical question that we’re really asking, I think, is do we want to live in a culture where we are no longer allowing or relying on human ability and instinct to be the primary generator of pieces of art, creativity? I think there will be some people, some futurists, and some folks who are like, “Who cares? It’s art. It’s art. Art is art. What does it matter?” Maybe they’ll think, in a post-modern Banksy way, that it’s cooler. Was it really art when, who was it, Duchamp put the urinal in the museum? Is that art, or is it just a urinal that he threw into a museum? I’m not unsympathetic to that argument.

I think there’s an argument to be made that says this is where we are in 2025 and going forward is we as a species have invented these powerful machines. The powerful machines have capabilities because we programmed them to have capabilities. You could make the argument that it is no less valid a piece of art to have a person program a machine that looks at the history of songwriting and generates its own songs than it is to have a human generate those songs. I don’t think that’s an invalid argument. I think there’s something to that.

We always talk about what separates us from the animal, like it’s our ability to cognitively reason or it’s our ability to maintain complex relationships with other members of our species. I have always felt like the thing that separates us from the animals is art. It just is. There’s occasionally a story about an elephant in Thailand who can paint, and that’s really cool and awesome. There’s occasionally a story of a crow who will create a sculpture by picking up little buttons and pieces of metal and making them into something. Yes, fine, the exception that proves the rule. There isn’t a hedgehog that wrote Casablanca.

When I get into this discussion, and we had many of them over the course of the WGA negotiations, the thing that I feel the most deeply – not that I reason out the most or that I focus on in contractual language the most – but the thing I feel the most is, I fear the loss of something fundamentally human when we have gotten to a point where anyone can say to a piece of software, “Hey, give me a two-hour movie about a guy running a bar in West Africa during World War Two.” Then you get a pretty good screenplay. I fear what that means for us as a species. That’s not an argument that we could make to the folks that run movie studios. It’s not an argument that could be made to the folks who run AI software companies that generate pop songs, because their response will be like, “Sorry, man. Sorry that you fear this, but whatever.” It’s the philosophical component of this that makes me lose sleep at night.

I think there is a difference between someone looking at the world that they live in and painting Guernica or putting a urinal into a fine art museum, and a piece of software saying, “Here’s a random object that represents a sort of unpleasant part of humanity. I’m going to just install that into a museum and call it art.” I think there’s a fundamental difference when you insert the middle man of technology between the artist and a thing they’re creating.

**John:** One of the things you’re pointing to is intention, is that Duchamp has an intention behind that, Picasso has an intention behind when he paints Guernica, and the AI does not have an intention other than to please the person who typed in the prompt. I think another thing you’re getting to is, in the WGA negotiation, the WGA is negotiating with the studios, and that is the one place we can negotiate. We had to really draw lines around what our relationship with them was going to be like in terms of AI.

With something like this, it’s like, yes, you can say maybe it’s governmental reaction to AI companies or what the laws are going to be, but it’s really societal, because it goes beyond our borders. It’s just like, what choices are we going to make about what is okay and what is not okay? Collectively as a group and individually, what do we feel are the right paths through there?

As I look at AI in my own life, I’m always thinking about is this use of AI replacing a person’s work that I would otherwise be going to? Going all the way back to your example of taking the sea lions barking out of the back of this audio, there are other ways they could’ve maybe addressed that without AI, but it would not have as successful or nearly as efficient to do it.

**Mike:** Efficient, yeah.

**John:** This was a right choice, and I feel like very, very defensible. But I think we have to ask ourselves, any time we’re using one of these technologies, is this the right use of this? If it’s to create a knockoff Mariah Carey song, I think the answer is no.

**Mike:** Just to go one step further – and again, these are philosophical arguments. I’m not sure that they would sway a lot of people, but they’re how I feel. The process of making something like a TV show or a movie, it amounts to 10 phases of creativity with 10 different groups of people.

In TV, the final phase is a sound and color correction mix, where you are in a room in a dark studio and there’s a group of people around you and those people all have different jobs. There’s dialogue mixers. There’s sound effects mixers. There’s a music editor and a composer who’s composed music. You’re putting the final ribbon on the thing that you have spent months, if not years, creating. It’s incredibly collaborative. It’s really magically a team sport at the end.

By the way, every one of these phases is a team sport, regardless of whether you’ve written something completely by yourself or with a group of people. They’re all team sports. The shooting process is a team sport. The editing process is a team sport.

Its final phase is one of my favorites, because we are now done with everything. We have edited the picture the right way. We have chosen the right takes. The actors have done their jobs. The costumers and props people and art directors and caterers, everyone has done their jobs as well as they can do them. We’re at the very end. Now we’re going to make sure that everyone who watches this gets the best possible viewing and auditory experience. Every phone ring in an office comes at the right exact moment. Every little bit of dialogue. Maybe the actor got a little choked up when they said this line, and we want everyone to see exactly, hear exactly how they got choked up. It’s like painting a grain of rice. It’s like a group of people all coming together to paint this grain of rice and get it perfect.

When the sound editor presents that cleaned-up audio of that scene in San Francisco, and what he has done in this case is remove the stuff you don’t want to hear, so that you can hear the stuff you do want to hear, he has used AI to do that, and he’s used a computer to do that. But he has been there the whole time, combing through every moment, just making sure that every single little thing is exactly right, and by the way, at various times, has put some of those seal noises back in. When you cut to a shot, there’s a moment where you cut to a shot of the sea lions. At that moment, he undid what the AI had done, so that you could hear those seals barking, because we want the audience to hear them bark at that moment and not at other moments.

What I’m getting at here is that yes, that software program made his job a lot easier and a lot more efficient, but it’s still his job. He is still doing the work of going moment by moment and examining every nook and cranny of that scene with his headphones on, staring at wave forms on a computer and getting everything exactly right. That is not a thing that you could tell an AI to do. It’s impossible, because that requires the observation and thought and careful work of a human being observing what you’ve made and thinking, when we do we want to hear what and when and how and why.

I find that in other words, if you told me that right now we could replace all of the people in that room with software programs and that the process of sound mixing and color correcting an episode of TV could be 10 minutes long instead of four hours, which it often is, that sounds horrible to me. That sounds awful. That’s a worst-case scenario for how you complete the final phase of the thing that you spent so much time working on, because what I want it to be is a group of people who are thinking about doing what they’re doing and have, like you say, an intention. The intention is let’s make this piece of art as good as we can make it.

I think that the philosophical argument becomes pretty non-philosophical when you think of it that way, when you think of it as, what do we want this to be. We want it to be the product of a group of people who are all thinking really hard about how to make it as good as possible. Thinking really hard about something is not a job for an AI. It just isn’t.

**John:** Mike Schur, thank you so much for all your philosophical musings on this topic and everything else. I’m going to let you get back to that sound mix and be done with those sea lions. Absolute pleasure talking with you.

**Mike:** Thank you, buddy. Talk to you soon.

Links:

* [Mike Schur](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1321658/) on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schur)
* [Weekend Read 2](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/weekendread/)
* [IATSE tentative basic agreement](https://basic.iatse.net/)
* [David Ellison’s Skydance Taking Over Paramount After $8 Billion Investment](https://deadline.com/2024/07/david-ellison-skydance-paramount-takeover-1236002996/) by Dade Hayes for Deadline
* [WGA West Reaches $3 Million Settlement With CBS Studios Over Writer Fees and Benefit Payments](https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/wga-west-cbs-settlement-writers-mcgyver-hawaii-50-seal-team-1236066838/) by Cynthia Littleton for Variety
* [Project Hail Mary](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/611060/project-hail-mary-by-andy-weir/) by Andy Weir
* [Alphabirds](https://alphabirdsgame.com/)
* [Should We Go Extinct?](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/760946/should-we-go-extinct-by-todd-may-introduction-by-michael-schur-creator-of-the-good-place/) by Todd May
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* Craig Mazin on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@clmazin) and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/)
* John August on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@johnaugust), [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/johnaugust)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Vance Lovett ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Drew Marquardt](https://www.drewmarquardt.com/) with help from [Jonathan Wigdortz](https://www.wiggy.rocks/). It is edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/650V2standard.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (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.