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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep 99: Psychotherapy for screenwriters — Transcript

July 27, 2013 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: And this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

And, Craig, it’s a special episode today because…?

Craig: We, well, a couple of reasons. One, we have a guest.

John: Yes.

Craig: So, that means we’re doing it live.

John: Yes.

Craig: It means I get to look at you. Always exciting — I get to see your face.

John: Also, we are in your offices in Pasadena.

Craig: That’s right.

John: So, I cannot wait for the fire trucks.

Craig: Yes, the fire trucks are coming. And we can’t do anything about it.

John: Yes. So, we’re on the fourth floor of this building in Pasadena and as I was walking over here from the parking garage I kept thinking, “This is the loudest place on earth.” It is truly a very loud street. Like they could be making cement outside.

Craig: That’s right. In fact, they are making cement outside because right down the street it was always loud here; this is ground zero for Old Town Pasadena, right there on the corner. And then they decided to convert a parking lot into a large building that they’re building, so they get to weld and hammer while the fire trucks are going by, and somehow I find this very soothing.

John: Yeah. It’s the perfect place to write and record a podcast.

Craig: Perfect place for that. That’s right. That’s right.

John: Now, Craig, you have some follow up from an earlier episode that you wanted to start off.

Craig: Yeah, very quickly. We were doing our big question and answer episode and somebody was asking about registering screenplays with the copyright office and whether that was advisable. And the one thing I wanted to check on, I knew there was something funky about selling scripts with the WGA, and I just wanted to make sure that you weren’t messing around with anything if you did that with the copyright office.

And the answer is no. The deal is when you sell a screenplay, whether you’re transferring copyright or you’re selling it without that and they’re just saying, “Okay, well we’re commissioning the sale,” so on and so forth, it’s the same. The trick is that the companies don’t pay pension and health on the sale of literary material because it’s not really employment. To get around that, what the Guild does is they require the company to hire the seller of the literary material for the first rewrite — that is employment. And, the P&H on the first rewrite is the normal P&H that’s due plus the amount that would have been due on the sale.

So, they lump those two prices together…

John: Let me try to re-explain this in a way that might make sense to someone.

Craig: Not a chance. [laughs]

John: Backing up here, we’re talking about if you registered copyright on your spec screenplay before you sold it to your studio; the question originally was is this going to mess things up.

Craig: And the answer is no.

John: The answer is basically no.

Craig: That’s right.

John: And there are sort of weird backhanded ways that you can get around sort of the issues of copyright transference and pension and health. So, it’s happened before. Feel free to register copyright on your spec script if it is useful to you.

Craig: That’s right.

John: Go for it.

Craig: That is correct. That is the follow up.

John: Wonderful. Today we are excited because we have a special guest and we love it when we have special guests.

Craig: Yes.

John: And our special guest is Dennis Palumbo. And, Craig, this was your idea. So, tell us why we are talking with him today.

Craig: Well, Dennis is a therapist; he works as a therapist, a psychotherapist. He was my psychotherapist for awhile. I’m not in therapy currently, but I did see him for awhile. And while I think he treats lots of different people, his specialty is with writers and with screenwriters. And, for good reason: he himself was a screenwriter. He worked for Welcome Back, Kotter — “Oh, Mr. Kotter!”

And he co-wrote a wonderful movie called My Favorite Year, which if you haven’t seen, you’re stupid. I’m being judgmental but I think it’s fair. If you care at all about the history of comedy you should see My Favorite Year. It’s a wonderful movie. So, a very fine writer in his own right and he also is a novelist. He writes a series of crime/thriller, mystery thrillers with a character named Daniel Rinaldi, which sounds a lot like Dennis Palumbo, who is a psychologist-crime fighter-mystery solver. And his latest novel, Night Terrors, is available now.

But today we are welcoming him, I would suspect, mostly to talk about the weird, weird stuff that goes on in our screenwriting minds. So, welcome Dr. Dennis Palumbo.

Dennis Palumbo: Well, thank you so much. It’s nice to be here, John. It’s nice to be here, Craig.

John: Talk to us about why you got started as a therapist working with writers and what was the inclination behind that and how did you make that transition?

Dennis: Well, the transition was long and involved, which I’m going to reduce down to the two-minute version, which is essentially I had gone through kind of a personal crisis in my life. My marriage had ended. I had been really lucky in the film and television business, which I started at 22. I mean, I was on Kotter — I was 23, I think, when I was on that show.

And so I ended up literally doing the razor’s edge experience: I went to the Himalayas, climbed mountains all over the world, meditated, the whole thing. Came back and thought, “I think I need to change my life.” So, while I was still working in the business, writing pilots and rewriting scripts, I was going to school at night and on the weekends, not necessarily saying to myself, “Boy, I want to change careers,” but I was so fascinated by psychology because my own experience in therapy had been so good.

Craig: Right.

Dennis: And so after awhile, I mean, it takes six years to get through the program, to become an intern. I worked as an intern on the weekends and in the evenings at a low-fee clinic and at a private psychiatric facility. And then one day, I know it’s kind of crazy, but I had one of those “Road to Damascus” experiences.

I was at a restaurant — I don’t even know if it’s there anymore — called Le Dome on Sunset. And I was talking to this producer about a movie he wanted me to do. And I kept looking at my watch because I was going to be late for the psychiatric hospital where I was doing group psychodrama with schizophrenics.

And driving down La Cienega I’m thinking to myself, “What’s wrong with this picture? I think I want to change my life.” So, I sat for the tests and I passed and there was an interesting afternoon where I called up my agent, my lawyer, my business manager, and my creative manager, and I fired all four of them.

Craig: Oh, that must have felt good!

Dennis: And it felt amazing. And I said, “Look, it’s not you guys, it’s me. It’s not you, it’s me.” You know, the classic breakup line.

But, I’m out of show business. And so because I had been in the business I thought, well, this will be a good specialty. You know, people come to me and they have anxiety attacks if they have to pitch to NBC. Well, I pitched to NBC 5,000 times.

Craig: Right.

Dennis: Wouldn’t do it now. But I knew those issues. I knew about procrastination. I knew about writer’s block. I knew about fear of rejection.

Craig: Well, we’re going to get into all of those because I think I…

Dennis: I felt that’s why it would be a good specialty for me. So, that’s what I did.

Craig: I’ve had all those things, I think. I’m pretty sure we all have. And I want to talk through some of those, because I have a feeling that people listening are like, “Okay, get to the part where you help me.” [laughs]

Dennis: All right. Absolutely.

Craig: So, we’re getting some free advice from the show.

Dennis: You’re going to get some free therapy.

Craig: But I have a question first, because I know that part of your practice deals with a very interesting thing that people go through and not a lot of people consider it as a thing, which is interesting in and of itself. And that is a big career shift, a big life transition in terms of your profession. I’ve been doing this, I’m supposed to keep doing this, this is part of my identity, and then I stop and I start to do something else. And you did that.

When you did that, I’m just curious, was there a stretch there where you got scared, where you felt, oh no, what have I done?

Dennis: A stretch? There was a long chasm where I thought literally I was crazy. My friends thought I was crazy. My parents, who had finally gotten used to the idea that I was in show business, now had to get used to the idea I was talking to crazy people. And so I was scared to death. I thought I wouldn’t make a living. And, you know, I also was very clear, I mean, I was very lucky in show business. And lightning doesn’t strike twice, I figure.

Craig: Right.

Dennis: You know, who am I? And, in fact, a good friend of mine who is a writer-director said he was really mad. He even said, “Look, I feel like you’re leaving the fox hole. You’re leaving me in here where the bombs are dropping.” I mean, he’s very successful, but as you know, everyone feels like they’re embattled in Hollywood.

Craig: Yeah, we are.

Dennis: And he said, “So you’re going over the wall.” And I had some of that response from some of my friends. So, it was really hard at first. I did that thing where someone would call me and they’d go, “Well, do you have any available times?” And I’d be flipping through blank pages going, “No, I don’t know, maybe Thursday at 4?” And they’d go, “I can’t do it at 4.” And I’d go, “Wait a minute; I found another one. Friday at 10.”

Craig: Slowly but surely.

Dennis: Slowly but surely they all filled up. And I’m very grateful. Actually, to be honest with you, I think I owe most of it to the Writers Guild Magazine, Written By.

Craig: Well, that’s where I encountered you. Do you remember reading those?

John: Absolutely. I remember reading your columns monthly in the Writers Guild Magazine.

Dennis: That built my practice essentially.

John: Absolutely, talking about the kind of issues writers face.

Let’s talk about this. What are the kinds of common things you see in clients who are coming to talk to you, who need help, that might be unique to writers or highlighted in writers that you wouldn’t see in a general population as much?

Dennis: Oh, yeah, well certainly the two biggest issues that people come in talking about are writer’s block and procrastination, which are not the same thing. And the thing that I think is so terrifying about both those issues is not even so much the issue itself, but the meaning you give to it.

If you’re a writer and you feel blocked, it’s hard enough to be a writer — doing good work is very hard. Good writers get blocked. But if the meaning you give to it is, “Well, I bet Steve Zaillian never gets blocked. Or I guess my parents were right about me and I should have gone to law school. Or, maybe this means the story is no good.”

What I find very quickly in working with a patient who is struggling with writer’s block is that the issues are so inexorably bound up in their personal lives, in how they feel about themselves. So, if you go, “Gee, I’m really blocked. Man, this script is tough. Let me maybe take another approach,” that’s the craftsman-like approach.

If you go, “Wow, I’m really blocked. I guess this was a stupid idea anyway and my agent is going to dump me. And no one has liked the last three scripts I’ve written, so maybe I got lucky and now my luck is over. And I wonder if I can still get a job in my dad’s faucet factory?” I mean, you go there.

Craig: Oh, I go there so fast. I don’t have a faucet — what’s your faucet factory? I know what mine is. What’s yours?

John: Oh, there’s always that rip cord to some sort of programming or some sort of other….

Craig: Mine’s Ralphs. I always go right to Ralphs. And not even like a day shift at Ralphs. Night shift at Ralphs.

John: Definitely.

Dennis: Yeah, see I worked in a steel mill to put myself through college, so I always know now if things collapse I can always work in a steel mill. Now, there aren’t any steel mills in America anymore, so I’d have to go to Japan.

Craig: Right. Where they are hiring gentlemen in their fifties…

Dennis: Yes, that’s right. That’s right.

John: Pass yourself off as a robot.

Dennis: That’s right. And the thing that’s important to remember, too, is no one lives in absolute isolation. And so if you’re struggling with writer’s block and then you’re telling yourself, you know, you’re assigning certain meanings to being blocked, it’s not like a day at the beach for your mate either, or your children, or your friends.

And you feel like, you know, if you have this idea that everything is depending on you, and every time you stumble or get stuck the whole ball of wax could collapse, then it becomes harder and harder to navigate the block.

And the thing that I think is most unique — most people think writer’s block is bad. I think it’s good news for a writer. Because, if you look at the kind of biographical narratives of some of the greatest artists you’ve ever known, they all have like five or six periods in their lives where the work is repetitive, where they feel stuck, where they seem to be going backwards.

And then all of a sudden there is this burst of inspiration. And so, for me, I think writer’s block is very similar to the developmental steps we all go through as people. You know, like a toddler who gets up, falls down, gets up. He has to navigate walking. And I think that’s true for a writer. I think when you’re blocked, whether you’re aware of it or not, you’re about to make a growth spurt in your work.

And I think the proof of the pudding is I’ve never had a patient who has worked through a block who didn’t think they were a better writer on the other side of the block. And so I do think if you conceptualize it as something that’s going to change in your work, you know, that this is something — that maybe you’re doing something that’s personal for the first time.

Maybe you’ve always written comedies and you’re trying to write a drama. Or, maybe you’re writing something about your family and you’re thinking what they’re going to think and all that stuff. There are all sorts of reasons why you might be blocked. But if you can navigate that block, you not only usually think you’re a better writer on the other end, but you defang the idea of a writer’s block as being so devastating that it will stop you.

John: I want to stop for a second and unpack what we’re talking about with writer’s block, because I think you’re using the term in a specific way that is really quite helpful. A lot of times people will say writer’s block when they really do mean procrastination, when they really do mean, “I just don’t feel like writing it, or I don’t know what that next scene is.”

Dennis: Yeah.

John: We were talking at a very specific, sort of like on this project I don’t know how to do this next little bit. And the phone keeps ringing and just all that stuff and I can’t get this next thing going. That is a very situational sort of in that moment you don’t know how to do this next thing. But there are other options for how you’re going to do that.

What you’re really talking about is more the bigger image of the person just doesn’t know what to do, so it’s not even — they may start with one project, but they have a general kind of fear of failure, or the impostor syndrome may be kicking in.

Dennis: Sure.

John: Where they believe, “Not only can I not write this. I can’t write anything.”

Craig: “I fooled everyone.”

John: Exactly.

Dennis: “I fooled everyone.” It’s all those meanings that I mentioned that, you know, I always think, like when I write my mystery novels, they have a lot of twists and turns. And every time I start one I think, “I don’t know how I’m going to make this interesting. I don’t know what I’m doing.”

But I’ve been writing for so long. I’m such a gray beard that I don’t think that feeling means anything.

Craig: Right.

Dennis: One of the things I’ve tried to help my patients see is that their feelings don’t predict the future. If an actor has stage fright and he throws up in his dressing room and then goes out that night on stage and gives a great performance, so obviously his anxiety did not predict a bad performance. But we have a tendency to see our feelings as predictive. And they’re not.

Craig: Right.

Dennis: I did 92 columns. I used to joke about this with the editor of Written By. I did 92 columns for the Written By column, The Writer’s Life, and every month I sat down to write one I’d go, “I don’t know how to write a column. I don’t know what to write about. I’ve got to call Richard and get out of this.”

And after about column 62 or 63 I went, “Where have I heard that before?”

Craig: Right.

Dennis: I heard that from my head once a month for the past six years. So, obviously it’s not predictive of anything.

Craig: That’s a great — that theme comes up over and over. And it’s something that I talk about. I do a thing at the Guild every year about development and how to make your way through development. And I talk about basically and thinking about what the villain is. If you imagine yourself as the hero of a journey, where the development process is a journey and you’re the protagonist, who is the antagonist? And I always ask them, “Who’s your enemy?”

And your goal is write a movie. Who’s your enemy? And they always say, “Director. Actors. Studio. Producers. Executives.” I’m like, no, no, they all share your goal. They’re your allies. That’s the scary part! So, who is the antagonist?

And to me the antagonist is our emotional pain. That’s the antagonist. And you feel it. It’s a real thing. We all feel it in those moments. It’s not assigning a meaning to it. That’s the hard part. But that’s kind of where you do the big boy growing up stuff.

Dennis: That is. I mean, look at myself. I’ve been in personal therapy on and off for like 18 years. I’m as neurotic and insecure as I ever was. I just don’t hassle myself about it anymore.

Craig: You should change therapists. He’s terrible.

Dennis: No, no, I’ve changed therapists three times. I don’t mind being neurotic and insecure because I don’t think the goal is to become some perfectible version of yourself.

Craig: I have to stop you there because that’s so great. When I saw Dennis it wasn’t for writing stuff. It was actually just personal stuff that I was working through. And I remember, I don’t know if you remember, the first day I showed up — I’m one of many patients — I had sort of written out everything and kind of presented it to him. It was really well organized. And we had a very good session. And then on my out you stopped me and said, “I just want to make sure that you understand this isn’t something you perfect.” [laughs]

And it was great to hear. Like, oh yeah, that’s right…

John: “I’m really good at therapy now.”

Craig: Yeah! “Did I do okay?”

John: Absolutely.

Craig: “I’m here for my perfection issues. And did I do well?”

Dennis: Yeah, “Did I do well? And about how long will this take?”

Craig: That’s right, yes.

John: I think possibly one of the challenges of writers and screenwriters — this is really our topic — we can hold others up to that perfection standard because we don’t really see them.

Dennis: That’s right.

John: And so we see that all of these struggles are my own and I’m the one who has all these unique challenges and problems, because we’re not around those people all the other times, whereas if we were professional athletes we would see those professional athletes struggle around us all the time. And we all go up to our little rooms and write in private. And it seems like, oh well, whatever is uniquely your problem is uniquely your problem.

Dennis: Right. And our fantasy is that all the writers we admire are just knocking stuff off untroubled.

Craig: It’s insane.

Dennis: And it’s insane. I always say to new writers, I say, “Look, every successful writer used to be a struggling one. And all the successful ones still struggle.”

I mean, most of the writers in my practice are very, very successful. And they all struggle. In fact, it was so striking for me as a former screenwriter, some of my patients are my former idols as a writer.

Craig: Right.

Dennis: And it was amazing for me to see the struggles they had, which I found comforting, because I spent 18 years in show business thinking, “Well, if I were only smarter and more talented this wouldn’t be so hard.”

Craig: Are there, because, you know, we have a lot of people who listen who are professionals. We have many, many more, just by the nature of our business, who are not but who want to be. And I wonder, are there unique writer problems, or do we really all… — I mean, because I kind of want to be able to somebody working in Alabama right now, “We actually have the same problems.” Are there unique problems, or do we all share the same stuff?

Dennis: I think we all share the same stuff. I mean, we’re talking primarily about screenwriting, but look at what we’re talking about. We’re talking about being blocked or procrastinating, being afraid of rejection, being afraid of failure. I don’t know too many lawyers who don’t struggle with stuff like that, or Supreme Court justices, or directors.

I mean, anyone who achieves bumps up against the idea that who they are inside is not in concert with who they are presenting in their mind to the world. Anyone does. And so as a result, I think the difference for writers is writers talk about it.

See, trial lawyers get depressed. William Styron gets depressed, writes Darkness Visible, about his depression. So, we have this idea that creative people are more depressed and suicidal than others. And, in fact, we’re not.

Craig: We just talk about it more.

Dennis: Yeah, we just talk about it more.

Craig: Right. Those guys just drink in that bar.

Dennis: And they drink and they jump off of buildings. I mean, the thing is…

Craig: They’re good at that.

Dennis: Dentists are the number one profession that is suicidal.

Craig: Wait, wait, is that really true? Dentists?

Dennis: Yeah. And number two is psychiatrists.

Craig: Well. [laughs]

Dennis: But number one is dentists.

Craig: Why, because it’s a bummer to look in mouths all day?

Dennis: You know, god knows why.

Craig: Teeth.

John: There have been theories that maybe it has something to do with traditionally like the chemicals that were used in dentistry.

Craig: Oh really?

John: That they’re constantly around all the time.

Craig: Like the mercury and stuff?

John: Absolutely. There could be actually like a poisoning reason why that’s happened.

Dennis: It’s interesting you mention that, too, because one of the changes in therapy in the last 20 years is how much neurobiology has come into it. The more and more we find out about the elasticity of the brain, the more we’re finding that depression, anxiety, spiritual belief, faith itself, aggression, these things have seats in the brain pan.

And talk therapy is still crucial, but they’re finding that there is a larger biochemical and neuro-chemical component to how we feel about ourselves, including our self-experience in the world.

Craig: It’s hard because writers, you know, you brought up the analogy of athletes. So, I can watch an athlete make an error, but I can also watch an athlete succeed. I can see it happening in front of me or not in front of me in different levels. But, writing is — especially screenwriting — there is something so evil about it because the entire process of screenwriting is failure until the very last moment, which also might be failure. [laughs]

Dennis: Yeah.

Craig: But there is definitely, failure is a requirement. And it requires, it seems, a lot of psychological health, or endurance, or whatever you call it to survive the endless grind of the failure.

Dennis: Yeah. I think being a screenwriter requires the Bushido Warrior Code of risk, fail, risk again. I mean, my TV writers who are on staff, you know, they break a story in a room. Everyone agrees on the story. You go off, you write it, you come back, everyone gang writes it and makes it funnier. It’s a little more communal. It’s a little bit more, “Oh, I had a nice day at the office.”

Craig: Right.

Dennis: I remember as a screenwriter, when I shut that door in my office at home to work, it was just me. And, you know, you start to wonder if what you’re feeling and thinking about what you’re writing has any validity at all. Which is one of the reasons, by the way, people procrastinate.

You know, we were talking about writer’s block and procrastination…

Craig: Tell us why I procrastinate, would you?

Dennis: Well, I can’t tell you specifically — I don’t think there is one size fits all for everyone. And I can give you some anecdotes that would surprise you about why people procrastinate. But on the whole, it’s a fear of shameful self-exposure. Most people procrastinate because they think the finished product, if they got to finish, would either in their minds or in the minds of an agent, the studio, director, would not be good enough.

And it’s easier to tolerate the small shame of procrastinating. I remember when Dutton’s Bookstore used to be here. And I would walk around and I swore that Doug Dutton would be looking at me essentially thinking, “Why aren’t you writing?”

Craig: Right.

Dennis: And so I couldn’t even enjoy my procrastination. But as painful as it was, it was less painful than putting the script out. See, then you want to look at a person’s childhood experience. I mean, I had to get all straight A’s. You know, I was a big honors student and stuff like that.

And so I’m one of those people that you can never love it enough. I’m already evaluating while we’re talking how well I’m doing.

Craig: I might also be — I might be one of those people, too. By the way, you’re doing very poorly.

Dennis: Okay. That’s what I thought.

Craig: Yeah. [laughs]

Dennis: But luckily at these prices why should I get so upset.

John: [laughs]

Craig: [laughs] Yeah.

Dennis: But the point is is that that kind of thing feeds the procrastination. And what’s really difficult is for people to understand that the shame of self-exposure will always be there as long as you don’t feel engaged with the process itself. As long as you’re only concerned with the result in terms of what it says about you, what clinicians call “the external locus of control.” You’re always better off going, “I’m having a great time writing this,” and hope that Tom Cruise wants to be in it than go, “If I write this and Tom Cruise doesn’t want to be in it, it isn’t good, therefore I’m not good.”

Craig: Does that sound familiar to you?

John: I would say that most of my procrastination is fear that I won’t actually hit flow. And that I won’t actually hit that moment where it all becomes easy. So, I’ll put it off, and put it off, and put it off in the hopes that like, well, maybe suddenly the engine will kick in. Because the times when writing is really good and natural and easy and wonderful are amazing and you just hope that those come back.

And I also do notice that I find writers kind of ritualizing their way into procrastination. So, they will say, “Well, I can only write from these hours to these hours. And I have to have this kind of pen, and this kind of paper, and this kind of situation. If I don’t have those things then I can’t do the work that I need to do.”

And so what you describe as sort of the root cause is the underlying pathology that might bring about procrastination, there’s a whole host of behaviors that sort of kick in that sort of feed on itself and sort of create this system in which they can’t not procrastinate.

Dennis: That’s right. I had a similar one when I was a screenwriter. I always thought of it as going down a ramp. And then I’d get up in the morning and I’d go, “Well, you know, I made some notes, and I returned some phone calls. Well, it’s going to be lunch time in an hour. And I can’t go down the ramp till lunch is over.” So, then I’d eat lunch and go, “In two more hours the mail comes. I’ve got to wait for the mail to come.”

And then I knew my agent was calling me back at three. And if I did it correctly, the entire day would go by, and it would seem totally reasonable to me because I couldn’t have gotten that block of five hours. And that fantasy of having a requirement of structure like that really dooms a lot of people.

Craig: Yeah.

John: So, are there interventions that if a client came to you with this problem of procrastination, what are some techniques you might propose?

Dennis: Well, here’s what I would suggest. First of all, as I said before, I don’t believe there is one size fits all, so I would need to know a little bit about their childhood, a little bit about how they dealt with criticism, what their expectations are. You know, there are people who want to write who at the same time don’t feel entitled to. And so if those two things are hitting, you know.

I had a guy procrastinate, to be honest with you, because — he was a novelist. His first novel was kind of well received. And the second novel was starting to get a lot of heat from the publisher and they were thinking this is going to be a big book. And he kept procrastinating and we finally found out it’s because his brother was a failed writer. And he was not able, at a very deep level, to do that to his brother, to be more successful than him.

But, in general, when someone says, “Look, I just need pragmatic tools.” The first thing I say to them — you need to feel good to write. Because I don’t think your writing cares how you feel. And so if you came to me, Craig, and you said, “Jesus, I feel, I don’t want to start, I feel sluggish, I feel I’m wasting my time. My best years are behind me. What am I doing?”

I’d say, “Okay, let’s put a character named Craig in a diner. And let’s have him sitting opposite somebody he knows, someone he likes, someone he respects. Give him this dialogue. Start talking. Tell me how you feel. Tell me what you think about the project you’re going to write.”

And as you start doing that the log jam breaks a little bit, because you’re telling yourself, “Oh, this doesn’t count. This isn’t real writing. This is just telling how I feel.” And sooner or later what will happen is you’ll start slipping into ideas. You’ll go, wait a minute, I want to write that line down, because if I do write this thing, this would be something I would use.

And I find that if a patient is willing to be uncomfortable writing, they’ll break through the procrastination. If they need to feel like they’re ready to write, they may have to wait forever.

Craig: Right. Well, it’s funny. I listen to you guys. I have a little bit of both. I know exactly what you mean about that fear of the lack of flow, because the first couple of lines sometimes are excruciating. And also just because of the way I approach writing, there are certain things I need to know to feel like I can get, well, what does the room look like, what’s going on, what’s the weather, what are they wearing, all the visual stuff.

And sometimes it’s hard to see it and you get tense. It’s like all your muscles tighten, you know. So, I have that.

But I also do have that kind of, well, you know, something about this scene, I can imagine somebody reading it and going, “Uh-huh,” and now I’m thinking about them. I’m thinking about the reader. I’m thinking about the director. I’m thinking about the movie. I’m thinking about the audience. I’m thinking, “God held me, the reviewers.”

Dennis: Well, that’s the shameful self-exposure. The funny this is perfectionists often have this problem because they want to be in the flow, too. And just as a pragmatic tool, and again, I’m a therapist, I’m not a writer instructor, but just as a pragmatic tool I often remind them, you know, when I was a screenwriter I assumed I was going to throw out the first 20 pages of my screenplay. That when I got to the end I knew who the people were and what the story was. And they didn’t talk like themselves in the first ten or 15 pages. So, I knew they were going to go.

And if you can get a person who struggles with perfectionism to really understand that it doesn’t count, the first 20 pages, and they can discover what it is and then go back and change that. It’s like a revelation. Because for perfectionists it’s like, “INT. HOTEL ROOM. What kind of hotel?” I would say, I don’t care…

Craig: That’s me, though.

Dennis: Go 20 pages and by the end of the screenplay it’s going to be a Motel 6 anyway.

Craig: Well, and it’s funny, because all those decisions that I sometimes sweat over so intensely, when we get to production someone is like, “Hey, you know, I just want to show you. We did some scouting. Here are the motels. But look at this place. It’s not at all what you call out.” And I’m like, oh, that would be awesome.

Dennis: Yeah.

Craig: And then you realize, oh yeah, that’s right — there are people to help. [laughs] You know? It’s not just me. It’s not just you. And that’s a wonderful feeling.

And part of what I think is interesting about the way you approach how you talk to writers from your articles in Written By and just from knowing you as I do is that you do preach a certain amount of “let yourself off the hook-ness.” I mean, it’s almost like we put ourselves on a hook because we’re procrastinating, and sometimes the answer to procrastinating is, “Okay, so you don’t have it today. That doesn’t mean you won’t have it tomorrow.”

As long as you don’t think that that’s permanent, that that state is permanent, there are times when I’m just like, “Not today. Pen down. Taking a walk.”

John: Yeah. The other common advice I end up giving is you will get to a place where, like, I don’t know how to write this scene, I don’t know what this scene is, I’m flipping out over it. So, write another scene. And the thing about a screenplay is it’s about 120 pages, so there’s going to be some other scene you can write.

And so if I have an extra 15 minutes in the parking garage at FOX, I’ll write a scene, I’ll just scribble it down on paper. And it may not be the most important scene, it may not be the most perfect scene, but it’s something that’s written.

Dennis: Right.

John: And if you can consistently be doing some work you’re going to get over that bump. And eventually you’ll write into that scene. You end up a lot of times sort of painting the corners and painting into the middle. And that’s okay.

Craig: Totally.

Dennis: That’s absolutely okay. It’s like the thing is that I’ve learned over the years is writing begets writing. I think thinking about it doesn’t beget writing. Worrying about it, you know. Frederic Raphael, one of my favorite screenwriters, said that for a writer there is only one real definition of work: pages that are there in the evening that weren’t there in the morning. He didn’t say good pages. He just said pages.

And, again, one of the things I try to work with people who are procrastinating, particularly if they’re perfectionists, is to get into this sort of benign relationship with their writing, because otherwise they’re demanding their writing mirror back to them that they’re great.

Craig: Yeah.

Dennis: They’re demanding their writing mirror back to them that they’re entitled to be a writer. You know, your words can’t take the weight of that. That’s way too much weight. You want your script to validate your leaving Dayton, Ohio to become a screenwriter instead of going into your dad’s pharmacy business. There’s no screenplay on earth that can do that for you.

Craig: I hope that people at home who are in Dayton, or places like Dayton, get that. Because it’s really, one of the things that we talk about a lot is the weight that people put on themselves to become a screenwriter, which is harder and harder to do. And how tragic, frankly, it is for so many of them who just aren’t going to be screenwriters.

And I want people to absorb this — it’s important — it’s an important lesson.

Dennis: Well, actually, I was at a seminar and somebody asked me one time what’s the most important trait to be a screenwriter and I said an ability to tolerate despair.

Craig: [laughs] That’s pretty much right.

Dennis: And I meant it seriously.

John: One of the things — circling back to something Craig said earlier — what is different about treating screenwriters or writers versus other people, one thing that seems like it would be different is that we are in our heads a lot in completely fantasy worlds. And so unlike a normal, you know, accountant, we have this fantasy life and this fantasy world that we have to maintain and live and keep sustaining.

This movie I made, The Nines, the middle section of it is about Ryan Reynolds’s character having the sort of nervous breakdown for this TV show. And it’s based on a real thing that happened to me. My very first TV show I created was a thing called DC. And I had to sort of keep the world of DC alive in my head at all times, so those characters had to be running at all times. And there was essentially a second world I had created inside there.

And ultimately the boundary between what was real and what was fiction was incredibly thin. And so I’d hear a song on the radio and I would snatch that song, like that song will be in the show, because I had to sort of constantly hunt and gather for that show.

Now, TV, I think, is its own unique beast and the way that we make TV is probably not healthy for anyone involved in television. But movies to a large degree can be the same thing where you’ve worked out this whole world and these characters and this is their universe, and you’re responsible as the creator for maintaining that universe for a long period of time.

Do you end up encountering writers who have that problem of and face challenges with this second world and their sense of responsibility to what they’ve created?

Dennis: Oh, all the time. In fact, it’s interesting. One of the reasons, you know, I have had executives and producers and directors as patients as well, and they often complain that writers don’t take notes very well, they’re often very resistant. And, see, I know from my own experience and that of my patients that they so live in the world of their screenplay that it becomes a kind of context in which they live.

And so the notes makes no sense. It’s like if somebody says, “Oh, you know, your son would look a lot better if he had spiked hair.” And you go, “I love this kid exactly the way the kid is, you know, not because I’m crazy or a narcissist, though I may be crazy and a narcissist.” But the reality is it’s because I know this world really, really well.

The problem is, unlike a brick layer or a carpenter, the raw materials of a writer’s life is his or her imagination and feelings — things that they live with moment to moment to moment. When you’re a brick layer, you’re done at 5 o’clock. You put the bricks down. You go home and watch a ballgame. There’s no bricks on your lap.

A writer goes home, those bricks are on his lap, or her lap, they’re in his pocket, they’re on their head. They’re putting their kids to bed and the kid will say something and the writer will think, “I can use that,” because a brick just fell out of their pocket. That’s not the way most people live. So, it is particular to writers to carry around their imaginative life.

To me, it always reminds me of what Margaret Mead said when she was doing research in Samoa. She said, “Well, my job was to be a participant observer.” And my experience of writers is they tend to be participant observers.

I’ll have a patient come back from their wedding and they will describe it as though it’s a scene from Portnoy’s Complaint. They were in it, they were glad to be getting married, but they were watching the wedding as though it were a scene.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yeah.

Craig: We’re kind of addicted to narrative.

Dennis: Very much so.

Craig: That’s why I try and talk to writers in narrative terms because I feel like it’s something we understand. But I really like what you’re saying that the idea that, because it’s true, when you get those notes that drop the bottom out from under you, when you feel like you’re literally falling through the floor, sometimes it’s because there is this incredible dissonance between what they’re suggesting and what you are perceiving as reality, as real. Like, that’s not possible.

You can say, “Well, what if — what if — water was actually hard and sharp.” You don’t understand what you just did to the world. I’m looking at the water. I drink it. It’s in me. That’s wrong.

Dennis: Yeah.

Craig: And if you were to say to somebody in their regular life, and have the ability to actually change things around them that way, like, “You know, you have three sons. What if they were girls?” How violent — people would respond so violently to that. And the funny thing is you’d think that other writers would be sensitive to this, but they’re not. Because one of the things I find so fascinating is when you look at — I do arbitration sometimes for our credits. So, people will write their statements: This is why I think I deserve credit.

And a lot of the statements are like, “So, this is what my script is. And then I read this, and it’s just a version of my script.” No, it’s just a version of your script to you because these are words to you. That other person had like lived in their world. Like they went into your script, which was just a script to them, and built their world.

Dennis: Right.

Craig: And it’s so funny how we can’t see that.

Dennis: Well, it’s because you’re talking about the fantasy of objectivity. See, the reality is we are only conscious of our subjective experience. So, we look at everything through our own glasses. And so if a script, we’re rewriting someone else, we look at that other person’s script — we’re not in their subjective experience of creation.

Craig: Yeah. It’s words.

Dennis: It’s just a bunch of words. And you go, “Well, who would use a word like that?”

Craig: Right. Exactly.

John: Reading that script you say, “Well, I took this character that was named Karen and made it Susan, but she looks the same,” because she looks the same in your head.

Craig: Exactly right, yeah.

John: We forget that this whole world that exists in your head. And so I have seen this whole movie before.

Craig: “All they did was change the names and do a thing. And all they did was, okay, so it was a train and now it’s a boat. But it’s the same! It’s a train or a boat.” [laughs]

Dennis: I know.

Craig: It’s wild. Isn’t it amazing?

John: The classic advice to writers who are sitting down with directors or executives for the first time is just to remember that the writer is the only person who has already seen the movie. And so they’ve read your script, and they like your script, but as good as you were in sort of evoking the spirit of the movie with those 12-point Courier sounds and actions, it’s not the same as exactly what’s in your head. And it can never be quite that.

Dennis: That’s right.

John: And so a lot of times when you have those first meetings where you’re sitting down with a director, what you’re really doing is you’re just trying to communicate what it is that you’re seeing there and get a sense of what he or she is seeing there and making those align as best they can.

Dennis: Yeah. It’s hard for people to realize that if three people read a script there are three different scripts they read, three different movies they saw in their head. I mean, I remember so often just dealing with, especially early in my practice, dealing with patients who just could not deal with the concept that someone would read their script and not see what they saw. You know?

And it’s just the reality that we see everything from our own subjective lenses.

John: Do you deal with writing partners often in your practice?

Dennis: Mm-hmm. Oh yeah.

John: And so it feels like the interpersonal tensions there must be…

Craig: Couple’s therapy.

Dennis: Yeah. I do couple’s therapy with writing teams. Sometimes they’re married to each other, which makes it much more intense. But most of the time they’re not. But the issues are exactly as if they were married. They’re power issues, control issues. One will be late. Which one is the funny on? And which one got to return their agent’s phone call and does the agent like one of them better than the other?

It’s very fraught. I mean, the value — I started in television with a partner, a comedy writer named Mark Evanier, and there was enormous value in having a partner, because I was 22 and scared to death. And, you know, it’s a lot easier if a pitch goes badly to go outside and go, “Well, those guys are morons.” And have someone to share the disappointment with.

But it’s also enormously fraught, because again, there’s no two subjectivities are the same. And invariably when I’m working with a team I’ll get a call from one of them going, “I’m working on a script by myself. When do I tell him?”

Craig: Yeah.

Dennis: I mean, this happens all the time.

Craig: Right. And what do you do with that?

Dennis: I say, “I don’t have any private conversations with you. You come into the office with your writing partner…”

Craig: And we’ll talk it out.

Dennis: “…and we will talk it out.” I don’t carry secrets like that. And I have never had a writing team that didn’t try to have a secret, a one-on-one conversation with me.

Craig: Wow.

Dennis: Yeah, but you know, everyone feels as though who they are, and what they believe, and what they need to say. They want it to come out as unfiltered as possible. You have to get through a director, a producer, a network executive, a star. You also have to get through your writing partner.

Craig: I know.

Dennis: And Mark and I worked together pretty well, but I remember arguments we would have that just seemed ludicrous. I thought to myself, “Jesus, we’re arguing over punctuation.”

Craig: Yeah.

Dennis: But we weren’t arguing over punctuation. It’s power.

Craig: That’s a more reasonable argument than the kind I used to have with my writing partner. We would have some crazy arguments. And the truth is it was, at least for me and for Greg, well, I can’t speak for Greg, but for me it’s because I’m probably not supposed to have a writing partner. I’m one of those guys…

Dennis: Yeah. And the arguments are never about what they’re about. They’re about all the unspoken stuff in the partnership.

John: Yeah. I’m not supposed to have a writing partner, either. And so Jordan Mechner, who is a good friend and a terrific writer, he and wrote a pilot for Fox together. And the power disparity between us just made it really ridiculous for us to do it, because any argument we would really get into I would just sort of trump card him, and that wasn’t fair and it wasn’t good for the concept.

Craig: “I’m John August, dammit.”

John: Slam!

Craig: [roars] And flip the table. Have you ever seen him flip a table?

Dennis: No.

John: I Hulk out all the time.

Dennis: Oh really? Cool.

Craig: All the time. Absolutely. He gets 4% bigger.

Dennis: But, yeah, this is Craig’s table, not mine. So, feel free to flip it if you want to.

John: It’s a very heavy table.

Craig: Yeah, he can’t flip this one. No, I’m thinking more like Bridge tables. Lighter fare.

John: Yeah, this is the arts and craftsy kind of thing, suitable for Pasadena. It looks quite heavy.

Craig: Yeah.

John: But I would say my only good writing partner experience, not that Jordan was bad or anything, but the only one I feel good about was Andrew Lippa with Big Fish in that he had a completely different skill set and so we complemented each other in a way. But it has been that issue of recognizing that it’s like a marriage and that you have to sort of sometimes talk about yourselves and what your relationship is so that it’s all good.

Craig: Sometimes you have to have sex.

John: No, that doesn’t work.

Craig: Oh, it doesn’t work?

Dennis: No, I found that’s actually very effective.

Craig: Okay, no matter who they are?

Dennis: No matter who they are. Yes.

Craig: I agree with you. The most fruitful writing partnership that I’ve had is with Todd Phillips. And I think in large part it’s because even though we write together, he’s the director. And we’re writing together, we’re coming up with the story together, but usually I’ll start and then we’ll kind of go through it together. There is a division of labor that’s natural, and frankly also there’s a division of labor just in terms of where we’re going to end up. That ultimately we can start together, but we will diverge and then I’ll be over here looking at the script and he’s over here doing the billion things that the director does.

And it makes it somehow okay. It’s like a partnership that’s not a partnership, and that’s fine. And we also then can go and go our separate ways. My fortunes aren’t tied to this person. That’s so much of the like I can feel the choking stuff.

Dennis: That’s so much of the dynamic, right, is that for writing teams, particularly longstanding writing teams, their fortunes are tied together.

Craig: Right.

Dennis: And it’s very, very, very, very difficult. And yet so many of them, either one or the other is clandestinely writing something. It’s just…

Craig: I have like, I want to talk to you about, I want to do another podcast on my own. Just me.

Dennis: Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Craig: Not with this guy.

Dennis: Not with this guy.

Craig: But can I talk to you about it separately or do I have to do it with — okay, I’ll do it in front of him.

Dennis: I had a great story. I was working on a film when I was in the film business with a very well known comedy star and his writing-producing partner. And the three of us would work every day. And at one point the producing partner went to the bathroom and the comedy star turned to me and said, “I can’t deal with this guy anymore. I have had it with him. I can’t deal with him. He’s such a pain in the ass.”

So then the producing partner came in, and after a few minutes the comedy star went out to go to the bathroom and the producing partner turned to me and said, “I’ve had it. This is the last film I’m doing with him.” And so I was afraid to leave the room. [laughs]

Craig: Those situations, I’m always very scared, because I always feel like they’ll do that, and they mean it in the moment, but if you dare get in between those jaws, they will close on you.

Dennis: That’s right. That’s right.

Craig: You’ll be the — it’s like, “Oh, I knighted you by…” The Weinstein brothers are notorious. Harvey and Bob fight like cats and dogs, but…

John: Don’t try to come between them.

Craig: People that have got in between them have just been crushed.

Dennis: Yeah, addendum: they’re still together.

Craig: Well, we’ll see how that goes.

Dennis: No, no, I mean…

Craig: Oh, those guys?

Dennis: The two guys. And this goes back 25 years. They’re still together.

Craig: Nice. See, there you go.

John: So, a practical question. Let’s say a writer who is a working screenwriter, is in the WGA, needed to see someone like yourself for some issues, is that a thing that insurance covers? How do they come to you and how does that work?

Dennis: Well, they come to me primarily now through referrals. They used to come to me through my column. People would read it and call me. I work fee-for-service. People, I bill my patients, and then they pay me, because I want to liberate them from me talking to their insurance carrier about their issues.

So, what happens is they pay me and then take the invoice and send it to the Writers Guild, or the Directors Guild, whatever, and get reimbursed. And the reimbursement is very, very good.

Craig: Yeah, it’s the same. It’s just really that you handle your own paperwork.

Dennis: Yeah, you handle your own paperwork. Because if you go onto one of their preferred providers they’ll tell you how many sessions you can have. And to get the assigned benefits you have to talk about their issues. And I don’t trust corporations not to share that material. So, you know, I’m an old ’60s guy, I guess, whatever. But that’s how that works. It’s fee-for-service.

Craig: And you just call you up. Just call Dennis Palumbo.

Dennis: Yeah, just call me up. Or you can find me through my website cleverly named dennispalumbo.com. And you can email me and we’ll set up a time to talk on the phone. And I’ll try to make sure it’s a good fit. I think people should be really good consumers of their own therapy. Regardless of what they thought about what I said here, if they come in and it doesn’t feel like a good fit for them they shouldn’t work with me.

They should find the person with whom they feel comfortable.

John: One thing I’ve noticed in the past few years is writers who when you get them talking will talk about Adderall or some other sort of performance enhancing drug. Is that something you see in your practice?

Dennis: Constantly.

John: And that’s a growing thing, is that correct?

Dennis: Yeah.

John: Can we talk about some of the reasons why writers start on that and your experience with writers who use that and whether it’s, you know, is it helpful, is it harmful? What is the spectrum of what you see?

Dennis: It runs the gambit. There are people who just use Red Bull because they’re using the caffeine hit. And there are people who, I mean, for a long time Ritalin was used, very small milligram percentage. And then now Adderall a lot. And it’s the same as in the ’70s when I was on TV shows and everybody used coke because they thought it made them funnier.

I think there’s kind of a placebo effect with Red Bull and Adderall because if you’re interested you have energy.

Craig: Right.

Dennis: If you’re engaged with your writing you can do two, three hours. Unless you have severe ADD, I think it’s become like a — it’s sort of like 25 year olds who take Viagra, just to put a little topping on it, you know? Well, that’s what I see with some of my patients. And you have to be careful because the stuff can get really addictive, particularly psychologically, telling yourself that without this you can’t work.

Craig: Without it I can’t do it. I hear also people using this Provigil. Have you heard of this one?

Dennis: Yeah, I’ve heard that one, too. You’d be surprised how many people still use grass for that reason.

Craig: That’s a great ’60s term. Grass, man.

Dennis: Well, weed, whatever you want to call it. But they really do feel that it sort of lowers the Portcullis Gates and allows their creativity to come in. I’m exactly the opposite.

Craig: Exactly. I’m such a Boy Scout. I can’t even handle music playing while I’m writing, unless it’s orchestral film score, like low. I can’t write after a glass of wine. I can barely write after a Tylenol. [laughs] I’m like I need to be so sober…

Dennis: Yeah, if I have a glass of red wine I’m done for like the week.

Craig: Pretty much, yeah.

Dennis: I’m a real lightweight.

Craig: Have you ever dabbled?

John: I can’t. And I have to be really quite sober. I glass of wine, I can still function. But, I think honestly alcohol for me is that thing that happens at dinner or after dinner that says like, okay, the night is over. It’s a signal to my body saying, “You are free now to stop thinking about your work.”

Dennis: Yeah. That, to me it’s like “it’s Miller time.” That’s what the one glass of wine is.

Craig: Alcohol, definitely. And it makes sense because alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. It’s generally not a good idea to depress your central nervous system that you’re relying on to write. Although I will — an occasional cigar does miracles for me, I have to say. I little bit of nicotine there does seem to kind of…focus in.

Dennis: I have some very successful patients who go off cigarettes for months and months and months until they get their next screenplay deal. And then they smoke for the four months they’re writing the draft, because they can’t write without cigarettes. And then they go off again.

Craig: [laughs] That’s…they should stop doing that. That’s bad.

Dennis: I know. But they’ve been stopping and starting for 25 years.

John: Couched in what you were saying earlier about Adderall is you say like people can get their two or three hours in. I think it was nice that you said two or three hours, because I think there’s this belief that like you should be able to write like eight hours in a day. And no one does that.

Craig: Two or three.

Dennis: When I was a screenwriter I wrote every day from 9 to 1, and the first hour was rereading what I had written the day before. And I wrote two or three hours, max, and I felt like I was doing my job.

See, I’m very blue collar about work, about writing, I really am. I don’t think you sit and wait for inspiration or any of that crap. I think you sit down and you put in your three hours.

And when someone says, “Well, I’ve got to write for eight or ten hours if I’m really inspired,” they’re telling themselves that they’re not a craftsman and they’re not a professional. They’re telling themselves that some lucky bolt of lightning came through the window and is helping them write. And if they stop they’ll never have that again. And I think that that sends you a bad signal about your own sense of craft.

Craig: I agree. I’ve always approached it as there is the preparing to write, which is quite lengthy for me, and then there’s the writing, which is a sprint. And sometimes it’s a two-hour sprint, but it’s a sprint. And it’s a very focused thing. When I’m done, I’m exhausted. I’m physically exhausted, you know, because I’m acting it out, I’m seeing it, I’m gone. I’m in some weird fugue state while I’m writing. And that’s important. That’s part of it.

But I’ve felt it, like when I get to like that fourth or fifth page, I can feel it going away. And I’ve come over time to recognize — Stop. I mean, I want to stop anyway. I want to stop after a half a page. But there have been days where I have. I’ve gotten to a half a page, and I stop. And you feel a little bit like a baby, but the important thing is it’s okay to feel like a baby as long as you don’t decide that means you are a baby.

Dennis: Are a baby. That’s right.

John: Another thing I’ve noticed with writers is because we can do our work at any place at any time, a lot of us tend to do it from like midnight to 6am. And at what point do you say like well that’s getting your work done, or at what point are you saying, well, that’s not healthy for you and your family and for your life. Does that come up?

Dennis: It comes up all the time. See, I have kind of a different view. My view is you need to have a benign relationship with your process. So, if you like to write in the morning, or the afternoon, if you like to write after midnight, then do it.

What I think is a mistake is to go, “Gee, I just read that Aaron Sorkin writes from midnight till six, so I should write from midnight to six.” The fantasy that there is some technique that frees you from the struggle of writing.

On the other hand, we live in the real world. I mean, if I were a screenwriter now, I could never write from midnight till six because I have a wife and a kid and a dog and cats.

Craig: I’m too old to do that anymore.

Dennis: Plus, my body won’t tolerate it. It just won’t. And so I think you have to find the process that feels the most congenial. But, again, writers don’t live in a vacuum. They’re often in a relationship, they often have children, or siblings that they’re dealing with. One of my most successful writers has a severely handicapped sibling. And she’s in charge of this sibling. And that’s a big aspect of her life.

So, there’s not going to be any of these 12-hour writing days for her. That’s not going to happen. But she still gets a lot of work done, because there doesn’t have to be 12-hour writing days.

Craig: Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

Dennis: There doesn’t have to be anything.

Craig: Ah!

Dennis: And I think that’s the key for new writers.

Craig: That’s good. I like that. That’s a great place to end, don’t you think?

John: I agree.

Craig: It doesn’t have to be anything. Oh, boy, I always feel better after I talk to you. Well, thank you. That was spectacular.

If you feel like joining in, we have our One Cool Thing. Do you have a One Cool Thing?

John: I do have a One Cool Thing.

Dennis: I do, too.

Craig: All three of us have a One Cool Thing. We have Three Cool Things.

John: My One Cool Thing actually ties in pretty well to some of our topics today. It’s a movie that I saw because the filmmaker was up at the Sundance Labs. And so his film had already been on my list of movies I want to see at some point. I have a long list. But I needed to see it because I was going to meet with him.

The movie is called The Imposter. And it’s terrific. And so the conceit behind The Imposter, which is not a spoiler because in the first three minutes you’ll know what’s happening. There is a boy in Texas who disappears. And his family looks for him. A big search, flyers everywhere. Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Years later he shows up in France and they find him in France — I’m sorry, Spain. He calls back and, they call back and are like, “We found your son.” They come and get him, they bring him back. And what you realize is it’s not the same kid at all. It’s just an imposter, a guy pretending to be their son. And you think like that can’t possibly have a third act. Because you know what the third act is going to be. They’re going to find out that’s not him.

And yet it has this amazing third act. And it’s a documentary that’s really ingenious in that…

Craig: Oh, it’s a documentary?

John: Yes.

Craig: Oh, it’s real?

John: It’s real. And what’s so fascinating about the technique the director chose is you’re intercutting between these very Errol Morris, static, beautifully lit interviews, talking heads with recreations of what’s actually happening in ways that are so seamless and transfixing that the central conceit, the metaphor of the imposter feels perfect because you’re watching these doppelgängers sort of move between documentary and dramatic film.

Craig: Oh, that’s interesting.

John: So, it’s highly recommended. It’s on Netflix right now, streaming.

Craig: Excellent. Well, my One Cool Thing is an app. Now that we have our Twitter army that supports me, because I never have One Cool Thing, this is what happens, because I never think about it, and then I go, “Uh, I don’t know.” So, I’ve asked them to help me with One Cool Things. And it’s great because now people are constantly Tweeting me with these cool things.

And almost always they’re cool, but this one was cool! It’s so stupid, but I love it. It’s called Paper Karma. It’s an app. You have an old school phone, you can’t use this, but we have cool phones.

Paper Karma, genius. You get junk mail. The junk mail is addressed to you. You launch Paper Karma, it turns your camera on, and you just take a picture of your address on the thing and you hit send and it goes to them and they see, “Okay, so this catalog sent you this thing that you don’t want, now we’ll take it from here. We’ve got your name and your address and the catalog. We’re now doing all the paperwork for them to tell them to stop sending you stuff.”

Dennis: Oh my god. What a great app!

Craig: It’s awesome. So, now like every day I got the mailbox excited about junk mail, so I can take pictures of it and send it to Paper Karma.

John: I am so dubious, Craig. I feel like they are just giving your address again, and again, and again.

Craig: No! No way!

John: Because they verify that a person is actually there receiving that mail.

Craig: No, they’re good people.

John: Oh, okay.

Dennis: Oh, yeah.

Craig: Check it out.

John: I love that Craig believes in random people but has huge distrust in belief over other sets of people.

Craig: If I can see you, then I don’t trust you. [laughs] That’s basically how it works. But if I don’t see you and you have a name and an app and an icon, then I totally trust you.

John: There’s someone in India who is like, “He’s sending us his address again. He must really be there.”

Dennis: Yes!

Craig: Well I don’t care. I’m going to keep doing it. I’m very, very, very…ah, and listen. [fire truck sirens in background] There they are. Ah, the children of the night.

John: I was worried we weren’t going to have any sirens.

Craig: I know. It would have bummed people out. So, this is what goes on usually three or four times a podcast.

Dennis: Is that because of the bomb threats?

Craig: It’s because the fire station is down the street. And, also, sometimes when I’m bored I phone in a bomb threat or two to Cheesecake Factory.

John: I was really hoping that the maintenance worker was going to come in and empty out trash. That’s the best moment.

Craig: She’s my favorite.

Dennis: Oh yeah?

Craig: She’s not here today. So, Dennis, what about your One Cool Thing?

Dennis: My One Cool Thing is a film, a Spanish film, and the reason I mention it is because as someone who writes crime novels and I’ve read like five million of them, and I’ve seen practically every crime thriller ever made, there’s a Spanish film called The Secret in Their Eyes that is one of the most beautifully written and acted crime procedurals I’ve ever seen and has the most surprising ending I think I’ve ever seen for a crime thriller. The combination of humanity, yearning, regret, all the stuff in the human condition, even what we think of as what appropriate justice for a bad guy would be, all of it gets turned on its head.

And I recommend it very, very highly.

Craig: What was the title one more time?

Dennis: It’s called The Secret in Their Eyes.

Craig: The Secret in their Eyes.

Dennis: And it’s Spanish and it’s quite remarkable.

Craig: Excellent. Excellent.

Craig: Dennis, thank you so much for coming. This was a lot of fun.

Dennis: this was a real pleasure. Thank you so much.

Craig: It was great, thank you. I think you’ve probably helped quite a few people today.

Dennis: Well, I hope so.

Craig: I will return to hurting them, again, next week, and that’s it.

John: That’s it. Take care.

Craig: That’s it. Fantastic. Thanks.

LINKS:

  • Dennis Palumbo, author and psychotherapist
  • Dennis’s book Night Terrors: A Daniel Rinaldi Mystery on Amazon
  • Impostor Syndrome on Wikipedia
  • The Imposter
  • Paper Karma helps you control your mailbox
  • The Secret in Their Eyes

Scriptnotes, Ep 98: Long movies, producer credits and price-fixing — Transcript

July 19, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/long-movies-producer-credits-and-price-fixing).

**John August:** Bonjour et bienvenue. Je m’appelle John August.

**Craig Mazin:** Je m’appelle Craig Mazin.

**John:** Et cet épisode 98 de Scriptnotes, un podcast pour les scénaristes et les choses qui sont intéressants pour les scénaristes.

Craig, comment ça va?

**Craig:** Bien. Eh…[laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** My French is really good when I read it. I’m terrible at speaking French.

**John:** I’m not especially good at speaking French, either. I’m a good French reader, usually, because you get your Latin roots, you can sort of make it all work.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But conversation is challenging, which is challenging for me this week because I’m in Paris. And so I’m in Paris here with my family on vacation. And most of the time I get to speak English because my family speaks English. But when we were around my husband’s friends who speak French, I can follow the conversation if I dedicate every brain cell, but then it comes my turn to speak and I just sound like a third grader.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, I lock up. And it’s funny; I have enough where sometimes I can start conversations. So, when my wife and I were in French Polynesia, I could start a conversation with a waiter and my accent is all right. And then I would know, like instead of saying “oui” you oftentimes say “ouais,” which is like yup, or yeah, or ouais.

**John:** D’accord.

**Craig:** And then they think, “Oh, look, he speaks French, and then they really gear it up. And then I’m like, “Non, non, non. Si tu parles plus lentement, peut-être je te comprends.” [laughs]

**John:** What I have found to be the most fun and challenging scenario is whenever we go traveling overseas we do the little Pimsleur courses first, the little audio-only courses that are really good for like just the very basic like, “Hey, hello, how are you? I need help with this thing,” kind of stuff. And they’re completely audio. And you get a really good accent off of them because you’re not messed up at all by reading or trying to figure out how things are supposed to be written down. You’re just speaking.

So, I’ve done that for Mandarin Chinese. I have done it for Japanese. I’ve done it for a few other languages. And Korean was impossible. Like no one can actually speak Korean. I’m amazed that anyone can speak Korean.

But, I can do it for both Japanese and Mandarin. And I sound really convincing for about three sentences. And so someone will go back to me at full speed. I’m like, no, no, no, I really do not speak your language. I can just fake it.

**Craig:** Right. I was just lying. [laughs]

**John:** It’s just all a lie.

**Craig:** Yeah. I suckered you in and now I’ve got nothing.

**John:** Nope. But we have a lot today, because we have a lot of things that happened in the news and then we want to answer some questions that came in over the transom. So, let’s get started.

**Craig:** Great. Let’s do it!

**John:** The things I want to talk about today. First is two things in the news. Apple lost its first round in this federal lawsuit about price fixing. And I want to talk about not that so much, but what it actually means for Hollywood and sort of the business of what we do.

The Producers Guild reach a new agreement with the studios on credits for feature films and for television.

**Craig:** Producers, right?

**John:** Producers, not writers. Producers.

And, finally, there are a couple articles recently about how movies seem to have gotten so long and whether that’s a thing that can be rectified. And sort of where long movies come from. Let’s do that.

**Craig:** Let’s dive in.

**John:** First just some housekeeping, though, some Scriptnotes business. If you bought a t-shirt, it’s probably in your hands. If it’s not in your hands then you should email Stuart at orders@johnaugust.com. And Stuart, who is the person who mans that desk, will figure out where your shirt is, because most of the shirts — I think all of the shirts have been shipped out into the world.

**Craig:** I’m wearing my blue, soft shirt right now.

**John:** Is it nice?

**Craig:** It’s so soft.

**John:** It’s really truly soft.

**Craig:** It’s great.

**John:** And so we had promised like the softest shirt known to mankind. And I actually emailed out to everybody who ordered the blue shirt, because we ended up switching from one model to another model, but it’s a really, really soft shirt; it’s just a shirt that I preferred to the one that Stuart had picked.

There were some questions and confusion about the Golden Ticket. So, the Golden Ticket is when we sent out all these shirts we had these postcards in them and on one postcard, this was actually your idea, Craig, so I’m crediting and blaming you for this.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** We handwrote, you and I handwrote saying, “This is the Golden Ticket. If you have this ticket and this secret magic word, email us and we will give you your special prize.”

**Craig:** And has anyone claimed the prize?

**John:** No one has claimed the prize. But a lot of people have written into Stuart saying like, “I think I got the Golden Ticket because I got a special card in my…”

**Craig:** NO!

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** No, you’re not special, snowflake. Everyone got a card. There’s only person out there, and you know… — You know how businesses will do these rebate things where you buy something and it’s a rebate and all you have to do is mail it in. And they do that on purpose because they know no one will ever mail it in. I feel like the person who gets the Golden Ticket won’t even realize and they’re just going to chuck it.

**John:** Yeah. It’s entirely possible that that happened. Because we didn’t keep track of it. Truly, we just like stuffed things in envelopes and we never flipped them back over.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** And now Craig is drinking a beer.

**Craig:** No, it’s a Diet Dr. Pepper.

**John:** That’s his drink of choice. I can actually hear you pouring it into a glass. Are you pouring it into a glass?

**Craig:** No. No, that was a bus. [laughs] Listen, there’s a lot of noise here and you have to learn to discern the subtle difference between city bus and liquid hitting a glass.

**John:** It’s tough. I’m not good with those kind of skills.

**Craig:** Oh, god, that’s good Diet Dr. Pepper.

**John:** And so we’ll make sure we have some of those on hand for you for the live 100th Episode on July 25th in Hollywood.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** Now, a bunch of people have asked, say like, “I didn’t get a ticket. How do I get a ticket? Can I please get a ticket?” We’re not at this point planning to release another block of tickets. But what we do know is that there will be some standby tickets available. And so like there will be an opportunity to line up and just come join us.

We will be tweeting about that the day before, so follow me or Craig on Twitter. I’m @johnaugust. He’s @clmazin. And when we know what the scoop is we will tell you the scoop. There are only a certain number of people that can fit into that space, but we intend to get as many people who want to come see our show into that space as possible.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** Cool. Let’s talk about some things. So, first off, this is a federal lawsuit that happened. This was Federal US government against Apple. And so originally it was the US government against Apple and a bunch of publishers, but the publishers all settled out. And so Apple was like the last man standing there.

And this was a federal lawsuit and the judge, Denise Cote, ruled that Apple conspired with five major publishers to raise the retail price of eBooks. So, the actual opinion that came out, this was yesterday as we’re recording this, was 160 pages. I’m not going to try to like summarize the summaries I’ve read. But it comes down to the question of by whether offering the publishers a chance to set the prices on the books, Apple effectively raised the prices for the whole eBook industry.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And she said, “Yeah, they did.”

**Craig:** It’s a very strange case to me, honestly.

**John:** It’s bizarre.

**Craig:** Yeah, what instigated it was Amazon. Amazon started selling eBooks, essentially is what it comes down to — eBooks. They started selling eBooks at $9.99, even if the price that Amazon was paying to the publishers for the books was greater than $9.99. And the reason they were doing that is classic loss-leader stuff: create a business, become the monopoly in that space, and then go ahead and raise the prices later once you’ve got everybody dialed in to using, I mean, really it’s about driving the Kindle. And it’s just about driving traffic to Amazon.

Amazon, to me, that’s the dangerous area is when you look at Amazon and their monopolistic practices. Apple comes along and says, “Well, we want to sell books, too.” And the book industry, it’s very industry. The book industry had a very interesting reaction to Amazon, because let’s say I sell a book to Amazon and the wholesale price to Amazon is $12. And Amazon turns around and sells it for $9.99. What do I care? I got my $12.

I think their general feeling was that Amazon was just setting them all up for a fall sooner or later, and in general driving down the prices of books isn’t a good thing.

**John:** Absolutely. And, also, look at the publisher’s perspective. They would rather you maybe buy that $25 hardcover book.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** They don’t want the mental price point of books to be set at such a low thing that they can’t keep charging $20 for a book.

**Craig:** Right. So, Apple comes to them and they’re like, “Oh, good, finally. Somebody is going to do this a different way.” And initially I guess Apple was like, “We’ll do what Amazon does.” And the booksellers said, “How about something else? How about we use what’s called the Agency Model? Which is essentially how app sales work, where basically we set the price on our end. You just take a cut. You take a percentage.”

And Apple said, fine, let’s do that. Where they seem to have run into trouble is that they wanted to safeguard against basically being stuck selling a book for $15 when Amazon was selling the same book for $9.99. So, they got some deal where — I don’t even understand how they worked this out — but basically there were price tiers. It gets really confusing.

**John:** They created both price tiers and a most favored nation status where they had the option to sell for whatever the lowest existing price was for something.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And her argument, the judge’s argument, is that you combine these tiers, the most favored nations and the fact that you’re basically simultaneously dealing with all these publishers that de facto by making this deal the publishers were going to go back to Amazon and say, “Okay, now you’re going to take this new business model,” and the prices were going to go up. The prices did, in fact, go up across the board.

**Craig:** That’s what they did, right. They went back to Amazon and Amazon took that deal. But, I don’t understand how that’s Apple’s fault?

**John:** Well, Apple, I think, makes the very compelling argument that there was essentially no way they could enter this marketplace without coming into it basically exactly this situation. Any other entrance into what was essentially already a monopolistic situation was going to run into this area. Because if you try to do anything different you’re going to change the pricing because the pricing was bizarre. The pricing was not normal and so it’s not that you’re anti-competitive. You were trying to compete and by competing you were raising prices.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s basically, you know, Amazon legally can get away with selling books for $1 if they feel like it. But the second Apple basically says, “Hey publishers, let’s all get together and agree on a structure together,” that is seen as a collusive behavior, I guess. And that’s where she argues they violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

**John:** Yeah. So, the publishers clearly had already gotten together in ways and that was really, even before Apple had gotten involved, they had gotten together and had conversations which were suspect. But they settled those out without admitting any fault. So, Apple is the only person left standing here. And they’re the ones who are going to have to defend themselves at this next level. And apparently what I’ve read about this, these cases often go to appeal. This could go to the Supreme Court. So, this is not the final round on this.

And so in the show notes at johnaugust.com for this episode I will put two good articles, I thought, that sort of talked through the bigger issues at play in this specific case. So, Adam C. Engst wrote a really good piece for TidBits. And Philip Elmer-DeWitt wrote a bigger piece at Fortune that explains what the appeal might be.

What I thought would be interesting for us to talk about though is sort of what ways is this analogous to what happens in studio business and in what ways is it not really applicable. Because if I look at the publishers, you look at the five big publishers that control most of the bestsellers. That seems pretty analogous to our big studio system, is that we have these big giant corporations that produce most of our film and television work.

What is different is there is nothing like an Amazon. There is not one place that is so… — There is not one retailer that is so dominant that you have to bend to their whims. At times there has been. I feel like Walmart probably was at a certain point where it didn’t have the majority of control but it had such a huge footprint that you had to sort of bow to them. But, I think it’s interesting to think about because we as a business would love to be able to control price for our DVDs.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And we can’t.

**Craig:** We can’t. Movie tickets are set by the theaters. And they basically, they don’t collude. They essentially look at what people are selling tickets for down the street and they adjust. Movie ticket prices vary all across the country.

When it comes to things like DVDs and stuff like that, the retailers set prices. There’s always a manufactured, a retail price that’s recommended, I would imagine. But the companies don’t fix those.

What came to mind for me was Netflix, because I was talking to a friend of mine who is retired now, but he used to be pretty high up in home video at one of the studios. And he said Netflix essentially is dumping product out there. It’s dumping these rentals out there for two bucks, or something like that. And essentially undermining the value of the libraries.

And I said, [laughs], so very naively, I said, “Well, why don’t the studios just get together and tell them you can’t do that anymore?” And he said, “That’s against the law.”

**John:** That’s against the law.

**Craig:** You know, that’s the problem. The studios can’t get together and say to Netflix, “We’re not letting you do that anymore. We’re going to…” You can’t even say, “We’re not going to give you our movies anymore” as a group.

So, then the problem is, well, if one studio does it, then the other ones are like, “Good. Less competition.” [laughs] Do you know what I mean? It’s like this is the problem. The studios can’t collude to protect their shared greedy interests. So, you have this kind of weird game theory problem of the commons, so to speak.

**John:** Let’s take a little history trip backwards. Because the studios have been involved in antitrust classically and that was back in the days of theaters. And so the studious used to be vertically integrated companies where they not only made movies but they exhibited movies and they used to own theaters. And I’m always going to blank out on the name of the thing that busted that up, but essentially the studios had to divest themselves of movie theaters.

And so movie theaters, the exhibitors who are sort of the equivalent of the retail sellers of movies, cannot be owned by the major studios. And that was a decision that was made.

If you look at broadcast, there classically were distinctions between making television and being able to broadcast television.

**Craig:** Fin-syn.

**John:** Yeah, fin-syn. To some degree there still is. There is some degree you can only own a certain number of broadcast outlets in certain markets, but that has changed over the time, too.

Where the money is now, though, is in video. And so it’s in being able to sell somebody a physical product, those discs. That’s why there have been concerns about like Redbox, when Redbox was a big worry, those vending machines that were dispensing DVDs as rentals that was driving down the prices or driving down the ability of studios to sell those things for purchase because people were just renting them for so super cheap.

Where I think it’s probably most applicable to this Apple lawsuit is in the digital purchase and digital — I guess really digital purchase of movies. Because when you’re dealing with a physical product, that physical product can be resold. There’s markets you’re never going to be able to control. And the same thing happened with books, too. Used book stores aren’t publisher’s favorite things, but they can’t really control that.

When you’re dealing with a digital good, so like that digital purchase of a movie, that’s the kind of thing that’s going to be much harder for the studio to set the price. And it’s conceivable that someone like an Amazon could come in and say, “Okay, we’ll buy your movie from the studio for $2 a copy, but we’re going to sell it for $1.” And the studios would not be delighted by that, at all.

**Craig:** No. I think for awhile the studios were talking about a joint venture where they would have some sort of collective Netflix service that they would own and control. I’m not sure they’re allowed to do that. I’m not sure the five studios can get together and create one company through which they distribute everything digitally. I think that might be antitrust.

I don’t know enough about it. All I know is that they’re in a total panic. And they keep trying, like they take little tiptoes at light the UltraViolet. And I just think they’ve got a real problem. And the law doesn’t help.

**John:** The law doesn’t help, because the law does not help protect against the race to the bottom which is what I think they’re most worried about.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** And in the race to the bottom is that the prices will keep falling as low as they can possibly fall. And especially in digital goods, there seems to be like no bottom there. Movies are also, and TV shows, are also confounded by the fact that I don’t think piracy was a big issue in eBooks, because there weren’t really eBooks as piracy kicked in. And then there was Kindle.

I may naively be assuming that piracy isn’t a big issue with eBooks, but it certainly is a very big issue for movies and TV shows. And so ultimately they’re not only competing against Amazon, and Amazon is charging $0.99 for your show, and you wish they would charge $5 for your show; you’re dealing with the people who are selling it for zero dollars.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** And so it’s a challenging situation for the studios. Now, what the possible solutions could be? You look at HBO, what they do with HBO GO. They control their channel. They control like literally the thing they make, how you actually get it in your home. That’s very useful.

Sony tried to do the same thing with Crackle. We’ll see if that works at all.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** There may be some ways in which the studios can control the pipeline better for their product and not have to rely on the Netflix’s and the iTunes.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m not sure. When I look at the landscape, I don’t see what the way out is other than literally rewriting the law, which happens. And every now and then you’ll see these big clashes between large companies, one of which is saying we need this to protect our business, and the other industry group is saying this is against the spirit of the internet and it is anti-freedom.

Everybody is lying. Well, I’m sorry, the companies that are saying, “We’re against this because it’s ant-freedom.” They’re lying. They’re against it because it’s going to hurt their bottom line. And when I watch the debate over internet neutrality and SOPA and PIPA and all the rest, and I’m watching Google insisting loudly that they’re the defenders of freedom. I’m like, oh please. Please! You don’t like what this would do to your bottom line. That’s it. Simple, right, so.

There will be — this will end up in congress sooner or later the way that copyright law seems to keep going in the favor of the studios and IP owners. But, I’m not sure we can put the toothpaste in this particular tube.

**John:** Yes. What I would say though as writers, we are going to be watching carefully to see how that toothpaste can be restored to some degree, or at least like not all the toothpaste squeezed out, because without home video there is no residuals. And without residuals the career of screenwriting is much more difficult to maintain.

**Craig:** For sure. There is no residuals, or there are greatly reduced residuals, and then beyond that the studios themselves have to pull back on the amount of films they make and the kind of films they make which reduces employment. It is a vicious cycle. It’s a bad, bad thing.

So, hopefully, I don’t know. Hopefully we can figure it out. Probably not. [laughs] I’m not too sanguine on this one.

**John:** See, I’m the one in Paris and you’re the one who’s like clearly depressed.

**Craig:** [French accent] I don’t know what to do. Life is shit.

**John:** Let’s segue to maybe happier news. I think it’s happier news. This is the Producers Guild announced this week they had reached an agreement with all the major studios.

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** Which I’m glad you’re excited, too, because I think it’s a good idea. This is essentially what’s going to happen. The Producers Guild has negotiated separately, must importantly note separately, with all of the studios in order to reach what’s sort of an official credit for the producers on films.

And what the system will set up is that a film, or a TV show, can be taken to the Producers Guild. The Producers Guild will certify who actually deserves — in the case of a film, the producer credit. Who deserves the executive producer credit. And those individuals will have a p.g.a. after their name, to certify that they are the person who actually did the work.

And what is the work? Well, the code attaches specific weights to specific functions. And from the press release it says, “35% for development. 20% for preproduction. 20% for production. And 25% for post-production and marketing.” And it also includes the job descriptions, the guidelines, the rules intended to help you resolve credit disputes. And so hopefully those “Produced by” credit blocks will mean something.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** Now, what it doesn’t do is it doesn’t keep a studio from giving somebody a producer credit.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** There can be producer credits, and that’s still the studio’s domain, but in order to have that p.g.a. after a producer’s name, it has to have gone through the producer’s arbitration process.

**Craig:** Yeah. Thank god for this. First of all, the Producers Guild is not actually a union. That’s the first thing we should point out. They’re not a labor union. They’re not recognized by the federal government. They are not a collection of employees who bargain as a unit for employment. That’s not what they do. They’re just using the word “guild” because, you know, the Directors Guild. It’s Hollywood. Everybody likes to just use the same word as everybody else.

And that’s why they had to kind of negotiate this individually because there is no management group, like for instance, we negotiate with the AMPTP.

I love that they’re doing this. It’s so funny to me that they basically stole the Writers Guild credit arbitration system of percentages, which we all loathe, but it is sort of the best of all bad possible versions of how to do these sorts of things. Because the truth is, just like we do with writing credits, it’s kind of an “I know it when I see it.”

On a movie, you all know, you go to the theater and you see these scrolls of names sometimes of producers, executive producers, co-producers, associate producers. What is the producer even doing and who is it? Well, finally, those of us who work in movies, there is a producer. There is one. There is one. That’s the guy or the woman. That’s it.

And it would be sure nice for those people who do all that work, I would think, to be able to say, “Yeah, yeah, it’s me. I’m the one.”

And, do you know why I really like it, John?

**John:** Tell me.

**Craig:** I really like it for the opposite. I like knowing who wasn’t the producer. [laughs] Because, man, and this is good for us as writers. There are so many people saying, “Oh, I produced this. I produced that.” Did you? Did you? I see you have a credit. I don’t know what that means.

If you have a writing credit, I know what that means. It means the Writers Guild said, “Yeah, you authored this movie in part in whole.” But I don’t know what your producer credit means. There’s 12 of you on this thing. Only one of you really did it, so it sure would be nice to know who the real producer is. For that reason alone I think it’s spectacular.

**John:** I think it’s good, too. I would also wonder if over the course of a few years, and as it becomes more commonplace, some people stop asking for that credit because they know they’re not going to get the stamp of approval. And it’s going to be sort of weird to have your name on there and everyone will know that you didn’t really actually produce that movie.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I thought it was also interesting how they broke up the allotments of sort of how much you had to do in order to get your credit. So, 35% for development. That’s a lot. That means you’re the person who came onboard early on, either reading the script or hiring the writer, working with the writer, getting the script up to the place where it could be green lit.

20% for preproduction, which is all the stuff leading up to getting cast, getting everything put together so you can actually budget, so you can actually make a movie. Only 20% for production, which is, I think, interesting, but also reasonable. Production is a huge Magilla monster, but it’s not all that is involved in making a movie.

**Craig:** I think they capped that in particular because they don’t like this notion of there’s been a credit bleed with UPMs and so called line producers who are now grabbing onto producer titles. And they don’t like that. I don’t blame them.

**John:** And then 25% for post-production and marketing. Post-production I can totally see. Marketing is an incredibility important producer function that the challenge will be of course that the producer credits are going to be determined before all that marketing is done. So, the producer is also involved in sort of like home video decisions and all those other things which are not going to be sort of factored into this part of it. But that’s the best you’re going to do in a perfect situation.

But I think it’s a terrific first step. I think it’s going to be a huge help in sort of knocking down some of the over-proliferation of credits in features and in television as well.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s going to be nice to know. And it just makes me grumpy when I see a lot of these names. It makes me grumpy when people overstate what they did on a movie. And I very much hope that what you’re suggesting does come true. That out of sheer embarrassment people just stop taking a credit that frankly is not reflective of what they’ve done.

**John:** Yes. Next, let’s talk about movies and long movies. So, this is an article that got sent to me that I thought was interesting, that pointed out that most — have you seen The Lone Ranger?

**Craig:** Haven’t seen it yet, no.

**John:** I haven’t seen it, either. I’ve been in France. Most of the reviews, there have been mixed reviews for The Lone Ranger, but almost every single review says that it’s too long. And it’s interesting because even some movies that got good reviews, it seems to be a common refrain, like, “That movie was just too long.” Like the last Batman.

**Craig:** “It’s too long. It’s too long,” they say. [laughs]

**John:** That last Batman was too long.

**Craig:** Was it? I liked it.

**John:** You liked it? I thought it was too long. I thought by the time we got to the sixth act I was ready for it to be done.

**Craig:** Hold on. You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to put my umbrage in a jar and save it. And when you’re done I’m going to kick the jar over. [laughs]

**John:** That’s great. I can sort of anticipate what your umbrage will be, that like if a movie is working it is never too long.

**Craig:** Well, how about this? How about the people who are complaining about movies that are too long have to see every freaking movie. That’s their job. Of course they think the movies are too long.

**John:** No, I think audiences think the movie is too long though, too.

**Craig:** I don’t know. I’ve got some numbers to run by you about that.

**John:** All right, great. This article, and this is one by Alex Mayyasi on Priceonomics, was also speculating on the fact of like why are movies so long, because when you really consider that the 75-minute romantic comedy sells for the same ticket price as the 2.5-hour blockbuster.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And there is some truth to that. It is sort of weird that we charge the same price no matter what it is. And so there should be economic incentive to make the shortest thing that will satisfy the customer, because they now have to spend anymore than you have to do.

Of course, we actually understand that the way you make movies is the movies you actually sort of first arrive at are vastly longer than the movies you actually release. And so you can say like, “Well, maybe you shouldn’t have shot all that stuff that wasn’t going to be in the movie.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** Well, yes, but you didn’t know what that stuff was.

**Craig:** That would be a neat trick!

**John:** That was the problem. Yeah. It’s the equivalent of like, you know, “Well, you should only develop the products that you’re actually going to release.” Oh, yeah, that’s a good idea.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, of course.

**John:** Or like, you know, “Maybe we should only build the cars that we can sell.”

**Craig:** “Don’t invest in stocks that are going to go down. That just makes no sense.”

**John:** It doesn’t make any sense at all. People have been doing it wrong for all this time.

**Craig:** They’re just doing it wrong.

**John:** So, what I liked about the article is it was asking sort of the right naïve questions about sort of what is up with our movies and why we tend to make these really long movies. And is there a reason to start looking at the length of movies? Partly because, as writers, we’re often held to contracts that say like, “Your script can be no more than 120 pages.”

Directors are held to these contracts that say like, “Your movie can be no more than two hours long.” So, the directors aren’t really held to that contract. And the more powerful you are as a director, the longer your movie will tend to be.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m not sure where this is coming from. I remember a time in the ’90s where people were complaining that movies were too short and that they were becoming junkie. And that the movies of the ’70s were routinely two hours, 2.5 hours. I don’t know what the running time of The Godfather is. It’s over two hours.

**John:** Yeah. It’s long.

**Craig:** And way, way back there were really long movies. I don’t, you know, this, the article that you sent me, the essay that you sent me, takes a lot of guesses. None of them seem very compelling to me. The one that seems least compelling is Peter Travers’, who I generally find remarkably uncompelling. He says, “Hollywood studios believe movies are weighed by the pound when it comes to Academy thinking. If it ain’t long, it ain’t winning. Stupid, I know, since The Artist and The King’s Speech weren’t long. But ever since Gone With the Wind and Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia, continuing through Titanic, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Lord of the Rings, they think Oscar will not take any epic seriously if it’s under two hours.”

That’s just stupid. That’s a stupid comment. First of all, nobody, nobody in Hollywood, ever thinks about Gone With the Wind, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, ever. Just so we’re clear about that. Ever.

Second of all, when they’re making movies they want people to show up. The reason movies are long aren’t because of Oscars. Check what the grosses are on The Artist and compare it to what the grosses are on, I don’t know, Ted. That’s not what it’s about.

It’s hard for these people to understand this. The reason some movies are long is because the filmmakers made a movie that that was that long. And every single movie you see in a theater has been tested in front of audience. Every single movie has been tested twice, three times, four times. And in all those tests, one of the first questions they ask the audience was, “Did it seem too long? Did it seem too short? Did it move too fast, too slow? Was it just right?”

We talk about pacing and length all the time. Well, if you make a movie and the movie is two hours long, and people say, “Yeah, actually, that was a great length.” Well, then, that’s that. Then we’re fine. And it’s not a problem. It’s just not a problem.

I personally don’t see that there’s this horrible thing happening where movies are too long. I think if we ask ourselves why are movies the length they are, it’s because the people who are making them want them to be that length. And the numbers that I pulled — a couple of numbers I want to run by you.

First of all, The Lone Ranger is an example of a movie where people start going, “Oh good, here’s a movie that we can all talk about why everything has gone wrong. And let’s draw lessons.”

So, one criticism made it into every review. The Lone Ranger is too long. The Lone Ranger had a running time of 149 minutes. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dean Man’s Chest had a running time of 151 minutes. Made like a billion dollars. The first Pirates, if you say, “Well, that was a sequel,” had a running time of 136 minutes. So, do you really think that that 12 minutes was why The Lone Ranger, why people didn’t show up to The Lone Ranger? Do you think anybody said, “I’m not going to go to The Lone Ranger this weekend because it’s 12 minutes longer than the movie that we all went to?”

Of course not. It has nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with it. And the best example I can give of length, because I believe that there are some movies that you want to be short, like god, our spoof movies were like 70 minutes, because how much of that crap can you take, right? [laughs]

But, if you are allowed…

**John:** Who writes those things anyway?

**Craig:** Those spoof movies?

**John:** I mean, whoever writes those kind of movies should just be taken out and shot.

**Craig:** Shot!

**John:** They do no good for anybody.

**Craig:** That’s right. And their families should be shot. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Absolutely.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** I think we should round them all up.

**Craig:** They should be shot. But, one thing that I think is going on is that storytelling is becoming a little more complicated. Not in the strict sense of narrative, but rather what the audience appreciates. You can see it on television. The complexity of narrative in television series has just quadrupled, quintupled, whatever you want to call it. Go ahead and watch Breaking Bad, or The Wire, or The Sopranos and see how frankly complicated the narrative gets. Look at Game of Thrones. How many characters? They need the time, right? We become used to an expansion of time.

So, take the case of Pixar. Pixar’s first movie, Toy Story, was 77 minutes long. I’m going to run it in order now from Toy Story through Cars. So, Toy Story: A Bug’s Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc., Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, here are the running times: 77, 96, 92, 92, 100, 116, 117.

**John:** They’ve crept up.

**Craig:** They’ve crept up because they have more that they want to do. It’s fine. I don’t WALL-E to be 60 minutes. You know?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’m exhausted.

**John:** I do largely agree with you, obviously. I feel like there’s a reason why movies are a certain length. And part of the reason why we make certain movies and make certain movies at a certain length is because we want to differentiate them from what you would see in a one-hour television show.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Sometimes movies need to be bigger because they are bigger. They are something that you could not possibly put on a small screen. And that’s a reason why, but also it speaks to the genres of movies that we’re making right now and why I think it’s much harder to make the simple little romantic comedy that we used to be able to make because simple little romantic comedies are now a half-hour single camera comedy and they’re not a feature film.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s just sort of what we’re doing right now. So, yes. And I also really do sympathize with The Lone Ranger just because it becomes the punching bag for whatever we want to say about movies right now. And so, you could say like, “Oh, it failed because it was this or that,” or because Johnny Depp has fallen off the star map.

Or, because it was a giant western, it probably made more than any other western ever did in its opening weekend. It’s just the expectations on it were so high that it was not possible to reach those expectations.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I would also sympathize on The Lone Ranger because nobody didn’t show up the first weekend because of its length. As you said, it’s like, you don’t know what the movie is until you see the movie. And you certainly don’t know that the movie is as long as it is before you see the movie.

**Craig:** When movies, big movies, don’t work, there is an explosion of punditry that is nauseating to me. As if we could somehow control this. As if by expressing the right analysis we can prevent this from ever happening again, or perhaps hold the idiots that would wander down that path again up to ridicule. Nonsense.

Go ahead and explain to me why things work. Go ahead and explain to me why things don’t work. And all I can do is look back at you and say, “Shut up. You don’t know. You don’t know.” There is a magic to these things when they work. And there is this weird creepy anti-magic when they don’t. And in the end here’s why it doesn’t work: people just didn’t like it. Not the genre. Not the actor. Not the length. Not the 3D. Not the time of the year. It just didn’t work!

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** That’s it. Stop writing articles. Geez, man. Everyone’s got write an article to try and explain this. You can’t. Stop it. Stop it! [laughs]

**John:** I agree. I loved The Heat. And I’m so happy that it did so well, but if it hadn’t done so well, if say a disaster had happened that weekend, you know, somewhere in the world, and people didn’t go to the movie theaters, people would have tried to write the articles on sort of why female buddy comedies can’t work.

And the fact that it did work, they’re not really writing those articles saying, “Hey, there’s a whole new genre of everything.” No, they’re taking that as just an aberration. Like, oh, there’s that one. So, yes, that’s happening.

**Craig:** It’s sick.

**John:** Because they’re always looking for the faults that they can point out rather than this is hooray for this success.

**Craig:** You know, John, it’s as if the people that write these articles are inherently miserable.

**John:** [laughs] It is possible.

**Craig:** It is possible.

**John:** We have a listener question that I want to get to. “As Scriptnotes has a following, I wonder — ” this is from Sam, by the way. “As Scriptnotes has a following, I wonder how visible you guys are to writers, producers, and executives within the industry. Do you know if they discuss topics you cover on any given week? I ask because the podcast is influencing me, but it can’t change much outside of what I put on the page. My hope would be that players working within the film industry listen to Scriptnotes and say, ‘Ah-ha!’ and change for the better, or at least a little bit.”

Craig, do you think we are making any difference in the film and television industry?

**Craig:** Oh my god. Probably not. [laughs] I mean, I think that if we are making a difference it’s with writers. I do know a lot of writers, a lot of professional writers listen to our podcast, which is very gratifying to me. And I hope that they are a little more enabled to go about their day and protect their work and improve their work because of something we’ve said. But, I can’t, in all humility, I can’t say that we do or don’t. I don’t know.

**John:** I don’t think we have a big influence in the industry overall. And I would say that because I don’t think people who are not writers really listen to our show very often.

Like my agent listens to the show most times, but not all the time. I think junior people would be more likely to listen to our show than sort of the senior people, just because they’re people who might listen to podcasts overall.

Writers who are on TV shows, I know quite a few of them listen to the show. That’s terrific. That’s wonderful. So, if in any way we’re sort of providing a voice and commentary to what they’re feeling and experiencing in their daily lives, I think that’s useful. I don’t know that it necessarily changes anything. I think it may change their individual behaviors and I guess collectively changing individual behaviors or attitudes could have a bigger impact, but I don’t think we have any sort of large scale impact in sort of how things overall work.

**Craig:** I’m okay with that. If maybe all we get out of this is that when you and I are in our sixties, the people running studios will look at us fondly. [laughs] We were part of their childhood.

**John:**[laughs] Absolutely.

**Craig:** And give us a job.

**John:** Remember way back when. We’ll be like one of those vintage commercials you see on YouTube for like those toys that you sort of half remember. It’s like, oh, that really was a thing.

**Craig:** That’s right! “You know you were born if the 2000s if you remember this.”

**John:** Oh. That little tank that you could put in the little code for like what sequence of moves you wanted it to make.

**Craig:** I remember that.

**John:** That was great. And Merlin.

**Craig:** I just see some guys like, “Hey, can I ask you? Why did you hire John August?”

“I was this Scriptnotes fan. I don’t know, man. I was a Scriptnotes fan. Whatever.” [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. “Worst decision I ever made was hiring him to do that adaptation of Smurfs 4.”

**Craig:** Smurfs 4!

**John:** Smurfs 4.

**Craig:** You’re not going to be able to get that.

**John:** I blanking out on what the name of The Smurfs is in France, but it’s completely different. It’s a completely different word.

**Craig:** Right. Because it comes from, is it…

**John:** Belgium.

**Craig:** …Belgium, man. It’s like Schnarfin or something like that.

**John:** Yeah. It’s something more like the Schnarfin kind of word here.

But as we were riding our Velibs around today. So, we’ve been riding the free bikes, the Velibs, which are just amazing. But we passed a total gas station that had ads for Smurfs 2. But they do the same thing they do in English where it’s like, you know, “What the Smurf?” But, of course, it’s whatever the other crazy French word is for it.

And so it was just so absurd we had to document it.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And take care of that.

**Craig:** Schmurfen? Schlarfen?

**John:** Schlarfen. Schlarfen sounds about right.

**Craig:** Is it Schlarfen? I’m going to look it up.

**John:** Yeah. Whatever it is, it’s fantastic and just as absurd as Smurf is.

**Craig:** I guess if I Google “French Smurf.”

**John:** God, it could be porn.

**Craig:** No, I have it on safe search, because I don’t want. It’s Schtroumpfs.

**John:** Yeah. Schtroumpfs.

**Craig:** What the Schtroumpfs?

**John:** What the Schtroumpfs?

**Craig:** Why couldn’t we handle Schtroumpfs here in the United States?

**John:** Ah, Smurf is actually a better word in English.

**Craig:** Mm. You might be onto something.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Schtroumpfs.

**John:** So, I’m ready for my One Cool Thing, which is what I actually just spoiled the reveal on, which is the Velib. Which, if you come to Paris, you need to check out the Velib which are the rental bikes that you can get here which are, it’s the perfect combination of sort of my environmental geekery and my true nerd data geekery in that you have these bikes which you can rent for up to half an hour for free.

You punch the little code. You disconnect it from this automated rack. And you get to ride around the city. And when you’re done you can pop it into any other rack and it is there for the next person to use.

It’s not perfect. And so sometimes you will find a bike and you will get on it and you will realize that this seat is broken, or that it is just not a functional bike in the way that you would like a functional bike to be. And then you have to swap it back out again.

I first rode these bikes when I was here with a group of screenwriters, Film France had flown over a group of screenwriters including Derek Haas and John Lee Hancock and some other fun writers. And showed us all around. And on that trip five years ago they had just started the Velib program. And so I took my first bike out and had a terrifying ride around, literally across a bridge, down a street, and across another bridge, and back to the rack, because the city was not very well set up for bikes.

The city has gotten much better set up for bikes. And so there are now actually bike lanes. And if you are a tourist visiting the city it is one of the most ideal ways to sort of see what Paris is like. I would highly recommend.

**Craig:** It sounds great.

**John:** Very good. And there are actually apps now that will help you figure out where the stations are, how many bikes are available, if there is space at the rack to return you bike, which is one of the big frustrations and challenges is that sometimes you’ll reach a rack and actually there’s no place to check your bike in. And so therefore you’re looking for one.

**Craig:** Oh, so there’s three of you and there’s only two spots, which must be so annoying.

**John:** It is quite annoying. That does happen. So, I would encourage you if you’re coming to Paris to check that out. If you are going to London you should check out the equivalent system there which I think Barclays runs it. New York has Citi Bike.

It is a good thing. I don’t know that Los Angeles will ever really be able to do it, because we’re just so spread out. Like the stations would be like 20 miles apart.

**Craig:** Los Angeles has the deal where you can just get BMWs. They’re in a rack. BMW 3 Series are in racks.

**John:** Well, I don’t know if you know this, Craig, but they actually have Auto Leap here which is the car equivalent. So, they have these racks of like four little mini cars. They are luxury cars. And so literally you check them out and you can drive them around and check them back in.

**Craig:** That’s cute. I like that.

**John:** It’s cute.

**Craig:** Well, my One Cool Thing is absolutely on theme with yours. I’ve been very good about not talking about Tesla stuff every week, even though I want to. But…

**John:** The Tesla is Craig’s amazing car, which is the best car in the world.

**Craig:** It is the best car in the world. That’s a fact. That has now been verified. It’s objective. It’s a fact. Science has indicated it so. [laughs]

So, Tesla has this interesting network called Superchargers, which I’m sure you guys have heard of, maybe. I’m sure maybe. You’re driving around in your Tesla and you want to go on a long trip and they’re putting in these free Supercharging stations where you pull in and you plug in to their charging station. It’s free. And it actually uses direct current to the battery which is like mainlining heroin to a battery.

And you can charge your Tesla from zero to 250 miles in something like a half an hour. So, you plug in, you go eat lunch, you come back, you’ve got another 250 miles. And they are rolling them out, I mean, their plan by 2014 is that they’re everywhere, but for now there is one in Barstow, so I can go back and forth to Vegas if I want. And there’s a string of them between LA and San Francisco, so you can go up and down as you wish.

But, there’s a little bit of a tradeoff there. It’s free, but you have to wait a little bit. You have to wait a half an hour. Okay, fine. What if you don’t have a half an hour? What if you’re on your way, you hit the Supercharging station, you’re down and you got to get a move?

So, they’re installing these battery swapping stations. Have you seen this video?

**John:** Oh my god, no. I have to see this. Send a link.

**Craig:** It’s the coolest! I will send a link. So, now your option is free half an hour or pay something like $60 and in two minutes you’re on your way. It’s sick. So, it’s like filling up with gas at that point, economically.

**John:** So, I don’t understand. Is the battery in the Tesla really that self-contained that they can just take the whole thing out and put it back in?

**Craig:** Yes! So, when they constructed this thing they built it specifically with this in mind. They just didn’t have the swapping technology dialed in yet. But now they’re starting to install them. You roll up on this thing that’s like an oil change. You roll up, but underneath is like an opening. And you say on your little touch screen, yeah, I want to swap my battery and it’s going to cost sixty bucks.

These things come up and unrivet your battery, pull it down, move it aside, save it for you. That’s your battery. Okay? You’re going to be able to get it back later. And then they put up a fresh battery, screw it into place, and you’re off. And they showed in this video they were able to battery swap two Tesla Model S’s in the time it took one Audi to fill up a gas tank completely. It’s that fast. It’s nuts.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** And the idea is that then on your way back you pull in and you get your battery back. It’s crazy. And infrastructurally, whether or not this becomes a thing, all I can say is you have to give Tesla credit for consistently pushing us all forward. It’s like there’s just this push from them that is undeniable. The way that Apple used to push computing forward. Even when it was a little clunky. Even when System 7 would freeze a lot. They’re pushing it. They’re always pushing. And I love it.

So, it’s a very Cool Thing. We’ll put a link to the video on the website. And just marvel at it. I marvel.

**John:** I really wish the Tesla Supercharging stations had a giant Tesla coil that was arcing and sort of sparking the whole time.

**Craig:** That would be cool.

**John:** Because that would make me want to go to it.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** It would also be kind of great if like when you drive up, like everything just goes into black and white. Maybe they can tint your windows in a certain way so you feel like you’re in some sort of like big giant mad scientist movie. That would be awesome.

**Craig:** I also would like it if the Supercharging stations were hooked into the grid in such a way that as you charge your car the city around you just went dark.

**John:** Ha! That would be lovely.

I also just think, like, god, all those batteries just feels, in one location, feels really dangerous.

**Craig:** Oh, I’m glad you brought that up. It would be, accept Tesla has put an enormous amount of technology into the way they constructed their batteries. There’s this problem with batteries essentially called runaway discharge, I think, or something like that, which is both a gynecological problem and also an issue with batteries. [laughs]

I’m sorry. So, in the case of a battery, because the Tesla battery is really an array of like, I don’t know, something like 500 little tiny batteries. And if one of them starts to discharge it can like trigger this chain reaction, and then there’s a fire, and it’s this whole thing.

Well, the way they designed it, all the batteries are essentially isolated from each other and then the whole thing appears to be coated in some sort of spectacular foam absorbing, whatever. The point is there hasn’t been one incident since the Model S has been on the road. Not one. The batteries appear to be remarkably safe.

**John:** Hooray! Great. So, a link to Craig’s video, and to articles about the Velib, and everything else we talked about on the show today will be at johnaugust.com/podcast, which is where you can always find the links to our show notes.

If you are listening to us through something that is not iTunes, it would be great if you went to iTunes and subscribed to us so we know how many people are subscribing to us. And if you’re there subscribing to us, you might as well leave a comment, because we love to read those.

Craig, last episode I pitched that if someone wanted to write us a new outro we would be doing an exhibition of people’s submissions for an outro for our show, which is the music that plays us out. So, the intro is [hums], and so I said, go crazy, go nuts. Do something exciting that can show your talents as a composer of music.

And so we have our first one today. And, Craig, it’s kind of amazing.

**Craig:** It’s awesome.

**John:** Yes. So, this is by Matthew Chilelli, who apparently lives in Los Angeles. He sent us this thing. He said it’s a “John Williams take on the Scriptnotes theme.”

**Craig:** It’s so cool. It’s really good.

**John:** And I think it’s just great.

**Craig:** Good work, Matthew. I love it.

**John:** So, Matthew, thank you very much for sending this through. If you want to send in your own outro theme, you can send it to ask@johnaugust.com. Ideally send us like a link to a SoundCloud or something, because otherwise we’re going to get choked with mp3s. But, we’d love to hear your take on it.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Craig, have a great week.

**Craig:** You too.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

LINKS:

* [TidBITS](http://tidbits.com/article/13912) on the Apple eBooks price fixing suit, and [Fortune](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/07/10/apple-ebook-verdict-appeal/)’s article on the same
* [The New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/business/media/new-designation-signifies-i-was-really-a-producer-of-this-film.html?_r=1&) on the PGA’s new mark, and the [PGA](http://www.producersguild.org/blogpost/923036/164597/The-Producers-Mark–What-it-means-where-it-comes-from-and-how-you-can-get-it) on what it is and how you get it
* [Why are Hollywood movies so long?](http://priceonomics.com/why-are-hollywood-movies-so-long/)
* [Velib](http://en.velib.paris.fr/) bike sharing in Paris
* Tesla [battery swap](http://www.teslamotors.com/batteryswap) is worth watching
* [Send us](mailto:ask@johnaugust.com) a link to your downloadable Scriptnotes outro

Scriptnotes, Ep 97: Is 15 the new 30? — Transcript

July 12, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/is-15-the-new-30).

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, Episode 97, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. How are you, Craig?

**Craig:** Good. I’m liking the sound of that 97.

**John:** It’s a lot of episodes.

**Craig:** It’s a ton.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** One of our best episodes was the one we just did last week, the live one.

**John:** Yeah, it was a lot of fun. So, we had a big crowd at the WGF and that was a good, fun time; got to see our people as we did our live Three Page Challenges. Once again, thank you to our brave volunteers for that.

**Craig:** Yeah. They were terrific. They took their medicine. And, you know, there was something to recommend about all of those. I have to give Stuart credit — I mean, I hate to do it…

**John:** Mm-hmm. Tough.

**Craig:** I know. I just don’t like over-praising. Or praising. [laughs] But, Stuart did a very good job of picking out three Three Page Challenges that were — none of which were bad. They were all good and just had interesting issues to address.

**John:** And it was only after Stuart sent us those samples that he realized, like oh my gosh, I picked only women. And so at first I emailed back saying pick one guy or male writing team so we have some diversity. But then you emailed back like, yeah, screw that.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, who cares. I love — you know me, I’m very consistent. I ignore all that stuff. So, if we happen to get three women, good. And it was good, yes.

**John:** Hooray. So, that was our previous live podcast episode. Coming up on July 25 we have our next live episode, which is our 100th episode, which is very exciting. Tickets went on sale for it this past week. And they sold out super, super quick.

**Craig:** How fast did they actually go?

**John:** Within three minutes after I tweeted that they were sold out.

**Craig:** Dude, we’re Bon Jovi.

**John:** We are Bon Jovi. So, while that’s exciting, it’s also frustrating for people who didn’t get a chance to come who wanted to come. And so I feel awful about that situation. We’re trying to find out a way to release some more tickets so we can get some more people coming to our show.

If not, we’re also looking at ways to maybe live stream it or do other things, so people who cannot physically be with us can be with us emotionally as we celebrate 100 episodes of this podcast.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s a pretty remarkable thing, I have to say. I am grateful. I am legitimately grateful, as somebody who has a tiny, tiny Grinch-like dark, sooty marble for a heart. I am very grateful for people and their interest in our little podcast and what we talk about.

And a bit overwhelmed, frankly, by the interest in all of it. So, to everybody that jumped on that and bought tickets like we were, I don’t know, Nirvana in 1991, all I can say is thank you. And hopefully we’ll put on a good show for you.

**John:** Originally I was concerned that someone had like just bought 100 tickets all at once and has had a master plan to scalp them or something, but we got the word back today that the most any one person bought was six tickets. So, it’s not like there was some great cabal doing things.

So, it looks like highly motivated individuals bought those tickets, which is a great thing. We look forward to seeing a lot of people there and at future events. But today let’s talk about three topics that are of interest to screenwriters. Those would be the question of have first acts gotten shorter, and if so, why and what does that actually mean.

Second topic, the WGA released its annual report that shows that numbers are actually up significantly for writers, but only in TV.

And, finally, we’ll talk about the fight over the title The Butler. And what it means for a screenwriter who wants a certain title, but also what it means for the film industry and antitrust suits and famous lawyers.

**Craig:** And famous lawyers. So, quite a bit on our plate. I guess we should start with our first act.

**John:** Yes. So, this is actually motivated by my friend Rawson who sent an email asking, “Is it just me or is everybody asking for everything that used to happen in the first 30 pages to happen much faster?” Basically, the first act has to be much, much faster and shorter than it used to be. And he came up with a provocative title that very much feels like a Sex and the City question: Is 15 the new 30?

**Craig:** Yeah. I loved it when you forwarded me this from Rawson. I thought it was such a great observation, because it’s one of those things that I hadn’t really crystallized in my mind until I saw him write it out like that. I think it’s absolutely true that this is a pressure, a creative pressure, that’s been coming down increasingly lately to compress down first acts. I felt it in a huge way when I was writing Identity Thief. There was a lot of pressure on me to shorten that first act. I feel it all the time.

I went to go see World War Z…

**John:** I was going to bring up World War Z.

**Craig:** Yeah, and I really like that movie. That first act, I think, is a minute. [laughs] I think it’s a minute. There’s a scene where Brad Pitt wakes up with his family. They have a very kind of cereal-advertisement morning. They get in the car. And then zombies.

**John:** Yeah. So, we should define our terms, which is a good thing to do when we’re discussing whether something has changed is to talk about what it is we’re actually talking about. Let’s talk about what a first act is supposed to be, or what the function of a first act is in a screenplay.

And it’s one of those terms that’s kind of invented, but it’s a useful thing that we do talk about a lot in the Hollywood industry. So, classically in a play, an act is a very clear division, like the curtain comes down, or like this is where we’re stopping the show to move onto another thing. Obviously movies don’t do that. And so when we talk about a first act we’ve usually been talking about something that happens about 30 minutes in. And there are certain characteristics of what’s happened to this story at this point that indicates you’re at the end of the first act and you’re now moving into the second act.

And so sort of a laundry list to add to the kind of things I’m saying, generally you’ve reached a new place. Or, if you haven’t really gotten to a new place, you’ve reached a new direction. And your character is taking charge of the situation, or at least has a clearer idea of what his goals and motivations are. It’s to tell you what is specific about this story and what does this character need to achieve in order to get through to win this story.

What is your protagonist trying to accomplish? The game has changed in some significant way at this first act marker.

What else would you say is indicative of a first act?

**Craig:** Well, I guess a very simple way of thinking about it is that in the first act, not at the end of the first act, somewhere in the first act something happens to change the hero’s normal world/normal life, and at the end of the first act the hero has begun their journey to make things right again.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And for me, at least, I find that this first act is the most important act of a movie. It’s the most interesting act, for me. We’re creating a world. We’re building a world in the first act. We’re creating a person. We’re then introducing a problem. And then we’re pushing that person right to the edge of the nest and finally flicking them out.

And that first act has — it seems — has been squeezed and squeezed.

**John:** Let’s talk about some classic movies, movies that people are going to recognize what the first act is in that movie. Classic example is Wizard of Oz. Wizard of Oz, the line is “We’re not in Kansas anymore.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** She’s literally moved from one place to another place. She is now in Oz and everything is different.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is when they reach the factory. That first act is getting them to the factory. The second act starts when they’re in the factory. So, everything you know about Charlie Bucket, and in my version of the movie, everything you know about Willy Wonka, there is setup that’s getting you there, so when you reach that second act you are, hopefully, ready to be on this journey.

**Craig:** Sure. Star Wars, I think probably when Luke realizes that his aunt and uncle have been burnt to death and there’s nothing left for him in this planet anymore and he decides to leave.

**John:** Yes. Little Miss Sunshine is when they hit the road to California.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** They’ve gotten in the bus.

**Craig:** Yeah. The easiest ones are road trip movies. When they hit the road, the second act has begun.

**John:** Back to the Future, he gets stuck in 1955.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s about the right place. Comedies can sometimes be tougher, especially when you’re not going to a new place. I was looking up some, like Mean Girls, and what people thought was the act break in Mean Girls. And some people will differ on where they think the act break would be.

Mean Girls was when she finally decides, you know what, I’m not, I’m going to — she turns on the mean girls. So, she’s not going to try to become one of the mean girls, she’s going to bring them down. And that starts a different arc, where up to that point she’s been trying to assimilate. And at a certain point she says like, “I’m not going to try to assimilate. I’m going to bring them down.”

**Craig:** Yeah. At some point the meat of the adventure begins, whether the adventure is a legitimate adventure, or a character exploration. And sometimes in a high concept it’s when the high concept kicks in. So, in Groundhog Day when he wakes up that first time and it’s the same day again, that’s the end of the first act.

**John:** That’s a very classic first act shift. It’s also kind of those moments where what would be in the trailer that establishes what the premise of the movie is, that’s often been the first act break.

**Craig:** Yes, yes.

**John:** Not always, but often.

**Craig:** The stuff that comes before James Brown goes, “Ow! I feel good.” [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. Now, let’s go back to World War Z, because World War Z was one of the first things that popped into my mind because I just saw this last week. And there are no spoilers for us to say that very, very early on in the movie there are zombies running through the streets.

**Craig:** That’s not the end of the first act, per se.

**John:** No. And my question is you could argue that it feels like the end of the first act because like the world has profoundly changed. You could also say that was sort of the inciting incident.

**Craig:** Precisely.

**John:** That is the moment where everything has started to happen. And then you could call the end of the first act when they get to the ship that they’re sort of landing on.

**Craig:** It’s funny — I actually think the end of the first act is when he leaves to go to Korea. So, he begins his adventure and leaves them behind. And there’s that moment where he says, “I’m leaving, you’re staying, and I am beginning an adventure,” the purpose of which is not only to save the world but to return and fix things.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Still, it happens in such a compressed manner. And for that movie, I have to say, no quarrels. There wasn’t, and we never really do movie reviews here — I really liked World War Z. Some people complained a little bit that the characters were thin and I think, yes, absolutely, they were very, very thin. It was like Hero and Hero’s wife. But, that’s not where I… — I did not lack from enjoyment simply because the characters were thin. It was a little bit like watching a bible story or something, you know.

**John:** Yeah. What I found so fascinating about sort of how it chose to do it is it didn’t do really any of the work that we expect to see in the setup of a movie, like the setup of who these characters are.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I mean, it was just the very broadest strokes on like, “This is a family. They seem to be doing pretty well.” And suddenly then we’re off to the races. And they tried to fill in some more stuff along the way, just sort of incidental conversations about what he used to do, what this was. But, in some ways it was surprising that it wasn’t filling in more of those details, because that’s what kind of kept you alive and alert for, because you kept listening for anything that would tell you who these people are or what is sort of unique or special.

**Craig:** Well, and one of the things about World War Z that is interesting is that the character ultimately doesn’t change. And because the character doesn’t change, we’re not dealing with a movie where there’s a traditional thematic arc. When you do have a traditional thematic arc and a character is going through some sort of internal combustion to end the movie in a philosophical place that is perfectly oppositional from where he or she began, you need that first act.

In comedy in particular I feel you need it, because comedy isn’t about a thousand zombies piling on top of each other like ants to get over a wall. Comedy is about the human condition. And so we need that first act desperately to meet somebody, establish who they are, establish what they believe. Kind of soak them in it for awhile.

**John:** Before the main plot engine really kicks in.

**Craig:** That’s right. And it’s okay for something to happen on page 10 that throws their world out of stasis. But it’s not okay for them to immediately then just jump into adventure. There needs to be a period of resistance and a period of contextualizing what happens and what this means for me. And then we begin the adventure.

**John:** So, a good example of that would be The Heat, which I don’t know if you’ve seen The Heat yet.

**Craig:** I haven’t seen it yet. I’m very excited to.

**John:** So, I thought it was fantastic. Melissa is fantastic and she’s obviously a friend of both of ours. But The Heat is very much — has a very classic first in act in that you meet the Sandra Bullock character, you meet the Melissa McCarthy character, separately. They cross paths probably about 15 pages into it.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Hate each other. Despise each other.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** At each other’s throats. And then probably around page 30 or so they have to partner together in order to get the plot of the movie to resolve. They both had their interests for why they’re going into it. And it’s very clear that we’re going to be watching this movie to see how their relationship develops over the course of this movie.

**Craig:** And you need the, if they meet each other… — So, okay, the way you just described it is sort of a perfect reason why you don’t want 15 to be the new 30. You need 15 pages to introduce two people and show them as they are separately, so that we understand what their strengths and limitations are, separately.

Then we need some time where they are together where we establish that they do not get along and why. And ideally it’s tied to their strengths and their weaknesses. Once we’ve done that groundwork, it’s perfectly fine at that point to kick the apple cart over and force them to head out into the field, whereby they will do the work of the plot as well as their own relationship. But we need those 30 pages.

And I’ve got to tell you, I mean, I don’t understand why there’s this big rush, rush, rush to shorten the first act. I think audiences love first acts.

**John:** So, my theory on why we feel this development pressure for shorter first acts is the people who’ve been reading the script have been reading the script for like six years.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, they know what the movie is and they know what’s going to happen. And they’re eager for what’s going to happen to happen. And so as they read the script or as they see early cuts of the movie they’re like, “Just get to it already. Just get to it.”

And that pressure is the pressure of someone who does not have fresh eyes, who is not seeing this for the first time. They’re seeing it as a person who knows every frame of the movie or every word that’s going to happen. And they’re eager to get to the thing much, much quicker.

**Craig:** I agree. And in comedy the pressure comes down often in this way: the big funny things that happen in comedies, the big set pieces, the sequences, typically are second act stuff. You’re first act doesn’t have a lot of big crazy sequences. And so naturally there’s this feeling of, “Uh, we need to get people laughing — faster, faster to the joke stuff. Go, go, go!”

And it’s a mistake because what we know on the other side of the thing, the making of the movie thing, is that it’s the setup that makes all that stuff work. And, look, nobody wants to sit there and watch an hour of setup. But there’s nothing wrong with 25 minutes of setup.

**John:** Now, devil’s advocate here. I think sometimes I’ve been reading scripts where I’m in this first act and it’s like, okay, I’ve got it. I got it. I got it. You’re just giving me the same thing again and again.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So, in no way are we arguing for repetition, for boring scenes, or things that feel like they’re, you know, they’re lovely bits of set dressing that’s keeping us from getting to our real story. So, I think the challenge is still on the writer to make sure that at every moment you’re flipping the page because we’re deeply engaged and want to know what’s going to happen next.

And even if that what happens next is not the thing that kicks us into the second act, we want to be curious and fascinated about what’s going to happen next with this character. What this character is going to do so that as the story progresses we are deeply invested in them.

So, it’s in no way an opportunity for those three page scenes where characters talk about their lives and backstory, because that’s just awful.

**Craig:** Yeah. Frankly the opposite; I always think of the first ten pages in particular as very precious real estate where you have to pack in a lot. You want to make it vibrant, and informational, and interesting, and dramatic. Everything that you do in that first act has to have a purpose and that purpose must pay off. The bud must blossom at some point in the script, or it shouldn’t be there.

And, listen: it may be that your story doesn’t need a traditional 30 page first act. And that’s fine. But if you feel like it does, do it. I do it. I mean, the script I’m writing right now, the first act ends I think on page 31. And I’m okay with that. [laughs] We’ll see what the studio thinks.

**John:** Now, one of the common characteristics of the break between the first act and the second act is the characters reach a new place. But I would caution people from thinking that, “Oh, that means that in my thriller I can’t have them get to the cabin in the woods until page 30.” That’s not what that means.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** You may get to the cabin in the woods on page five. But, the nature of the relationship between the characters are what the characters are facing would make that big change at the end of the first act, which would be some time down the road. So, we get to know who the characters are, what they’re expecting, what the tensions are above them, what the normal life is for them before everything goes crazy.

**Craig:** Yeah. Normal life is so important. I’m a huge believer in the concept of normal life and establishing what that means for characters, even if they’re lives are circumstantially not very normal. Okay, so you have a character whose job is to be a stunt person. So, what’s their normal day? Hurling out of a fifth story window on fire and crashing into a thing full of glass. Well, that’s their normal life. Show it.

But then something is going to happen to make that even less normal later down the line. Still, you need to always show what’s normal before you show what changes.

**John:** So, what are some actionable things that a writer can do to push back against this 15 is the new 30 idea?

**Craig:** Well, I can only tell you what I do, and basically it’s to make the case. I just keep making the case. And I don’t always win. One thing that I know is that there were scenes that were put in, for instance in Identity Thief there were a couple of scenes that were requested of me in the first act that I didn’t think needed to be there. And there was one scene that was taken out that I definitely think needed to be there and it ended up hurting later.

And I can always now go back and say, “Well, let us remember the lessons of this.” But, the truth of the matter is there is no magic shield. There will be times as a professional screenwriter where you can’t keep people from making a mistake. Even if you fall on your sword, somebody else will come along and write that mistake for them.

So, but I try. I just try and make the case as patiently as I can. I find that this is where directors help, making an alliance with a director helps. Directors want to make sure that their audience gets what’s going on, gets the logic, doesn’t feel rushed through, because one side effect of rushing through a first act is that you simply care less.

What about you?

**John:** I will bring it up. I will try to argue for why those scenes need to be there, why that moment needs to be there, why we need to understand who this person is in that moment. That said, I tend to be a person who does move very quickly. And I get stuff started very quickly. And so Go is a movie that is essentially three first acts. The Nines is a movie that is essentially three first acts. That’s a way that I feel comfortable writing. But even if you look at those, both those movies are sort of like three short films sort of stacked next to each other.

They do have that kind of classic development where you understand what the normal life is, you understand this is the choice the character has made that has kicked us into this next section where everything is different, and this is the resolution of what’s going to happen because of the choices that they made. And so even though they move much more briskly, I’m doing the things that need to be done in those times.

And if I were to try to do that first setup that was so quick for just the little section one of Go, and make that carry us over through the whole rage of the movie, it wouldn’t work. The fact is, in Go I’m able to stop the movie, set up these three new people at a new time, and let them run in their own story.

So, I tend to want to have things go quickly. But I still get those notes sometimes. With Preacher I kept getting the notes, “We need to get to the Saint of Killers faster.” And it’s like, well, then we’re not going to know who any of these people are. And that’s going to be a very frustrating thing.

**Craig:** A question that I often ask when I hear somebody say, “We need to get to blah-blah-blah faster,” the question I will have in response is, “Why?” And sometimes simply asking why will put them on their heels a little bit, because the truth is they don’t know why. They’ve just been told somewhere in the factory that faster is better.

I’m okay with going faster if you can tell me why. It’s simple.

**John:** Yeah. Our next topic, the WGA, the Writers Guild of America, each year has to file its annual report which shows not only what its finances are but sort of what the status is of writers for film and television and a few other people who get lumped into the Writers Guild. How much they’ve made. Who got employment? What was going on in the Writers Guild this year.

And so I think we’ve talked about this; each time it has come up on the podcast, sort of where the numbers are and where the numbers are moving towards. This would have been a very smart time for me to actually have the report in front of me.

**Craig:** I have it in front of me.

**John:** So why don’t you, Craig, give us the overview of sort of what has changed from this year from the previous year?

**Craig:** Sure. Well, first off, a little preamble: the Guild seems to be in fine fiscal health. In fact, it ended the year with a surplus, a $4.5 million operating surplus, which of course in my mind means, hey, why don’t you reduce our dues a little bit. But, that’s never going to happen. [laughs]

So, let’s talk about what changed.

**John:** I did notice that the strike fund seemed to be quite healthy.

**Craig:** Yeah, the strike fund is just fine. [laughs] Everything is fine. Honestly, the whole thing about dues is a discussion for a later date.

But, okay, so the overall picture when we talk about writers who have been hired and how much money we’ve made, interesting from this year to last year, a little bit fewer. A little bit fewer writers were hired, down by 1%. But the amount that they earned was up by 4%, which is actually a decent jump relative to last year and the year before. But when you break it out into TV and film, two totally different pictures emerge.

**John:** Yeah. So, television has increased by a nice clip, which is great. There are more writers employed in television than at any point in the last six years.

**Craig:** Yes. Television writers, the amount that were employed is up 2.3%, and that’s on top of year, after year, after year of increases in the amount that have been employed. And, also, their earnings are up and they’re up a whopping 10%. That’s a big jump. And consider this: if you look at year, to year, to year, to year, percent change versus prior year, starting in 2008 because everything is sort of based off of 2007 here as a sort of five-year review, up 1.4%. This is earnings, up 1.4%. Up 13.8%, up 7.6%, up 7%, up 10%.

TV is crushing it. In 2007, TV writers earned $456 million. In 2012, they earned $667 million. Wow.

So, surely that kind of success has carried over to features, right? [laughs]. No. Wah. Everybody get your trombones out. Make the sad note. Here we go.

How many writers have reported earnings? We’re down 6.7% from last year in feature film. And earnings, the amount of earned, money actually that we’ve pulled in, down 6%.

Here’s the worst part of all of this: if you look compare us to 2007, where television, there are more writers compared to 2007, and we’re way up by like 50% in terms of how much TV writers have earned. Opposite situation in screen. In screen from 2007 to now, 25% fewer writers employed as screenwriters. And earnings down 35%.

So, in 2007 there were 2,041 writers who reported earnings in screen. Last year, 1,537. Incredible. In 2007, $527 million in total earnings in screen. Last year, $343 million. Yikes.

**John:** Yeah. It’s a bloodbath, but honestly it feels consistent with what I know from people who are actually working is that many of my… — Those TV writers didn’t just magically appear. A lot of those people are feature film writers who are now working in television. And that’s completely consistent with the people I know, is that so many people who were feature writers have now moved to television. Or they took a TV show on the side, but are still trying to do feature work, but they’re not doing the feature work, they’re just doing television.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And that’s the reality of the people who are making money right now is people who are writing on TV shows. And god bless that there are TV shows. You can’t imagine how awful this would be if those jobs didn’t exist in television, if we weren’t making more television than at any point in history.

**Craig:** It would be horrifying out there. When you look at in terms of residuals…

**John:** Yeah, we should stop and clarify for a second. So, earnings for this report, earnings means money that you’re actually making in that year for the work that you were doing in that year.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And because it is earnings in that year, the previous year’s numbers actually change a bit because things get reported after the fact. And so even the numbers that are coming in for this year, they’re not really final numbers. They’ll shift a bit based on people who report earnings that came in late in 2012.

**Craig:** That’s right. The residuals is the money that we earn on the reuse on that stuff that we write. And that is less of a snapshot of how the employment situation is and more of a snapshot of what the marketplace is like in terms of consumers, and what they’re buying, and what they’re consuming.

So, even though screenwriters have been decimated in terms of the numbers of us who are employed at all and how much we make when we are employed, residuals seems to be holding pretty steadily actually in screen. And they are up. In fact, they’re up in both. They’re up about 6% in television and 5.3% in screen. Television, you know, there’s more residuals there, which is not surprising, because there’s just so many more television shows.

What I thought was interesting as television generated $200 million in residuals. The Guild, and this is very Guildy of them — this is where sometimes they make me nuts because they get a little editorial in these things — the highlight of reuse of programs in new media, where the rental services such as Netflix and Hulu Plus drove significant growth from $4.21 million to $11.26 million in 2012. And that is impressive if you look at it just as, okay, $4.2 million to $11.26 million. Not so impressive when you look at it as $11.26 million out of $200 million.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And the reason that they’re banging that drum and making such a big deal about that is because they don’t want anyone to think for a second that we had that new media strike purposelessly.

**John:** Yeah. So, that number was up. My question for you is: when you’re buying something off of DirecTV, like you’re buying a show off DirecTV, or you’re buying something off of iTunes, that’s not included in this new media. That’s included in home video, correct?

**Craig:** No, I think that they’re calling “new media rental services,” I would imagine, would cover renting on iTunes, sure. Yeah.

**John:** Okay. But purchasing on iTunes might be…?

**Craig:** That’s different. Yeah, purchasing seems to be… — I mean, I guess, it’s hard to tell, frankly, because they may be lumping all new media into this, because where they say “where the rental services such as drove significant growth,” well that means, okay, so — but driving significant growth doesn’t mean you’re solely responsible for that growth. And certainly Netflix and Hulu are “such as” not “only.”

**John:** Yes. So, let’s talk sort of bigger picture here. If you are a feature film writer, you are likely making less money than you were before.

**Craig:** Yeah. Maybe.

**John:** A prototypical individual screenwriter was probably making less money than they were before, either by not being employed, or by making less per draft. And that seems to be consistent with at least the writers I’m talking with.

The fact that residuals are holding steady is good news if you’ve been employed for awhile because then you actually have some movies that have a life after theatrical.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, that may help tide you over. What is hard to gain any reassurance from looking at these reports is that there’s any end in sight for sort of what is going to happen to the feature film writer.

**Craig:** Well, there’s a little bit of an end in sight. I mean, first of all, let’s point out that your prototypical screenwriter probably doesn’t exist, that what’s happened is we’re looking at a mean average of two very different poles on a graph. It seems that the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer when it comes to screen. That’s at least a little bit of what our surveys and some of our anecdotes tell us.

So, the bell curve has become, you know, sort of a two-hump camel. But, there’s a little bit — a little bit — of hope. And where that little tiny bit of hope comes in is in home video, because home video is the area that collapsed under screen. That was the area, that was the marketplace, that was really propping screen up and thus propping up employment, and budgets, and the amount of movies that were made.

And when it collapsed it collapsed spectacularly. So, when you look at theatrical film videos from home video, in 2007 — sorry, let’s take 2008, because that was the high mark — in 2008, $47 million roughly in home video residuals.

**John:** So, that indicates a very healthy home video market because we’re talking a fraction of a percent equals…

**Craig:** That’s right. So, as the theory went, writers get a nickel for each DVD sold. So, all those nickels for DVDs added up to $47 million in 2008. In 2011, it was down to $30 million. That’s a huge drop in just three years. It’s just precipitous. That’s what has changed this business more than anything.

However, a little tiny bit of hope: in 2008, home video actually went up 1%. And you would think that going up 1% wouldn’t be cause for celebration, but after year-on-year declines of big, big jumps in percentage, you know, from $47 million all the way down to $30 million, holding steady is a big deal.

So, if you look at 2012 to 2007, home video on the whole dropped 30%. And remember what I said our earnings dropped? 35%. I mean, and 25% fewer writers. That’s the number, to me, that is the leading indicator here is home video. And if we can hold home video I think maybe we have a chance of just holding things where they are right now and maybe not having them get worse.

**John:** So, let me restate your thesis in a way, make sure we’re talking about the same thing. So, with the decline in home video, studios have been spending less money on writers for theatrical films because they’re feeling the pinch and they’re feeling we’re not going to be able to make our money out of things, therefore they’re spending less in development?

**Craig:** Yeah. I think basically they’re saying as home video declines the amount of films we make will also decline, and therefore the amount of screenwriters we employ will decline, and the budgets of many of those projects will also decline.

**John:** And those numbers are borne out by the actual numbers of theatrical films the major studios have made over these past few years has genuinely declined. And so with fewer films, there’s fewer writers. And subsequently there’s also fewer films in development because they’re expecting to make fewer down the road.

**Craig:** That’s right. And basically they’ve declined by about a third. So, the magic number for screenwriters is a third. Things are a third down. They’re roughly a third down in terms of how many of us are hired, roughly a third down on how much money they spend on us, roughly a third down on how many movies they make, and roughly a third down on what home video is generating.

**John:** Now, what we said before in terms of my experience is that a lot of feature writers have moved over to television and that it’s really they’re television writers now. I think those two numbers are also closely coupled because a lot of the reason why I think our theatrical home video is down is because television is up.

People have a certain number of hours in the day. I think the fact that we’re living in maybe a golden age of television and we have better television than we’ve ever had before is making someone choose to watch Homeland rather than rent that DVD, or watch that DVD, or buy that DVD at Target for that movie. And I think those are more closely related than you might at first glance notice.

**Craig:** That may be true. We know that it’s not a zero sum game, that new markets can be created. Before VHS, there simply wasn’t movie viewing at home. And then suddenly everyone was watching movies at home and it became a thing.

Also, let’s recall that the purchasing or renting of movies does not equate on a one-to-one with the watching of them. That’s how Blockbuster made its fortune. People buy movies they don’t watch. [laughs] They rent movies they don’t watch. And so the fact that they don’t have as many hours in the day doesn’t necessarily stop them from buying these things.

It is our hope that things have stabilized and maybe even if we can be greedy enough for a second to be hopeful, really hopeful, that they’ve not only stabilized but that the base of home video can now support growth in new media. And new media right now just simply doesn’t generate that much money for screenwriters. Last year it generated $5 million. Home video generated $30 million.

So, for people that sit there and insist that no one buys DVDs anymore, and that the world is all about iTunes, all I can say is, no, not yet, but hopefully soon. Hopefully soon.

**John:** So, with that, let’s go to our third topic of today which is The Butler. So, the backstory on this, there’s a lawsuit that’s occurring between Warner Bros. and the Weinstein Company. The Weinstein Company directed by Lee Daniels called, that they want to call The Butler, which is about a butler, I think it’s about a butler in Obama’s White House who has been a butler for a tremendously long time — an African American butler.

**Craig:** I think it’s based on a true story.

**John:** Based on a true story. And so this butler who has been serving the presidents for all of these years is now serving an African American president and sort of what that change is. And that’s Lee Daniels’ film.

So, the Weinstein Company wants the title, The Butler, and Warner is saying, no, because Warner controls copyright on a 1969, sorry, 1916…

**Craig:** Not copyright.

**John:** Well, actually they do own copyright, but copyright is not the issue here. They control the title, The Butler, because they have a 1916 silent film called The Butler.

**Craig:** The very popular 1916 film, The Butler.

**John:** Which apparently has not been shown theatrically in nearly a century. It’s not even like a big, giant movie.

**Craig:** No, nothing from 1916 is a big, giant movie. This is absolutely a sharp stick in Harvey’s eye. There’s no question about that. There’s no value in the silent film, The Butler. Here’s what’s going on… — I mean, look, I don’t know why the sharp stick is in the eye. Hollywood is a tough place.

**John:** Let’s back up because I had actually blogged about this years ago, because people would write in this question, like, “I have this title that I want to use, but there’s another movie from years ago with that title. Will I be able to use it?” And the answer is generally, “Probably.”

And people think you can copyright a title. You can’t copyright a title. Copyrights exist to protect literary works and other works, but like longer works. You can’t copyright a pure idea. And you can’t copyright a title.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, and if you have any questions, IMDb some common phrase and you will see there are hundred movies called Dead of Night, for example. That happens a lot.

You can trademark certain things, but not movie titles. So, you can trademark Transformers, because it was a toy line.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And so there are some things which are protected because they’re trademarks. But there are very few things that are protected because of their trademark.

Rather, the system that we have set up is run by the MPAA and all the major studios are partners in this. And they have what’s called the Title Bureau. And when you are going into production on a movie you can register your title with the Title Bureau so that no one else could take that title.

But then there are negotiations if your title is considered to be too close to someone else’s title. And every time you submit your title, the other studios can say, “Uh-uh,” and raise their hands and say, “No, we do not accept that because of X, Y, or Z.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I had to go through this on The Nines. When we registered our title we had complaints from this movie 9. We had a complaint from The Whole Nine Yards. A lot of people raised complaints and one-by-one they sort of gave up their complaints and everything was cool and we were able to keep the title, The Nines. It happens all the time.

**Craig:** All the time. Yeah.

**John:** That’s why it is so remarkable that this happened in this case where they would not yield.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah, my very first movie that I wrote with Greg Erb was called Space Cadet. And Lucas blocked it because he said he had a movie in development called Space Cadet, which he never made, obviously. So, we had to change it.

Here’s the deal with this title registration thing: everybody that’s involved in it does so voluntarily. If you’re a member of the MPAA, it’s a requirement of being a member of the MPAA, but there are actually very few studios that are true members of the MPAA, the big ones are. The little ones, like the Weinstein Company, for instance, they may not be official members of the MPAA, but they become members of the Title Registration Bureau. And by doing so they voluntarily agree to be bound by that bureau.

They say, “I am going to sign something that says that from now on I am subject to your arbitration if there’s a dispute over title.” Now, why would anyone do that? They do it because they want protection for their titles.

So, if I’m the Weinstein Company and I make, say, Pulp Fiction, I don’t want Warner Bros. to be able to put out a movie called Pulp Fiction five years later. And if you’re not part of the Title Registry Bureau, you can. So, it’s all about preservation and protecting yourself. In exchange for protection of your titles, you submit to the bureau so that other people’s titles can also be protected. In this case, it seems like the normal horse trading that goes on, the normal gentlemanly, senatorial back and forth has been pushed aside.

Typically, studios will horse trade with each other. If you file for a title, and Warner Bros. says, “Well, the thing is we have that 1916 silent movie called The Butler,” if it were Disney, Disney would call up and say, “Guys, come on. We could do that all day long to you, too. We’ve got a thousand movies in our library. Do you want us doing that next year to you? We’ll do it.”

“Nah, I don’t want you doing that to me. Let’s just agree to fight over real substantive ones.” That’s what the system is really there for.

In this case, Warner Bros., that’s why I said sharp stick in the eye, this is just vindictive. They’re just being vindictive. I don’t know why. Not my business. However, I think that Harvey is going to have a tough time here.

**John:** Yes. So, it is important to note that this was an arbitration, so it’s not a court case — it wasn’t a court case in this situation. But, now lawyers have been brought in. David Boies, who is a very famous attorney, was part of the team that filed the Prop 8, so I know David Boies, and he’s lovely, and great, and smart. So, he is filing these letters against Warner Bros. and against the arbitration people, the MPAA, saying, “Uh-uh, not cool. And, we’re going to keep pressing this.”

Basically, first off, by the time this podcast airs this may all be resolved, so we should talk in a more general sense, but he was arguing that the damages that Warner was claiming, so essentially Warner was going to make Weinstein Company pay a fee if they didn’t stop calling the movie The Butler, even in these promotional things up to this point.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Which is, again, I’m sure part of that contract that was signed.

**Craig:** No doubt.

**John:** Boies makes an interesting case, though, is that on some level does having a title really mean that you’re permanently protected in all cases forever because you have that tile. And to what degree could they claim that anything called The Butler, or having the title Butler in it is going to be protected by Warner Bros. It’s going to be like off limits for all the people for all time.

Should there be some distinction between a movie that’s actually in the public consciousness, you know, like Pulp Fiction, versus this obscure title from a long time ago. Because, otherwise people could essentially just title squat and never let a title go, become available.

**Craig:** And they do. I mean, look, where he is going to run into trouble are the following areas. One, the Weinstein Company voluntarily entered into an agreement to be part of this Title Registry Bureau. They did so, and accrued benefits from being a member of that bureau. So, their titles have been protected by the bureau. And in becoming members they’ve voluntarily agreed to follow the rules that say basically whatever this arbitration decides, that’s it. I mean, binding arbitration is a real thing. Thank god it’s a real thing or else the courts would be even more crowded than they are.

The notion that you don’t have to belong to the Title Registry Bureau, you do it so that your title is protected, too. So, I mean, theoretically somebody could call it The Butler if they wanted. They’d just have to now open up all their other titles to people grabbing them.

**John:** I have a question about sort of the — antitrust got brought up. And antitrust is not going to really kick in on this case because it’s of Weinstein’s and Warner’s and all that situation, but it does strike me as this is an agreement between all the studios to protect titles in a way that a court could look at and say, “This is not cool. This is a way of stifling individual speech, corporate speech, through this collusion of powerful entities.”

**Craig:** Yeah, they could. And if he makes that argument I would be surprised, because the last thing the Weinstein Company wants is to start dismantling the very valuable quasi trust protections that the business has created for itself.

Look, I’m not a lawyer. I’m certainly not an antitrust lawyer. I’m not sure that this is antitrust because it’s voluntary. You don’t have to belong to this to be able to release movies.

However, where they could run into trouble is I think you need to belong to it if you want an MPAA rating.

**John:** Which is a big deal…

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** …because without that you can’t get theatrical distribution in many markets.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And everything else becomes much more complicated. For a long time you couldn’t get on iTunes without an MPAA rating.

**Craig:** Right, exactly. Now, that I’m not sure is the case. So, I’ll have to do a little research there. But if that is the case, then I would see, well, yeah, now you’re sort of bundling a “optional service” with a not-so-optional service, because you really can’t put your movie in theaters or on iTunes if it’s not rated.

But then again, you could…

**John:** You could argue the antitrust thing about the whole MPAA.

**Craig:** Correct. That’s my point.

**John:** The entire entity. The ratings system is easily, has as many problems with…

**Craig:** More. More.

**John:** …with antitrust.

**Craig:** And I guess that’s my point, is that the ratings system has somehow survived this kind of thing. And I believe it has. There’s no chance that the title registry bureau won’t. So, anyway, I think this is — David Boies is collecting some money while Harvey gets really, really angry. [laughs] But I don’t know how they win this one.

It’s offensive…

**John:** On some level, have they won already just by getting the popular attention on the title fight?

**Craig:** I don’t think anybody cares.

**John:** I think maybe the fact that it’s getting some minor New York attention, it probably feels good for Harvey, about this movie that I would never have heard of if it weren’t for this. He will have to change the title. Everyone will know what the new title is, because they’ll lose the suit. Or, it will be Lee Daniels Presents The Butler. And there will be some way that they’ll phrase out of it.

**Craig:** No, they won’t be able to get that either. I mean, look, underneath all of this I suspect, frankly, it’s just a flat out extortion scheme that Harvey didn’t want to go along with. There have been a billion cases where basically people who are squatting on titles have gotten bought off.

I mean, I know one producer, I will not say his name, who kind of blew me away with his grossness and told me a story that he basically made lists of things that sounded like provocative titles and then went and registered them with the Title Registry Bureau.

And I think you have to sort of show that there is some minor effort towards development. And the idea was if somebody does actually develop a film with that title they have to come to him and pay him. And he said he wants to get paid like $500,000.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** It’s so gross.

**John:** That’s gross.

Charlie’s Angels, the second Charlie’s Angels movie was called Charlie’s Angels: Forever, but that didn’t test well when they just were testing titles. And so Sony I think either had a list of other titles of things they owned or controlled, or just things they thought were cool titles. And so Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle was the one that tested the best and that became the title of the movie.

**Craig:** Full Throttle.

**John:** Full Throttle.

**Craig:** Full.

**John:** There is a motorcycle sequence in it so it kind of matters, makes some sense, but it’s just…it was tenuous.

**Craig:** Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle is sort of the movie version of Extreme for Doritos. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but it seems good. [laughs] It’s Charlie’s Angels: Max.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Forever actually made more sense in that there were tremendous things in the script that were actually about sort of legacy and things going on…

**Craig:** Oh, John, no, no, no.

**John:** But no one cares about the deep thematic resonance…

**Craig:** Yeah, your themes of eternity and immortality were pushed aside because the Throttle, you see, needed to be full.

**John:** There was a Cirque du Soleil sequence in Charlie’s Angels for awhile that was never shot, but which would have been amazing, because you kind of want the Angels to fly, and then they could have actually flown.

**Craig:** That would have been cool. Why’d they cut that?

**John:** Yeah. Pretty. Because…

**Craig:** Oh, wait, I know, Half Throttle?

**John:** Half Throttle. All the Vegas stuff went away. And so it was at a Vegas, it was a heaven-themed Vegas casino.

**Craig:** Perfect.

**John:** It was good. And they also used to slide down the outside of the pyramid…

**Craig:** The Luxor, I was going to say. That’s the only casino you can slide down. Well, you know, years later yours truly was there watching a man parachute out of a helicopter. Flyover. It was close enough.

**John:** Fantastic. So, I wasn’t sure that in Hangover III that any of that was actually real. So, there was some help — there was some parachuting that was…?

**Craig:** It was real. The guy jumped out of a helicopter and parachuted over the strip. And actually did for real parachute over the Bellagio fountains.

**John:** I’m certain the insurance on that was crazy.

**Craig:** I don’t know. [laughs]

**John:** Not your responsibility. I love the big like not my problems.

**Craig:** Not my problem! I will say that the guy, the coordinator who handled that unit was awesome. Like, I just want to make a movie about that guy. And he does all the movies, I guess, and he’s just an amazing helicopter stunt pilot/parachute dude. What a life?!

**John:** It’s a great life.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It’s a great life until something goes wrong and you’re done.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** But it’s a great life while you’re doing it.

**Craig:** While you’re doing it.

**John:** Yeah.

Craig, it’s time for our One Cool Things.

**Craig:** Oh god. Do yours. [laughs]

**John:** I’ll do mine first. Mine was, I think, also sent to me by Rawson Thurber who gets the MVP award for like helping support the podcast this week. He sent this thing called The Hero’s Journey by Glove and Boots. And it’s these puppets who are talking about Joseph Campbell’s Monomyth, the hero’s journey, and sort of like what it actually means in movies.

And so the movie that they’re actually sort of talking through is Happy Gilmore, which seems like a real stretch for it, but they have a plausible case. And I thought it was a really good introduction to sort of like what the Joseph Campbell Monomyth is and sort of what we talk about when we mean they call it the adventure and these are the kinds of characters who you see in this thing.

What I don’t think it does an especially good job at is the reality checking of not every great movie has the Joseph Campbell arch and Monomyth in it. And many movies that are terrible actually try to hit all those things and it doesn’t really work. So, it’s not a formula that guarantees that you will have a good movie, but it’s an interesting pattern you can see in many movies that you love, and it’s an interesting way of thinking about sort of what is a classic hero’s journey in film.

So, I would recommend that and it’s funny and goofy. And it reminded me of Wonder Showzen, which was a great show. For all I know it could be some of the same people doing it. But it was a good, fun thing. It was a little YouTube video worth your six minutes.

**Craig:** I’ll check that out. I do have a Cool Thing. I’ve been holding this one back for awhile, because again, I hate praising — myself or anyone. But I have a friend named Ken White. He’s a lawyer. He’s a defense attorney actually here in Southern California. I give him a lot of crap about defending criminals and all the rest, although somebody has to do it, right?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Ken is one of them, maybe the principal author, of a multi-author blog called Popehat. Popehat. Popehat.com.

And what I love about Ken is he’s — I mean, politically he and I are very similar. Just sort of strong libertarian streaks, no party allegiance, not afraid to point our fingers at anyone and go, pfft, like that. And he is an excellent writer. He’s an excellent writer and very good at explaining legal things. And there was one saga that he followed, I don’t if you were familiar with the Prenda Law case.

**John:** I don’t know what that is.

**Craig:** So, there’s this whole thing about these copyright trolls, where these companies will buy up copyrights that are essentially worthless and then go after people who are maybe pirating them or maybe not, and just extorting settlement fees out of them.

And there was this company, Prenda, that basically, they were a law firm. And what they did was they…

**John:** By the way, Prenda is such a made up name.

**Craig:** Isn’t it amazing, right? Prenda.

So, Prenda is a law firm. And this law firm decided, “Look at all the money we can make. What we’re going to do is we’re going to basically start a shell company, as lawyers we’re going to start a shell company that will represent,” this is already a no-no. “That shell company will buy up a bunch of useless copyright for porn. Old copyright porn, okay. And then we’re going to go and basically find some ding-a-ling somewhere that downloaded four minutes of that porn, or not, send them a threatening letter and say basically you need to settle with us.”

And it was an amazing scam, because who wants to actually go to court over their porn downloading? Except one guy did. And oh my god did Prenda Law get their asses handed to them. And Ken just covered it beautifully and wrote about it in such a great, clear, instructional way, with plenty of doses of anger. And all the things you could want from a wonderful internet nerd. He is a great guy. And so I recommend that you all check out Popehat.com.

**John:** Fantastic. So, links to Popehat.com and this Hero’s Journey clip on YouTube and all the things we were talking about on today’s podcast you can find at johnaugust.com/podcast.

If you have a question for us, if it’s longer you can write to ask@johnaugust.com. And Stuart sort of sorts through those and helps find the good questions out of those batches. But if you have a small thing you want to say to Craig or to me, Craig is @clmazin on Twitter. I am @johnaugust on Twitter.

We have a Facebook page that we never actually mention, but people sometimes come there and like us.

**Craig:** They do?

**John:** We do have a Facebook page.

**Craig:** Huh. I’m plugged in as always.

**John:** Yeah. If you are listening to this in iTunes and want to give us a rating, that would be fantastic. We’d love that. It helps other people find our show. If you are not listening to us on iTunes, it would be great if you subscribed, because that way we would sort of know how many people are out there listening to our show.

And I think that’s it.

**Craig:** I think we should get Bon Jovi to sing us out.

**John:** That would be fantastic.

**Craig:** We’re the Bon Jovi of screenwriting podcasts.

**John:** Yes. So, actually we have like two minutes here so I’m going to just launch into this right now. Because one of the things I want to be doing after this 100 episode madness has cleared is originally when I was doing the outros for these shows I would like find some goofy thing on YouTube that seemed to be about what we were talking about. And I would use that audio as the outro, which was fun, but I didn’t actually clear any of those clips.

And so in backups we’ve clipped that out because like, eh, I would hate for some weirdo, some Prenda Law person to come after for me using that.

**Craig:** Prenda.

**John:** So, what I’ve started doing is just took our [hums theme] theme and just built that into different little arrangements in GarageBand, which was fun and goofy for me to do. But, I would love some of our listeners to do the same kind of thing, and to give us an outro that uses [hums theme], and build something cool out of it.

So, if listeners would like to do that, the same address I gave to you before, ask@johnaugust.com, is the perfect place to do that. And just send us a link to something you’ve made.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** We’ll have more details up at some point with — it’s not a competition, it’s just an exhibition of…

**Craig:** It’s a competition. I’ll be judging. [laughs]

**John:** Craig will be silently judging what people are doing.

**Craig:** Silently judging.

**John:** But I really mean just if you have an interesting sound or a free couple hours on a Saturday and want to do something, I have a hunch that we have some very talented listeners who are not just writers, but who can also do musical kind of things.

**Craig:** Yeah, man.

**John:** So, if anyone would like to do a little outro, to be less than 30 seconds. It should be accessible to us in some way as a mp3 file so we can clip it onto the end of this. And if we do use your thing we will give you a link and a shout out in the show.

**Craig:** Nice! Man, this podcast is getting good. It took us 97 episodes. I feel like we’re just about there to good.

**John:** We’re in a pretty good place. I think in the Behind the Podcast we’re almost at a place where “and then drugs came into the picture.”

**Craig:** Oh, exactly, like, “Everything was going great, and then…” This is it, oh, listen to that. The drugs [sirens blare in background]…they’re coming for me. Drugs.

Well, listen, the drugs will be kicking in. That’s the title of this podcast. [laughs] And then the drugs kicked in.

**John:** All right, Craig, have yourself a great week.

**Craig:** You, too, man. Bye.

**John:** I’ll talk to you next time.

LINKS:

* The live [100th episode](http://www.oscars.org/events-exhibitions/events/2013/07/script-notes.html) is sold out!
* WGA’s [2013 Annual Financial Report](http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/who_we_are/annual_reports/annualreport13.pdf)
* [John’s 2011 blog post](http://johnaugust.com/2011/you-cant-copyright-titles) on copyrighting movie titles
* [You got served: Weinstein fighting for ‘The Butler’ title](http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/goldstandard/la-et-mn-butler-name-change-20130703,0,6660171.story) from the LA Times
* [The Hero’s Journey](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZxs_jGN7Pg&feature=player_embedded) by Glove and Boots
* [Popehat.com](http://www.popehat.com/) and their [posts on Prenda Law](http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/)

Scriptnotes, Ep 96: Three Page Challenge, Live Edition — Transcript

July 6, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/three-page-challenge-live-edition).

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes; it’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters, including the ones right here in this audience.

[Applause!]

**Craig:** Ah, god, they are both the greatest and worst audience ever.

**John:** They are a fantastic audience.

We’ve got a full house here at the Writers Guild Foundation Craft Day 2013. Thank you guys all so much for coming. We are in the Writers Guild Theater which is not at the Writers Guild, so about half the people here probably drove to the wrong place and then came to the right place. And that’s great; you’re in the right place because today we are going to be talking about…Craig, what are we going to talk about today?

**Craig:** Well, today we thought we would do one of our Three Page Challenge episodes, but we kind of have a nice thing today. This is a first for us, and it’s a little scary, as scary as it is for the people who send in these pages and have us analyze them and critique them. Today it’s a little scary for us because we have the screenwriters of those pages here today.

We have to look them in the eye, which is not going to temper what I say at all. But, still, it’s a great thing. And so that seems like a fun way to go through this. We have three different Three Page Challenges. And then I think, maybe, if we have some time…

**John:** We’ll have some questions at the end.

**Craig:** From you guys.

**John:** From you guys, here, live in the audience.

**Craig:** No, we have questions for you.

**John:** Yeah, we’re going to just pick random people and ask you questions. So, be thinking about questions you may want to ask me and Craig or the writers of the pages that are up here, or things that you see in the pages that you want to have more clarity on.

Just to give a little backstory here: We’ve been doing the Three Page Challenge since almost the beginning of the podcast. And this came from something you used to do on Done Deal Pro where you’d say like, okay, somebody can send in four pages and I’ll tell you whether your four pages are good. You can sort of tell within the first couple pages if a person knows what they’re doing on the page.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s levels that we can look for. The reason I started doing it on Done Deal Pro is because a lot of people were, frankly, I’m always motivated by a certain sense of evil, as you know, and a lot of people speak as if they know what they’re talking about.

And it makes me a little crazy. And so some people were being very harsh on other writers and I kind of was like — “You know what? You show me; show me in four pages. I think I can give you a sense in four pages.”

And some of these people wrote — most of them wrote fairly mediocre stuff to not-good. Some of them wrote four pages where I could literally say, “You should stop doing this.” You know, it’s like on those singing shows, sometimes people come in and they’re like [hums terribly] and they’re like, “Just everybody agrees — stop.”

But, you know, then there are some people that really did some great stuff. One guy in particular wrote four pages that I liked so much I asked to read the whole script. And I liked the script so much that I sent it to a manager. He has a manager now and he’s working.

**John:** Yeah. The instinct behind doing it on the podcast was we try to talk about screenwriting, and it’s very hard to talk about screenwriting without having something in front of you to talk about. So, you guys have been so generous to send in pages, so thank you to everyone who has sent in pages. If we’re not getting to your pages today, you can go to johnaugust.com/threepage — it’s all spelled out — and there are instructions for how you can send in your pages.

And Stuart, who is there in the corner. Stuart, raise your hand.

**Craig:** Stuart! Stand up, Stuart. Stand up!

**John:** People don’t believe Stuart is real.

**Craig:** That’s him! That’s what he looks like!

**John:** That’s Stuart.

**Craig:** That’s the guy we hired to play Stuart.

**John:** Exactly. The real Stuart looks nothing like that guy who just stood up.

**Craig:** Real-Stuart is an entity.

**John:** Yes. But Stuart reads through all of them and sort of — I will say, “Stuart, send us three samples of things we can read.” And so I don’t look at any of them until Stuart sends them. So, Stuart is the quality control on that. And Stuart picked some great ones for us today, so let’s get started on the ones that were sent in that we took a look at.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** So, Stuart picked these for us. So, don’t blame us if we didn’t pick your pages. Blame the guy who pretends to be Stuart.

**Craig:** There’s a lot of deflection on Stuart.

**John:** Our first three page sample is from, it’s called Enjoy the Show, and Allie and Liz Sayle wrote it.

**Craig:** Where are you Allie and Liz?

**John:** Where are you guys?

**Craig:** Hey!

**John:** Come on up.

**Craig:** Are you guys related? Good. Because the same last name — it just would have been weird.

**John:** Can we get microphones for these guys? All right, while we’re getting microphones we’re going to talk about what we saw on these pages and then we’ll ask you more about them.

So, Enjoy the Show. I will do the summary for people who are not — who don’t have the pages in front of them; like if you’re driving your car you wouldn’t know what we’re talking about, so I’m going to give you the quick summary. Our scene starts in a movie theater arcade. We meet a guy who is at a claw machine and his name is Andrew. And he’s trying to get a Fozzie Bear out of it. And we’re going to learn that he’s trying to get this Fozzie Bear because there’s this girl he kind of has a crush on that he wants to give this Fozzie Bear to.

He’s gone through all his quarters and he finally ends up succeeding and getting the Fozzie Bear. There’s also intercut a woman driving very fast on the freeway. Her name is Brody. When we come back to the arcade, to the movie theater arcade, we see Andrew who has the bear. We see Kellen, a friend of his, and it’s Kellen’s girlfriend that he’s trying to hand off the bear to. And that is what we’ve gotten to at the end of these three pages.

**Craig:** Right. You know, not bad. Not bad. I’m going to go through… — The stuff that I thought that came through that I liked the most was the — an interesting expression of a guy who is going through unrequited love. That’s a pretty familiar circumstance and I thought it was shown in a somewhat unfamiliar way. He singled in on Fozzie Bear like that’s what is going to do it is Fozzie Bear.

I like the idea that he has kind of fetishized this one thing. What was missing for me though was the notion of why Fozzie Bear, frankly. I mean, he’s discarded all these other things. If you look at the first bit here, what’s happening is he’s pounding through all of these quarters and he’s got all these animals on the ground and there’s one animal left, I think, correct? Fozzie Bear.

We don’t know if he’s trying to get — at this point I just assume he’s just, he’s autistic and needs to clean out the claw machine. You know what I mean? And you do have to always think about what the audience knows versus what you know. So, if you want us to know that it’s because he needs the Fozzie Bear, my suggestion is maybe that he starts by getting an animal, pulls it out, and then just hands it to a kid, or tosses it to a kid and is moving to that one. And we see he’s trying to get that one. Instead of getting Fozzie Bear he keeps getting the wrong one. You know what I mean?

So, some way that we can get that the Fozzie Bear is the one. When he’s talking to the Tween with Attitude, this was a nice way, I thought, of getting out the essential details. His best friend has a girl; he’s in love with that girl; he’s kind of hiding that he’s in love with that girl. I love this last line, “I’ll be your girlfriend. If you want to make her jealous.” That was really cute.

But in there I’d also love to know why Fozzie Bear. [laughs] Like, you know, just some indication of why this has become so important to him. Otherwise he’s just going to seem a bit bizarre.

The intercut to me does not work here.

**John:** The intercut to the freeway?

**Craig:** That’s right. The cutaway to the freeway. It didn’t work for me for two reasons. One, we just did an episode about transitions. There’s no transition to this. So, there’s no throw really from where we are to there.

**John:** Craig, you’re wrong. There is actually a throw. So, if you look at the bottom. Actually, I liked the…

**Craig:** “Grips the joystick?”

**John:** Joystick to gearshift.

**Craig:** That doesn’t work. It’s too matchy-matchy to me. It’s too much of a trick. I was looking for a little bit more of some reason to be on the road. And I guess since I never got a reason to be on the road, the transition didn’t work for me going in. I mean, I saw the joystick thing and on the way back coming out of it, again, there’s no transition really back.

The biggest issue with cutting away there is that nothing happens. We see a woman and she’s driving fast. And she drives fast for a while, by the way. It’s very well described, but maybe too much so. So, I guess my question is: Is that something we need or could you even start the movie with her? If she’s going to be showing up in a second, start with this crazy woman on a road, and then cut to the quarters and stuff so that it’s there.

Anyway, it was a strange interruption for me. And then lastly I want to talk about when the girl arrives. So, Zia is the girl. That’s the girl that he wants to give the bear to. And we have Kellen walk in, and that’s the first person you want us to see, which means it’s the first person the movie is concentrating on. And I wanted the movie to be concentrating on her. I mean, I’ve been hearing about her. He’s been doing all this for her. I want to see her walk in. And then I want to make a moment of it.

We talk a little bit about how to expand or contract moments so that they are of different value. And for this character I think her entrance should be of the greatest value, so that should expand a little bit. Let me see her. Show me him looking at her. Show me what that does. Show me a moment where it’s just the two of them. They don’t have to be talking; they could be across the room. But it’s just the two and then this guy comes in, you know. And that disrupts things. And the Fozzie Bear goes behind him. And then there’s chit chat. And then he tosses the bear.

Those were my general… — But, you know, you guys can write. I mean, that’s the good news. It was really well laid out. It was well written. It’s just finding those choices in there for me.

**John:** I want to know who is who and some backstory on this. So, which one of you is Liz and which is Ally.

**Liz Sayle:** I’m Liz.

**Allie Sayle:** I’m Allie.

**John:** And are you in fact sisters?

**Liz/Allie:** Yes.

**John:** Great. It was a simple guess, but you never know. Maybe you just ended up having the same last name and that was how it works.

**Craig:** Or, or…

**John:** Or they could be married.

**Craig:** DOMA.

**John:** DOMA.

**Craig:** DOMA.

**John:** My husband and I have the same last name, people think we’re brothers.

Now, tell us about this script. Is this the first script you guys wrote together?

**Liz/Allie:** No.

**John:** Okay. So, what’s the motivation behind writing this script.

**Liz:** Well, the script is actually about, so the woman in the car is coming to the theater and sort of takes the movie theater hostage. And so we were just in a movie theater and we were like this is a really good place to rob someone. [laughs]

**Craig:** A theater like this one?

**Liz:** Yeah, exactly. It’s like no one would ever catch you. Or, they’re not prepared for it. So, now every time we go to a movie theater — that was like a couple years ago — we’re like every time you’re there you’re like, “Oh, I need to do this, I need to do this.” And so we just sort of need to write this story so we can go to the movie theater without thinking about how to take it over.

**John:** By the way, movie theaters are a great place to — I don’t want to say you should go rob a movie theater — but they are like sort of great for heists because they have a lot of cash on the weekends. There is interesting stuff to do in a movie theater. So, I applaud your instinct behind committing violence in a movie theater on paper rather than in actual life.

Did Craig interpret things correctly in sort of what he was saying? Is Zia a more important character than Kellen? Tell us?

**Allie:** Yeah. I think so. I think what we were thinking is Zia is obviously the girl that he likes. And so by having Kellen come in and do the interaction, showing sort of what’s in between there, but I don’t think you get enough of her, like you were saying.

**Craig:** Yeah. I would keep that interaction. That interaction played very natural and very real. I don’t need to know what “One forty eighty-five” means. I like not knowing what people are talking about and it seems realistic to me. It was just about sort of showcasing her. Reward us for our interest in her is basically what it is.

**John:** Let’s get a little more specific on the page. A few things that stuck out for me that were things to look at. Your first sentence of real description, “Fade In on a metal claw…inside Plexiglas.” Got that. “It drops nothing down a metal chute.”

Now, “It drops nothing down a metal chute,” on the third time reading through it you get what it’s actually saying that there’s nothing in the claw to drop, but I had to read that twice or three times to really get what that is. And the first sentence shouldn’t be that. So, find another way just to convey that idea that it’s an empty claw dropping that has nothing in it to drop as it gets to the end.

The super says “Thousand Oaks, CA 2010.” Why 2010?

**Craig:** I picked up on that, too.

**John:** Is there a reason why it needs to be 2010?

**Allie:** I think we wanted to sort of do the action in it to sort of make you think that it was a real, like something that actually happened. And we just thought that setting it in a very specific time…

**Craig:** Oh, I see.

**Allie:** …that that might sort of make it seem more realistic.

**John:** So, maybe if you got even more specific then we would know that it was more like a real event. So, if you said like “April 22, 2010,” then we would know that there’s a specific reason why we’re there. Because right now I read it as 2010 and I’m thinking like was that a zip code that you didn’t like finish. I didn’t really read it as a year.

Andrew, who is our main character through this first section, he doesn’t get his own cool line of description. You say, “Safe. Doesn’t get a lot of sunlight,” but if this is our main character I think you can throw us an extra line of something more specific about him. Because “doesn’t get a lot of sunlight” could just be like Craig’s kid.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That doesn’t tell us a whole lot.

**Craig:** He’s really white. We were just talking about it. My wife is white and he’s white, white, white, white.

**John:** Andrew is listed as being 19 years old, but the action I see him doing makes him feel a little bit younger. I felt like I watching a high school kid and not a 19-year-old kid. And so just be mindful of that. And if it’s important that he be 19 years old, that’s awesome, but I felt like he could have been younger for the kind of stuff that we saw happen just in these first couple pages.

Near the bottom of your first page, we go to “INT. ARCADE — LATER.” You can do that. So, you changed time. Same place, changed your time. Another way you could do that is just to say “LATER” as a slug line. And that way we don’t have to think, “Am I in a new place?” No, you’re in the same place, you’ve just moved to a later time. Either way works.

I wonder if you could cut the first two lines of Andrew talking to himself. Right now it’s:

ANDREW

(to no one)

If you want it. Take it. I was just going to throw it away.

(then)

My class was cancelled. So, I came early-

(no)

I was just killing time in the arcade. Yeah, check it out. I won it. What? You like Fozzie Bear?

That could be the first line of his dialogue, because we get what he’s doing from just that line. So, if you want to cut those first two I think you would be in a good place.

**Craig:** You know, now that you mention that, I actually bracketed that. I’m not sure you need any of that. We’ve seen that before. And I feel like I would much rather have him explain this strange obsession with Fozzie Bear to those other kids, because it’s so specific. It’s not I want to give her a thing, because you could replace Fozzie Bear with, oh, you like Hello Kitty there, you know what I mean?

It’s why-that-one. I’d much rather him explain it to her and just cut these sort of play acting dialogue here which we have seen a lot.

**John:** Yeah. And honestly if you were to cut all that out, if you started with Tween with Attitude’s first line, “Does she have a boyfriend?” If we’ve seen the claw going for these toys and the first line of dialogue is, “Does she have a boyfriend,” that’s really clarified what it is he’s attempting to do.

I agree on sort of like the transition coming back from the car was troubling. And I wonder if ultimately you’re going to be happier keeping all of Andrew’s stuff together and not cutting away to that woman, because nothing actually happens with that woman. So, if we were to follow Andrew’s storyline through in terms of like everything with the bear and trying to get the bear and like his frustration there, that might be the best time and then get to this woman who’s going to be arriving at the theater.

I understand your instinct for trying to show that something is coming, but we’ve sort of barely got stuff started before we jumped away to something else.

And you said you were fine with “One forty eight-five. Beat that.” What does that mean? What is it supposed to me? A score?

**Allie:** We don’t know. [laughs]

**John:** You don’t know? Okay, that’s fine.

**Liz:** She doesn’t know. It’s like a high score in a video game, or something like that.

**Allie:** We just wanted something to quickly establish that these guys are close, they’re good friends, and they’re a little bit competitive.

**John:** Great. And even like something he can point to or gesture, just so it doesn’t… — Because, again, it’s one of those things where if I read it three times and try to make sense of it and I can’t make sense of it, I might stop reading. And anything you can do to keep me from stop reading is your friend in the first three pages.

So, tell us, is the script all the way written or is it still in progress?

**Allie:** The first draft is.

**John:** The first draft. And what ends up happening at the end. Tell us the journey of where these characters get to.

**Liz:** You’re looking at me like you want me to do that.

**Allie:** I mean…[laughs]

**Craig:** Have you read it?

**Allie:** I have. I have. At the end, I mean, we end up blowing up the theater.

**John:** Good. There’s like a teenage Die Hard in a movie theater.

**Allie:** Sort of, yeah.

**Liz:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah, awesome. Then done. Done and done.

**Craig:** Does he get the girl?

**Allie:** Yes.

**Craig:** All right, good.

**John:** Anymore questions for our sisters?

**Craig:** No, no, not at all. Keep at it. Keep at it, guys.

**John:** You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for sending your pages.

**Craig:** Thank you Allie and Liz.

**John:** Thank you guys.

**Craig:** Nice work. Thanks. Good job.

**John:** All right, our next pages come from Kate Gragg. Where’s Kate? Hi Kate. Come here and have a seat.

**Kate Gragg:** Thank you.

**John:** Cheers for Kate. A very brave Kate.

**Craig:** Hi Kate.

**John:** So, let’s talk to you before we start going into your pages. Tell us — do you want to describe what happens in these three pages?

**Kate:** It’s the opening to a TV pilot that I wrote. A woman, Hattie, she’s in a sort of tourist gift shop/car rental place. And she’s having trouble renting a car because all of her credit cards have been canceled because she’s been declared dead. And so she hitches a ride on a church tour bus that’s going to one of those mega churches. And then cowboys show up and it’s basically a stage coach robbery.

**John:** Thank you. We should always have the real people do it because you do so much better a job of summarizing things than Craig and I ever do.

**Craig:** Do you have like a job? Maybe we could just bring you in for Three Page Challenges and you could just…

**Kate:** I would love that.

**John:** That would be fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah. We don’t pay any money or anything.

**John:** So, Kate, is this whole script written, or is it just the first three pages?

**Kate:** It’s written. And I’m going to do the rewriting class at the LA Extension.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** Great. Cool. So, I really enjoyed some elements in your pages here and let me talk about some stuff that worked really well for me.

I liked that it was sort of cross-genres. And so we see these cowboys who we assume are just people talking and stuff on the side of the road, and then it becomes this robbery. So, we’re excited that it’s a robbery and it’s going to a strange place. And so I would have kept reading after these three pages because it’s just so bizarre that this is happening; that this church bus is being robbed.

There are some stuff which got in the way, so let me talk you through some of those things. We first meet Hattie and she is in this car rental shop. She’s trying to rent a car. I didn’t get a good sense of who she was at this moment. And so let’s look at our first line of description:

“HATTIE CONWAY, 26” — I think you need a comma after the 26 — “fidgets with a bucking bronco figurine on a rack of Texas-themed souvenirs, keeping one eye on the CLERK behind the counter as he nods along to a phone call.”

The stuff with the clerk and the nodding along, I totally get that. Fidgets doesn’t feel like quite the right verb. Fidgets is something to me that you do to yourself and it’s not something you do to an object.

**Craig:** Fiddles.

**John:** Fiddles. I think fiddles is a Craig Mazin suggestion that we’ll take.

I didn’t buy the guy saying, “The estate is still in probate.” It felt like too much of a reach. It doesn’t feel like the kind of thing that would actually be said to somebody on the phone. So, I like the fact that, “They say you’re dead.” That’s a great idea.

I would also look at the end of this scene, this first little scene:

“Hattie turns towards the window, ignoring him, scanning for options.”

Now, that “scanning for options is meant to lead us outside so we can see like what she’s seeing from her point of view on the bus, but because you gave us another line afterwards, “I got probation too. Were you down at County?” I forgot that we were looking outside, and so that transition didn’t really work for me. So, if the last line of the first scene was “scanning for options,” and then we cut to the outside, then I’d like, okay, that’s her point of view and she’s seeing what’s out there.

I didn’t necessarily buy her grabbing the t-shirts and trying to get onto that bus. I like that idea that she’s going to try to get on that bus, but what you gave us were those little two half scenes and then suddenly she’s on the bus. And I would love to see more about Hattie and learn more about Hattie by seeing how she talks her way onto that bus, because that is a moment where a character can actually do something rather than just the movie jumping ahead.

And so then once we get to the conversation with the pirate and his buddy and all this action, I was with you, and I was curious about what was going to happen next. I wasn’t sure of quite what tone of movie we were in. It felt like one of those sort of exaggerated Coen Brothers early comedies, but I was curious what it was going to be. Craig?

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s the part that I really appreciate here is the tone. I think that there’s the promise of something good here. There really is.

First of all, the notion of a girl who is on the run because she’s dead and the backstory there, I’m sure, is interesting. Joining up with a bunch of cowboy-riding dudes, who I imagine are, well, skinny and fair-faced and chubby and baby-faced, all right, maybe not, but maybe there’s some romance in there somewhere. But, the notion of an outlaw that’s kind of a weird horseback outlaw on the blacktops of Texas — that’s fun. I like that. There’s an interesting vibe to that.

The heat of it, like my favorite line in here is the introduction of Pirate and Buddy, “Staring down a stretch of two-lane backtop, baking in the relentless Texas sun,” and I start to feel like I’m in Thelma & Louise. It’s visual and I really like that.

And because you are finding an interesting tone, you now have to be really careful about introducing anything in there that starts to deflate it. And the things that can deflate tone — and jokes are tough, because a good joke will make tone work, and a bad joke will just deflate it.

So, let’s talk about this very first scene. I agree, by the way, with everything John said. But in a bigger way, I think you have to rethink how you’re revealing this information. This is a big piece of information. “You’re dead,” right, and I think the way you’re doing it is the least interesting way. You know, there’s a guy nodding and then, “They say you’re dead.” Wah. There it is. Blah. You know what I mean?

This is off the top of my head but we’re just on a clerk and he’s got a credit card and he’s like, “Well, yeah, I mean, she owes me a certain amount of money here. I’m trying to settle a bill. Or she owed me money,” whatever the language is. We’re trying to basically create a distraction and misdirection. “And when did she die? About how long ago? Of what, now? I see. All right. Well thank you very much. I should cut this card up, right, because she’s dead. Okay. Miss, here’s your card.”

You know, like just to reveal — some more interesting way of revealing that there is a woman who’s supposed to be dead who is not dead. “Can’t arrest the dead!” isn’t a bad line, except we’ve said “dead” a lot. So, maybe in that area think of the rhythm and maybe, “Can’t arrest a corpse,” something else. Something to just change up that rhythm or that feeling.

The exchange between Pirate and Buddy is — unfortunately Tarantino has kind of ruined this for us all. We don’t get to do it anymore, really. If anything sounds like, “What do they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Holland?” then you come up with another way. And, frankly, I always feel like when we first meet two characters there is an opportunity to learn so much about the differences between the two of them. And maybe even if there is conflict, hopefully, that emerges between those two, plant the seeds of it now. It doesn’t have to be overly dramatic; it could be over a small thing.

It could be two guys arguing over who gets the last piece of gum. But in one way or another there is something — give us a little more meat than just jokes, because it got a little jokey. Similarly, “I got probation too. Were you down at Country?” Too jokey. Right?

“(reading off a notepad) ‘The estate is still in probate.'” That’s not this guy, right?

So, try and find that tone. Really liked her on the bus. Love the image of these people singing. It’s very visual. I like the way you write so visually. And the heist itself was done really well. I mean, for you guys looking on the page, lots of white space. We’re not being jammed with details that we don’t need. “BUS and TRUCK speeding down the road.” I love shit like that.

“Galloping HORSES. BUS and TRUCK speeding down the road.” So many scripts we read about, you know, the bus — you hear the gears winding and the tires and the sky and a bird goes, “Wah.” “Bus and truck speeding down the road.”

“You know what this is. Open up.” Maybe we could do a little bit better there without getting jokey or violating tone. And then, “Hattie has never been more awake in her life.” Eh, I don’t know that. [laughs] You know? My guess is she has probably had some interesting things happen to her, but I think this may be, “Hattie perks up.”

This is one of those moments where I like to sort of take a look at a character and say, “Everybody shrinks back in fear, except Hattie, who sits forward.” Do you know what I mean? To like say, “Oh, she’s different.”

But, there’s a lot of good promise here and I like the way you’re writing it. So, guard your tone. Defend your tone.

**John:** I would also keep Hattie front and center. Because what I notice through this first section is she is responding to other people but you don’t see her taking initiative. And that’s why seeing her take some initiative in the car rental place is important, but even more so how she gets herself on the bus and what she’s like on the bus — don’t let your hero be a passenger, literally, at the start of your story because then we’re not there with her.

And so then you can maybe earn a line like, “Hattie has never been more awake in her life.” Or at least we’ll know who she is when you give us that kind of line.

So, tell us what happens ultimately in your script.

**Kate:** Hattie ends up going back to the very small southern Texas town where she’s from. And she hasn’t been back in a long time. And she, through the course of the story, discovers that her mother who vanished in mysterious circumstances when she was a kid actually ran this secret outlaw ghost town that those cowboys are from. And they want her to be their new leader.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** That sounds weird, and I’m into weird.

**John:** Yeah. It sounds really cool. And so does she know these guys at the start of the story?

**Kate:** No, but they recognize her because she looks a lot like her mom. She didn’t know any of this existed.

**John:** So, once they’re on the bus, they’re going to recognize her as being special and unique. That’s great, and that tells us that she’s a character worth watching.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just be careful about — coincidences can happen. I mean, Dickens built a wonderful career in coincidences. But, when two people are moving towards each other, and it’s coincidental, that can be a problem for the audience. When one person finds somebody who’s moving — you know, somebody is running away, she’s running away. When you tell me that, now I don’t want her to want to be interested in these guys. I want her to be, “Holy shit, I’ve got to get away from these guys.” And they find her and then they’re like, “Oh, look who that looks like.”

You know what I mean? In other words, you don’t want people moving towards each other and going, “Oh, and also we belong together.”

**John:** In a movie you get essentially one coincidence, and that coincidence should usually be the premise of your film. Like that is sort of the Passover Principle. This is why tonight is unlike all other nights, is that this is why we’re watching this movie here and now. And this could be exactly that premise coincidence where like they happen to rob the bus that she’s on and that brings her back into the fold.

But if you can find ways to have your hero create that circumstance, you’re almost always better off. So, if something she did ends up bringing her to that place, then it doesn’t count as a coincidence. It doesn’t count against you as a coincidence.

**Kate:** Great.

**John:** Thank you so much.

**Craig:** Great job, Louisa. I mean, not Louisa. Kate. I was jumping ahead. Kate, right?

**Kate:** Yes.

**Craig:** Sorry, I was jumping into the next person.

**Kate:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Good job, Kate. Good job.

**John:** All right. Our final batch of three pages comes from Louisa Makaron and you’re going to forgive me when I mispronounce your name.

**Louisa Makaron:** It’s Ma-karon.

**John:** Louise Makaron. That’s actually much simpler.

**Craig:** Uh, you spelled it wrong.

**Louisa:** I know. Someone spelled it wrong along the way.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s an airport that spells it right.

**Louisa:** Yeah. I’m from Vegas actually where that airport lives.

**Craig:** You should just change it.

**Louisa:** I think I will.

**Craig:** Just change it.

**Louisa:** People think I’m Irish. I don’t know. I’m not Irish.

**Craig:** What are you?

**Louisa:** I’m Italian. It’s not indicated there.

**Craig:** No, there’s no vowel at the end. You should change it.

**Louisa:** I’m gonna. It’s happening.

**Craig:** Yeah, it makes sense.

**John:** Louisa, what was your decision process for sending in these three pages? When did you decide, You know what? I’m going to bite the bullet and send it in.”

**Louisa:** Well, yeah, motivated by terror mostly. Just like, just do it. I sat there with my finger over the Send button for probably ten minutes.

**John:** And you did it.

**Louisa:** Just send it, you know. Well, just like, it’s good. It’s good.

**John:** And so when you arrived here at the theater you saw that your pages. How were you feeling?

**Louisa:** More terror.

**John:** More terror?

**Louisa:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Right now? Terror right now in this moment?

**Louisa:** A little bit, yeah.

**John:** After us watch us talk to the first two entries, how are you feeling now?

**Louisa:** The same terror, I guess. I feel okay.

**John:** Okay. You should feel okay. You should feel pretty good.

**Craig:** You don’t really have levels of terror. You just have one steady…

**John:** Steady state.

**Louisa:** It’s pretty much constant. Yeah.

**Craig:** Okay.

**Louisa:** It’s how I live.

**Craig:** She has a static terror.

**John:** Yeah. It’s like you’re living in a police state where there’s always sort of unrest inside your head.

Louisa, talk to us about the pages you sent through and give us the quick description of what happens in these first three pages.

**Louisa:** Okay. So, in these three pages we meet Daisy and she’s drawing in a notebook. We see that she’s drawing a how-to manual on how to dodge a bullet, basically. And there’s a knock at the door, or there’s not a knock at the door — there is a sound outside the door and it’s a delivery person, delivery man, and he’s trying to leave a package that’s sort of crudely wrapped and she’s very suspicious of it.

And he gets frustrated with her and he ends up leaving. And she calls the police because she’s very nervous about this package. And then at the end it’s clear that the police know her and she’s called them many times.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** So, the first page, it’s hard to tell where the first page ends on her. But you know, you wrote it.

**Louisa:** I think it ends, “I was looking for the doorbell.” I think that’s where it ends.

**Craig:** Right. So, I really loved this first page. I really did. I liked the way you introduced her. There were details, but not too many details, but the right details that I needed. A fun reveal of what she did, which was really interesting and obviously makes me curious about her and what her deal is. And then the fact that there’s this thud and she’s so weirdly peeking out at this guy and he’s saying, “Umm…I saw you.”

“I’ve got a package for Daisy Morton.” Now, this is where I started getting a bit confused.

**Louisa:** Okay.

**Craig:** This delivery man is like the friendliest delivery man ever, who likes chatting. He’s actually chit-chatty. I’m not a shut-in and delivery men don’t talk to me this much. So, we got into this conversation which I have to tell you was well written. It had a good rhythm and it was interesting. You’re a smart person. I can tell these are smart people talking to each other. The problem is I just don’t know why these two people are talking in this way about this thing.

**Louisa:** Okay.

**Craig:** To me, a delivery man, I get, “I saw you.”

“What were you doing? Leave the package.” Walks away. [laughs] Do you know what I mean? That’s how UPS guys work for me. If he needs a signature, he’s like, “I need a signature.”

“I’m not coming outside.”

“Okay, well, I gotta take the package with me.”

“Don’t take the package.”

Now I understand that there’s a standoff and there’s some reason for them to talk. Create some sort of dramatic compulsion for this conversation to take place.

He was reading a bit like, I was asking Chris O’Dowd from Bridesmaids, like I imagine this incredibly friendly Irish UPS guy who’s like, “Oh, it’s just that ringing the bell is one of the perks of this job, you know.”

**Louisa:** Right, right.

**Craig:** But I don’t think that’s right for this kind of, you know, for what the circumstances are. You haven’t compelled these two people to force to deal with each other, which I think you want to do because that’s what’s uncomfortable for her.

And then also take a look, Daisy, when you are frightened you tend to shorten your sentences. And she’s very short, short, short, short, all right. And then suddenly, “It’s not my birthday and the nearest holiday is National Fanny Pack Day. Not exactly a gift giving holiday. You’re not the usual guy.”

Suddenly, she’s very verbose, right, which doesn’t work because it feels like it’s kind of — again, like I was saying earlier to Kate — it’s like putting a joke in where we don’t need a joke-joke. And then the conversation keeps going. So, it’s almost like a romantic comedy at this point, but why are they still talking to each other?

I did like the ending where she calls about the package. I think the operator, “A very suspicious package was just left on my door and –”

“Daisy, please.” You know, like not, “Daisy? Is this Daisy Morton?”

**Louisa:** Right, right.

**Craig:** They know her. If they know her, they know her.

**John:** Yeah. They would know the number calling.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. I think it would be, “911. Please stop calling us Daisy. What is it Daisy?”

**John:** I’m going to disagree with Craig, which is always one of my favorite things to do on the podcast.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** So, the reason why UPS people don’t ever talk to Craig is because he doesn’t have doe eyes and a cardigan.

**Craig:** That’s not true. At my house…you don’t know how I walk around.

**Louisa:** Constantly in a cardigan.

**John:** I don’t know your life on the other end of Skype there. But I believe that there was — I read this as he’s either flirting or he’s genuinely a bad guy. And that kept me excited and compelled reading through these things.

**Louisa:** Right.

**John:** And so I want to talk about sort of what I was reading and what I felt I could have enjoyed even more. Do you perceive titles going over her opening drawing of this stuff? Or are we just watching her?

**Louisa:** I kind of did. But, you know, it’s not my job…

**John:** It was sort of halfway in between. And so there wasn’t quite enough there that I believe it would mean a title sequence, but there wasn’t enough actually happening that I believe that we’re actually just watching her do all this drawing, finally to be the reveal of she’s actually drawing how to dodge a bullet.

So, I think you need to either make your choice. Either it’s titles or it’s not titles. And if it’s not titles it needs to be a little bit quicker. If it’s not titles, then you can really kind of get much more quickly to she would be doing something in the house and then she sees the guy moving and that sort of starts the whole movie, the whole scene.

I want to talk about point of view and like literally point of view, because we start inside the house and we never really go outside the house. And so the minute she sees him we can sort of go, we can do that POV through the window of seeing that there’s a guy there. And then I would put us at a new place when we’re actually at that door, so we’re inside/outside that door, so we’re really clear of where we are that she hasn’t invited him into the house.

I liked a lot of the conversation between them and sort of who’s the regular guy, I don’t know, ringing the doorbell. That all felt good and I felt Chris O’Dowd, too. I mean, it felt like the right kind of vibe for it.

I agree on National Fanny Pack Day. When you feel it’s reaching for a joke then it’s not going to land quite right. But, it was really nicely done. And I can see this working as the start of this — Daisy’s journey. Is that what the movie is? Is this Daisy’s story from being terrified to stepping out beyond her comfort zone?

**Louisa:** Yeah. Pretty much. Yeah.

**John:** What happens? What happens in the first act that gets her going?

**Louisa:** In the first act, well I haven’t — this is not written, so I have basically like a log line. Through her own carefulness and paranoia she basically ends up getting herself caught up in like a CIA type mission kind of thing. And by the end of the first act we’re in there.

**John:** So just because she’s paranoid doesn’t mean that people aren’t out to get her.

**Louisa:** Right. She sort of ends up being right about a few things.

**Craig:** Self-fulfilling prophecy. Was your intention that the delivery man is flirting with her?

**Louisa:** I mean, no. Not really. I guess not.

**Craig:** Because I didn’t get that.

**Louisa:** He could be.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, this isn’t a story where they fall in love or anything.

**Louisa:** No.

**Craig:** Yeah, so, um…hmm.

**Louisa:** He could be flirting with her.

**John:** He could. So, if you wanted the flirting, it essentially becomes an extra line of dialogue where he notices like her skirt or like her bare legs…

**Louisa:** And a wink.

**John:** The wink, yeah. The little something. He mistakes her fright for coyness. And that sort of gets that going.

**Craig:** Regardless of what you intend here, if they’re not — if this character is gone, never to show up again, this is too much. This is just simply too much. Because we’re involved in their relationship suddenly, you know. And in that sense, that’s okay, we do this all the time. We write too much and then we pare back.

You have to decide what your intention is for this encounter. And if the intention is to show that she is paranoid and frightened of the world outside and is constantly calling 911, make that your focus. Pull out the rest of the underbrush.

**John:** Cool.

**Louisa:** Cool.

**John:** Louisa, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, Louisa.

**John:** And you made it. It’s a pleasure to meet you.

**Louisa:** Thank you.

**Craig:** That wasn’t so bad, was it?

**Louisa:** No, it was all right.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** Now, it’s come time in the podcast where we will actually have questions live from the audience. So, I think what’s going to happen is are there volunteers with microphones? This young woman is going to have a microphone. So, if you have a question you will raise your hand and we will send her to you and you will be able to ask your question. Any show of hands of someone who has a question? Gentleman with a black shirt?

**Dave Stone:** Hey guys. Thanks for doing what you do. I really love it. My name is Dave Stone . I’m with Intrigue Films. And I was listening to a podcast where you were playing devil’s advocate about not subscribing to a lot of the structure in screenwriting books and that kind of stuff.

So, I just kind of wanted to ask you, when you guys were kind of starting out and learning, what teachers did you learn from and were there any books that you’re like, hey, this is a good foundational book. Anyways, that’s my question.

**Craig:** Yeah, sure. I think we probably mentioned at one point or another, when I first started out I read two books. I didn’t go to film school like John. I just read two books. I read Syd Field’s Screenwriter’s Workbook, which is not even Syd Field’s Screenplay. It was a very nuts and bolts thing which was good for me just so I could say, “Okay, the first act is roughly this many pages. The second act is roughly this many pages.” But a lot of it just was worthless.

It is, I mean, you know. And then I read Chris Vogler’s book, The Writer’s Journey, which is based on the Campbell stuff. And that’s, you know, also frankly, it’s kind of fortune cookie descriptions of how to do this stuff. The problem with all the books is that they’re post-facto. So, the people that write the books don’t write screenplays. They analyze screenplays.

So, they watch movies and they find commonalities between lots of movies and then they sort of create a paradigm for what’s common about them. And they provide that to you, as if that would help you actually construct it. It doesn’t.

What they are, they’re demolition experts telling you how to build a building. It does not work. The only way that I’ve found to figure out how to build a building as opposed to tear it down is to just build a whole lot of bad buildings. And then when people finally stop suing you, and the roof stops collapsing, then you’re there.

I mean, ultimately I find there is no other way around it. So, go ahead, take a look at the demolition experts. Take a look at what they have to say. Please do not pay anyone to give you advice on your script. I’ve said it a billion times — don’t do it.

But, in the end just know it’s okay after reading those books to not be any further along than you were before you started.

**John:** Yeah, I read Syd Field before I came to film school. Then in film school I was in a class with Laura Ziskin when she taught her first semester film development class. And we just read a bunch of scripts. And you would sort of talk through them.

And I think more than reading any book you should just read a ton of scripts. And really good scripts of the movies you love, or movies that haven’t been shot yet that are really good, and then just like a bunch of really bad scripts which you’ll find all over everywhere.

And you start to recognize patterns. Like these are things that work well in movies. And these are things that work badly in movies. But what Craig says is absolutely true. Being able analyze a script is not the same as being able to write a script. And you actually have to fundamentally do the work and figure out how it is you actually achieve on the page those things you see in the good movies. And how you keep this experience of scene-by-scene and line-by-line, keep the reader engaged.

And that’s a thing that’s very difficult to teach and you just have to sort of see it. So, the way we do these Three Page Challenges, it’s sort about keeping that excitement from scene-to-scene, from page-to-page, and understanding how you get a reader to experience the movie that you see in your head just through the 12-point Courier on the page.

Another question?

**Male Audience Member:** Hi. You reference a lot about how you prefer not have the longer paragraphs where there’s lots to read, you like the white space. How does that work for you if you’re setting up visual gags or something like that in comedies?

It seems to me that I tend to have longer paragraphs than the three lines or five lines or whatever than what I should have based on what I’ve been hearing.

**John:** Yeah, I would say my preference for shorter paragraphs isn’t just me as a writer, but it’s me as a reader. And it’s recognizing that I just tend to skip over longer things. It’s like, oh, my eyes don’t want to look through all those words.

And it’s laziness, but I don’t think I’m uncommon in that situation. And I will skip over stuff if it feels like it’s going to be too hard for me to read, or too much for me to read. And so that’s why I go for those short things.

For comedy I think short is also your friends.

**Craig:** For sure. Yeah, I mean, for setting up visual gags — if you’re setting up visual gags, the idea is that certain things must be there for the audience to see in a non-comic context and then something funny happens and you go, “Oh look, I didn’t realize that that was going to,” you know, you put a banana peel on the floor, and the guys walks around and walks into a pole.

And there are all sorts of ways that you can do that. And it’s sleight of hand with words. But, even more important then to not belabor stuff. Just, first of all, return. Okay? And I like capitalizing things that I want people’s eye to be drawn to.

Sometimes I’m capitalizing the wrong thing, because I want them to be looking here and then I hit them with this one. You know, he walks right around it and, whomp, a bus. You know? I mean, there’s a lot of ways you can do this. But very sparse. I really think in comedy in particular it’s important to be very sparse about that stuff.

It’s like watching a comedy. Keep it light.

**John:** Cool. Another question.

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** How you doing guys?

**Craig:** Yeah! How you doin’?

**John:** That’s a great voice, by the way. We have to comment on that right from the start.

**Craig:** Everybody get out. It’s me and him. Brooklyn. How you doin’? How you doin’? Where you from?

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Here’s five bucks. Don’t tell your mother.

**Craig:** Where you from?

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Brooklyn.

**Craig:** Brooklyn! All right.

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Bensonhurst.

**Craig:** What part?

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Bensonhurst.

**Craig:** Bensonhurst is where my first apartment was, in Bensonhurst, right there. My mother was in Bensonhurst.

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** 71st and Fourth.

**Craig:** Oh!

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Hey!

**Craig:** Hey! How you doin’?

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** So, I love what you guys are doing. I think it’s fantastic. Now, speaking of New York, I read a couple of Goldman’s scripts and Woody Allen, and Goldman is specifically different because you can get quite annoyed reading his script. It’s cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.

**Craig:** He’s very unique.

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** And Woody Allen leaves you absolutely dry. I mean, when he describes a room he says, “1920s Jean Harlow Room.” Have a nice day. That’s it.

So, then how do you — And he’s contextual funny. How do you navigate those extremes?

**Craig:** Choose between one or the other?

**John:** Yeah. I mean, so Woody Allen scripts are incredibly spare and it’s basically — you think about a Woody Allen movie, they are dialogue-driven. And so therefore he wants you to focus on what the characters are saying and that’s what the movie is largely going to be about.

William Goldman tends, there’s obviously good dialogue as well, but they tend to be sort of more, “I’m going to paint the whole world for you,” and that’s just the style. And it’s understanding what’s your natural writing style, what does your voice sound like, but what kind of movie are you writing.

And when I’m writing things that are dialogue-driven, there’s not going to be a lot of scene description in there.

**Craig:** Yeah. Also remember Woody Allen directs his own scripts. So, he doesn’t need to write a whole bunch of stuff in there, because he doesn’t need to sell it to anybody. He just has this kind of rotating deal. “I make a movie a year,” for better or worse at this point, you know. “But I make a movie a year. And people are going to give me money to make it. And, frankly, I’m more interested in getting actors. Usually I can get actors by saying, ‘I’m Woody Allen. Would you like to be in my movie?’ ‘Yeah.'”

At that point the script really becomes almost like notes. And from what I understand about his process, he’ll shoot and then he’ll reshoot a whole bunch, too, anyway. I mean, it seems like he kind of writes it as he shoots it. So, I wouldn’t draw too many lessons from that specific example.

Nor would I draw too many lessons from Goldman either because it’s just a very idiosyncratic way of writing. And here’s the truth: when you are established you can indulge yourself in whatever style of writing gets you to the movie, gets you to a good movie. And when you’re not, you have to kind of temper it a bit, because other people are reading it and making a choice about it.

With that in mind, you have to feel your own way. I think John’s right; if it’s a very heavy dialogue scene and nothing else is going on, you don’t need to go over the top. If you’re writing a scene where two people enter a ballroom, and it’s amazing, and there’s a dance, and there’s a gun fight — fill that space.

But, you’re going to have to find your own way. Obviously William Goldman didn’t care how Woody Allen wrote and vice versa. So, you shouldn’t probably care either.

**John:** Another question from out there. I see a gentleman right there.

**Gentleman Right There:** Hi, thank you guys for being here. The question that I have is you guys have both worked in franchises with Charlie’s Angels and The Hangover. How do you guys go about serving a franchise while still having your own unique stamp on it?

**John:** So, Charlie’s Angels, I loved the original series so, so much. And so when I went in to meet with Drew Barrymore and Amy Pascal about the movie, I told them — I expressed my love for it. And I felt like the movie could be a giant hug around the original series. We weren’t going to try to push back away from it. We were going to sort of embrace everything that was wonderful and sort of weird about the series and make the feature version of it.

The challenge for me was honestly the second movie. And when it came time to make the second movie, I met with each person involved with it individually and said like, “Let’s talk about what we’re going to do on the second movie and what kind of process we’re going to go through.” And I made everyone sign this little contract saying like, “These are the things we won’t do in the sequel. We won’t do all the stupid things that people do in the sequel that ruin sequels.”

And that checklist became the checklist of the things we did in the sequel that ruined it. It was just a bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy. I really wanted the second movie to be like the second episode of a great TV series that takes three years to shoot and costs $80 million. And I really wanted it to feel like a series, like the next episode. And I couldn’t do it. And it was outside of my power to make that thing happen.

Now, Craig, with The Hangover you came onboard with the second movie and you had a responsibility to sort of people’s expectations and the same filmmaker.

**Craig:** Yeah. For me it was — in a weird way the more relevant example for me for your question is the Scary Movie movies that I did. Because for Hangover it’s very much Todd Phillips’ movie and Todd called me — and when he called me on the second one he said, “Look, I want to make another episode,” actually. “It’s like Law & Order. I want it to happen again.” There’s another murder — or like Angela Lansbury — another murder, again, in my little town.

So, and that’s what we did and I liked it a lot. And the third movie he was like, “Here’s what I want to do. I want to go dark and I want to resolve this and I want to ask a question nobody every asks about characters like Alan. What’s wrong with this guy?”

So, that was following his lead very much, although obviously we worked very closely together to write the scripts. When I came on Scary Movie 3, the first two Scary Movies had been done by the Wayans brothers and they were both Rated R and they were of a certain kind — they were of a certain style. And I came onto Scary Movie 3 with David Zucker who had done Airplane, and Jim Abrahams, and Pat Proft, like all these old guys who had done Airplane, and Naked Gun, the movies that I kind of loved.

And we really said, “Let’s just do it a different way. Let’s make Scary Movie 3 like that. Let’s go old school with it.” And that was more of a big change and that was more of a decision. And I feel closer to those movies, frankly.

And unfortunately the studio, as you see, they let it get away from them all the time with sequels. They do seem to concentrate on the worst lessons. Writing sequels is very hard. It’s very, very hard. It is essentially thankless. And, yet, it’s probably half the jobs that are available. [laughs] So, you have to make your peace with it at some point.

**John:** Craig, did you see the list of the 2015 movies? So, like the summer 2015 movies that are already sort of scheduled out…

**Craig:** Number, number, number, number…

**John:** Number, number, number. It’s like the nadir of numbers.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, look, we’ve had already this year…

**John:** This year was big.

**Craig:** …so many. And they have some that are sequels but they’re not like — Superman is a reboot of a movie that came out three years ago. It’s, eh, a sequel, sequel-ish.

**John:** Yeah, it’s kind of sequel, kind of original.

Let’s do one last question and then we’re going to do wrap up. So, I see one more question.

**Initially Loud Audience Member:** Hey. Wow, that was loud. Would you guys talk about the difference — John, have you ever worked with a writing partner? And I guess that’s part of the question. And then talk about the difference between working with a writing partner and working on your own stuff and how the process differs and how you approach it in each circumstance.

**John:** I have written with a writing partner. So, I wrote a pilot for Fox with Jordan Mechner who is a really terrific writer. And Big Fish: The Musical I’m writing with Andrew Lippa who is the lyricist/composer.

And the challenge for me is that I’m not a very good roommate. I don’t share things well. And it’s like having a creative roommate. And you’re supposed to take this thing that fits in your brain and make it fit in both of your brains and share the same vision of stuff.

Writing partners can be really good for many writers because you have different skill sets. One of you may be good in the room. One of you may be good at sort of buckling down. You can hold each other accountable for actually getting the work done. There’s a lot of good reasons for why people should write with writing partners. I’m just not a person who is naturally especially good at that.

One of the challenges I had with Jordan, who is fantastic and who I adore, was because I was so much more experienced of a writer, that whenever we would come to a disagreement I would just like sort of throw the trump card. I would say, “Big Fish.” And so I would win too many of those arguments and it just wasn’t a fair balanced thing.

And so that’s why if you’re both at a sort of newer level it can be a really great situation. And with Big Fish, we are just completely different skill sets. And so I knew nothing about how to do a big stage musical and he didn’t know how to do this kind of story. And it was a good marriage.

**Craig:** I never realized it must have been very hard for you to invite me into your life as a creative partner of sorts.

**John:** There’s a reason we’re on Skype. Yeah. There’s a reason why I control the edit.

**Craig:** I actually think that one of the reasons our partnership on this podcast goes so well is because from the start, it wasn’t even a decision, I was like I’m not going to make any decisions. It’s actually very… — These things are, because if you want to make decisions and the other person also wants to make decisions, this is a problem. It can be a real, real problem. And I’m super laid back about the podcast to the point of almost being not there. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** He’s laughing like, [faint, sarcastic laugh].

**John:** There is one podcast that Craig was actually not there. We just cut him in and he just says, “Uh-huh, yeah,” a lot.

**Craig:** Good point. Good point.

I did have a writing partner. I started with a writing partner for the first five years of my career. And he’s a great guy. He’s still working today. He has a new writing partner. We stopped writing together I think around 2000. And the fact is that, so I write alone, typically. Sometimes I collaborate with the director. And he has a writing partner because he’s supposed to have a writing partner. He’s the kind of writer that needs a writing partner and wants a writing partner. And I’m the kind that doesn’t.

And neither one is better or worse. I mean, there are some amazing teams who are prodigious and talented on a level I can’t be. Looked at what Ganz and Mandel have done over the years. And Alexander and Karaszewski.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, there’s just a ton of great, great teams across all genres that are really impressive. And you have to ask yourself what kind of guy am I? What kind of person am I?

There are huge benefits to having the partner. The partner is somebody that can tell you, yes, those people were crazy. No, this isn’t bad.

Of course, a partner is also somebody who can tell you, “I just didn’t like what you wrote today,” even though you think it’s awesome. And then there’s just stuff, business stuff. If you become successful as a partnership, it’s difficult to un-partnership. You know, so there’s… — And we’re going to actually talk about this at length in a following episode, unless it’s a prior episode depending on how time works out, with Dennis Palumbo who is a psychotherapist who deals with screenwriters. And has apparently done quite a bit of couple’s therapy with partners.

**John:** Yes. So, a few little wrap up things here today. Did anybody here buy a t-shirt? A show of hands? Oh, yeah, a lot of t-shirts. T-shirts are going to start shipping on Monday and they look really cool. You’re going to see this little card if you bought a t-shirt. You’ll flip this card over and there may be something handwritten on the back from me and Craig. If so, that’s your Golden Ticket and you’ll get a special awesome little thing that we’ll announce later on.

**Craig:** There’s one.

**John:** There’s only one ticket.

**Craig:** Who will get it?

**John:** Guys, thank you so very much. This was really fun.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you.

****************

**Craig:** No, locked in!

**John:** All right, so people are gathering their things. People are taking a seat. And we can probably start. So, how many of you guys have actually heard this show that we usually do called Scriptnotes? Show of hands? Oh, hey, a lot of people. That’s fantastic.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** So, if you are familiar with the show you know that it starts exactly the same way ever time. So, what might be cool is if we’re like kind of quiet and then at a certain point when it becomes really obvious you can all like cheer, or applaud, or make some sort of noise to indicate that there are live people here in the audience. Does that sound cool? All right.

**Craig:** Do you want to point at them when they’re supposed to do that?

**John:** Now, that’s good.

**Craig:** I have no confidence that they will know what the appropriate time is.

**John:** All right, I have a lot more faith in our audience.

**Craig:** Well, you know me.

**John:** All right, so let’s do this. Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

[Applause!]

**Craig:** No, no. Yes! I was right! That was the wrong time! That wasn’t even close to the right time. I feel so good about what just happened.

**John:** Yeah, you probably should.

**Craig:** You know that there’s this ongoing war between us about people are good, people are bad.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** I win again.

**John:** Craig and I are never in the same room when we do this, so it’s really rare that we actually can see each other. So, let’s try this again and let’s try to be quiet until I point to you, all right?

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

[Applause!]

Oh my god, still! All right. Total silence. All right.

**Craig:** You’re going to be quiet until he points to you. This is pointing.

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

[Applause!]

LINKS:

* [Writers Guild Foundation](https://www.wgfoundation.org)
* [Three Page Challenge packet](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/live_threepagers_final.pdf)

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.