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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep 94: 10 Questions, 10 Answers — Transcript

June 21, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/10-questions-10-answers).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 94 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Now, Craig, in full disclosure, this is our second attempt at doing episode 94, because we got four minutes into it and you realized that something was not right.

**Craig:** Yeah, I totally blew it. We use these external mics and I didn’t switch the input source to the external mic, so it was trying to record me though my closed laptop. So, I sounded like a ghost in a wind tunnel.

**John:** Yeah. That’s never good.

**Craig:** A boring ghost in a wind tunnel.

**John:** But, now we’re here and we can do the podcast that we really want to do which is that we have so many questions that have stacked up. And they just keep piling up and piling up. And if we don’t address them at some point they will just burst through and the email folder will come to tatters.

**Craig:** Yeah, there’s a real thing called Question Poisoning.

**John:** Yeah. It’s deadly.

**Craig:** Deadly.

**John:** And there’s not enough media attention on Question Poisoning. It just builds up and builds up. And, you know, everyone talks about the Explanation Point Poisoning, and sort of that’s the danger, but no, it’s the question marks that are really the dangerous part here.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** So, we’re going to try to churn through a lot of these questions that people have generously written in. If people have a question for us, I should start by saying you can always write at ask@johnaugust.com and we will attempt to answer your question. You can also, if it’s a short thing, just tweet Craig or I. I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

But, Heather from Dahlonega, Georgia…see, the good thing about re-recording this podcast is I was actually able to say her city right.

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s good. Well, because it’s called Roald Dahl’s name in it, so I figured you’d pick up on that.

**John:** Oh, yeah, Dahlonega. So, now I can’t not say it.

**Craig:** Dahlonega.

**John:** Heather writes with a really good question. “Why do so many TV shows now produce less than the average 22 episodes a season if they’re not midseason replacements? And how is this affecting the writers?”

That’s a good question, Heather.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So, Heather brings up the point that most seasons of TV shows we think about as being 22 episodes, but that’s not actually really correct a lot of times. When shows are really successful, sometimes they’ll do a 23rd or a 24th episode. That happened to Chicago Fire this year. And I think Castle does it. And that’s a thing that happens because networks want more of the hit shows so they can keep their ratings up, which is understandable and great; exhausting for the writers, but great.

And TV shows used to be even longer. Series could be like 30 or 40 episodes in a season, which just seems madness now. And they were shorter schedules on things and it was all crazy. Now, we talk about 22 episodes as being a full season. And we talk about 13 episodes as being the initial order for a TV show. So, an American TV show, classically, if it’s going to be a fall pickup they will order 13 episodes, sometimes they’ll order less — eight episodes, or not quite to 13. But they’ll order 13 episodes and if the show is a hit then they’d hope to order the back nine episodes which bring you up to a full 22. And that has been sort of the classic model.

But that classic model is changing largely because of cable, because of other changes that happened in the TV industry. And, Craig, in the previously recorded podcast you’d actually talked about the TV season and why we have the TV season that we do.

**Craig:** Yeah. The notion of the fall, I mean, so summer was a break. It wasn’t a break because they felt like giving writers a break. It was a break because people didn’t watch TV, at least in the early days, in the summer very much. The viewership numbers went way, way down. And, remember, this is back in the day of three networks. So, they don’t have to wonder where people are going. When the ratings at ABC go down, and NBC and CBS, it means people have turned their TVs off. They’re outside; they’re picnicking; their swimming. This was back when people used to move around and not just eat in front of their TV.

So, the summer seemed like a good time to actually just put reruns on the air because the viewership numbers weren’t at a level where they could get great advertising numbers. But, then the question is well why does the season start in the fall as opposed to like, oh, I don’t know, late August, or when kids go back to school. And it’s the fall because that’s when the new car models were introduced to the public. And the new car models drove a huge amount of the advertising.

So, they very quickly landed on a fall to late spring season. But, you know, that’s kind of gone.

**John:** It’s gone to some degree. I think we still have a fall season because broadcast television, which means the big networks in the United States, so NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS, they have a fall season because they still have an upfront season. And upfronts is where the networks display all of their new shows for the new season to big advertisers and the advertisers have a chance to buy a bunch of advertising time upfront and commit at a discount rate for the stuff that they want to — the commercials that they’re going to want to air over the next year.

And so it’s useful to broadcast TV to have a fall season. That doesn’t mean that everything has to be in the fall season, and I think we’re seeing more and more shows being introduced midseason.

But Heather writes like why some shows that aren’t even midseason don’t seem to go their full distance. And a thing that happens quite a bit is a show gets its initial order of eight, or its initial order of 13, and it may not get that back nine. It may not go to a full 22 episode season. And yet the network says like, “Well, it still did well enough that we want to give it another shot. We want to put it back on the network the next year.” And so therefore it might have a ten episode season the first year, and then ten episodes the next year.

That’s not awful. That’s just a thing that happens. It can be challenging for a writer who wonders whether, “Should I take a job on another show? Am I still under contract to this show so I can’t jump onto another show?” There’s challenging things with those short orders. But, that is a thing that really happens.

Now, in cable, weirdly a different thing happens a lot which is that you will get an order for ten episodes or 12 episodes and your season will go and you’ll go off and do something else and then you’ll come back and they’ll say, “Oh, no, no. This is still the first season. We’re going to just keep continuing on this same season.” And they do that because contractually that way they don’t have to give people their season bumps.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s lame.

**John:** It’s lame, but that’s the way that the contracts have sort of shaken out. And so it’s something that we should probably be addressing at some point in the WGA that you have to…

**Craig:** It should be by time, not by whim.

**John:** Yes. There should be some reason for why things kick into their next season of a show. But, for actors, and for writers, and for producers and everyone else who would get a bump in the second season, sometimes they will also get a title bump. So, like the first season you might be a staff writer and they’ll say, “We move you up to co-producer in your second season.” That wouldn’t happen because you didn’t actually have a second season; it was just a 40-episode first season that was spread out over four years.

So, that’s madness, but that is something that is happening right now.

**Craig:** It sounds like madness to me.

**John:** So that’s why Craig doesn’t do TV.

**Craig:** One of the many reasons I don’t do TV. I do actually kind of like the notion of the shorter seasons. It’s a very European way of approaching it. And certainly in cable there are shorter seasons, it seems like giving writers a little bit more time and directors in particular.

You know, people hear us talking about the writer-director issues in features. You know, directors in TV are constantly behind the eight ball. It’s actually one of the things that the DGA worries about when they go into negotiations and they try and protect their TV directors because they get these scripts at the very last minute. There’s no chance to prepare or really plan. And suddenly they’re thrown into this incredibly aggressive schedule to shoot the show. And so giving writers and directors a little bit more breathing room to create the shows would, you think, would maybe help quality.

But, you know, the business people have their quality and quantity graph. And that’s the way they approach it.

**John:** I will say in a general sense, I see more and more writers approaching shows as arcs of 13 episodes or arcs of seven episodes because they don’t know necessarily where their break is going to come. And I think a lot of feature writers would be more likely to approach television if they weren’t committed to that 22 episodes that’s just going to kill you.

**Craig:** It’s really scary to me.

**John:** With Chosen, which Josh Friedman and I set up at Fox, my hope — sort of my stated hope — was that we could get like a midseason order so that we could do ten or 13 episodes and have them be awesome rather than 22 episodes and have them be, you know, okay.

**Craig:** Alright.

Well, we have our next question from Anthony. Anthony! “Should one try writing a script before pursuing a career in screenwriting, or start pursuing a career in screenwriting, for instance an internship and assistant jobs, and learn how to do that first and then try writing?” I should say that I’ve added a lot of words into that question to make it read properly. [laughs]

So, Anthony…

**John:** Should I learn proper grammar before I start writing or should I do it afterwards?

You should write a script. But here’s the wonderful luxury of the screenwriter is no one can stop you from writing a script.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And so you should write a script. And you should write your script now. And you should see whether you enjoy the actual process of putting scenes together and writing a screenplay before you commit to doing it. It’s like, should I become a football player? Well, you should probably play some football first.

**Craig:** Yeah. When you say should I try writing a script before I pursue a career, or should I first pursue a career…do both. Write one now. Write one while you’re doing something else. Write one after you do that thing. Nothing is stopping you as John said from doing it.

You will learn just from the process of doing it. You will learn something. There will be some value. And you can rewrite that one if you feel like you’ve learned and you want to.

**John:** So, in full disclosure, I did try writing a script before I moved out and went to film school. And I just didn’t get it. All the pieces didn’t sort of fit together right for me. But, I think I didn’t have as much exposure to what real scripts look like. And I feel like now with the internet, and with like a thousand scripts online, and the ability to sort of see what that is actually supposed to look like, I would have read a lot more scripts and probably would have tried writing a screenplay before I ever moved out to Los Angeles.

**Craig:** Makes total sense.

**John:** Roger asks, “The last few years I’ve worked as a location scout on several movies and TV shows. This year I’m going to make a big push in sending out my scripts in hopes of getting an agent or a manager. Do you think my credits on IMDb as a location scout hurts my chances at getting representation or work as a writer? I know in this town it’s very easy to get pigeonholed. Should I use a pen name, my initials, or am I over-thinking this?”

**Craig:** Well, I’m glad he included this last little bit so that I could say, ah, that one. You’re over-thinking this.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Don’t worry. If your script is good that will be the matrix within which all is contextualized. If you write a good script then they’ll say, “Check this out. This guy wrote this great script and believe it or not he’s a location scout.” If you write a bad script it will be like, “Oh my god, do you want to see what a screenplay by a location scout looks like?” [laughs] That’s the way it goes. Okay?

Everything will be led by the quality of the script. You don’t have to worry about hiding what you do.

**John:** I will say if you have just terrifically embarrassing credits that you want to get off IMDb, get them off IMDb and go through whatever weird process you have to go through IMDb to get those credits taken off. Sometimes I’ve found where people will give me a “special thanks” on IMDb. It’s like, why did you give me a special thanks? So, now you have your link to your movie on my page? That’s just crazy.

And so I’ve had to…

**Craig:** That’s weird.

**John:** I’ve had to throw some tantrums about that. Because, that’s just not cool. And generally they’ve mentioned it in a nice way like, “This guy was a real inspiration to me and so therefore I want to thank him.” But then it shows up as like I was involved in this project which I wasn’t.

**Craig:** Eh, that’s weird. Don’t do that.

**John:** But if there’s something that like, you know, Steve Callahan is a friend, he’s an actor. He is a genuine actor and shows up in a lot of indies, but one of his credits is for this move that’s like Man at Urinal. And that’s the credit that shows up in IMDb. And I’m like, that’s not good at all.

**Craig:** I love it. I’m totally into it. Now, I want to see that movie. I want to see Man at Urinal.

**John:** Man at Urinal.

**Craig:** Well, Urinetown is great.

**John:** Urinetown is fantastic.

**Craig:** If Urinetown can somehow avoid the jinx of urine-based titles?

**John:** Urinetown relies too much on the theatricality of it all and the staginess of it.

**Craig:** It’s a great musical.

**John:** I like Urinetown a lot though, too.

**Craig:** It’s a great show. It’s a privilege…

**John:** It’s a privilege to pee.

**Craig:** …to pee.

**John:** I got it out first!

**Craig:** You did. Ugh!

Laurence from New York, otherwise known as Urinetown, “Why are actors sooo,” and he did put three zeroes, I mean Os. We call them Os! [laughs] I called the Os zeroes! What’s wrong with me?

“Why are actors sooo grossly overpaid in comparison to writers, directors, and/or producers? Are they paid more than you guys?” Now, first of all, I love those two questions. So, the first question as a premise and then the second question questions the very premise of the first question. Yeah, of course, they’re paid more than us if they’re big movie stars.

“It seems that if an actor is making $20 million then a director and writer should be making at least $30 million.” Oh, what a great guy. “But obviously this is not the case.”

**John:** Again, he’s like stating a premise, and then denying the premise.

**Craig:** It’s pretty funny.

**John:** So, let’s tackle the premise altogether. Are actors overpaid? That’s sort of one premise. And then are actors overpaid relative to writers and directors?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, are actors overpaid? Definitely, I think, we’ve gone through cycles where actors have been just wildly overpaid and that’s annoying. And yet you look at sort of why you pay an actor a certain amount of money. You pay an actor a certain amount of money because you believe that having that actor in your movie will guarantee you a certain amount of box office. That’s the only reason why you pay somebody a lot of money.

And so the classic example that everyone will always bring up is like Jim Carrey in The Cable Guy, who got $20 million for The Cable Guy. Well, maybe he was worth $20 million for him in that movie. I don’t know that the facts bore that out, but they felt that that was the right amount to spend on him.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s all about the marketplace. So, people ask this question a lot about professional athletes as well. There are actors who do get people to go see them in movie theaters. The trick of it is very few of them, really none of them, do it perfectly consistently. What happens, therefore, is the marketplace is reactive.

You are an actor, you have a movie, it’s a big hit, and people perceive that it is a hit because of you, as an actor. The next movie you’re going to get paid a whole lot of money. Does that one not do as well? Okay, then that’s when you’ll be paid less. Everything is this sort of marketplace analysis of what your value is.

But considering that most movie studios won’t make big budget movies without actors, big name actors, yeah, they clearly have a real value.

I have to tell you, I don’t look at my value as connected to their value. So, in terms of this question of should they be paid more than writers — there’s no “should.” You get what you get. For me, I don’t care what you pay Melissa McCarthy. Pay her as much as she can get. I hope Melissa McCarthy gets a billion dollars a movie.

None of that impacts what I think I’m worth. Right? My worth is based on my market value. And my market value is based on what you think this movie will make for you if I write it. And what other studios seem to be willing to pay me if I don’t work for you. And I have had situations where studios have said, “Look, we would love to pay you this. The only problem is we’ve agreed to pay this actor this and our budget is really getting squeezed.” And my response is, “Not my problem. That’s your problem.”

If you paid this actor this much money and you knew you wanted to pay a writer, you wanted me to do it, but you don’t have enough money for me, that’s poor management on your part. Either pay me what I’m worth, and somebody else gets jammed, or expand the budget. But, the option of getting me for a discount because you decide to pay somebody else more than you ought to have, per your own budget? Nope.

And almost every time it works out.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, the writer has two choices. The writer can say, yes, I will take this amount of money which is less than my quote, or you could say no. And, I’ve had to say no sometimes. And that’s just the situation.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, back to this issue of actors getting paid. Classically Marvel, as they sort of set up this franchise for how their movies fit together, made very aggressive deals with the actors that they brought in so that they could have them for multiple movies, so that their salaries couldn’t go astronomically huge in success. And that has paid off very well for them.

So, they were able to make sequels to these movies with giant stars and actually be able to afford to make them. Now, I’m not clear sort of where Robert Downey Jr.’s deal is right now with Marvel, but if he doesn’t have any more movies under his contract he’s in a position where he could ask for a tremendous amount of money because he has driven some very, very big movies for them.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** All the same, Marvel can say, “You know what? We get that. That’s not our business model.” And they could with somebody else for Iron Man. And people would go, “Oh, no, you can’t do that!” But you know what? It would be fine.

**Craig:** Yeah. And look, this is why, forget fairness and just deal with reality, okay. I believe, of course, that writers are an extraordinarily important part of this process. The most important part. I’ll just go ahead and say it. I’m a chauvinist. Writers are the most important part of the process.

However, when a big band breaks up, let’s say U2 broke up today, and Bono went and did a tour and the other guys did a tour… — Well, here’s the deal. I can get a bassist, a drummer, and a guitarist to sound exactly like those other three guys, Clayton, Mullen, and The Edge. But I can’t get anyone to sound like Bono. Bono is Bono. It’s just one of those human things.

Human performance is incredibly specific. And, yes, they can ultimately go and get other people to write and direct Iron Man movies. They’ve done it. Right? They’ve proven they can do that. And you may like one better than the other, but if you put somebody else in the suit and it’s not Downey, I don’t know, it’s just not as cool, it’s not as interesting for that movie.

Michael Keaton? Turns out he was replaceable as Batman. Is Christian Bale, was he replaceable as Batman? No. [laughs] It’s just different. It’s just one of those things.

**John:** You’ll have to do a different version. And that’s actually something kind of exciting about doing the next version of something. That is fine and good.

Jay Z asks…

**Craig:** Oh, my god, Jay-Z?

**John:** Wouldn’t it be amazing if Jay-Z were listening to our show? You know who does listen to our show is Rebel Wilson.

**Craig:** I saw that tweet. It was very, it was like, “Ooh, look at us!”

**John:** Ah, Rebel Wilson, we adore you. You’re very, very funny.

**Craig:** Hey Rebel.

**John:** So, I hope you’re enjoying your hike, because apparently you listen to us while you hike.

Jay Z. asks, “If you are a screenwriter over 60,” oh, so it’s probably not the real Jay-Z.

**Craig:** Oh, it might be because Jay-Z is interested in senior issues.

**John:** [laughs] He’s very interested in senior issues. Interested in Cuba. He’s interested in BeyoncĂ© Knowles.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And writers over 60.

**Craig:** Ageism.

**John:** “If you are a screenwriter over 60 still looking to break in, which of the following are true? Number one, stop, you don’t have a chance in hell at this point. Number two, you have to write the greatest screenplay of the 21st century to break in; anything less won’t get developed once they see how old you are. Three, if you walk into a meeting with a 25-year-old writing partner you might have a shot. Four, make your own low budget movie; it’s your only avenue at this point. Five, write a play or a book and hope it gets noticed.”

**Craig:** He seems to be missing six.

**John:** Which is?

**Craig:** Write a good screenplay! I mean, god, darn.

**John:** Well, number two was that essentially.

**Craig:** No, he wrote, “You have to write the greatest screenplay of the 21st century to break in; anything less won’t get developed once they see how old you are.” Here’s the thing — write a good screenplay. Write a good screenplay.

I’m sorry. I think that there is this belief that somehow you’re toxic because you’re 60 years old. You are not. I know a lot of screenwriters out there who if they’re not already 60 are getting really close, and they earn way more money than I do year after year.

If you write a good screenplay, note that screenplays do not come with a photograph of you and your birth certificate. Again, just like we mentioned to Roger the location scout — the screenplay will set the circumstances. The guy who wrote The King’s Speech, older gentleman.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** If they read the screenplay and they really like it they’re going to buy it. You know why? Because they’re going to make money off of it. Don’t beat yourself down right off the start with a list, with an iteration of things you cannot control.

**John:** Yeah, don’t nick yourself.

Where I think he has some reasonable questions which is when I go into the room to do all the stuff, when I do the water bottle tour of Los Angeles and do all those first meetings, will it be different with me going in as a 60-year-old than me going in as a 25-year-old? Yes. It will be.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Because you will be older than some of the people that you’re sitting there and talking with. That’s just a fact of life. And so your question about like if you had a 25-year-old writing partner, would that be helpful? Yeah, it might be helpful, just the way perception works. And that’s if someone sees you as someone who is perceived as a peer rather than as their father, that could be useful.

But they’re ultimately going to respond to can this person write or can this person not write. Do I trust this person can write the movie that I want them to write and deliver? Then, you’re happy and you’re golden.

Now, going to say writing a book or a play and hope it gets noticed, well, you could absolutely do that, but I don’t think those are the best ways to get started as a screenwriter. If your goal is to be a screenwriter you should be focused as a screenwriter. If that doesn’t work out and you like to write plays or books, those are things which I think tend to favor people who are not so young, and therefore you could be successful at that at any age.

But don’t stop — don’t kill your dreams of being a screenwriter simply because of your age.

**Craig:** Yeah. Let’s remember that if you want to look at a group that gets more rejections a year age wise, it’s going to be 20 year olds, because they’re writing the most screenplays, I think. And they’re getting their butts kicked out there. Okay? It’s no picnic for 20-year-old screenwriters, believe me.

One thing to think about if you do end up in rooms with people is that your attitude will carry you a long way. If there is a positivity about you and an acknowledgement that this is a bit odd, “I know, I’m 60. Maybe this isn’t what normally happens but, you know what, I’m having fun. I’m enjoying it. I have the kind of energy and spirit of somebody that isn’t 60, or 20, or 30, but just a writer who wants to make a great movie.” You will be appreciated.

If you walk in there with the burden, the silent burden, of all these presuppositions — that you’re being judged, that you’re going to be discarded, that you’re going to be somehow the victim of inherent discrimination — it’s going to radiate off of you and get kicked back at you. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can’t tell you that ageism isn’t real, because it is. I can’t tell you that you won’t suffer from it, because you very well may, might, or almost certainly will at some point.

All I can tell you is worrying about it and factoring it into the way you behave isn’t going to change anything.

**John:** I would expand that to sort of all of the isms or “obias” that you’re going to generate for yourself. And so I’ve walked into these rooms. You know, I had a meeting with Tony Scott. I’m like the gay guy going in to pitch to Tony Scott. And he’s like smoking a cigar in the room. But, you know what? It was just fine. And like I could have been freaking out about sort of what that was going to be like. And it was absolutely just fine.

And, you know, if you’re a woman going into a room to pitch, like, you cold freak yourself out about how this is all going to work, or you could be the person who is like confident going in there and delivering the goods and you’re probably going to have a much better outcome there.

So, it’s not to say that none of these things are real and that there’s not a reason to talk about them or discuss them. I would say that there’s not a reason to let them stop you from trying to do what you’re trying to do.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes. Yes.

**John:** Next, Fiona. Do you want to ask her question? It’s a long one.

**Craig:** Boy, all right. “How does someone hire you?”

**John:** That’s Fiona’s entire question.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s so great.

**John:** And here’s why I picked this question, because I could read it two ways.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** The one question is like how does someone hire a writer, which I think is an interesting thing we don’t kind of talk about.

**Craig:** But I really think Fiona wants to know how do you get work.

**John:** No, I read this as how does Fiona hire me. I thought she’s saying, “How do I hire John August to do…”

**Craig:** Okay, see, that never occurred to me.

**John:** I would say a few times a year just a random person will say like, “Hey, I have this idea for a movie. How much would it cost to hire you to write this movie?”

**Craig:** I get that.

**John:** And that’s a charming thought. And so I don’t want to sort of automatically dismiss that [crosstalk].

**Craig:** I always tell them $800, and that’s enough to back them off.

**John:** [laughs] So, let’s talk about how writers are hired overall. And so writers are generally hired by studios and by producers when there is an existing something to adapt or the writer has come in with a pitch for some project and then the studio or producer or production company will hire that writer to write that for them so then it becomes a work-for-hire, which is an important sort of copyright concept.

So, you, the writer was the original writer of something, but authorship and copyright rests with the people who paid you the money to write it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** They will pay you a certain amount of money to deliver a draft. And if it’s a WGA sort of situation, they will pay you a certain fixed amount to start writing and a certain fixed amount when you deliver. And there will be hopefully some guarantees about reading periods, and that they can’t sort of drag it out forever.

There are hopefully some guarantees in that contract, even if it’s not WGA, about sort of how this relationship is going to work.

It can be very little money. So, for like the non-WGA things, maybe it’s $5,000 to write a script, which is not a lot. If it’s a big tent-pole project, there are some scripts where people are paid $2 million, $3 million to write something. There’s a huge range of how that happens.

When was the last time where someone wanted to hire you individually as a person? Has that happened to you in your career? Someone who wasn’t representing a company but just wanted you to do something for them?

**Craig:** No, it’s been forever. I mean, I initially started when I was first out here and I was working, I was working in advertising. And so I was a copy writer for entertainment advertising, you know, trailers and TV spots and stuff like that. And so I would freelance and get hired by individuals at various, you know, people think that studios make trailers. The studio doesn’t make the trailer. They hire a trailer company to make the trailer. And the trailer company doesn’t really make the trailer. They hire people like me to go write the copy for the trailer.

It’s a whole thing. But, yeah, but it’s been 15 years or more.

**John:** Yeah. Going back to Fiona’s question about how do you hire a writer, generally if there’s a project, like, I have this book that I now control the rights to and I want this writer to do it. You would approach that writer’s agent. You would figure out what agency they’re at. You can call the Writers Guild to find out who represents a certain writer. You would call the agent, talk to the agent, convince the agent that you are not a crazy person. And then that agent would report to the writer saying like, “This person wants you to read this thing and I’ve read it and you should maybe consider doing it.”

You usually go through the representative, so either the agent or the manager to get access to that writer and get them to pay attention to you and see whether they would work on this thing for you.

**Craig:** If you want to hire me, if anybody out there wants to hire me it’s very, very simple. A briefcase of kidneys. I would write anything for 20 kidneys — healthy — packed properly in ice. Or five hearts.

**John:** Now, there was some writer and I feel like it is John Milius, but I may just be completely making this up. It’s probably an apocryphal story anyway. But like the price to hire him was a certain amount of money and like a rifle and some deer to shoot. There was some bizarre thing where like he wanted…

**Craig:** Oh, that’s bizarre? Should I have not asked for that? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] It’s a standard rider. So, you have like no green M&Ms in you bowl and some deer to kill.

**Craig:** I would accept lungs. I used to not. But, you know, things are getting tight. [laughs]

**John:** You know what’s good about money? Money is fungible and you can buy things with money. I get so frustrated when people want sort of those other things. And it’s just like, no, no, get money.

**Craig:** You think money is fungible? You should try human organs.

**John:** Ha-ha.

**Craig:** No taxes. Very portable.

**John:** For this project I’m working on I’ve had to learn a lot about gold. And gold is one of those things that seems like, oh, it’s fungible, and it’s safe, and it’s bankable. Gold is really a pain in the ass. And I don’t fundamentally get why people still want to use gold because it’s just difficult in so many ways.

Even though it’s exciting that you can actually sort of melt it down into different things, you have to test it and it’s just not good.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a big pain and it’s super heavy. I mean, but it’s shiny and it’s beautiful.

**John:** It is shiny and beautiful.

**Craig:** It’s beautiful.

**John:** And like if you’re a Looper then I could understand why they would want to give you some gold blocks to pay you off, because that would make a lot of sense.

**Craig:** Yeah, oh, for sure. But, you definitely can’t use hearts or lungs.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Because just the time. Well, anyway. So, what’s our next question? [laughs] Oh, Ferdinand.

**John:** Ferdinand from East Prussia asks, “Say you’ve got a scene set on a sidewalk then partway through a character arrives via car. You want to show his approach from inside the car, but there isn’t necessarily any dialogue or more than one shot before the sidewalk scene continues. How do you handle short inter scenes. I’ve always assumed they get their own slug line, brief scene description. However, when breaking down a script for production it’s a little misleading to identify this shot as a scene, isn’t it?”

**Craig:** Uh-huh.

**John:** This is Ferdinand from East Prussia, or just a clever name. It’s probably not a real person from East Prussia, but wouldn’t that be awesome?

**Craig:** Well, East Prussia is either from the east of Prussia, or it’s East Prussia, Pennsylvania. I think there’s an East Prussia, Pennsylvania.

**John:** I thought that Ferdinand was like the deposed, like assassinated person of East Prussia?

**Craig:** Archduke Ferdinand was…

**John:** Wasn’t he Prussian?

**Craig:** No. I think he was a Serb.

**John:** Okay. Well, I’m going to type this in and see what…

**Craig:** Right now. Let’s do a live Google. Live Googling. Archduke Ferdinand I think was…Bosnian?

**John:** Ferdinand Krueger of East Prussia…maybe not?

**Craig:** Oh, he’s from East Prussia, Illinois?

**John:** Maybe.

**Craig:** I thought it was Pennsylvania. But the Archduke Ferdinand who was shot was definitely not from Illinois.

**John:** Yeah. I know almost nothing about actual history. [laughs] I’m sadly just awful at most of history. I now know that World War I came first.

**Craig:** Oh boy. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who I propose was Serbian, was in fact, well, he was Austro-Hungarian and Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia. And his actual nationality was, oh, I’m sorry, his assassination in Sarajevo precipitated Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia.

**John:** Mm-hmm. If it didn’t happen on Game of Thrones I’m not going to really follow what happened.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s as much history as I can sort of take in.

**Craig:** WWI was the original Game of Thrones. It was Game of Thrones but with mustard gas.

**John:** Oh, yeah. But they have the equivalent of mustard gas. You get that…

**Craig:** Yeah, Wildfire.

**John:** The dragon wildfire; the dragon stuff that they shoot out there and that was cool. That was green.

**Craig:** In WWI every day was the Red Wedding. Every single day. So, when things like that happened everybody was like, “Eh, it’s just another day.”

**John:** Back to Ferdinand’s question. So, he’s asking about sort of what happens when a scene is going to continue but you have to show a new thing that’s going to interrupt that scene.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a good question.

**John:** I would probably do that as a slug line. How would you do that?

**Craig:** I generally don’t, because I find that it’s going to make the read too jangly, because I really don’t want… — I mean, I understand what he’s saying. We don’t really want to feel like we’re watching three scenes in one scene. It’s one smooth flowing scene; there just happens to be a shift of a POV into an interior of a thing.

The interior of a thing really doesn’t demand a slug line. So, what I would probably do in this case is just an all caps action line FROM INSIDE THE CAR or POV INSIDE THE CAR, describe the POV inside the car, and then BACK TO SCENE as the next action line.

I might bold POV INSIDE THE CAR. Here’s the thing — you as the screenwriter, you’re trying to, again, as we said before, paint the movie for the people reading it. And that will do that. When it gets time for production, the first AD is going to go through and what he may just simply do is assign a number to that shot, just so that they know they have to be inside the car for that shot.

**John:** Yeah. So, you and I are actually talking the same thing, but you say slug line for what I would call a scene header.

**Craig:** Oh, I see.

**John:** I would do that same thing where it’s an all caps line that’s on the left that is indicating that it’s a major thing to pay attention to, a shift, and therefore we’re doing that but it’s not actually a new scene.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I agree with you that when the AD is going through and breaking down the script, if that was scene 32, she might call that scene A32, acknowledging that that little moment is a separate little blip that they’re going to have to pick up the day of shooting.

A general conversation about when you’re inside cars I’ll often go to the INT/EXT header for what that is, because if you’re inside the car and you’re outside the car, like you’re inside a car but you are in an outdoor environment. And so sometimes it’s really about the neighborhood that you’re in is as important as being inside that car.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, INT/EXT can be your friend when you’re inside the car, a scene that’s happening in the car but then it’s also getting outside of the car.

**Craig:** Yup. That’s true. Depends really on balance. You know, if you just have one moment that’s inside, then just call that out. But if you’re back and forth, if it’s somebody inside a car talking to somebody outside of the car and it’s back and forth, yeah, then just INT/EXT.

Next we have Jeff who wonders, “If you have an agent but you feel he or she isn’t doing enough to get your work out there, what are appropriate ways of being proactive?” Well…

**John:** Well, you’ve come to the right person because Craig is an expert at dealing with agent type situations.

**Craig:** Fire them! Well, I do love firing. In general, screenwriters are far too afraid to treat their employees as employees. Yes, an agent is an employee. Are they an employee who deserves a lot of respect and consideration? Yes. Should they be an employee/partner? Yes.

However, in the end they work for you. And if you are not satisfied with the way that they are doing their job, it’s a very, very simple thing. You call them up and say, “I want to sit down with you and I want to have lunch.” There is this thing in all agent brains that hears that and goes, “Oh no.” There isn’t one agent on the planet who doesn’t hear that and think, “Oh, great. I love lunch,” or, “Nah, I’m too busy for lunch.”

They all hear it and they go, “Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no.” If they don’t hear “oh no” from that then they really are ridiculous and you should fire them. You sit down and you have lunch and you say, “Look, I’m not loving the way things are going.” And be as honest as possible. “I’m a little uncomfortable. I’m very disappointed. I’m mildly disappointed. I am infuriated.” Whatever it is, lay it out there. And just say, “I want this to work. And here’s how I think it should work. You tell me what I can do to help you, but here’s what I need you to do to help me.”

You have that lunch and you listen to everything they have to say and hopefully they listen to everything you have to say. That lunch is like a flare you just shot out there. If it doesn’t improve within a certain amount of reasonable time, call it three months…

**John:** I was going to say three months, too. Then you have to leave.

**Craig:** You have to leave. You have absolutely laid down the gauntlet and it’s time to go.

**John:** Now, Jeff is specifically saying you feel he or she isn’t doing enough to get your work out there. Now, the reality of the situation may be that no one thinks Jeff’s work is very good. And you’re going to have to listen carefully to the agent because the agent may be phrasing this in a way, saying it’s just not landing the way you would hope it would land; it’s not getting the response we really hoped for. And that may honestly be the case. Or, it may not be the case and you may have other ways of finding out sort of what’s really going on there.

A general thing is you can talk to other people about your agent. And so if you’re going out on some other meeting or you meet somebody at a party and you’re five minutes into the conversation, you can kind of talk about sort of like what agents are like, too. And maybe there really is a problem and maybe you’re just not at the right place.

So, it could be you. It could be them.

**Craig:** Right. And that conversation that you have with them sometimes could bring up… — I remember years and years ago I was grumpy because I was looking around and I saw some of my peers doing production rewrites, like little weeklies. And I thought, “Why aren’t I getting those offers? Where are those jobs for me? I feel like I could do a really good job on those sort of things.”

So, I sort of had a, “Hey, what’s the deal? Why don’t I get that?” And basically the response back was, “Because they don’t think you can do that and you’re going to have to prove that you can do that. And it’s a very small list of people that do that and you have to earn your way onto it. And if you want to earn your way onto it here’s what needs to happen.”

And I thought, oh, thank you for the honesty. And so it all happened. But I needed to know that it needed to happen. In other words, I needed to know that there was a process to go through in order to get there.

And, similarly, if you sit down with your agent and you lay all the stuff on the table and they say, “I’m having trouble because everybody hates what you wrote,” then you should say, “Well, thank you for that. That hurts, but thank you. It would have been better for me to know that from you sooner. And let’s see now if I can write something better.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But honesty, honesty, honesty.

**John:** Mark asks, “I was very lucky to get a spec of mine shot. I was involved in the process and on set, but obviously not making decisions after the script was handed in. The movie did not turn out well. I was hoping you can discuss the etiquette for what to do with that situation going forward. For example, when you’re in a meeting and people who read and liked your script asked how the finished product turned out, what do you say? I don’t want to say it’s great and then have them see it when it comes out and think I’m an idiot; but I also don’t want to complain or badmouth the people involved.

“My manager recommended to deflect the question by saying I’m too close to it to have perspective. Any other advice?”

**Craig:** That’s not a bad answer. I mean, the other answer — it sounds like what’s going on here is we’re in that gap between the movie being finished and the movie coming out. And it’s an important time for this screenwriter because when he says “I was very lucky to get a spec of mine shot,” it sounds like this is his first movie. So, he’s going out there now as a screenwriter that just has a movie coming out.

People like his script and now he’s a guy who’s been through the process of production. So, these meetings are about getting work. You don’t want to necessarily call an air strike in on your own position here. So, what you could say is, “I actually haven’t seen it. I’m hearing some good things, but honestly the director kind of ran with it and I haven’t really been a part of the process since. So, I’m looking forward to seeing the movie.”

Now, that may be a total flat-out lie. And if you’re not comfortable with that flat-out lie, you that you’re going to get caught in that flat-out lie, then I think something like, “You know, it’s different. It definitely reflects his vision. I’m still kind of wrapping my mind around it.” [laughs] That’s a good phrase.

By the way, everyone will know what you mean.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Sorry to tell you, unless you literally lie and say I haven’t seen it yet, anything less than “I love it,” everybody will go, “Oh, it’s shit.”

**John:** Yeah. So, I think your suggestion is good. I think the manager’s suggestion is good about sort of the deflecting. I would also maybe deflect it into, “Yeah, I just don’t know how it’s going to turn out. It’s such a weird process going through that.” And you could talk about what your intentions were going on and just go onto the next thing over.

You could talk about sort of how hard it is to get a movie made. Or, the classic thing that Laura Ziskin would always say is like, “I think we should just give an award for getting a movie made,” which was always a sign that like, oh, that movie did not turn out well.

But, that’s the reality. And people will pick up on that code and they’ll also know to stop asking questions.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, you can thank them for loving your script. It’s like, “Well thank you; that really means a lot to me that you read it.” It’s such a strange thing to have something that was so close to you that now is this movie that’s the same but different.

**Craig:** The other thing you can do is kind of an invitation for bonding is to say, “You know, it’s in process. I’ve seen a lot of it. It is so-and-so’s vision of what I did. I’m still not quite sure how I feel about it. I would love to hear from you. When you see the movie I’d love to hear from you as a third party who read the script and thankfully liked it, and thank you very much for that, what you thought of it. Because I’m kind of curious about that myself.”

**John:** Now, here’s another thing that we should tell Mark is that we don’t know where it is in the process. So, he says it didn’t turn out well, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s done. Because when I saw the first cut of Go, my first instinct was to kill myself. And my second instinct was like do something so this movie never comes out, because it was awful.

It was soul-crushingly awful. And it just did not work at all. And so I remember I was just sort of shaking. I was downstairs in the screening room at Sony. It was not at all what I wanted to do. And I was in this situation sort of like Mark where people loved my script and then fortunately only ten people saw this cut. I’m like, “I just don’t know what I’m going to do. I don’t know what to say. I don’t know how to proceed.”

And how I ended up proceeding was we just went back and we just kept editing, and editing, and editing and sort of getting it back to what it needed to be and doing the reshoots and it turned out really well. But, if I had gone out and sort of like badmouthed it at that point, that would have been a mistake, too.

**Craig:** Never do that. Never, ever, ever do that.

**John:** So, what Craig says about like it’s early in the process. It’s fair to say that it was so tough to see it because it’s just not the same thing that you went through. And you can bond on that level, too.

So, maybe things will get better.

**Craig:** Yeah. Doom — oh, I guess things aren’t getting better — Doom writes, “I have one bone to pick. John’s use of the phase of The Avid,” which is not a phrase but rather a term, “drives me crazy.” Not as crazy as your misuse of the word phrase.

Sorry. I can’t help but editorialize as I read these questions. You’re much better at it then I am. I’ll start again.

“I have one bone to pick. John’s use of the phrase The Avid drives me crazy. The reason is because he is so fair in pointing out alternatives to ubiquitous programs like Final Draft. In every other category you make room for the possibility that someone else is not using your technology. But when it comes to film editing there is just The Avid.”

Well, it’s not actually a question; that’s a bone which is being picked.

**John:** Yeah. So, I chose the question because I think on some level Doom is right in that I’m using the Avid as a generic description for any non-linear editor, partly because I feel like we don’t have a good term for what that is, because “non-linear editor” is just too long of a word.

And I’m using the term the way that people who edit movies really do sort of use the term. Because even if they’re not cut on the Avid, in a general sense people will say “the Avid” because what they mean is literally that machine that is sitting in that room that the editor is staring at.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** So, that’s kind of what the term is that we use and I’m sorry that I’m Kleenexing it, but that’s really sort of what we use.

I think it’s lucky to live in a time where there are many choices in editing software. And so the Avid is certainly some of the most common stuff you see, but people use Final Cut. People use all of the other systems that are especially designed for commercials and things.

**Craig:** I just know really there’s the Avid and there’s Final Cut. And, frankly, it seems like Final Cut had its moment and then blew it. And we’re back to the Avid again. I don’t see anything else out there actually.

**John:** There actually is other stuff. And people who cut stuff for commercials and cut things for other systems, other systems are used in other things.

Most of the TV and film work that I’ve been encountering recently has been on the Avid. Final Cut Pro, the older version, was making some serious inroads. People sort of chafed at what Apple did with the revisions.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** They may be winning some of those people back but the Avid is just sort of the term that we use for these things. And it’s what people are sort of using as their workhorse in making features and TV shows.

**Craig:** I think that Doom, either you work for one of those companies, or you’re just a little fussbudgety. But, here’s the thing — is that really worth, I mean, as somebody that loves umbrage, you need to portion it out at the right moments I guess is my point.

**John:** It’s a good point because this took Doom easily ten minutes to write this email to me. And easily probably an hour to think about like, “Oh, that just drives me crazy!” He had to sort of sit with his anger long enough to decide to write the email about that.

So, it is sort of interesting that it actually crossed over a line to him for that. Because we got some two-page emails about the Bechdel Test and other things like that. And I can see where people were coming from, because they had a strong opinion about sort of how that stuff fit. Or, like, please don’t bring up Jesus again, because we had enough emails about that.

**Craig:** Oh, really?

**John:** Yeah. Oh, I’ll send you some of those. Nothing terrible. You shouldn’t be afraid for your life.

**Craig:** No. Should I be afraid for my eternal life? [laughs]

**John:** Basically saying your earlier Jesus analogy and your Moses analogies were pointing out reasons why they didn’t fit perfectly and really was kind of moot.

**Craig:** I’m sure that’s true, by the way.

**John:** Well, what’s interesting, going back to last week’s conversation about Nikki Finke and comments sections is that this is the kind of thing where it would be very easy to write in a comment section, but to actually — this person chose to email me his thought. I guess that’s why I’m responding to it because it took a lot more initiative to actually send the email to me and to have that personal relationship of like, “I am sending an email to you rather than just commenting on your blog.”

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, listen, I get it. It just seemed like a strange thing to be fussy about. Because, you know, if I were listening to a podcast between editors and they referred to Final Draft all the time. “Well, you know, when writers are on Final Draft,” I would think, yeah, I get it, because that’s what they know. I mean, that’s not…whoop-de-do. I’m not going to get that worked up about it.

Whereas they know about Lightworks and the little shark that comes along out of the door and eats your, or whatever that thing is.

Anyway, last question. Nick. Do you want to read this one?

**John:** No, you can do it.

**Craig:** “Is it a bad idea to copyright my screenplay? Some say that it’s a speed bump in the selling process because lawyers would have to get involved to get the copyright transferred to the production studio company. Thank you for any help.”

What do you think?

**John:** So, what Nick is referring to — obviously anything you write is copyright you. You don’t have to submit stuff. And he’s talking about the actual process where you’re submitting stuff to the copyright office and going through that process. And I’ve seen people come on both sides of that. And I’m honestly hoping that you’ll have a more definitive answer and I can just say I agree with Craig.

**Craig:** Well, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to copyright your screenplay at all. Yeah, it requires that somebody actually fill out the paperwork to transfer the copyright officially as opposed to just pretending from the start that you in fact wrote… — See, the fiction is this: You write a screenplay. It’s a spec screenplay. That’s you. Copyright you.

It’s not registered? Doesn’t matter. Your copyright. You then sell it to a studio. The studio wants to own that screenplay under a work-for-hire doctrine meaning I own this screenplay, all parts of it, I wrote it.

So, what they say is, “I’m going to buy this from you and part of the purchase agreement is that you agree that we commission this,” which they didn’t. And that is fiction. And the reason the Writers Guild allows this fiction is because it’s good, frankly, for the Writers Guild. Because what it means is that this is covered as employment and therefore the following things apply to it — minimums, and I believe health and pension apply to sale of literary material, I believe. I may be wrong about that. Credits, more importantly. And, of course, then the requirement that the person selling it get the first rewrite job on it, which is a big deal.

If you just go ahead and copyright it yourself, eh, so they transfer the copyright. And it may be, I’d have to check with the Guild to see if that would disrupt things like pension payments or health payments on the sale itself. But, you know what? I’ll follow up on that.

**John:** Okay. We’ll do follow up on that.

**Craig:** Yeah, I’ll follow up.

**John:** Because I remember being at a panel in which an entertainment lawyer was making a very strong case that you should absolutely register these copyrights and that it was a very important thing for writers to do. And I was surprised by it because I’ve honestly never done that on any of my specs.

**Craig:** I mean, the benefit of registering your screenplay with the copyright office is that in the case of infringement I believe registration with the copyright office does give you a certain avenue that you wouldn’t otherwise have. And I believe it’s to collect punitive damages as opposed to just damages of infringement.

But, let me check and see if there’s any downside over the Guild. And we’ll do a little follow up on that.

**John:** Cool. It’s time for One Cool Things. Do you have a One Cool Thing for this week?

**Craig:** Have I talked about the Fitbit before?

**John:** I think you may have. Is that the bracelet thing?

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, mine is like a little clip on in my pocket. If I have talked about it before then, oh well.

**John:** No, I don’t think you have on this podcast.

**Craig:** On this particular podcast I haven’t talked about it.

**John:** Yeah. I think maybe last week’s you did.

**Craig:** [laughs] So, I’ll just do it again. I’m like an old man now. “Have I told you about how I met your mother?” Yes!

**John:** Yes. [crosstalk]

**Craig:** It’s this little doohickey and you clip it to your pants pocket or your bra, if you’re so inclined, and it keeps track of all of your movement throughout the day. It keeps track of how many steps you take, how far you walked, distance. How many flights of stairs you go up and down.

And it’s super motivating because the theory is you should take 10,000 steps a day. You should walk five miles a day. This is just good, basic health. And because I’m wearing this thing and monitoring it with my iPhone and the computer, I’m just taking the stairs more and walking more. It’s so stupid, and yet it works.

I am a slave to a Fitbit now, and better off for it. And, oh, the other cool part of it is it monitors your sleeping. Again, this is something I got out of conversations with Bob Gordon of Galaxy Quest fame. So, you can wear it on a little wristband thing when you sleep — it’s very soft, so it doesn’t bother your sleeping — and it basically measures your restless moments and your awake moments and gives you just a general sense of how much did you actually sleep last night.

You know, yes, you lost consciousness at midnight and you regained consciousness permanently at 8am. But, did you sleep eight hours or did you sleep five hours and like three weird tossing, turning hours? So, it’s very cool. I like it. And it’s like $89 at Amazon.

**John:** Lovely. Cool.

my One Cool Thing is a website that is free and this is a suggest from a listener named Jason Ahlquist. So, Jason, thank you for sending me to this link.

It is called Mission Log. And the Mission Log Podcast has this archive of discovered documents from Star Trek, the original series, dating back to 1966. And there are a bunch of memos and photos and outlines from the original series from back in the day.

And so I’ve always loved seeing things like letters from Desilu Productions to Gene Roddenberry, and sort of talking about like, “I just read your script for The City on the Edge of Forever. Here are my notes.” And these are actually typed like on real typewriters. And they’re on letterhead. It’s just such a different way of how things used to be done.

And so it’s great to see notes about episodes of TV shows you’ve seen 30 times and sort of how they’ve changed over the time.

**Craig:** I’m going to check that out. that sounds awesome.

**John:** So, the Mission Log Podcast. And thank you, Jason Ahlquist, for sending that in.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** If our listeners have suggestions for things we should talk about on One Cool Things, or have questions about anything we’ve talked about on the show today, they should visit johnaugust.com/podcast. We’ll have those links.

We will also have information about the t-shirts. And I probably should have started the episode with this. The t-shirts, we have the amazing orange t-shirt and the amazing blue t-shirt.

**Craig:** So soft.

**John:** So soft. Stuart swears it’s the softest shirt he’s ever touched. This is the last week to order them. Actually, if you’re listening to this on Tuesday, Friday is the last day that you can order them. So, just stop whatever you’re doing, pull over the car, and just go to johnaugust.com/store and take a look at the t-shirts because they’re really good.

We’re only selling them in this window so that I just don’t have to deal with t-shirts for more than just this one little window. So, we are going to get the orders. We will make the t-shirts. We will put them in packaging and send them out to the world.

**Craig:** Are we profiting on these t-shirts?

**John:** We’re sort of barely on these t-shirts. We are covering out…

**Craig:** We do we make a shirt?

**John:** We’re going to cover our costs. So, we’ll cover our silk-screening cost.

**Craig:** No profit yet.

**John:** No profit yet.

**Craig:** I’m waiting for the profit part.

**John:** I think we make like five bucks on a shirt, maybe a little more.

**Craig:** Whoa! Woo!

**John:** So, that money will help pay for things like our transcripts, which I never talk about on the show, but it’s one of the rare things that a podcast does is we have transcripts for every single one of our — approaching — 100 episodes that are actually at johnaugust.com.

So, if you are listening to this podcast and wanted to go back and see what we actually said, if you go to the actual episode at johnaugust.com, at the bottom of every post when Stuart has the transcript he will put a link to it. And the transcripts are usually up three or four days after the episode. And you can go back and see exactly what we said.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So, that’s what we will cover. And it may help us buy some alcohol at our 100th Episode.

**Craig:** Woo!

**John:** So, in fact, we have two live events this summer. We have Saturday, June 29, which is part of the Writers Guild Foundation’s big benefit a whole full day craft seminar. Tickets are available for that right now. You can go to the Writers Guild Foundation. Just Google that and find tickets for that.

I think there are still tickets as we’re talking right now. And our 100th Anniversary Extravaganza…

**Craig:** The big show!

**John:** …which is Thursday, July 25. Tickets for that should go on sale July 1.

**Craig:** That’s going to be fun.

**John:** I’m really looking forward to that.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s going to be a great night. Are you going to wear something special?

**John:** No.

**Craig:** You’re just going to do regular…?

**John:** I’m dressing in normal clothes. Are you going to dress up?

**Craig:** Well, I’m either going to wear my regular clothes or I’m going to go like a full Liberace fur — I might do like a fur and sequins.

**John:** There’s nothing better on a nice summer night than fur and sequins. So, applaud that.

**Craig:** Furs. Rings.

**John:** And maybe you can just crank the AC so it’s all comfortable for you.

**Craig:** Rings. And those big boots that Gene Simmons would wear in Kiss. You know, just something for the ladies.

**John:** Yeah. Or, maybe you could bring Michael Douglas in to wear that for you and you could wear normal clothes.

**Craig:** Hmm. I’d have to get a hold of Michael Douglas somehow.

**John:** Oh, we’re going to have a bigger guest than Michael Douglas at our 100th Episode.

**Craig:** Oh? Well, now I’m showing up.

**John:** All right. Cool.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** Craig, thank you for another fun podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** And we’ll talk to you again next week.

**Craig:** Bye.

LINKS:

* [Email us](http://johnaugust.com/ask-a-question) or tweet [John](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) or [Craig](https://twitter.com/clmazin) your questions for future episodes
* [Fitbit](http://www.fitbit.com/) helps you manage your health and wellness goals
* [Mission Log Podcast](http://www.missionlogpodcast.com/discovereddocuments/)’s archive of discovered Star Trek documents is fantastic
* [Order your Scriptnotes shirts](http://store.johnaugust.com/) before June 21st!
* The Writers Guild Foundation presents [The Screenwriter’s Craft: Finding Your Voice](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/the-screenwriters-craft-finding-your-voice/) featuring Scriptnotes Live
* John’s blog post on [this summer’s two live shows](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-live-in-la)

Scriptnotes, Ep 93: Let’s talk about Nikki Finke — Transcript

June 14, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/lets-talk-about-nikki-finke).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 93 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

How are you Craig?

**Craig:** I’m good. I like it when you say 93. You can feel the pressure of the countdown.

**John:** It’s very exciting. We’re approaching our 100th episode. And we will have news later on in this very episode of the podcast about where and when and how the 100th episode is going to happen, but another live episode that we’re going to be doing later this very month.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But first there was actually some news this week, so I thought we would talk about the actual news that happened this week, because people kept tweeting me things about like, “Hey, are you going to talk about this?” And I said yes.

**Craig:** It’s funny. We get tweets now anytime anything happens vaguely related to screenwriting. I get 14 million tweets.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** “You should talk about this.”

**John:** “What is your opinion?”

**Craig:** And every tweet always begins, “You’re probably getting a lot of tweets about this, but…” Yes. Yes I am.

**John:** You know, you can actually check a person’s timeline and then you would see that. But, eh, it’s fine. I don’t mind. It’s fine.

**Craig:** Eh.

**John:** To completely sidetrack at the very start of our conversation, really the wonderful thing about Twitter which someone pointed out to me is that you never have to open a message on Twitter. The message that you see is just the message. So, you can scroll through and see the whole thing. It’s not like an email that you have to open and it’s like, oh, I don’t want to open an email.

It’s just the whole thing. That’s the genius of Twitter.

**Craig:** Yes. It’s true. We’re basically short-handing our experience of life down to “I’m awake. I just experienced something with no effort. Now I’m asleep.” [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. I find that if there’s any sort of real event happening in the world, my instinct is not to turn on the TV but to go to Twitter and just do a search for what that is.

**Craig:** It’s so true, granted that is a huge sidetrack, but isn’t that the fun of it all?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, I’m watching baseball the other day, as I’m wont to do. And as AsdrĂşbal Cabrera — by the way, sidetrack to the sidetrack: baseball names have become awesome.

**John:** That’s a good name.

**Craig:** In large part because of all the players coming from the Dominican Republic and from Cuba. For whatever reason folks in the Dominican Republic and in Cuba use these really — I mean, a lot of them just have crazy, kooky, funny names that aren’t even like traditional. They’ve just been inventing names. And AsdrĂşbal, I can’t imagine that that’s popular, but AsdrĂşbal Cabrera was running a ground ball out or a single out to first and just suddenly stopped and collapsed over. And something terrible had happened to his leg.

And I’m sitting there trying to figure out what happened. Was it his knee? Was it his hamstring? Was it his quad? How bad is it? You know what? I think I’ll just jump on Twitter. Ten seconds after it happens there’s like a thousand tweets. And the first wave of tweets are, “Oh, no, a thing happened.” The second wave of tweets about a minute later are, “Oh, no, a thing happened. This is what I think happened.”

And then a third wave, maybe a minute later, the criticisms: “Doesn’t AsdrĂşbal Cabrera stretch?” It’s like, god, God! [laughs] The guy is still writhing in pain and they’ve already managed to do an entire week of news cycle in a minute.

**John:** Yeah. The media cycle has shrunk down to about 140 characters.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And once it cycles through once, because once someone has actually put out a tweet about something, well they can’t put out the same tweet. They have to have a new opinion. So, therefore, they cycle out a new opinion and therefore it goes through really quickly.

I do find that something will happen in the news that I’ll want to comment on, but I’ll have to sort of go though my timeline first just to make sure that not everyone has already said that thing. Because I don’t want to be the “me too” guy on that.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right.

**John:** Sometimes you’ll think of like the absolute best possible joke for something, and then you realize that someone said that about three minutes ago. And even if they hadn’t said it, you get the sense that, “Yeah, someone’s going to have already said that. You’re three minutes too late for that.”

**Craig:** Oddly, this sidetrack is a pretty decent segue into the news that we’re going to discuss.

**John:** Which is absolutely true, because other than Twitter who else reflects our modern fixation on the present tense and on personality than Nikki Finke.

And so this week Nikki Finke is apparently — I’m overstating this week — this week Sharon Waxman, who is the editor of this publication called The Wrap, which is another online publication, on June 2 put out the headline, “Shocker: Jay Penske Fires Nikki Finke from Deadline Hollywood, Sources Say.” That was the headline.

And at this point we should probably sidebar and talk about who these people are because it’s very possible that if you’re listening to this podcast in Australia or someplace you’ll have no idea who we’re talking about. So, should I give the backstory? Do you want to give the backstory of who these people are and why it matters at all?

**Craig:** Well, I mean, there’s not that much backstory except that Sharon Waxman used to be a reporter, I think, for the New York Times and other things. And then she started The Wrap which is an online — basically an online publication reporting on the entertainment industry the way that Variety and Hollywood Reporter used to do solely, that is to say an industry publication, a trade publication.

But it was a Johnny-come-lately because Deadline was there first. That was and continues — at least theoretically — to be run by Nikki Finke, a longtime entertainment journalist who used to write something called Deadline Hollywood for LA Weekly, which was an old school print publication. She then started Deadline. Jay Penske is a rich dude who bought Deadline and then also bought Variety.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And that’s where the fun part begins because Nikki Finke loathes Variety, she loathes the Hollywood Reporter, she loathes Sharon Waxman, she loathes The Wrap. She loathes everybody that’s in the business she’s in that’s not her. And this immediately put her into a weird position with Jay Penske in part because, some surmised, she wanted to run Variety because of course sometimes we secretly love and lust after the things we profess to loathe.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So, how is that for backstory?

**John:** That’s a fantastic backstory. Thank you for filling us in.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** So, there are many fascinating elements to this story. First off is Nikki Finke herself, or at least our perception of who Nikki Finke is, because while she has a tremendous presence online through her blog and tweets and things, she is reclusive and no one actually sees her. And she’s famously protective of her privacy.

And so there’s this sort of cult of personality that is somewhat built by her and somewhat projected upon her by everybody else, which is fascinating. So, I think that’s a thing worth discussing because she as a character independently is really interesting. And there’s a reason why there was an attempt to make an HBO series that was not based on her but sort of inspired by that kind of figure because she’s actually genuinely fascinating.

**Craig:** In part what fascinates me about that aspect of it is that it takes our goofy stereotype of an online blogging type of person to its extreme. Normally our fictionalizations are more extreme than reality. So, you could see creating a fictional blogger who in fact is a recluse who never leaves their house and just sits in a kind of a Cheetos-stained chair, angrily banging away at a keyboard, affecting the world around them in a very serious way without engaging in it.

And yet it turns out that usually that’s not the case. Except this time it is the case. [laughs] She literally — from what I understand — she is literally a shut-in. She does not leave the house. She has things delivered to her. There are no photographs of her except one that is endlessly reprinted when people do articles about her. And it’s very kind of odd.

**John:** It’s sort of like glamour movie lighting. It’s a black and white photo with sort of glam movie lighting that seems to be airbrushed in sort of the way that things used to be airbrushed, not like sort of Photoshop, but like sort of airbrushed in a way.

**Craig:** Right! Or like the way that Bob Guccione used to put nylon stockings over the lens when he shot the nudie models. You know, it’s like the weird soft lighty boudoir headshot. [laughs]. I don’t know what else to call it; it’s very odd. It’s a very odd headshot.

**John:** Yeah. And so in discussing her personality I don’t want to sort of reduce her down to just one thing, but I think it’s fascinating that because she’s this semi-public/incredibly private figure who only presents what she sort of want to present, and then everything else is projected upon her, so the only things we know about her are she frequently writes about herself in the sense of like, “I was out sick for a week,” or “this happened.”

You get these little glimpses into her private life, but it’s only about sort of an illness or something else that happened that affected why she was late reporting these numbers, or how much somebody pissed her off.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And in a weird way, what’s I think fascinating about her as a figure — and I think there are other media figures we can talk about who embody this to — is that the news is actually about her. It’s not actually about sort of what is happening out there in Hollywood. It’s about her reaction to the news and that you’re supposed to read her site because of her reaction to something rather than strictly the facts of what it is.

**Craig:** It’s fascinating, isn’t it? And she’s very litigious by all accounts to the point where, for instance, you and I will probably be sued by her because we dare to offer certain opinions here, so I should say these are all opinions and conjecture. We don’t know actually know that she’s legitimately a shut-in. I don’t know that. I know what I read, you know?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But you’re absolutely right. You are forced to piece together this strange narrative following this breadcrumb trail that she leaves behind through her reportage, which is kind of a furious reportage. It is highly personal. It violates every standard I would think of normal journalism.

I mean, she’s a huge part of articles that she’s writing about other things. She berates the topics of her reportage. Everything is kind of just a crazy editorialization. Her catchphrase is “TOLDJA!” as if that matters. So, she’ll say, “I hear that blah, blah, blah,” and then a week later that happens or is confirmed. “TOLDJA!” Okay. [laughs]

Now, I should say before we go any further in the spirit of full disclosure I happen to know for a fact that Nikki Finke hates me. She hates me.

**John:** Oh…I don’t think she has any opinion about me whatsoever. That’ll change after this.

**Craig:** Well, she does now buddy.

Here’s why she hates me. Back when I was actively blogging — hmm, I guess I should say here’s why she says she hates me. Back when I was actively blogging she basically told a friend of mine or a mutual acquaintance that I had written terrible things about her on my blog. And that’s just not true. That I can actually say is simply not true.

I went back and I looked at my blog. I did say I wasn’t a big fan of her breathless style of reporting. I don’t think that that’s that terrible of a thing to say. I will point out I said it within the context of an article that was basically praising her for being right about something and kind of going after Sharon Waxman for being wrong. Didn’t matter.

She then, I reached out to her. I said, “Look, I’m very sorry if I said something that offended you. I certainly didn’t mean it. I don’t believe I’ve said anything terrible.” She dismissed that apology completely. I then offered to get on the… — Oh, I made a huge mistake by offering to sit down and meet her for coffee or something. I didn’t realize I was stepping in it there. [laughs] That didn’t go well.

**John:** Yeah, that doesn’t happen.

**Craig:** You don’t say that to shut-ins. And then she basically, I said, “Well I’ll get on the phone with you.” And she essentially said in an email, “No, I don’t trust you.”

Really paranoid. I found it to be very paranoid and very weird. She’s gone after me a few times. she also, I’ve noted, a couple times I’ve tried to comment on things neutrally, you know, like for instance there was an article early on about Identity Thief and they left out the original writer’s name, so I commented and said actually the original script is by so-and-so. That comment was never published.

I have, however, had comments published not under my name. [laughs] It’s pretty fun. But anyway, that’s my… — Now, I suspect, I should say, that the real reason that she hated me so much was because frankly my blog got a huge bunch of attention at the time during the strike. And that’s not attention that meant anything to me. I wasn’t doing it for attention. But shortly after I got all that attention I noticed that she really steered her blog towards strike coverage and to great effect for herself and to profit I presume.

**John:** Yeah. She wants to be the voice talking about things. And I think you were probably a rival voice talking about things and you were taking eyeballs from her and you were taking attention from her.

Now, a little bit more about sort of who she is as a figure before we sort of get into the nature of the site and sort of the ecosystem of entertainment journalism right now as it is in Hollywood.

What I find fascinating about Nikki Finke, and I have to say there’s other figures kind of like her that I would describe similar, sort of like weirdly disproportional importance — Matt Drudge. If you look at Matt Drudge’s site, it’s just like a bunch of links and it sort of shouldn’t matter at all. And yet it’s hugely influential and he’s sort of built this cult of personality around him and sort of who he is. It’s this guy who wears this fedora and whatever that is.

You look at Nate Silver and sort of the journalism he was doing and the statistics work he was doing with all the election stuff. He became like sort of a figure who was independent of just what he was reporting; he was a figure in and of himself. That he was considered an expert on these things. Now, he ended up becoming more of a physical public figure unlike Matt Drudge who is also sort of reclusive. Nate Silver was going on The Daily Show, but he became really part of the story to the degree where during the election coverage people were sort of focusing on him as much as they were focusing on the numbers.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, I think it’s a strange time because in a weird way — and this could be fact of Twitter as well — we don’t just want the story; we want someone’s take on the story. We want to hear the news from somebody that we want to hear the news from.

And I think for the last couple of years that’s largely been Deadline Hollywood. And it’s largely been Nikki Finke. And whether we sort of want to or not, we sort of feel compelled to at least check that because everyone else sort of — all the eyes went to there and the rest of the ecosystem just sort of dried up.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, as much as Nikki — there’s much about Nikki that I find detestable, quite frankly. But, you have to acknowledge, anyone must acknowledge, that Nikki Finke saw a gaping hole in the way that entertainment industry was being covered and just drove a truck through it. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter for years had been the only game in town. And, frankly, Variety was really the only game in town, so they were sort of, you know, kind of the A-list normal standard of daily reporting. And then The Hollywood Reporter was the other one.

And everybody got the trades in the morning. And everybody read the trades in the morning. And that’s the way things happened. And when the internet came along, Variety and Hollywood Reporter…

Now, let me take a step back. When I started working in Hollywood, do you remember the day, John, early in the nineties when you started when you found out what a subscription to Variety cost? [laughs]

**John:** It was tremendously expensive. Now, I was lucky because in the Stark Program — Variety, for whatever reason, took pity on us and gave everybody in the Stark Program their own free copy of Variety so we would be hooked. But $200, $300 a year?

**Craig:** I think it was more. I think that there were prices they would give you for a professional price, if you could show that you were a professional. But if you were just a guy that wanted to get Variety every morning and not pay the insane cover price for it, it was like almost $400. And this was in the ’90s. $400 a year.

**John:** Yeah. And I should say that the trades at that point were delivered to your office or to your home. And so I would get my LA Times and I would get my Variety every morning delivered to my house. And that was a crucial thing, or at least I thought it was a crucial thing at the time.

**Craig:** And unlike a daily newspaper, which is substantial, daily Variety was usually 10 or 12 glossy pages, a bunch of which was ads. A bunch of which was crap. It was basically three or four articles and photos. And it was yesterday’s news.

**John:** Yeah. So, here’s where I think you’re leading here is that she saw that, and I think Nate Silver did, too, that the blog was really the best way to get these things out. Because rather than sort of having all the news to be delivered at once, it’s as stories came in they would be the top story and it push the rest of the stories down.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And she saw that before other people saw that. And that was a disruptive…

**Craig:** It was hugely disruptive.

**John:** …business model.

**Craig:** She also saw that Variety and Hollywood Reporter were addicted to the absurd free ride they had been getting essentially, that because of the nature of our business, they had managed to extort an unfair price for the actual value of their information. She comes along and says, “Here are these guys that by dint of their monopoly have been charging you hundreds of dollars a year for this stuff. I’m going to charge you nothing for it. And you’re going to get it faster.”

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And, oh my god, overnight. And listen, you want to ask how could Nikki Finke have been stopped? Easy, all Variety and Hollywood Reporter had to do would be to dump their old model, which they can barely still manage to do today, and just go to that model. But they couldn’t do it because they were addicted to the money.

**John:** Yeah. There’s many books written about that, but it’s — I guess — the innovator’s dilemma. It’s like, you know, once you’re the established business it’s actually very hard to be nimble and sort of say, “Okay, well we have to junk this business model and try a brand new thing.”

And they couldn’t do it quickly enough. And so there’s an alt-universe where Variety recognized like, okay, the blog is the way to go and they would have started that in parallel and eventually shifted everything over. They would have had to lay off most of their staff, though. There’s no way, you know…

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** There’s no way a blog can support sort of all the staff that they have. That business model kind of had to go away.

**Craig:** Everything had to go away. And they couldn’t adjust quick enough. So, along comes this incredibly aggressive person. And in journalism aggression is rewarded and as well it should be. Nikki is truly a double-edged sword. The plus side is that she simply had no concern for the kind of gentlemanly rules of the past. So, if you’re interested in proper journalism you don’t want an overly cozy relationship between the journalists and the people they’re reporting on. You want somebody who doesn’t care, who doesn’t care about what parties they’re invited to because they don’t leave their apartment.

What she wants is the dirt and the truth. And she reported it.

**John:** I feel in some of the popular coverage of what’s been happening this last time with Nikki Finke, too quickly do they draw comparisons to like gossip people. And that’s not accurate or fair to sort of what she does.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** Because she’s not reporting gossip about sort of like, you know, Brangelina stuff. She’s reporting stuff that is, I would say, most of the times generally and specifically entertainment news, but she’s very, very aggressive in getting it and sort of getting people to tell her rather than tell anybody else for fear of god, because if anyone else gets the story before she does, she will go after you guns blazing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that’s one of the things that was actually pointed out in… — So, on June 3, Nikki Finke replied to Sharon Waxman saying, “Cut it out, Sharon Waxman. Your story is full of lies and fabrications,” yet there was also a non-denial denial in there saying that it’s pretty clear that something is going to happen about her employment situation at deadline.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, here’s what she wrote. “The fact is I’m out of town and about to begin my long-planned summer vacation. And the last thing I want is to be bothered now by a bunch of media and/or moguls asking for comment.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Which is truly rich. I mean, the last thing I want is for somebody to do to me what I do to everybody else every single second of every single day.

**John:** “As it happens, I was napping in a different time zone when The Wrap crapped on me yet again Sunday night. Nothing new: the desperate Sharon Waxman and her revolving door staff have been writing inaccurately about me for years, and doing it to drive traffic to her failing website, and refusing to correct even the most blatant errors.”

**Craig:** And so, you know, this is an endless song of, “I’m the victim; everybody else is failing and desperate. I’m great; everyone else stinks.”

**John:** So, within this same article she goes through — Sharon Waxman had specifically said that a point of contention between Nikki Finke and Jay Penske was this situation with the UTA and some sort of finance arrangement, which I don’t honestly quite understand what it is. But so Nikki printed a bunch of the emails that were involved in this chain.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I tweeted that that doesn’t kind of seem like journalism just to print a bunch of emails. But, she printed them. So, one of them, which was I think the sort of most revealing about sort of my concern of what it is that she does, it’s actually an email that Mike Fleming sent out to Chris Day who is the Head of Publicity for UTA. And in this email he talks about this deal, the people talked with at UTA, and he says, “You denied it all. Now I see in The Hollywood Reporter that you have engaged the guy who is going to make that deal. False denials come with consequences at Deadline Hollywood. I’m sure you understand.”

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** “Because they piss us off and most people know better than to do that.” What the hell is going on here with this?

**Craig:** It’s just a threat.

**John:** Yeah. It’s not even an especially veiled threat.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly. What consequences? We’re not going to report on you? We’re going to be mean to you? We’re going to make fun of you? We’re going to slant our coverage?

It’s disgusting. But everybody knows — here’s the thing — this is definitely an, “I’m shocked. Shocked that gambling is going on here!” Everybody knows that’s how it works over there. That’s Nikki’s thing. It’s entirely about vindictiveness. And she carries through on it. I mean, she does.

You know, I read comments about me on her site that are completely out of line. And, but you know, it says, “Keep it civil,” or whatever. Yeah, uh-huh. I mean, look, [laughs], I get it over there. She went after me.

I mean, forget me. Let’s put me aside. That’s the deal over there. In fact, what happens sometimes when I look at people like this and I think, “You are exceptional.” I mean, this is an exceptional woman in a lot of regards. And you have accomplished an enormous amount. But unfortunately the fuel that you’re using to burn this new path is also going to kind of consume you as well, because in the end it cannot maintain. It can’t hold. You are just going to go too far.

And when you have no friends left there will be that critical mass moment where everybody just says, “Apparently we’re all in the doghouse. So, now who needs you?”

**John:** Yeah. It’s been interesting to sort of watch the ascendency and sort of, you know, her place there in the industry. Because I think everyone sort of in the back of their minds thought, like, well this is going to end at some point; and it’s not going to end pretty, because you could sort of see what this is because we’ve seen this show before. We sort of know what happens to these characters is that the thing that makes them rise and succeed so much will generally be their undoing.

It’s a very classic sort of almost Shakespearean plot. Once you get to a certain ascendency, it’s not just that everyone else is going to drag you down. You are going to drag yourself down by going too far.

And one of the things which I… — So, you talked about sort of comments that would show up or not show up based on sort of the whims of whoever is approving comments, which may be Nikki Finke herself often. I also noticed that stories, which is also sort of the new journalism here, stories were often posted and then reedited to make them factual when they weren’t factual before.

**Craig:** Without notice of correction.

**John:** No notice of correction. So, even that thing I just read to you, which is “False Denials Come With Consequences, Deadline Hollywood,” that got taken out of the email.

**Craig:** Isn’t that amazing.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a Gawker article I put in the links to the show notes called “Why Nikki Finke Never Makes a Mistake.” It sort of goes through and takes the screenshots of like this is the original story and this is how she corrected the story.

**Craig:** And she does it all the time.

**John:** Yeah. And so that’s the frustration is that she’s often sort of badgering people about journalism, and sort of like, you know, this is what being a journalist is. Yet, journalism is also acknowledging, it’s about being correct, and it’s about sort of acknowledging when you’re not correct. And, you know, pointing that out. And I don’t think I’ve ever really seen a correction.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that there is a fine line between sort of a taboo-smashing iconoclast and a bully. And Nikki, in my opinion, danced far over the line towards bully years ago. And I hope that somehow out of all of this mess comes a new kind of reporting that doesn’t feel incestuous with the people you’re reporting on, but by the same token follows some basic journalistic standards, doesn’t make the story about the reporter, isn’t vindictive.

I mean, like Nate Silver, yeah, the story became about him. Nate Silver you could just tell is a good guy who just writes what he believes and isn’t in it for himself. I don’t actually believe he is, you know?

**John:** Yeah. Also, Nate Silver, I think, first and foremost, would always say, “This is how I could be wrong. And this is why I’m saying these things. This is why I believe that the data suggests this. But these are the reasons why I could be wrong and here’s the chance of that.” And there’s never a shred of that in the Nikki Finke of it all.

Let’s talk about what the ecosystem might be. So, I would assume, and these are just assumptions — I have no inside information about this — but based on the articles that we’ve seen, sort of the non-denial denials, and to me the really telling thing that there’s some anti-Nikki Finke comments that are showing up on Deadline Hollywood Daily, which means that she’s not editing out those anti-Nikki Finke comments. I would suspect that one way or another she will part company. That doesn’t necessarily mean she’s fired. It doesn’t mean she quit. But she may not be running that publication the way she was before.

And if there’s any sort of clause where she can’t compete against it for awhile, she couldn’t compete against it for awhile. Regardless, something will change. And let’s talk about what the ideal circumstances would be/situation would be in the next generation of entertainment coverage. What do we want to see, Craig?

**Craig:** Well, the best of Deadline is the immediacy of it and the thoroughness of it. So, even though people think of Deadline as a place where juicy stories were reported about people losing their jobs or being hired, a ton of it is really about the minutia that frankly wouldn’t even make it into the pages of Variety, but which I often find interesting. You know, somebody is now a showrunner on a show.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, there’s a thoroughness to it and an immediacy to it that works. And I think also there is — there are — quite a few reporters there at Deadline who frankly are just imports from Variety, like Mike Fleming.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, Mike Fleming reported normally for years. Mike Fleming is capable of being a normal journalist with a normal demeanor who doesn’t threaten people, because he did it for years writing for Variety in a very respectful way. Certainly he can get back to that. And then honestly I think that this comment thing has to get under control because it’s just gross. I mean, it’s a joke, just so people at home don’t think it’s me personally, because I don’t care, but Deadline commenters as a group are just a punch line when you talk to people who are in the business. It’s a joke.

**John:** Yeah. There’s sort of two, I think kinds, of Deadline commenters. There are the ones who actually have no relationship to the business at all, and just pile on about whatever, and then they’re actually assistants at some production company who see a negative story or see some of story about one of their clients or someone involved in their movie and sort of throw in the other way, they try to tip the perception one way or the other. And it becomes just very silly to read.

And, granted, you should never read below the fold in general. You should never read comments.

**Craig:** Ever.

**John:** The times I have dipped below the fold, it just reminds me of why you should never dip below the fold.

**Craig:** Take a Silkwood shower afterwards. I mean, it’s particularly sad to me when there are these innocuous articles about somebody getting promoted. Somebody has been named vice president of development at Comedy Central, who knows, something. And then there are four comments like, “Great person. Great. Congratulations for them.” And then there’s four comments of, “Disgusting individual. Mistreats people. I hope they die.”

I mean, nobody can — you can’t have a birthday over there without somebody basically saying, “I know this person and they kicked me and they’re evil.” There’s a strain of bitterness throughout it. So, typically there will be just a very neutral report on a writer being hired to write something. And then 12 comments about how the writer is great, 14 comments about how the writer is awful, 16 comments about how the writer can’t write at all and is stupid and this is why Hollywood is a disaster. Another four comments about how that person is really a writer who never writes anything and the commenter is a jerk.

**John:** But then it will actually be about sort of how the actor on that TV show got really, really fat and someone needs to…

**Craig:** [laughs] It just devolves and… — It is truly a playground for the stupid and venal.

**John:** To be fair, that’s honestly most comment threads.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** It’s just that that’s the place we’re actually seeing comments these days.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Now, I also want to bring up why it matters at all, because I think people who aren’t sort of living in this little ecosystem think, “Well, it’s silly that you guys are talking about this for 20 minutes; just don’t read the stories. Why does it matter?”

Here’s where it does matter and I especially found this to be true during TV season is that perception is very much reality in terms of TV season. Like movies take so long, and they’re so long to put together that it’s not such a big deal, but when you’re trying to cast a show and everyone is fighting over the same actors, the one Deadline article or any sort of meaningful publication article that says, “This actor is leaning towards this,” can completely tip the balance of something.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And suddenly you don’t have that actor. Or, that director you think you’re going to have is not there. Or, you get this perception that your show is falling apart and so therefore everyone jumps onto the next show. It does matter. That’s why accuracy matters. And it’s why people sort of keep clicking over to those sites to see what that is.

What I hope to see in the ecosystem that develops down the road from here is whatever Deadline becomes, Deadline becomes. Whatever Nikki Finke does, she can do and god bless her. But I would like to see Variety, Hollywood Reporter, The LA Times, and maybe some other, The Wrap, or whoever else pick up the pieces so that you have a reason to click through to multiple places. Because right now I’ve found that unless something gets reported in Deadline, sort of nobody notices.

That’s sort of the only place where something actually lands. And so if Variety writes about something I did, no one sends the email. But if it shows up in Deadline, I get like four emails about it. It’s a strange thing. And I think any sort of monoculture is ultimately harmful for an industry.

**Craig:** I totally agree. And it makes sense that just as Nikki very wisely and cannily saw this opening, somebody is looking at this situation right now and they see an opening. The truth is the town is sick to death of her. That’s the god’s honest truth.

I think all the people that used her to their advantage are growing weary and sick of her. And there is an opening. And somebody is going to start something new. And this is, after all, the internet where MySpace just roamed the earth like the dinosaur. And then, oh my god, meteor, meteor, Facebook! This is the way it goes.

**John:** At this point the last question there will be is will we be willing to accept something that doesn’t have a face associated with it, or at least a personality associated with it? Because I think that’s one of the things that made it unique. And I’ll be curious whether we’re willing to go to an anon, like sort of a quasi-anonymous news source after having a personality associated with our news. We’ll see.

**Craig:** I hope so, because, frankly, I’m not a big fan of that.

**John:** What I am a big fan of is our two live shows this summer. So, I want to talk to you about that.

So, we are going to be having people come see us as we record our shows, and we will be interacting with those people who come to see us record our shows. And I’m very, very excited about both of these opportunities. And they’re really different and they’ve become very different events which I think is an exciting thing to happen, too.

The first of our live shows is Saturday June 29, and it’s part of a much bigger event. It’s Craft Day for the Writers Guild Foundation. So, it’s an all-day event with four different panels and writers, and agents, and industry folk. And so it’s all about screenwriting and probably TV writing as well. And because it’s Craft Day, Craig and I are going to be doing a Three Page Challenge live, somehow. I think we’re going to have like projections so we can actually look at the pages that we’re talking about.

We may actually have the people who wrote those three pages in the audience.

**Craig:** Oh…

**John:** There might be a situation where if you know you’re coming and you would like us to look at your three pages, send it Stuart and sort of say in the subject line like, “I will be there,” and that way we could pick those things and know that you are there in the audience and can respond and be up on stage with us maybe.

**Craig:** That would be great.

**John:** It would be fun. And it’s a chance to really — I enjoy doing the Three Page Challenges but we are sort of talking to a third party who’s not there. And so being able to see people face to face could be fantastic.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I’m also thinking we might share some three pages of, I might be willing to, and I haven’t confirmed whether you’d be willing to, some three pages of stuff that hasn’t shot, so stuff that hasn’t actually been made of my own, or if you are willing to do that, of your stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think I probably have a script or two that it’s safe to do that with at this point.

**John:** Yeah, because sometimes that’s exciting to see, too, and it might be something that would be exclusively there for the people who are in the audience with us, something that we wouldn’t put up as PDFs because it really shouldn’t go out wide, but it could go out to 200 people.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Sure. So, tickets are on sale right now for this June 29th event. It’s through the Writers Guild Foundation. If you go to the show notes, there’s a link to get there. You can also Google “Writers Guild Foundation” and that’s up there.

So, because it’s a full day event the ticket price right now is $85 for the whole day. So, it’s a big deal; it’s also a fundraiser for the Writers Guild Foundation which does great work with writers, and veterans, and the library, and kids.

**Craig:** Kids.

**John:** It’s a good group.

**Craig:** It’s a great group.

**John:** Our second even is the party.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah!

**John:** So, the second even — oh yeah — so this is… — Craig and I actually saw each face-to-face this week because we needed to go visit the space where we’re going to have this 100th anniversary — 100th Episode Extravaganza thing. That’s Thursday July 25 in Hollywood. We’re going to be at the Academy’s Lab, which is this space that’s right next, just south of the Arclight Theaters on Vine.

And it’s kind of great. And so just a huge thank you to the Academy for letting us put this together because it’s going to be really, really cool. There will be food and beverages, and alcoholic beverages, and special guests, and stuff that you could only kind of do as a 100th episode.

So, tickets for that will probably be on sale July 1st. Space is limited, so I think it will probably sell out. So, you may want to mark your calendar for — God, are there 31 days in June? 30 days in June?

**Craig:** 31. No, June 30. “30 days has September, April, June, and November, except for February which has 28, oh my god, unless it’s 29.” I think that’s how the rhyme goes.

**John:** Okay. I don’t remember the “oh my god” part of it. I don’t remember any of the rhyme. [laughs]

**Craig:** I think I definitely made up the last part.

**John:** I never learned any of those little mnemonics for…

**Craig:** You never learned, “30 days has September; April, June, and November?”

**John:** No. I don’t know I missed that. I had a bad second grade teacher.

**Craig:** Terrible.

**John:** Terrible.

Anyway, you should probably mark your calendar for June 30th if you really want to come, because I think it’s going to be one those situations where tickets are on sale and then they’re not on sale anymore because we have limited space.

**Craig:** And the tickets are cheap, right?

**John:** Tickets for that are $5.

**Craig:** Five bucks. And that’s not for us. Do we get to keep that $5?

**John:** No, no. It’s $5. It benefits the Educational Foundation of the Academy, the people who do the Nicholl Fellowships.

**Craig:** There you go. So, once again, the most important thing is we get nothing.

**John:** Yes. We get nothing from that.

**Craig:** Nothing!

**John:** If you have two beers then you have gotten your $5 worth, because the alcohol is free for whatever reason.

…I shouldn’t have said that on the podcast.

**Craig:** Nah, you know what? Now we’re just going to have alcoholics showing up. Rummies. Rummies not interested in screenwriting. But the good news is that there’s a little bit of a mix and mingle thing before. Then we’re going to do the podcast. It will be our normal hour-long podcast. And then we’ll have a nice little mix and mingle after, so you get to experience the glory of us in person, which is not particularly glorious, but it is in person.

**John:** I can be fairly radiant at times.

**Craig:** You can.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Not me.

**John:** But I’m excited about our special guests, which we have not announced yet, but they’re going to be great and special.

**Craig:** Very special.

**John:** So, that is reason enough alone to come.

**Craig:** Very special.

**John:** So, next point of news that happened this week was this morning I got 15 tweets about this thing called Amazon Storyteller.

**Craig:** [laughs] Me too!

**John:** Did you check it out?

**Craig:** I got 15 million tweets. Well, I mean, I see what it is. The thing is, is there a demo online? Because I haven’t seen the demo.

**John:** Yeah, it was actually really hard to find a demo, but I clicked through and started the demo. And so what Amazon Storyteller is, it’s part of Amazon Studios which is the branch of Amazon we’ve talked about on the podcast several times. Amazon Studios is attempting to make feature films with a model that is sort of, you know, you submit to them and they have an option on things, and they can work up these sample projects. It’s problematic in a lot of ways. And it’s improved in some ways. But the feature side of it, I think, is still a real open question about whether anyone should approach that with a ten-foot pole.

But, what was interesting this morning is they announced this new sort of software that they have as part of Amazon Studios where the scripts that are in Amazon Studios, you can load them up and they show up on the left hand side of your screen. And on the right hand side of the screen you have this toolbox for making storyboards. And they look like drawn storyboards for the scenes.

And I have to say it was actually, like it’s pretty well done. And so it’s not FrameForge. Like FrameForge is like the really high quality 3D software that you use for pre-visualizations or for setting up shots or figuring out angles and things. This is much more and looks like just a drawn storyboard. And yet for being done in the browser it’s really well done.

And so I could see it being a useful tool for someone who wanted to mock something up. Now, the limitations of it, at least in its current form is, it could only work on the things that are in Amazon Studios. And so in order to do something for your own script you have to load your script in there. Or, I guess you could just like make up some shots and screen capture them out and do something else.

The software though is smart in that it has these sort of city kind of backgrounds so that you’re not going to be able to do like a medieval epic with this. And there’s people you can put in, but like you’re ability to stack people in the frame and move them around and turn them is surprisingly good. I was impressed by what that is.

Ultimately it feels like really good Clip Art for making storyboards. And that’s a plus and a minus. I think there’s a lot to be said for keeping storyboards simple so you can see like this is what the intention is, and it’s not meant to look like the final frame. So, useful to some people.

**Craig:** Yeah. I can’t help but feel like this is just one more entry in the big toolbox of procrastination crap and also a little bit of the kind of, look, you’re making something real. You know, kind of the industry of “you’re doing it — now you have a storyboard — yay!”

No, you’re not doing it, because no one is making that script, you know, unless they are. And if they are, here’s the best news. If you work with actual storyboard artists, who are people with a specific skill that is not replicable by a software package, then you get the benefit of their talent, which is quite significant. You know, you talk with them and you describe what it’s supposed to be like and they start to do it. And it really does help tremendously. It helps you organize. The whole point of a storyboard is to organize your shooting day. That’s what it’s for.

It’s not to go, “Look at me! I’m a screenwriter.”

**John:** So, let’s talk about storyboarding…

**Craig:** That’s my new voice by the way.

**John:** That’s a good voice. Please use that on every podcast.

**Craig:** “Yay! I’m for real.”

**John:** You’re like Pinocchio. You’re a real boy.

**Craig:** “I’m a real screenwriter!”

**John:** I think the Craig Mazin version of Pinocchio would be fascinating.

**Craig:** I’ll wear my little pants, my suspenders, and I’m like, “I’m not, my script isn’t crap! It’s good.”

**John:** Ooh, “It’s good!”

**Craig:** “I’m going to storyboard.” He’s such a…he’s so great. You know what he is? He’s optimistic. He doesn’t listen to grouchy podcasters. He believes!

**John:** He believes. Except that instead of his nose growing when he tells a lie, his nose grows with umbrage. So, every time he gets angry he doesn’t Hulk out; his nose just grows a little bit.

**Craig:** “Ah-ah-ah-ah.”

**John:** Let’s talk about storyboarding in general, what it really is. Because I could see if I were a storyboard artist and I saw this stuff I’d be incensed, for a couple reasons. First off, it’s trying to automate something that actually takes real talent to do.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s not going to be as good and everyone is going to be like, “Oh, it’s just like having a storyboard artist.” No, it’s not like having a storyboard artist. Those are actually professional people who can be incredibly useful in the process of making a movie. The storyboard artist for the two Charlie’s Angels movies was incredibly involved in figuring out how stuff could actually be and fit together.

And for a director, like the first pass at shooting something is the director talking to a storyboard artist often. So, it’s incredibly useful for those reasons.

Storyboarding is really useful when you’re actually the director who actually needs to make the movie. I think for most screenwriters it is a mistake to get involved in storyboarding because you are going to lock yourself down to the visuals of how stuff is supposed to fit together at two early of a process.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** So, that’s my criticism of that. It makes it seem like, “Oh, well storyboarding is this vital part of screenwriting,” and it’s not at all. Storyboarding is part of the process of taking something that is just 12 point Courier and getting it towards the screen.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** And it’s not always the final process. It’s an important thing to do when there’s real questions about how you’re going to do something. It could save you time. It could help you create better shots. But many movies that you’ve loved had no storyboarding in them at all.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a little bit of a diminishing that goes on with storyboarding. When you’re writing a screenplay I always advise people to be very visual and to really see the space in your head and understand the geography of the space as best you can. And to get that intention across for the reader so that they’re watching a movie as they read. That’s very, very important.

Storyboarding actually tends to minimize all that down. That’s why it’s not story-painting but storyboarding, you see, and that’s why it’s stick figures because really what storyboarding is where are they going to stand vis-Ă -vis my camera? How many of them will be in the frame vis-‡-vis my camera. And how close will my camera be? Am I waist high? Am I thigh high? Am I head and shoulders?

And in terms of the action, is the car going from left to right depending on where the street is and all the rest of it? It’s such a nuts and bolts thing. And I guess the reason I’m doing my Pinocchio voice is not because I want people out there thinking, “Oh, look at you, you’re putting your script on Amazon; you’re not a real screenwriter.”

I bet a ton of you are, and I bet a bunch of you are way, way better than I am. What I’m saying is don’t get caught up in stuff that makes you feel like you’re accomplishing things when it’s really not. You could write a screenplay and if it’s a great screenplay — that’s the accomplishment. The storyboarding stuff, it’s a little bit like Final Draft has this function where it gives you story statistics and you can sit there after you finish your screenplay and go, “Oh, look at this. This character talks 25% of the time. And this one mostly has conversations with this one.”

Well, that’s just wankery. Who cares?

**John:** Yeah. No actual screenwriter does that.

**Craig:** Ever.

**John:** No one ever generates that report.

**Craig:** Ever. But I’ve actually talked to new screenwriters who are like really into those reports because it’s like something happened. It’s the simulation of achievement. And I think that storyboard is providing you a simulation of achievement that is irrelevant to your purpose at this stage.

**John:** Where I think this kind of software would be tremendously useful is people who are trying to learn about directing shots.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, people who are in a class, or even in an online class, where you talk about like this is what camera movement is. This is how you arrange the frame. This is how you maintain eye lines. Things that are sort of difficult to see if — difficult to describe just with words. You see this, “Oh, I get what this is.” So, you’re assignment could be storyboard out this sequence and show me how you’re going to do it. That’s incredibly useful and I could see that being a great thing for any budding film student.

I found as I’ve needed to figure out projects and figure out like how I was going to do stuff, even when I was dealing with my storyboard artist for The Nines, he and I would honestly just go around with a camera and sort of get the shots that I wanted. And then he would take those shots and journalize them back down to sort of illustrate and storyboard so I could remember like what it was I was going for.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, you have an incredibly good storyboarding tool in your pocket right now. It’s called your iPhone. And so you just go around and you take the pictures with that. And there’s even software that will give you the simulation of different lenses, so if you really have a question about like would I be able to get like a dirty over the shoulder literally in this location, you could pull out your iPhone and put on that lens and see what it would actually turn out to look like.

So, again, I’m impressed that — it’s actually sort of better software but it’s not necessarily a great benefit to most people who are going to be probably using it.

**Craig:** It’s true. There is, however, something that we can use, note my segue, that is very simple and it’s five letters. And yet for whatever reason there are all of these people out there who are teaching each other and their students that they out not use it.

Do you know to what I refer?

**John:** I do because we talked about it ahead of time. So, this is a rule that I’ve seen cited so many times about, you know, you should never use these two words in a screenplay. And the rule is wrong. And so tell us what the wrong rule is.

**Craig:** Never use “we see” in a screenplay.

**John:** So, let’s talk about how do you think that rule came about? How do you think people — was it just some arbitrary person who didn’t like the words “we see?”

**Craig:** No. I think this is what’s going on. Somewhere down the line in film departments the auteurist theory kind of blend in. And what happened was people who are more aligned with directors than screenwriters started coming up with rules for screenwriters that are nonsensical. And they’re academic rules. They’re dogmatic. They have no relation to the way we who do this job actually do our job.

So, the generally philosophy was, “Hey screenwriter, don’t tell me the director how to direct my movie. I don’t want you saying close up and I don’t want you saying ‘we see this’ and ‘the camera goes here.’ Because I’m the director and I decide all that.” Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Which is not how directors actually talk.

The truth is that here in the business of making movies, everybody — the screenwriters, the producers, the executive, and yes, the directors — are interested in reading a script that reads like a movie. I have never once in whatever it’s been now, 17 years, had a director say to me, “Don’t tell me to close up or don’t tell me ‘we see from behind or we see.’ Don’t do any of that.”

Not once. Ever. Have you?

**John:** No. Never.

**Craig:** No! So, what is — but then here’s the part that makes me the most nuts. Okay, so first of all, let’s talk about the value of the words. The reason that we “we see” has value in description is because the audience is a participant in the movie. There are times when we — the audience — see something that the characters do not.

When we’re describing scenes in action paragraphs, the default understanding of the reader is that we’re talking about the characters. So, “Jim enters the room. There is a snake on the chair.” We, in our minds, we understand Jim sees the snake on the chair.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** “Jim enters the room. Crosses to grab himself a drink. We see behind him in the chair a snake. It rises.” We now understand we see that, and Jim doesn’t. That’s just one minor use of it, but frankly it’s very conversational. You may use it when you feel. It doesn’t matter. But what I hear these people on Twitter — and they’re teachers, for the love of god. “Well, it’s not good writing. It’s clumsy, it’s lazy, it’s a crutch.” What is it — a crutch for what? What is it taking the place of?

You have no answer because there is no answer.

**John:** There is no answer. “We see” actually can take the place of a lot of those terrible camera words that pull you out of the story and make you remember, like, oh that’s right, we’re watching a movie.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** So, “we see,” I always feel like that “we” is the audience. You’re literally — you’re job as a screenwriter is to put the reader in the chair of the theater and everything we see, and also we hear, I use “we hear” a lot…

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** Those are the — you only have sight and sound, so these are these are the things we are going to be able to share with the audience, that we are experiencing these things. And that is great and fine.

Now, could you overuse “we see” or “we hear?” Yes, absolutely. And in most times you won’t need it because if you have a scene, like if you’re an establishing shot where no one is in that shot, you can probably just describe what’s happening there without the we see or the we hear. But there might be times where you want to, like, “We track along the path leading up to the door.” There might be times where that’s actually really important.

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** And so the “we” is great.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right. You are absolutely right. Joseph Conrad popularized a certain kind of writing going back to Heart of Darkness. And it paralleled a little bit of what was going on in the world of visual art, of painting, and that was an impressionistic way of writing. There’s this wonderful moment in Heart of Darkness where they’re on a boat and Marlow watches as a man suddenly reacts in pain and falls to the ground with a cane in his hand.

And then in the ensuing melee Marlow realizes that’s not a cane at all. It’s a spear. And the spear has been thrown at him and they’re under attack. But in the moment it seemed just like a man fell with a cane in his hand. It’s wonderful. It’s experiential. It’s impressionistic.

When you’re writing for movies, that — to me — is a great way of getting across for the person reading the experience or the impression of being in the movie theater. “We see” allows you to say what you think you see in the moment. “We see a flash of light. No, it’s a gunshot.” You know, “We see lightning. Not lightning, but this.”

Whatever it is that you want to do, it’s actually an important tool. What I find these people are misunderstanding is the purpose of the screenplay itself. We hear what we hear. We see what we see. Dialogue is spoken. When we write action paragraphs the purpose of the action paragraph is not to be read by a consumer. It is to create the illusion of a movie in the mind of the reader and the reader is a professional.

So, I say to all of you out there who are repeating this nonsense: (A) “We see” is a valuable tool for screenwriters. (B) If you want to use it, us it; and if you don’t, don’t. (C) I don’t know a single professional screenwriter who doesn’t use it and I could definitely point you to some amazing screenwriters who do. What letter am I up to? D?

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** (D) There isn’t one person in the movie business who has ever complained to me once about it. So, with the preponderance of that evidence, sirs and madams, would you please stop telling people not to do it? It’s absurd.

**John:** Done.

**Craig:** Done. Ka-boom.

**John:** Done. “We see” and “we hear” will go on forever.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Craig, to wrap us up today we have another very exciting announcement. We finally — finally after 93 episodes — we have t-shirts.

**Craig:** Oh! Oh thank god! [laughs]

**John:** So, here’s the deal on t-shirts. So, they’re really cool. If you are looking at this podcast on your iPhone or if you’re in iTunes you will see the typewriter is orange that glows. Well, there’s an orange t-shirt with that typewriter that is really, really good, that Ryan Nelson, our designer, did. And it’s fantastic. They’re beautiful American Apparel shirts.

There is an orange version. There’s also a very — a gray that’s like a heathery-blue gray. It’s a really good color with a white typewriter on it. Stuart and Ryan actually went down to our printers to check out the t-shirts themselves and the fabric. Stuart reports back that they blue shirt is the softest t-shirt he’s ever touched in his life.

**Craig:** Ooh. Well, I certainly like a soft shirt. And I will say that I, being completely color stupid and shirt stupid, showed a picture of it to one of my assistants and she said that it looked awesome and that her hipster friends would love it.

**John:** That is the goal is to have a shirt that is loved by hipster friends and by people like Craig’s assistant.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, they are good t-shirts that everyone can wear. Here’s the thing. I don’t want to be shipping out t-shirts for like the rest of my life. So, we are going to only be selling these t-shirts for about two weeks. The deadline on t-shirts will be June 21st is when we’re closing sales on t-shirts. So, if you would like a t-shirt, you should go and follow the link that is on this podcast or just go to johnaugust.com where there will be a post about buying a t-shirt.

**Craig:** I should buy one, shouldn’t I?

**John:** I think we’ll actually give you one. So you can choose either or blue and we’ll just give you one.

**Craig:** Blue sounds great. I mean, it’s the softest t-shirt of all time.

**John:** It’s the softest t-shirt in the world.

**Craig:** John, how is the sizing of these t-shirts?

**John:** They’re American Apparel shirts, so I think they’re sized a little bit smaller than most shirts. So, look through your closet and find an American Apparel shirt and recognize that it’s probably a little bit smaller than other shirts.

So, the shirts are $19, which basically covers our ability to make them, and then there’s some shipping. And so they’re available at johnaugust.com/store is where you can find them.

**Craig:** Nifty.

**John:** Nifty. So, again, a reminder, there’s only two weeks of t-shirts, so if you want t-shirts you should get on that.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** And you should wear it to our 100th anniversary episode. We might even have them done in time for the WGA thing.

**Craig:** Then we’ll all just look like a big cult.

**John:** It would be awesome.

**Craig:** Mm, big typewriter cult.

**John:** Yup. Craig, are you doing a One Cool Thing.

**Craig:** I do have a One Cool Thing this week.

**John:** Go for it.

**Craig:** So, I met Bob Gordon a couple weeks ago in Nashville, the Nashville Screenwriting Conference which was one of my One Cool Things many moons ago. Bob Gordon wrote Galaxy Quest, among others…

**John:** Oh my god, Galaxy Quest is so good.

**Craig:** It’s the best. So, I would love for us to do a whole podcast just on Galaxy Quest, because it kind of deserves to be…

**John:** Oh yeah! Let’s do that. That would be great.

**Craig:** Bob is awesome. And so we kind of became fast friends. And he and I were talking quite a bit about sort of the geeky/nerdy view of insomnia. He struggles with sleeping issues and we were talking about light and how light affects your circadian rhythm. And about the impact that we have now with screens, just screens in our eyes.

And I was a little behind the curve here. He kind of got me flat-footed because my understanding was that regular light bulbs kind of have a limited wavelength and that they don’t really impact us the way that the sun does. If you walk outside, if you’re sleepy and suddenly there’s sunlight in your eyes, your brain will try and wake you up.

And it is true that there’s a part of the wavelength called blue light that seems to trigger our wakefulness more than the rest. And that blue light isn’t really in your typical incandescent bulb. But it is, however, in these newfangled LED screens on your laptop and your iPad. So, there’s some research that indicates maybe shining that stuff in your eyes right before you go to bed might not be a great idea.

Enter this very cool piece of software called f.lux. And currently it is for the Mac and there’s a Windows beta. It’s also available for the iPhone and iPad. I have installed it and it’s great. And basically what it does is this: it figures out what time of day, or rather where the sun is for you in your time of day, so it accesses location services, and then when nighttime happens, essentially when the sun sets, it changes the lighting of your screen to reduce the blue and get it really nice and warm and brownish and not blue lighting, so that you don’t fry your suprachiasmatic nucleus with circadian rhythm shifting blue light.

I can’t tell you if it’s working or not. All I can tell you is it’s cool! And so I just like fact that my computer is like, “Yawn, it’s sleepy time.” So, check it out. You can go to justgetflux.com.

**John:** Cool. My One Cool Thing is something you should not do right before bedtime because you will be using your iPad and therefore waking up your circadian rhythms in ways. And you’ll also be thinking about this little game the entire time you’re trying to sleep. So, lesson learned — don’t try to do that.

Kingdom Rush, which was one of my favorite tower defense games of all time, this last week came out with Kingdom Rush Frontiers which is an expansion and redesign of Kingdom Rush, which is really terrific. So, if you like tower defense games, which the basic definition of a tower defense game is that monsters are trying to get from point A to point B and you can only set up these towers to stop them.

And it’s a really well designed game for the iPad. I love it. The remake they did for this new version is really smart. They sort of took what had been a very kind of classically fantasy, you know, dwarves and elves kind of thing and pushed it into a desert environment in ways that is actually nicely smart and rewarding.

So, I would recommend Kingdom Rush Frontiers, which is on the iPad right now. There will be a link to that. It’s in the App Store.

**Craig:** Sweet. And I should mention that f.lux is free!

**John:** Free is nice. We like f.lux.

**Craig:** Free!

**John:** Cool. Craig, thank you very much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** And I will talk to you next week.

LINKS:

* The Daily Beast on [Nikki Finke’s 8 Greatest Freakouts](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/04/deadline-hollywood-editor-in-chief-nikki-finke-s-8-greatest-freakouts.html)
* The LA Times on how [Nikki Finke’s next big story may be her own exit](http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-nikki-finke-20130604,0,4915206,full.story)
* Time asks [What’s Next for Hollywood’s Most Feared Reporter?](http://entertainment.time.com/2013/06/06/whats-next-for-hollywoods-most-feared-reporter/)
* The (one and only?) infamous [Nikki Finke headshot](http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/files/original/nikki_finke.jpg)
* Gawker on [Why Nikki Finke Never Makes a Mistake](http://gawker.com/5392863/why-nikki-finke-never-makes-a-mistake) and the [commenter edition](http://gawker.com/5501268/why-nikki-finke-never-makes-a-mistake-commenter-edition)
* The Writers Guild Foundation presents [The Screenwriter’s Craft: Finding Your Voice](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/the-screenwriters-craft-finding-your-voice/) featuring Scriptnotes Live
* [Submit your Three Pages](http://johnaugust.com/threepage) for the Writers Guild Foundation event and let us know you’ll be there
* John’s blog post on [this summer’s two live shows](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-live-in-la)
* [Amazon Storyteller](http://studios.amazon.com/storyteller) from Amazon Studios
* Get your Scriptnotes shirt from [the John August Store](http://store.johnaugust.com/) until June 21st
* [f.lux](http://justgetflux.com/) adjusts your displays for the time of day
* [Kingdom Rush Frontiers](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/kingdom-rush-frontiers-hd/id598581619?mt=8) is available now

Scriptnotes, Ep 92: The Little Mermaid — Transcript

June 10, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/the-little-mermaid).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 92 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Now, Craig, way back in Episode 73 we did a special episode where we talked about nothing except for Raiders of the Lost Ark.

**Craig:** Perhaps our finest episode.

**John:** That was a great episode. It was a very fun time. And so we’ve been looking for another film that could get that same kind of treatment. And today we have found that movie I believe.

**Craig:** Well, we have. And today we’re going to be talking about a film that not only was a big hit but also changed the business; brought a slumbering business back to life. And that movie is The Little Mermaid.

**John:** Yes. Disney’s 1989 film, written and directed by Ron Clements and John Musker, with songs — important songs — by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, a couple reasons why I thought this was a good movie for us to be talking about. What you said in terms of it changing the industry I think is really crucial and important. This was the first of the modern Disney films. The first of the musical films that really succeeded. And if we didn’t have The Little Mermaid we wouldn’t Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, Pocahontas, Mulan. We wouldn’t have Brave.

This sort of set the template for this idea of the follow your protagonist in a musical adventure.

**Craig:** That’s right. And, also, you wouldn’t have Pixar either, frankly, because a lot of those guys came — Joe Ranft, for instance — worked on this movie.

**John:** And I would argue that Pixar with Toy Story changed the game again.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** I mean, if you look at 1995’s Toy Story, that was one of the first huge successes that wasn’t a musical, that wasn’t sort of following this template. But this was a template that was very important and I think it still is a very clear template.

And what’s useful about The Little Mermaid is the template is really clear. I think a lot of time when we talk about certain ideas in screenwriting — like the hero’s quest, want vs. need, two worlds, irrevocable choices — we’re trying to look at those in complicated live action movies where things are sort of buried underneath and you have to argue about, okay, it’s at that point, or that point.

Because The Little Mermaid is really simple, it’s actually very easy to see what those points are. And I think it’s going to be good to be able to talk through and really see very clearly what those notes are.

**Craig:** Yes. And as we talk through this movie today, let’s also note how it is old fashioned. And Toy Story has, the Toy Story, the Pixar model that was established in Toy Story has essentially subsumed this one. It’s a very different kind of story than the modern, what we call modern animated movies, that is to say post-Pixar.

**John:** Yeah. And the other reason why I thought this was a good movie for us to pick is that it’s an adaptation.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** The Little Mermaid is an adaption of the Hans Christian Andersen story, The Little Mermaid, from 1837. And I wasn’t familiar with what the original story was, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s horrifying.

**John:** Did you do that, too?

**Craig:** I actually was familiar with it. Well, Hans Christian Andersen in and of himself, he was beloved. And yet for whatever reason… — Why he was beloved? He’s a great writer. His stories are horrifying. They are terrible, terrible stories. They’re scary.

For instance, The Little Red Shoes is a girl who puts on red shoes because she wants to dance well and she keeps dancing because the shoes won’t let her stop. And she dances herself to death. The Matchstick Girl who sells matchsticks and is freezing outside looking into a window at a happy family. And she begins lighting matches to keep herself warm and she just ends up freezing to death in the cold surrounded by burnt out matches.

And, of course, then you have The Little Mermaid, a story that is perhaps his most frightening, horrifying, unrelenting bleak tale. And, I don’t know, do you want to tell the story?

**John:** Yeah, I do. So, actually I looked it up on Wikipedia and I’m going to do a shortened summary of the Wikipedia story because I was actually surprised how closely a lot of it does mirror our film in terms of actual plot.

**Craig:** Some of it.

**John:** If you actually look at the plot.

**Craig:** Some of it, yes. Some of it.

**John:** Yeah. If you look at the plot synopsis versus plot synopsis, it’s like, oh, those are really similar.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And then it’s all the ways that they’re different which I think is important for us to be discussing here today. So, bear with me while I sort of read the Wikipedia summary of Hans Christian Andersen’s version of The Little Mermaid:

So, The Little Mermaid dwells in an underwater kingdom with her father (the sea king or mer-king), her grandmother, and her five sisters. Her five sisters are each born one year apart. When a mermaid turns 15, she is permitted to swim to the surface to watch the world above, and when the sisters become old enough, each of them visits the upper world every year. As each of them returns, the Little Mermaid listens longingly to their various descriptions of the surface and of human beings.

When the Little Mermaid’s turn comes, she rises up to the surface, sees a ship with a handsome prince, and falls in love with him from a distance. A great storm hits, and the Little Mermaid saves the prince from nearly drowning. She delivers him unconscious to the shore near a temple. Here she waits until a young girl from the temple finds him. The prince never sees the Little Mermaid.

The Little Mermaid asks her grandmother if humans can live forever if they breathe under water. The grandmother explains that humans have a much shorter lifespan than merfolks’ 300 years, but that when mermaids die they turn to sea foam and cease to exist, while humans have an eternal soul that lives on in Heaven.

**Craig:** Sea foam.

**John:** Sea foam.

**Craig:** They turn into sea foam and they cease to exist.

**John:** The Little Mermaid, longing for the prince and an eternal soul, eventually visits the Sea Witch, who sells her a potion that gives her legs in exchange for her tongue (as the Little Mermaid has the most enchanting voice in the world). The Sea Witch warns, however, that once she becomes a human, she will never be able to return to the sea. She will only obtain a soul if she finds true love’s kiss and the prince loves her and marries her, for then a part of his soul will flow into her. Otherwise, at dawn on the first day after he marries another woman, the Little Mermaid will die brokenhearted and disintegrate into sea foam.

The Little Mermaid drinks the potion and meets the prince, who is mesmerized by her beauty and grace even though she is mute. The prince’s father orders his son to marry the neighboring king’s daughter, the prince tells the Little Mermaid he will not because he does not love the princess. He goes on to say he can only love the young woman from the temple, who he believes rescued him. It turns out that the princess that he’s supposed to marry is actually the temple girl, who had been sent to the temple to be educated. So, the prince loves her, and the wedding is announced.

**Craig:** Now, hold on a second. Before you finish this story, I think everybody at home surely is thinking, “Well, that wedding is going to be interrupted because the Little Mermaid is going to end up marrying the prince, right?”

**John:** Absolutely. Because it’s a fairy tale. It’s going to have a happy ending.

**Craig:** It’s a fairy tale. It’s going to have a happy ending.

**John:** The prince and princess marry, and the Little Mermaid’s heart breaks.

**Craig:** Wait, what?! [laughs]

**John:** She despairs, thinking of the death that awaits her, but before dawn, her sisters bring her a knife that the Sea Witch has given them in exchange for their long hair. So, the sisters sold their long hair for this knife.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** If the Little Mermaid slays the prince with the knife and lets his blood drip on her feet, she will become a mermaid again, all her suffering will end, and she will live out her full life.

**Craig:** Okay, now hold on. Before you go any further, surely what’s going to happen is she’s going to think about killing him and then decide not to. And because she does that super nice thing the prince realizes that and ends up marrying her, right?

**John:** Let’s keep reading.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** However the Little Mermaid cannot bring herself to kill the sleeping prince lying with his bride, and she throws herself into the sea as dawn breaks.

**Craig:** Wait, what?! [laugh]

**John:** Her body dissolves into foam…

**Craig:** Wait, what?!

**John:** …but instead of ceasing to exist, she feels the sun; she has turned into a spirit, a daughter of the air. The other daughters tell her she has become like them because she strove with all her heart to obtain an immortal soul. She will earn her own soul by doing good deeds and she will eventually rise up into the kingdom of God.

Now, note that this is actually a rewrite by Hans Christian Andersen. That was not the original ending he first penned. It was actually bleaker than that.

**Craig:** [laughs] I believe the original ending was such that she turns into sea foam. Period. The end.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** But, wait, I think you left out something.

**John:** Wikipedia might have left out something. I read what I had.

**Craig:** I had a memory that when she becomes human her legs are…

**John:** Oh, I did summarize that out. So, summarize for us. It was so gruesome I couldn’t even read it.

**Craig:** As I recall, the sea witch says, “You can have legs and you’ll be a really good dancer, so that’s how you’re going to attract him. Not because you can’t speak. But you can dance. But, your legs will essentially be excruciatingly painful for you and even more so when you dance. So, she has to dance with this guy, and he loves it, but it’s literally killing her.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** That’s Hans Christian Andersen.

**John:** And she will bleed when she does it, which is, of course, a menstrual kind of thing, too.

**Craig:** Oh, grody. I didn’t know about that part. All right. I mean, it’s the worst story ever.

**John:** Well, it’s the worst story but it’s also the best story.

**Craig:** It is.

**John:** It’s about forbidden love. It’s very much a Romeo and Juliet kind of story at its heart. And there’s terrific elements in it. And, honestly, reading back on the history of the film The Little Mermaid, all the way back to Walt Disney, they had drafts of The Little Mermaid. They had talked about making The Little Mermaid as a movie way back in Disney’s time.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So, fast-forward to sometime in the ’80s and they decide, “Well, let’s make this movie.” And this is the Jeffrey Katzenberg era. And they said, “Well, let’s make this a big animated movie.” And god bless them, they did. But they made some significant changes and choices.

And so what I thought we’d do today is talk through the movie as it actually happens, it exists in real time. Because if you look at the synopsis of the story, it’s going to read a lot like what we just read because things get moved around in a synopsis because it’s easy to sort of understand that way.

But, I’m going to talk through sort of the movie as it actually happens on screen so we can see how they did what they did and what the choices were they made.

**Craig:** And remind me how we did it the last time. Are we stopping and starting, or are you just going to summarize?

**John:** We will start and stop a lot.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So, the movie The Little Mermaid begins with, actually on top of the ocean, begins with the ship. And so we see Eric and his crew, the sailors, and a bit of the kingdom. And the first song we hear, not very much of, it’s called Mysterious Fathoms Below. It’s very classically kind of like setting up the world. It’s surprising that we’re setting up the surface world before the undersea world, but I actually did it because it’s establishing that there is a normal world up above.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that it’s important. And then we’re going to go to see the world below. And how we’re actually getting there is there’s one of the fish that they catch and they haul up in the nets slips off and goes into the water. And once were in the water then we establish our real title sequence and then we know like, okay, we’re in this ocean world and this is where we’re going to spend most of our movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. And they do such a good job. I happen to know Ron and John. They’re amazing guys. Great directors. They did a spectacular job writing and directing this film.

And, if you want to talk about tight writing, you begin with this ship. You see the front of the ship is that classic carved woman who is essentially a mermaid. And here’s what we learn in about three or four lines of dialogue: We learn that Eric is kind of romantic about the sea and even mentions mermaids in this song; we learn…

**John:** Specially they mention King Triton, the ruler of the mer people, which is like, wow, that’s a lot to wedge in there at the start.

**Craig:** So, boom, right. So, right away we know that there is a King Triton and that there are mermaids. He is romantic about the sea. We meet this kind of fuss-budgety guy, Grimsby I believe his name is. Is that right, Grimsby?

**John:** Yeah. Grimsby who is sort of an advisor, like it sort of takes the role of his father. He’s like the counselor, I guess.

**Craig:** Correct. The prince’s counselor. And we learn that he is, unlike our hero, he’s puking because he’s seasick. And he doesn’t believe in any of this nonsense about the ocean. But the crew member says, “No, no, it’s true. King Triton is real and mermaids are real.” And he’s slapping Grimsby in the face with this fish that gets away. And then the fish takes us down into the depth.

So, going back to our discussion about transitions. You will find no genre that is more transition-dependent than animation because you can make any transition you want.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They do such a good job here. But in that short amount of time you get so much information. Pretty great.

**John:** Yeah. So, the fish carries us down underneath the sea where we see the sea kingdom, and specifically we meet Triton who is the ruler of the sea and who’s like the big sort of grumbly king guy who is Triton.

His conductor is this little crab named Sebastian who is sort of his advisor/consigliore, but also leads his orchestra, his choir. And we’re at this concert where the five daughters are supposed to perform and it’s supposed to be the debut performance of Ariel, the youngest daughter. But Ariel is missing.

So, we’ve established all these characters. We still have not yet met Ariel.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** We get to a little kind of throwaway song called the Daughters of Triton. And when we get to the last verse that she’s supposed to sing, she’s not there. It’s like, “Where’s Ariel?” Classically cut to: there’s Ariel.

We’re five minutes into the movie but we have not met our named character, the Little Mermaid character.

**Craig:** Which I like, actually. I kind of like the notion that we’re going to meet our surrounding cast of characters very, very quickly, get them completely out of the way, on their own separate from the hero, and then we meet the hero. Because the whole point of this movie is that the hero feels apart from everybody around her. So, it makes sense that she’s not there with them. She’s there in spirit. I mean, there’s this little line where Sebastian says, “She’s got the most beautiful voice, if only she would show up to rehearsals.” We get it. She’s rebellious, you know. She doesn’t fit in.

So, I like that. She shouldn’t have been there in that opening scene.

**John:** Yes. And the song itself, like “She’s got a voice just like a bell.” It’s all about her even though she’s not there.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, therefore when we cut to her, the next thing we should see is Ariel. If we were to cut to anything other than Ariel we would throw something at the screen. We need to see her at this point.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** We see Ariel and Flounder, her best friend the fish, exploring a shipwreck. And so this is establishing who she is and who he is. She is very curious. She will go and explore things and she’ll go places where she’s not supposed to go. Flounder is more classically the wet blanket. He says, “No, we shouldn’t go in there. This isn’t safe.”

He’s the comic relief but also sort of the voice of reason to some degree.

**Craig:** Yeah. I have to say that one of my… — There are things that I look at in this movie and I think, okay, there is a mistake here. And you could see that Ron and John got better at this. Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast are better movies than this movie…

**John:** I agree.

**Craig:** But, so, not to pick on them because they’re amazing and this was kind of a ground-breaking film, so you have to give them a few mulligans here. Flounder is a bad character. Flounder has no personality really. He is vaguely cowardice. Sort of vaguely amusing. He’s her friend. Maybe he talks a little bit too much. But, the truth is everything about him is duplicated by Sebastian. So, he tends to blab and get her in trouble. He’s over-cautious. He kind of doesn’t need to — he’s not distinct.

**John:** Yeah. He’s basically there so Ariel has someone to talk to.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And here’s the secret about Flounder and Sebastian. Flounder is a fish, so Flounder can’t get out of the water. Sebastian is a crab, so crabs can go up on land. And so when we get to the second half of the movie where we’re up on land, Sebastian can do things and Flounder is stuck in the water and has to swim along in a canal. It’s not useful to us.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know, and they kind of got jammed there by the water thing. You can see that, because Sebastian is just a much funnier, more interesting character. Granted, I think today you would struggle to get away with that Jamaican accent. You know, we live in a different time now. It’s not racist, it’s just I think that there’s a sensitivity to that now that didn’t exist back then. People had no problem laughing along with something like that and nowadays it seems like they do.

**John:** I don’t think actually Sebastian is all that minstrelsy, if that’s the concern. I mean, it’s nothing compared to sort of what you see in the Transformers movies.

**Craig:** No, but for instance that thing that happened in the Transformers movies with the weird ghetto robots, that was kind of racist and people did not like that. This isn’t, it’s just that — I guess the way I would put it is this: I feel like anything that puts something between you and the audience, whether it’s justified or not, is to be avoided.

And when I’m watching it now, it’s funny. I remember seeing this movie in theaters and not blinking twice at this. And now when I watch it I blink a little bit like, huh.

**John:** See, Sebastian is the C-3PO of our story.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** He’s like the cautious, “Oh, we can’t go there, we can’t go there.” But Flounder isn’t really even R2D2. He’s just like this little immature fish who swims around with her. And I have no idea what Flounder actually wants. And you should want him to want something.

**Craig:** Yeah, Sebastian — awesome and interesting, albeit a little minstrelsy. Flounder — kind of a zero. But, that leads us to…

**John:** Well, let’s talk about sort of what happens in the shipwreck. So, in the shipwreck they find some things and you see that she’s always trying to pick up stuff and explore and gather stuff. And she finds a fork and a pipe and she doesn’t know what they are. And she sort of misassumes what they are. And that becomes a recurring gag.

And so it’s not just that she found any human things, she’s found those specific things, and those things are going to — in a very classic comedy way — pay off three times.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, inside that ship there’s also a shark attack. We see that there is danger in the world. She out-swims it. It’s not an amazing sequence…

**Craig:** No.

**John:** …but it establishes there is some action and danger in the world.

**Craig:** It’s actually a bad sequence because it is establishing danger that is irrelevant. It felt like they just jammed in some action to jam it in, because the truth is the danger that the movie establishes in a much better way later on when Sebastian sings Under the Sea is the danger of humans to mer people. We shouldn’t perceive danger from sharks in this movie because the shark will never appear again, nor will sharks appear again in general. Nor will predation really appear in any specific way.

So, it felt, frankly, unnecessary.

**John:** Tacked in a bit. The next character we meet is Scuttle who is this idiot seagull who lives up on the rocks. He’s our first character we sort of talk to who’s above ground. And we establish at this point that Ariel can talk to every animal in this world. And that’s sort of — actually, that’s not true. She can talk to all the sea animals in the world, I guess, is the rule.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Scuttle takes a look at the things she brings up and says like, “Oh, that fork is a dingle hopper. It’s for combing your hair and the pipe is an instrument they use to blow.” And he has no idea what’s going on.

It’s as she’s talking with Scuttle that she realizes, “Oh no, I forgot the concert!” and so she races back to get to the kingdom. It’s also here that we first establish the idea of Flotsam and Jetsam, who are these two eels, these who evil eels who swim around and will cause havoc for our heroine.

**Craig:** Well, and I think we immediately then go to — we establish that as they watch her, each one of them has one orange or yellow eye, and those become the sort of psychic vision of Ursula, our villain, and I think we go right to her at that point.

**John:** We do.

**Craig:** She does a little quick thing. And so it’s great because in any kind of story like this you’re getting an enormous amount of information very quickly. We’ve established the two separate worlds, the separation of the worlds, the existence of a king, and Sebastian, and a daughter who is the fifth of five daughters who is young, who is rebellious, who hasn’t shown up, who in fact is obsessed with the human world and her friend Flounder. And there’s a seagull up top who’s trying to explain the human world to her but he doesn’t know how it works. And oh my god, I’m late for this, I’ve got to get back. And what are we, like probably minute six, and now, oh my gosh, here’s a villain. And she’s great.

And when movies pile this much in and somehow avoid overstressing your brain, you start to feel like you’re listening to a really good song with lots of themes and lots of changes and not something that’s just going to be a repetitive beat.

And Ursula is, in my estimation, the best thing about this movie. She may be the best Disney villain ever.

**John:** She’s a fantastic villain.

**Craig:** Spectacular. And when we get to her song, we should also talk about the existence — there’s a song that they did for the Broadway version which is — I wish were in this movie, because it’s an incredible song.

**John:** Let’s talk about what we learn about Ursula at this point. So, we learn from Ursula that she used to live in the palace and she’s somehow banished from there. She uses the word banished. And that she has some vague kind of plan. She wants to get back in. And after seeing Ariel and Ariel going up to the surface, she says, “She may be the key to Triton’s undoing.” So, she has a vengeance against Triton and she wants to use our Little Mermaid heroine to do that.

**Craig:** And actually I should say this is — in the musical, in the stage musical she sings a song, I believe the title is let’s bring the good times back, where she sings about the good times that are gone and past when she did live in the palace. And she describes what life was like when she was in charge. And now she’s saying, “Let’s bring those good times back.”

And it’s such a great explanation of her motivation. You can take jealousy or power hunger. That’s a very flat sort of thing, you know, hunger for power. But this lady doesn’t just hunger for power. She’s wickedly passionate. She believes that those were the good times and she wants them back. So, I love that.

**John:** Yeah. So, she doesn’t get to sing her “I want” song here, but she does communicate what her ambitions are.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Ariel goes back to the palace. Triton, her dad, finds out that she was up at the surface where the humans can see her. He’s pissed off at her. “Not another word,” he says to her.

At this point we’ve musically introduced the idea, the musical theme of Part of Your World many, many times. We have not actually sung it. It’s not until we get to — so, Triton assigns Sebastian, like, “Keep an eye on Ariel. I want to make sure she stays away from those humans.

We follow Ariel to the secret cave which is where she keeps all of the human stuff that she finds. It’s in that cave where we sing maybe one of the great “I want” songs, which is Part of Your World.

**Craig:** Yes, including the lyric “I wanna.”

**John:** “I wanna.” Yes. So, this is a thing to talk about sort of in musicals overall, and this is being one of the sort of seminal animated musicals, is that idea of first song establishes the world. So, Fathoms Below, even though we don’t use a lot of it.

Second song, or quite early on song needs to be the lead character singing “I want.” And let us know clearly what it is the character is trying to achieve in the course of the story. So, she sings, “I want to be part of that world.” And interesting she says, the song is called Part of Your World, but it’s actually “part of that world” is what she sings most of the time.

**Craig:** Right. “That world.”

**John:** So, she’s around all this human stuff and she wants to be up there where people can dance and she doesn’t even understand what that world is but she knows she wants to be a part of it.

**Craig:** Mm-hmmm. Yeah. She does. And it is, first of all, let’s hang our heads for the late, great Howard Ashman who was simply the best at this. I don’t think we’ll ever see anyone come close to his ability to not only lyrically be clever, but also lyrically to express things like these simple desires in a way that was so fresh and captivating and honest. Her passion here is the passion of an innocent person, which is the best kind of passion, so we find her ignorance adorable.

There are little animated touches that Ron and John do. While she’s singing she gracefully plants the fork in a candelabra because she thinks that maybe that’s where it goes. And they just do that sort of back-grounded as she’s singing the song. But there’s a yearning to it that is gorgeous because it’s not, “I want something that I suppose I can have with effort.”

It’s, “I want something I can’t have at all. I’m a fish. That’s there, I’m here.” And it’s sort of heartbreaking but it also sets up why she would be willing to go through terrible lengths to achieve what she wants.

**John:** Yes. And as the song is mostly concluded, a boat sails overhead, a shadow of a boat sails overhead, and that is Prince Eric’s boat. She swims up to see Prince Eric’s boat. So, we reestablish Eric, the guy who we started at the head of the movie. We see more about his dog, Max, who is like a big sheepdog who is very classically a Disney dog.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Just like a great dog who doesn’t talk, has no magical powers, just is a great dog. He starts to sniff out that, like, oh, there’s a mermaid there. But, of course, he can’t say anything.

**Craig:** No. It’s like a classic Disney dog that barks happily and licks the faces of people with good intentions and growls at people with bad intentions. [laughs] It’s just perfect.

**John:** And so Max’s function is largely to let us know that Eric is a great guy, because what’s going to happen is really the inciting incident of our film which is the storm. This giant storm suddenly rears up, destroys the ship. The ship catches fire. Eric goes back to the ship to rescue his dog Max. Talk about a hero.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** He goes back to rescue his dog.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Goes back to rescue his dog. The ship blows up because of the cannons. Eric is knocked overboard. Ariel saves him.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Ariel pulls him to shore. Rescues him/saves him. She sings the reprise of Part of Your World, which actually she says Part of YOUR world now, and she wants to be with HIM. So, it’s gone from a general sense of like I want to be up on the surface to like I want to be wherever he is is where I want to be.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And then swims off as Max and Grimsby find Eric there on the beach.

**Craig:** Right. So, a couple of things. First off, we’ve got, of all the stuff that we sort of laid out there, including songs and action set pieces and meeting all these characters, that lightning storm happens at 22 minutes. So, it’s incredible how much they’ve jammed in to 22 minutes without feeling like it’s overstuffed or too rushed.

When she’s looking at him on the boat, the movie changes permanently to a romance. So, for the first 22 minutes it really is a story about a young woman who is struggling with her father’s inability to let her kind of wander off and experience life the way she wants to experience it. In that regard it’s very similar to Finding Nemo.

We can see parallels between this movie and Finding Nemo. Obviously they both take place under the water. And they are both about parents struggling with children who want to be free. Those parallels end pretty quickly right here on the 22nd minute when she just gets all googly-eyed for Eric.

And this is one of the lines in the sand where we can look at the Pixar era and this early Disney era… – Early Disney era? You and I were already grown men! — [laughs] But these Disney movies of the revitalization of the Disney era that started with The Little Mermaid was a fairytale princess and prince-oriented romantic era.

And so the stories are both buoyed and dragged down by the emphasis on straight ahead googly-eyed romance. It’s love at first sight which is a very simple, frankly not true, thing. And, also, the story then takes on a very adolescent nature. It is very much about a young woman who just wants to get a guy and has to figure out how to do it. And this is not a particularly feminist movie. We’ll see that as we go along.

But, anyway, this is the big change. I’ll say one other thing. When he washes up on shore and she’s cradling him and he’s kind of passed out, it is a very iconic representation of an adolescent fantasy. It is the fantasy of being found and being taken care of by a woman. It is the fantasy of finding and taking care of a helpless man. There is something about that, that kind of patient/nurse thing that is very ingrained in us in a sort of Jungian way.

And, also, I have to say one of the great comic takes in film history is when she’s holding him like this and you cut to Sebastian and his jaw drops and hits the rock with a clang.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** It is just a great example of how funny animation can be. And now it seems just a little corny, I suppose, but in its time it was spectacular. I mean, I remember the audience losing their minds.

**John:** Now, it’s important to note that this inciting incident, it changed the course of the story. It’s like that Passover Principle of like why today is like no other day, that everything is different. But unlike Finding Nemo, where Nemo gets pulled off and gets pulled away from his situation, she doesn’t get pulled away. It’s just that her ambition changes. Her ambition and her focus changes.

And she’s not going to be willing to live under the sea anymore. But it’s not like the storm pulled her away from her family or anything like that. It’s that her goals have changed. And because of that she is going to change the story, which is notable.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, if we had introduced the story, if we’d established the romance from the very start, like if she had seen Prince Eric on page 5, this would be a different thing because it would have been about just her wanting to be with this cute boy. Because we’ve established that she overall wants to get up to the surface and wants to live that life, it has a — I don’t know — I feel better we’re out in the movie, that it’s not just this teenage romance.

**Craig:** I agree. And all that stuff has kind of led to her conundrum. What we’ve established with the pre-romantic moment movie is that she can’t be part of their world regardless of love, because she’s a mermaid, she’s a fish, she doesn’t have legs.

I mean, she makes a big deal about legs and feet and walking in the sun. Really, it’s interesting how Ron and John really smartly specified her problem down to legs. Because she can breathe above water just fine. We see that. It’s just she doesn’t have legs. So, when she runs away from him, she’s aware that she can’t be with him if she has a fish bottom. She needs legs.

And in her mind, at this point in the movie all she knows is I can’t be with him because I don’t have legs. I really wish I could be with him. But they haven’t gone any further than that.

**John:** Specifically she sings, “What would I pay to stay here beside you?”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** Which is what she will do. She’ll pay with her soul.

**Craig:** Right. She hasn’t imagined that it’s even a possibility. It’s funny; she’s not depressed at all. When she goes back down under the ocean, she’s the opposite of depressed. The next thing we see is she’s like super duper in love girl, like la-da-da-da, swimming around, singing. Her sisters tell the dad, “Oh boy, she’s in love.”

**John:** Before we get under water, though, Ursula sees her up on the shore. And that, I think, is an important point to make. So, Flotsam and Jetsam have watched this, too. And we cut to Ursula who is forming a plan. And this is also a moment where we introduce what Ursula actually does. And she has this garden of souls, which is really disturbing.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And it was even disturbing watching it again as a grownup, because essentially these mer folk who have come to her — we’ll learn the specifics in the song in a little bit — but these mer-folk who have come to her asking for favors have invariably gotten their souls caught by her. And they are these little wretched newt things that are sort of stuck in the sand and are pathetic. And that’s the danger that we’ve established at this moment.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And that’s the danger that we’ve established at this moment.

**Craig:** Yes. And it was great to bring her back, again. You almost forget that she’s there and then there she is again. So, we just think, “Boy, there’s a lot going on dramatically in this story.”

It’s one of the reasons why Star Wars, I think, captivates kids even now today. Ariel and Luke Skywalker are essentially the same person. They’re both saying, I want to be part of that world up there, with the two suns, or up there by the beach. And then you get into that character drama and then you go, “Oh, wait, but also there’s Darth Vader.”

Same thing with Titanic. Watching these two people fall in love, I want to be part of his world. Oh, wait, there’s also an iceberg. Exciting.

**John:** Exciting. So, under the sea we see that the sisters have recognized that, oh, that girl is in love. Triton is like, “Oh, she’s in love? Well, Sebastian should know about this.” So he asks Sebastian. Sebastian is like, “Ah, la, la, la.” He’s sort of yada-yada-ing, like trying not to spill the beans.

And Sebastian is trying to convince Ariel like, “I know you like that boy up here, but everything is much better under the sea, which becomes Under the Sea, which is a very classic, iconic number from the show, which is again trying to establish why our world underneath here is better than the world above.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And this is the one I think actually got the Grammy nominations and sort of the acclaim at the time.

**Craig:** And they did an amazing job. It is an amazing song. Remarkably clever lyrics. There is, when you first start to listen to it you think this doesn’t need to be in the movie because we know that we’re under the sea and obviously they’ve been saying over and over that you shouldn’t go up there. So, why are we singing another song about how it’s better down here?

And then if you listen to the lyrics, they take a shift, and Sebastian starts singing about what it’s like up there. Up there they eat you. They fry you. They put you in fricassee. They chop you to bits. It’s a violent world up there to people like them.

So, even though the song is called Under the Sea, “come down here where it’s hotter and it’s more fun,” it’s not a song about home is great. What it really is a song about is stay away from the dangerous world up there. It’s a song of warning disguised as a calypso romp.

**John:** Yeah. Ariel and Flounder take off in the middle of this giant production number and Sebastian finishes the production number and realizes that, oh crap, they’re gone.

Triton summons him to say, like, “So tell me the specifics of who it is that she’s in love with.” Sebastian says, “Ah, la, la, la,” and finally gets the word out of it.

We’re in Ariel’s cave and Flounder has rescued this — somehow rescued sort of magically — this giant statue of Eric…

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah, I’m not quite sure how he did that.

**John:** Flounder had the help of a bunch of octopuses I guess? They sort of rescued the statue and brought it down.

**Craig:** He used a system of pulleys.

**John:** And this is a moment that I honestly felt went on too long and could have been trimmed down a bit. But, anyway, Triton comes and finds the cave and says, “You cannot go up with those humans anymore. I’m furious.” And he uses his trident to zap and fry all of the stuff that she’s gathered from places.

Now, I think it’s important that the father freak out, because when your father abandons you, the one man who you’re supposed to be safe with, when he gets scary and violent, it’s understandable that she’s going to run away.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It just went on a little long for me here.

**Craig:** I personally thought, it’s one of my favorite parts of the movie, only because there is something legitimate about his anger. And I always think about these movies, particularly these coming of age stories… — Well, if you look at Nemo, Nemo is the story about a parent. Nemo is a movie for parents about parenting. Kids enjoy it. They don’t realize that they’re watching a story about parenting, but they are.

This movie is a story about growing up. It is from the kid’s perspective. And when your father yells at you and you are smaller, that’s what it seems like to me. You know, that suddenly your dad gets big and orangey reddish and starts shooting fire. And she’s afraid of him. She is legitimately afraid of him.

And, of course, he’s blowing up the stuff that she’s gathered and she’s very upset because they mean something to her and they mean nothing to him. But, it all leads up to the final, you know, the crescendo that builds to the climax of him destroying the statue of Eric, which will then payback in this fascinating way.

This little moment where after he leaves, and he leaves, and Ron and John do a great job of showing that he’s remorseful. Every time he yells at her he walks away like, “Oh, maybe I overdid it.”

So, she’s upset and then along come Flotsam and Jetsam. And they’re there to say to her…

**John:** “There may be a way that you can get up there.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** “Have you heard of Ursula, like the sea witch?”

“Well, I couldn’t possibly.”

And it’s like, “Well, you possibly could. What’s the harm? You could at least talk with her.”

**Craig:** Right. And she’s sort of, you know, because everybody knows you don’t talk to Ursula the Sea Witch. She’s scary and she’s bad. And so Ariel properly is resisting this. So, okay, she’s not a dummy. But, as they’re kind of saying, “Oh, you know, she’s not that bad. And she could really help you out,” The face, Eric’s face from the statue, floats down and lands in the sand right next to her.

And she goes, “Okay, yeah, I think I’m going to go.” Because then it really is like, I love him, and I’m angry at daddy. And screw it. Let’s go talk to the sea witch and see how that goes.

And what’s interesting is we have a movie where the hero and the villain don’t meet eye to eye until minute 37, which is probably about halfway through this thing.

**John:** Yeah, it is. And so I would say overall as I was keeping track of time in this, it was like, “Ooh, things are happening a little bit later than I would have expected them to happen.” I don’t necessarily know that I wanted to rush through anything faster than this.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** But it’s strange though that in a movie that is actually pretty short because it’s an animated movie, it’s a very, very long first act. This movie is essentially a first act and a second act.

**Craig:** It is musical structure, no question. No question. It’s a musical structure movie. It’s a two-act movie. You can see where the curtain comes down for intermission. We’re about to get there.

**John:** So, Ariel goes to see the sea witch, Ursula. This is where we have Poor Unfortunate Souls which is a song that Ursula sings that explains sort of what she does, which is that people come to her with problems, this one wants to be thin, and this one wants to get the girl. Do I help them, yes indeed.

And, of course, sometimes they can’t pay the price and therefore they become these wretched — this wretched soul garden that she has. But this won’t happen to Ariel because, you know, because it won’t. And so this is where Ursula sets up the rules that in exchange for her voice she will have legs and she can go up to the surface. And she has three days in which to get true love’s kiss from the prince. And if she can do that then she’s fine; if not, then, well, she’s risking her soul.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. So, first, let’s talk about the song. Amazing. I mean, it’s so campy and wonderful. And this is, it’s just, I don’t know how you do better than this.

The first time we meet her actually, going way back to the beginning, Ursula is complaining about how she’s starving, and she’s just obese, like super big boozy old lady. It’s just great.

**John:** Modeled on Divine, the drag queen.

**Craig:** Big time. And the whole thing is just a very gay, campy presentation of this bigger than life woman. And the song title itself is spectacular. Poor Unfortunate Souls. You come to me and I help you because of your poor unfortunate souls. But what ends up happening to all of you. You all end up basically getting hoisted by your own petard. I get you. And now you are my own Poor Unfortunate Souls. And I literally have your souls now and they are poor and unfortunate. It’s a great little double entendre.

The song itself is kind of a masterpiece of seduction. This old woman, you know, here’s this young girl who is uncertain about her sexuality. She’s met a boy for the first time but he’s not a fish boy. He’s a human boy. And I don’t know what to do and my daddy is angry at me. It’s just classic sort of stuff.

And what does Ursula do? She slithers out of her big shell. She immediately puts on some makeup. She’s a woman. You know what I mean? As she sings this song she’s very enticing, like baby this is who it is to be a woman. These are the things we do. I understand that this is love and the things we do for love, but you’ll get your man. You know, she’s this big thing.

And then she tells Ariel she has to take her voice, she’s like, well then, “How am I going to get a man without a voice?” And she says, “Oh, you use that pretty face.”

**John:** “Body language.”

**Craig:** “Body language.” I mean, this big… — It’s just all about sort of the bad, bad mommy. And it’s about kind of taking advantage of this youthful girl. And so it’s this perfect little presentation of how to be a villain and how to be a seductive villain. And it’s so important that you be a seductive villain here so that we believe that Ariel is doing this because she’s been convinced, you know.

**John:** Well, the other important lesson here for screenwriting, though, is Ariel is making an irrevocable choice. I mean, what Ursula says is, “Life’s full of touch choices, innit?”

**Craig:** She goes, “Innit?”

**John:** “Innit.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Either you do this or you don’t get it at all. And if you do this there’s no going back. And so you’re going to lose your fins and you’re going to swim to the surface and that’s it. And that’s an important lesson to learn, because so often you’ll see stories in which characters are allowed to take these little sort of half steps. And you always feel like could go back home at any point. But, no, Ariel is essentially burning down her house.

She is changing her body permanently so she can go on to this next part of the story. And that’s an important lesson to learn.

**Craig:** Yes. And we’ll come back to this, sort of the ending. It always reminds me of the end of Grease where it turns out if you just put on the stretch pants and get a perm you can get a guy. That appears the lesson of that movie. The lesson of this movie is legs definitely help you get a dude.

But, for those of you who are looking for lessons here on how to apply any of this stuff to your own writing, there’s a little moment in this song that is a great example of how to both compress what you’re doing and layer it and enhance it by doing that.

We know that Ursula is a sea witch and she’s saying I can whip up a potion to do this. She starts making the potion while she’s convincing Ariel to still do it. She’s making the potion while Ariel is saying, “I’m not sure.” So, she is both convincing her and making the potion, which is very visual. And by making the potion almost like this is happening, kiddo. [laughs] You know? Get on board. It becomes a very smart confluence of lyric, seduction, character intention, and visuals.

**John:** Agreed. It’s a question of thinking about not then the character doe this. It’s like while the character is doing this. So, if you have characters, I mean, most movies you’re not going to have characters singing, but characters are going to be talking and doing other stuff. Well, don’t have them stand there and talk to the person straight on. They can be doing the thing that they’re talking about doing and present them with a finished choice rather than having to stop and make the potion.

**Craig:** Right-o.

**John:** So, we’re 43 minutes into the movie.

**Craig:** Let’s drop the curtain. It’s time for Act Two. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. Ariel becomes a human. And that really is very much a classic act break.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And what I had forgotten about the movie is that Ariel becomes human and suddenly she cannot be underwater. And so it’s only with the help of Flounder and Sebastian that she’s able to get up to the surface in time so she doesn’t drown. That was just a lovely, nice choice.

**Craig:** Correct. And for those of us who are into mermaids, and I am, I mean, she’s hot. Ariel is hot. I mean, okay, fine, whatever, she’s 16. But she’s not real, so I don’t feel like I’m really being gross about it. She was a hot mermaid. And she wears this little shell bra, but then her body, she doesn’t have to wear pants because she’s got a fish bottom. But when she gets out of the water…

**John:** But now she’s naked.

**Craig:** …she’s naked. And they do a really good job of cutting around her pelvis. It’s very frustrating. And then they eventually put clothes on her.

**John:** So, she gets up to the surface. Up at the surface we see Eric. He’s playing the melody of Part of Your World, I think.

**Craig:** I believe he’s actually… [hums]

**John:** [hums] Oh, he’s playing the same version. [hums]

**Craig:** Which is derived from Part of Your World.

**John:** Sebastian, while up at the surface, Sebastian is trying to, again, convince Ariel to go back. Maybe your father can save this, stop this somehow. But finally he agrees to help her.

This is, again, sort of Sebastian being C-3PO. Like, “No, no, no, we shouldn’t do this, we shouldn’t do this. Okay, fine, well then I’m going to help you because you’re helpless.”

Max finds her. Max the dog finds her. We have established that she can’t speak. That she’s really pretty but she can’t speak.

**Craig:** And therefore she can’t be the girl that he remembered, because the girl who rescued him had this wonderful voice.

**John:** Exactly. Yes. So, she’s lovely and all, but she can’t be that girl.

We dress her in some sail cloth and we send her off to the palace. She takes a bubble bath. We have dinner and the advisor, Grimsby. We re-payoff the fork and the pipe.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** She tries to use the fork at dinner and she tries to use the pipe and doesn’t know what it is. So, she seems really kooky and wacky because she doesn’t know what these things are.

I would honestly say that my least favorite part of this movie is Ariel on the surface.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** The fish out of water. Because she comes off as very much the manic pixie dream girl. And this is a girl who worked really hard underneath the sea and on the land she just doesn’t sort of put the pieces together. We don’t see her being smart on the land.

**Craig:** Yeah. A bunch of things happen to really make this the saggiest part of the movie. It’s hard to trump “I’ve just turned you into a human.” You know, that’s a big deal.

We’ve taken away her voice. It is necessary for the story, but it also then naturally turns her character into kind of a silent movie goofball. And the fact that Eric takes her in and she has the wishful foam and bubble bath and the fancy dress gets put on. And, you know, she’s at dinner with this guy she’s in love with. It’s getting very super rom-com-y. It’s played for goofs. And then, unfortunately, we get the song Les Poissons.

Now, I love Les Poissons…

**John:** But it’s just a song.

**Craig:** It’s just a song.

**John:** It’s just a musical number.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, this is just a song in which the cook is talking about all the fish that he’s going to put into the stew and he tries to kill Sebastian. And it’s a payoff I guess to the idea of how dangerous the world is up above. It’s what Sebastian said before. But it’s not all that useful.

**Craig:** It’s not, because the truth is that danger for her is gone. She has legs now. So, no one is going to cook her. Sebastian is there because he’s watching her. The song, Les Poissons, is incredibly clever. I mean, really smart wordplay. And the sequence is entirely for laughs, although it gets a little gory and creepy in it. But the biggest issue with it is it could just be lifted from the movie entirely and the story wouldn’t change.

**John:** Nothing would change one bit.

**Craig:** But, you know, I guarantee you that it was one of the top rated songs and a crowd favorite and that’s why they’re keeping it.

**John:** Yeah. But, again, it’s pointing out the fact that she doesn’t have anything to do and she’s not actually trying to do anything.

**Craig:** Precisely.

**John:** We’ve established this rule that she has three days to do it, but — I’m not spoiling anything to the movie we’re about to talk through — she doesn’t do anything. She’s not trying to do anything. And it’s a weird case where like you don’t want her to try too hard because then it’s not really true love. At the same time, you want to see her sort of making more of an effort. Instead, everyone around her is trying to make an effort to make this happen, including this next song, Kiss the Girl, which is a better number. At least it’s on story point, which is a number led by Sebastian where he’s trying to get all the other animals to sing the song and make the most romantic moment possible so that Eric will actually kiss her.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so it’s this boat ride and it’s lovely. To me, this also went on a little bit long.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a romantic thing and they almost kiss and all the rest of it. What you’re starting to feel the burden of is her lack of choices. And, yes, she doesn’t have a voice, but she also isn’t making a choice either. She makes one huge choice, “Turn me into a human.” Once she does that, she makes no choice again for the rest of the movie.

And this where you can see Ron and John getting much, much better with Aladdin and with Beauty and the Beast. And Disney movies to follow as well, Pocahontas and so forth. And certainly the Pixar movies take it to another level. But we are now firmly in fairy tale-ville, where we started with this really kind of self-directed aspirational female character who is now curiously sort of as she physically evolved, emotionally devolved into passive and moony faced.

She will not choose anything again. She will not learn anything for the rest of the movie. And this is my, you know, when we get to the end we’ll sort of talk like who is the hero of this movie? It’s actually kind of hard to figure out because thematically it’s quite thin. And in terms of choices it becomes very, very thin. It becomes a very plot-oriented movie in the second act.

**John:** So, spit-balling, but I would say if you were to rebuild this in a way so that this second act could actually have something for her to do, if on the surface there was something that they were planning on doing that was going to hurt the kingdom or it would have some greater impact on the world that she discovers while she’s up there and needs to involve herself to stop it. That she needs to be selfless to stop it. That would be showing her making some choices. And complicated by the fact that she can’t speak and therefore can’t do these things.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But instead it’s just, you know, be pretty so that he’ll kiss you. And that’s not a playable action.

**Craig:** It’s not. And it gets papered over by this beautiful song — it’s actually a beautiful song — and again, Menken and Ashman, just an incredible job. You know, now that I think about it, it becomes evident and I’m just sort of racing ahead here to the end, but it becomes evident that really King Triton is the protagonist of the movie. And he’s the person who sort of articulates an anti-theme and a theme and makes the biggest choices. He makes a choice of sacrifice. And he makes a choice of ultimate sacrifice at the end.

Which is interesting, because I’m sure when I watched the movie I thought it was her, but I don’t think it is.

**John:** Yeah, not every father is going to have to give up his soul, but every father is going to have to give up his daughter.

**Craig:** Right. And he chooses to do both, right.

**John:** Yeah, that’s thematic choice.

So, specifically what’s happening here, so we have this Kiss the Girl sequence. They almost kiss. They don’t quite kiss. Flotsam and Jetsam sort of rock the boat at the last moment. Ursula realizes, oh no, this is getting too close, she’s actually going to get the kiss, so she’s going to have to get more involved. And we see Ursula casting this great spell. And she’s going to use the voice that she has from Ariel to win over this guy.

**Craig:** Right. She transforms herself into this beautiful girl and because she has the voice, and this is also one of the things I wasn’t quite thrilled with — Eric sees this beautiful girl who has this voice that he remembered, but that’s not what convinces him to marry her. What convinces him is she basically puts a spell on him to marry her.

**John:** Yeah. It’s like a hat on a hat. So, is it because she has the voice and is beautiful, or is it because he’s charmed. And they sort of do both. Like you see his eyes change colors and such.

**Craig:** Right. And he talks robot language.

**John:** Robotically. Not the strongest moment here. So, I think you’ve got to pick one or pick the other.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s also, frankly, it’s a little annoying that she’s cheating, Ursula is cheating. And by cheating, you start to feel like, well, okay, I bought into all these roles. It’s not fair that you’re cheating. And our hero, or our presumable hero, still isn’t making any choices. In fact, she just sort of gets cast aside.

**John:** So, an option here, which I’m not sure is a better option, but would have been an option. If we established that there was another princess, like the girl who he’s supposed to love, he’s supposed to marry, and then Ursula went to that girl and gave her this thing, or appeared as that girl, and it’s someone who’s established in this world. And it’s like, “Oh, I thought you actually were this girl the whole time,” then that would be more reasonable. So, there’s already a rival romantic interest.

But instead it’s just like a girl who shows up from nowhere who suddenly he’s going to get married to. And the news that he’s going to get married to, it’s kind of interesting, but it’s kind of — again, points out sort of how disconnected Ariel is from her own story at this point.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Scuttle, the seagull, shows up in her bedroom one morning and says, “Great news, kid. There’s going to be a royal wedding.” And it’s like, “Oh, that’s great, that’s fantastic. He’s going to marry me.” No, no, he’s going to marry this other girl. It’s like, really? You are that disconnected from the whole story that you didn’t realize that he’d met this other girl and this other thing was going to happen? Frustrating.

**Craig:** I know. It is. And you’re just starting to feel the burden of the fact that she’s so passive here. And there’s this attempt at a wedding. The sea creatures rally together to disrupt it. She fights her way back on board. In the melee the little shell with Ariel’s voice gets knocked off of Hot Ursula’s neck, lands by Ariel’s feet.

Ariel gets her voice back. Eric runs over. “Oh my god, it was you the whole time.” They’re about to kiss and the sun goes down. And she turns back into a mermaid. Which, you know, I have to say, okay, great, because I’m sure at some point somebody said, “They kiss and she lives happily ever after.” And that would have been boring.

And then Ursula goes nuts.

**John:** Let’s talk about that, because we do split into three action threads here as we get into the royal wedding sequence, which are worth discussing. And none of them worked brilliantly, but they were definitely the right ideas.

First off, Flounder and Ariel are going to go towards the boat. So, the wedding is going to happen on this boat. And Ariel and Flounder are going to be on the boat. Well, she can’t swim, which I think is such an interesting idea. So, she’s this mermaid who can’t swim, so she’s on this barrel and Flounder has to pull her.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It doesn’t really quite work, but it’s the right idea.

Sebastian goes to tell Triton and to get Triton involved. That’s the right idea. And Scuttle goes to lead the other birds and other animals to try to disrupt the wedding, which is a good comedy idea. So, those are all the kind of general right ideas. And Scuttle is the one who actually figured out that Vanessa was in fact the sea witch and what all was happening.

Again, the fact that this minor character has such a more important role than Ariel at this point is frustrating and is an indication that something is not working quite right.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s what’s going to try to happen. Triton, this is where we get to the point of Triton makes the ultimate sacrifice. He says like, “Instead of taking my daughter’s soul you can take my soul,” which is, of course, what Ursula wants more than anything else.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, he’s willing to take his daughter’s place in this. Ursula will get his trident and his crown. And in a surprising amount of new power becomes this giant monstrous creature who rises from the ocean.

**Craig:** Correct. She does. She rises from the ocean. She’s at first sort of just delighted that she’s back in power. But, Eric, who has decided he’s not going to let Ariel go again, so everybody’s more active than Ariel at this point, swims down and kind of jabs her in the leg.

And that makes Ursula super angry. She tries to kill him by shooting her trident and in doing so misses. I think Ariel knocks into her, she misses. And she kills Flotsam and Jetsam instead. And this gets her super angry and she turns into this big, huge, crazy octopus monster thing.

**John:** Yeah. Eric pulls the ship around and rams her with the front of the ship, the sort of mermaid front of the ship. And kills Ursula with the front of the ship. And Ursula dies.

In Ursula’s death her magic is undone. Triton returns. The poor unfortunate souls return. And order is once again restored to things. Ariel is still a mermaid until…

**Craig:** Well, wait, hold on. Let’s point out that there is an entire climax and Ariel did noting.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Nothing. She did nothing. She sat there and watched it like we did, which I have to say is the part of this that’s sort of for girls was frustrating for me. That this very promising young woman turned into sort of a helpless passerby. And, you know, I didn’t like that that much. I should point out that there’s, just aside from all this, one of the strangest moments in animation history is when Ursula is dying and gets kind of like hit by lightning, and we see her skeleton inside of her body.

And she has a fat skeleton. [laughs] It’s fascinating.

**John:** [laughs] Nothing better than a fat skeleton.

Yes, these are my concerns as well. And so this may be apocryphal, I don’t know if it’s actually true. The story is that, I mean, the ending of the movie was originally quite a bit different. And Katzenberg saw Die Hard and came back and said, “The ending must be much, much, much bigger.” And so they threw out the last reel and wrote a much bigger ending.

And I can tend to believe that in a sense of like the movie’s scale suddenly increases hugely beyond where it had been anywhere before. And it doesn’t kind of track logically how some of this all fits together. First off, like why is she so powerful?

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Why does the trident give her so much more power than Triton seems to have? Also, why did no one kill the witch before now? I mean, if she was out there and she was killable, why did no one try to kill her before now? It raised sort of strange questions for me.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And it felt out of scale. And also there’s got to be a solution in which Ariel can actually do something.

**Craig:** To me that’s the biggest one. I mean, look, you’re right. There are some logic issues there. You could sort of presuppose that because she’s a very magical person, if you combine her already powerful magic with the trident then maybe she could do all of this stuff.

She’s killed by, she creates a whirlpool and Eric rides a kind of dredged up wreck of a ship upwards through the whirlpool and then basically steers the prow into her. So, that’s a pretty big thing to kill her. But, yeah, she’s killable. But my biggest issue is just that Ariel is not doing anything.

By the way, neither is Triton. That’s the other thing. I mean, either she’s the protagonist, or Triton is the protagonist. I kind of think Triton is. Either way, one of the two of them has to do something here. Instead we have Eric doing it.

**John:** Triton at this point, he’s a soul in the garden though.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** He’s already given up. So, he’s a little worm guy.

**Craig:** He can’t do anything. She can do something.

**John:** But, by the way, who’s in our movie that’s not doing anything important. Ariel, first and foremost. Sebastian. Flounder, who’s kind of useless, but Flounder should do something. And there’s all these characters who we established could and should do something, or the sisters even had been better established.

These people should be doing something and they’re not getting a chance to do anything. And that is a frustration that comes out. And it just feels really rushed because it honestly is rushed, partly because it’s an animated movie and there’s an expectation about how long an animated movie can last.

**Craig:** Well, sure…

**John:** Kids can only go so long without having to run to the bathroom.

**Craig:** But I think that what we’re dealing with here is the climax ultimately feels a little meaningless because we’ve run out of thematic juice. When you look at the climax of Finding Nemo, Marlin sends Nemo into that big fishing net to get Dory out. And that is thematically valuable because he’s tracked his son down after all this time. He wants nothing more than to have his son back and safe. And he’s gotten him.

And he now has to let him go again on purpose, into danger on purpose. And so it’s such a pregnant act, you know; there’s so much value to that act. And the aftermath of it is so heartbreaking because we think he’s lost his son again by making that choice that he felt he finally needed to make.

Nothing like that happens here. This is really just action. It’s just sort of action and noise, because there is no thematic value to her. I mean, look, if you were to write a modern version of The Little Mermaid, I suspect it would be about a little mermaid who believes she needs to be human for some reason only to realize, no, I must be a mermaid. I want to be a mermaid. I don’t want to be a human at all.

That’s not this movie. [laughs]

**John:** I would argue that The Little Mermaid myth, that the story is really much more like the Persephone myth which is like she lives some of the time above the ground and some of the time in the underworld. And she’s meant to live in those two worlds simultaneously.

I think she should be in both places. But that’s not what we’ve got here. Instead what we end up with at the very end is Triton is like, “I was wrong.” He zaps her and gives her legs back so she can live as a human. And the last line is, “I love you, Daddy.” Oh, okay.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so the ending feels incredibly abrupt and rushed after that big production number, which is so weird because we spent such a good long time with people in the first act establishing things, to sort of race through the ending was disappointing to me.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, they have a wedding. It’s very fairytale. I mean, that’s what it is. But the truth is the most disappointing thing about the ending was that I found it unsatisfying that… — What I like, especially in animated movies, and this is where they went very quickly; you could see it happening in Aladdin for instance. I like when a character in the beginning of the movie says, “I want this.” And at the end of the movie they say, “I want the opposite of that.” I finally figured it out, okay.

Shrek wants his swamp and to be left alone. At the end: I don’t want my swamp; I want to risk rejection for love.

Here, in this movie, she wants to be somebody else and to be a human. And at the end of the movie she wants to be somebody else and to be a human. There’s no real change, or progression, or growth in this character. She is not one of my favorite Disney characters. And on top of that, there is a weird kind of “I’m a girl; I will literally leave my family and be physically altered so I can be with you.”

How about giving him fish body? Why doesn’t he come down here.

**John:** Yeah, that’s the obvious choice. Triton says, “I can’t make you a human.”

**Craig:** “But I can make him a fish.”

**John:** “Can you make me a merman?”

**Craig:** Right. That would be cool. By the way, that’s how Splash ended. And Splash is a much better mermaid story. So, in any case, this movie, I think, has more value in terms of what it began, both in terms of its music and the animation itself, and a lot of the choices that were made — tone and so forth — than its own movie.

I think what this movie led to, particularly with Musker and Clements, and with Ashman and Menken, I think. That’s where the value is. It’s what it started.

**John:** I think it’s also a valuable movie for talking about just hitting those bells really hard in terms of like this is a character, establishing what she wants and being very clear about what she wants. Characters identifying what their goals are in the movie. Not necessarily paying off those goals especially well, but establishing what they are. And that’s important.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** A few little bits of trivia that I noticed as I was watching the movie again. First, one of the opening credits is Silver Screen Partners IV. So, Silver Screen Partners was sort of, I want to say it was a Kickstarter of the day, just to anger you. So, Silver Screen Partners is this fascinating thing where Disney raised money by essentially selling shares of the profits of their upcoming movies.

And so they would put together this big financing package and ordinary investors could invest in them. And so I think my dad actually invested in one of these at some point, like $1,000 or whatever. And in success you would get paid back from these movies doing really well.

It’s fascinating that we don’t do those now. But, it was an interesting idea at the time.

**Craig:** Yeah. My guess is we don’t do them because essentially the studios would make it such that if the movie were successful they wouldn’t give much money at all, and also they wouldn’t want to give out any money, frankly. So, they just want to keep the money and success. They would much rather just own all the success, I suppose.

But, there are also some names as you look through the credits that are family. I mean, like I mentioned, Joe Ranft, who passed away unfortunately way too young in a car accident, I believe; but he was a big guy at Pixar, so you can see him here as a story artist.

Glen Keane is sort of a Disney legend. A lot of great guys.

Interesting, also, to look at the casting of the movie. And frankly, I think, this is a trend I wish we could recapture. The movie is not cast with celebrities. It’s cast with voice actors. The woman who sings the part of Ariel is also the voice of Ariel, which I think is great. That sort of started to drift away as well. And now we’ve sort of landed here, and I think this is also an area where it wasn’t so much the early Disney movies, but I’m not sure what the first animated movie was that sort of exploded that. Maybe it was Aladdin when everybody went crazy for Robin Williams?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But now we’re in an era where you have to have famous people doing your voices, or no one is going to go to it.

**John:** Yeah. Whether they’re the right people or not.

**Craig:** Right. That’s a shame. But that’s the world.

**John:** Craig, thank you for taking about The Little Mermaid.

**Craig:** Thank you. It was a great suggestion. And, you know, it was nice to talk about a movie that isn’t perfect and isn’t sort of, you know; look, I think Raiders is a very special movie and I love it. I actually think sometimes we can learn just as much from what movies don’t do right for you and me.

On the whole, even if we’re giving The Little Mermaid a little stick here, it is a really enjoyable film to watch. It was wildly successful for excellent reason. Some brilliant people involved. So, for all of the things that maybe weren’t what we look at now and say in hindsight are correct, there was so much done that was great. And the spirit of it was so pure and nice.

So, overall, I remain a fan.

**John:** I remain a huge fan, too. Craig, thank you, and I will talk to you next week.

**Craig:** Sounds good, John. All right, bye.

**John:** Bye.

LINKS:

* Scriptnotes, Episode 73: [Raiders of the Lost Ark](http://johnaugust.com/2013/raiders-of-the-lost-ark)
* Wikipedia on [Hans Christian Andersen’s The Little Mermaid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid) and [Disney’s 1989 version](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(1989_film))

Scriptnotes, Ep 91: Bechdel and Batman — Transcript

May 31, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/bechdel-and-batman).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 91 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

How are you, Craig?

**Craig:** Pretty good. You know, the last time critics kicked my balls in, I was in pretty bad shape. This time I didn’t even…I didn’t feel it. [laughs] It’s pretty good actually, yeah. I learned some good lessons from the last time, one of which was that critics hate what I do, for sure, consistently.

**John:** Did you learn the lesson to not read reviews?

**Craig:** I did. I did not read the reviews.

**John:** Oh, good.

**Craig:** So, whatever they wrote was wasted on me. I mean, it’s always been wasted on me apparently, but even wasted emotionally on me.

So, the movie, by the time this comes out the movie will have sort of had its big opening weekend. It’s doing well. It’s not doing great, you know. It’s doing well enough for it to be considered a hit movie, I guess. But, it’s doing okay.

**John:** So, it’s not blowing the ceiling off the movie business?

**Craig:** Well, you know the thing is Hangover II was nuts, you know. I mean, it made, I don’t know whatever it made, $120 million in its first weekend or something crazy and set all sorts of crazy box office records. And, you know, so it’s just sort come back to earth here for the last one. And I think probably, I don’t know, maybe like $50 million by the time the weekend is done, which, I mean, for any other movie I’d be like, “Holy!”

**John:** “Holy!”

**Craig:** Yeah, but you know, it’s The Hangover, so I guess it’s like a big thing. The point is, but people seem to like it. It got a B CinemaScore, which again, it’s okay. I would have liked to have seen… — The funny thing is The Hangover Part II got an A- , I guess, and though the narrative that developed between then and now was that everybody hated it. I don’t know how that happened exactly, but that’s what developed. For this one, B. You know, that’s okay.

I think actually Identity Thief got a B, too, and that found — but it was like a strong B. It was sort of like, okay, well there are a bunch of people that went opening weekend and so I don’t know what a B means. 80% of them thought it was very good and maybe 20% didn’t. But then that 80% really loved it and they kept coming back week, after week, after week.

**John:** Can we stop for a second and talk about CinemaScore because I think I understand it, but it’s possible that I’m actually misunderstanding what it is. My belief is that CinemaScore is a corporation that goes and they actually ask people who bought a ticket for the movie what they thought of the movie as they’re leaving the theater. Is that correct?

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s essentially an exit poll.

**John:** So, a thing to keep in mind with that is you’re asking people what they thought of the movie right after they saw it. And if they loved the movie right after they saw it, if it ended really well, they’re going to probably say they really liked it. And as you’re testing movies that would be like sort of the top two boxes, like how they felt right after they saw it in the theater. But if you were to ask them again in a week, their opinion could have changed on the movie and you won’t have a good way of measuring that.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. There are a bunch of things that are sort of built into it that are a little confounding, one of which is that you’re asking people who wanted to go see the movie what they thought of it. So, you are both getting the benefit of people who are naturally inclined towards that movie, but you’re also getting the downside of whatever dissatisfaction of disappointment factor there might be. It’s a bit different than when you just test a movie people go, “Oh, okay, well it’s free. I didn’t pay for it. I had no expectations. Yeah, I liked it. I didn’t like it. Whatever.” So, both of those things are going on.

And then, you’re right, there is just the general bias of, okay, it’s five minutes after you saw a movie. What will you think about it a week later, two weeks later? Who knows?

But, the nice thing is that for this movie I’ve gotten probably the best feedback I’ve ever gotten from my professional friends.

**John:** Good.

**Craig:** They liked this movie the most for sure. I got really nice emails. And I haven’t gotten that — I didn’t get those on that level for Identity Thief. I had some nice ones, but not like this. But people, I don’t know, for whatever reason my writer friends really seem to like this movie. Critics, of course, [laughs] remain consistent.

But The Hangover is done. It’s over. I move on.

**John:** Yeah, so you can take the cures for that, which is a lot of money, and some good fatty food, and some aspirin.

**Craig:** I’m going to try and avoid fatty food. Actually, no cure is required. I’m very happy and proud of it all. And this weekend, so just before everybody listens to this podcast, I will have spent the great bulk of Memorial Day opening weekend with my son in Irvine at a baseball tournament.

**John:** Hooray!

**Craig:** Yeah, so plenty to focus on that has nothing to do with Hollywood. But for now we should focus on — we have three topics today.

**John:** We do. First thing I want to talk about is something you and I started talking about on Twitter which is the Bechdel Test.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Second we’re going to take a look at a lesson that someone pointed out about superheroes and some traits that superheroes tend to share.

And finally we’ll take a look at Justin Marks’s article about the life of an unknown screenwriter.

**Craig:** And while we’re doing this, you may — I’m sorry to apologize to everybody in advance. So, I don’t know if you can hear that. Can you hear that?

**John:** Yeah, are you like drawing something?

**Craig:** No, it’s a mouse. Why would I be using a mouse? Huh? A mouse?

…Because I spilled Diet Coke on my laptop earlier today.

**John:** Oh my.

**Craig:** And the track pad on my MacBook Pro is totally — it’s gone insane. It does work, the problem is it works, but now it just moves on its own.

**John:** You don’t want that at all. So, you’re going to try to get the moisture out of there. What everyone will actually write in and recommend that you do…

**Craig:** Rice. A bag of rice.

**John:** Yeah. A bag of rice.

**Craig:** I will try the bag of rice. But in the meantime the problem is not only — basically the same software that drives the track pad also drives the external Bluetooth track pad I had. So, that was like, okay, that will work. No, that doesn’t work either.

I’ve had to disable my track pad and use a wired mouse. And by the way for those of you who are on Mac OS 10, if you ever do need to disable your track pad while having a mouse plugged in, you can do that, but you have to check a box that’s in your Accessibility Panel in System Preferences.

**John:** Holy cow.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** Because basically you have to like climb back into 1999 to use a wired mouse.

**Craig:** Yup. Yup. Yup. That’s where I am. So, you may hear some drawing/scratching noises as I access the various things that we’re talking about today.

**John:** It will go really well with my dry cough.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s a little barky.

**John:** Yeah. That’s where we’re at today.

**Craig:** Do you have Bordetella? [laughs]

**John:** It sort of sounds like it. I will actually buy cough syrup after this, because last night both my husband and I had that sort of dry non-productive cough, which is just the worst.

**Craig:** That’s the worst. That usually turns into something terrible, actually.

**John:** Actually, I looked it up and usually it’s actually the remnants of a cold rather than something, not something else.

**Craig:** Oh, is that what it is?

**John:** Yeah, so I had a cold, now it’s gone. People don’t care about our health. They care about things like the Bechdel Test. So, let’s get into that.

**Craig:** Right. Fine.

**John:** So, this is something that actually came up on Twitter and it was in reference to Star Trek into Darkness. And someone pointed out like, “Oh hey, did you notice that Star Trek into Darkness does not pass the Bechdel Test?”

And this is something I was familiar with and you were probably familiar with it before. This is something that goes back — I first blogged about it in 2010, but it actually dates back to 2005. And it’s based on the work of a cartoonist named Alison Bechdel.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** It was amended and sort of clarified by others over the years. But this is basically the three traits of the Bechdel Test. Are there two or more female characters with names? First criteria. Second criteria: Do they talk to each other? Third criteria: If they talk to each other, do they talk about something other than a man?

And so this would seem to be an incredibly low bar to climb over…

**Craig:** And yet!

**John:** …and yet many, many, many movies, probably — well, not most movies, but maybe most movies, don’t get over it. And a surprising amount of movies don’t get over it. And so you can find lists online that will chart all these movies that pass the test or don’t pass the test. The question I want to discuss with you: Is it a meaningful thing to be looking at in terms of movies, or not? And how is it helpful/how is it harmful to be looking at movies with these kind of criteria?

**Craig:** Right. So, yeah, I think that it actually is fascinating. I think it’s fascinating in its elegance. It’s very rare for somebody to come up with something so simple and so simple that is also so remarkably robust across movies.

And I think when I first read about the Bechdel Test I was kind of blown away, because we live in a time when people are constantly attempting to hold mirrors up to us and say, “Look at yourself. Look at your privilege. Look at your this-ism, look at your that-ism.” It’s become an industry.

And so much of it is just crap. And this wasn’t — it was actually really good. And it made an amazing insightful point.

And it’s funny, I was just looking here and I see Identity Thief was on there. We get two out of three kind of. We have two named women, they do talk to each other. The official Bechdel Test determination is that they only talk about another man, that’s Jason Bateman, but then a commenter points out that in fact, no, that Diana, Melissa McCarthy’s character does also talk to Frannie and Jessie, the two little girls about things that aren’t a man.

So, I believe that I did pass the test there.

**John:** I believe you did pass the test as well.

**Craig:** I guess my big thing is is it useful to be considering when you’re writing? And I guess I don’t think so. Maybe after you’ve written, but I hate sort of imposing anything artificial. Because what if you have a woman that doesn’t — you know, it’s not that you’re being sexist. The movie is, in fact, about men and a woman. Or, the movie is about women about men, you know? That is part of life, so I guess I’m a little ambivalent about whether or not it’s useful a priori.

**John:** Yeah. I agree with you that it’s very nice that it’s so simple and clear and largely objective. I mean there are times when you quibble about, you know, did they actually talk about that? Or with Frankenweenie there is this argument whether Weird Girl is actually a named character, because she clearly talks to other women in the story but does she have a name? She basically has a name. She has a name to the degree that any character in that movie has a name.

What I do like is it is largely objective. And so rather than talking about, you know, feminist ideals or sort of gender politics, it literally is check-box marking.

Now, our mutual friend Beth might argue that it’s actually just sort of meaningless checkbox marking and that you could check all those boxes and still make a movie that is terrible, or a movie that is actually antithetical to women’s progress.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But it doesn’t necessarily have to achieve any goal other than just measuring whether this movie falls into this category or doesn’t fall into this category. And that can be useful in itself.

Where I might disagree with you, I think it is a useful test in the planning process for screenwriters to think about the Bechdel Test. Because when I’ve stopped in the early development process on a script and thought like, oh, will this actually pass, and realize it didn’t, I can start to think like, well, what would need to change for it to pass? And is that change a useful change regardless? And so that’s, I think, a useful way for screenwriters to be thinking about the Bechdel Test.

So, a specific example is my movie Monsterpocalypse which will never get made because it’s way too much like Pacific Rim, but the principal characters in that were two brothers and a sister. And they were all very competent, like a three-hero kind of lead story. So, the sister is largely talking to her two brothers, but there were times where she was off by herself in her own sort of story, her own adventure. And I realized that, crap, because the mother is killed off early on she is not going to have a chance to talk to any other women. And this movie is going to fail the Bechdel Test which seems crazy, but that’s what was going to happen.

So, I knew I needed her to meet this other scientist character way out in the badlands of South Dakota. Well, what if that scientist character was a woman? So, it at least got me thinking of that. And so that character who I just very blatantly called Bechdel became an important character, became a woman in ways that was actually interesting. And the whole like little museum that they’re held up into, or they were using as sort of their base, was actually kind of fascinatingly informed by this idea of like women in science.

So, that was a useful thing for me to be thinking about in the development process.

**Craig:** And I do agree. I guess the way I approach it is I like thinking about it in general, not about a specific story, just in general about screenwriting. I generally think about trying to write women in places where another screenwriter might write a man, when I can.

And, again, you and I both know better than anybody, we don’t control the casting of our films, even when we write a character’s gender. That can get changed.

The only thing I… — It’s funny, the condition that kind of bugs me about it a little bit is the “talk to each other” one. So, yes, fewer than two women in this movie that have names, totally — that makes total sense to me. Women only talking to each other about men. Yeah, I get that, too. That is annoying. Women have rich lives beyond simply their interest in men. It’s that they’re talking to each other that’s somehow really important. Why?

Why is that — I’m not understanding. I don’t understand. Because if I have a movie with ten women and one man, and the women are acting on their own in interesting powerful ways, and when they talk to someone they’re talking to a man and they’re talking about things that have nothing to do with men, why is that somehow failing this test of, I guess, gender progression?

**John:** I would argue that the reason why that criteria of talking to each other, it’s a very simple test. You can say like, “Did they talk to each other or did they not talk to each other?” It’s a binary condition — did that happen or did that not happen? Whereas it otherwise becomes a little bit amorphous.

The other thing, which is worth pointing, is when you look at the reverse Bechdel Test, basically this would be are there two or more male characters with names; do the two men talk to each other; do they talk about something other than a woman. Almost no movies fail that test. And so it is worthwhile to think about the fact that are you just creating movies in which there’s one girl in it and she’s just “the girl” and doesn’t have any chance to interact with other women.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And in a certain way are you creating — are you perpetuating a system in which women are only as good as the men they are interacting with? And that women interacting with women is not a useful thing to be seen?

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m with you on that. I mean, I get that. I guess for me there are ways for women to be in charge and actually be more powerful than the men in the movie and for there to be multiple named important women in the movie who talk about things that have nothing to do with men but maybe are, just because of the way the movie lines up, aren’t talking to each other. I’m not sure, like that part.

And I sort of flowed to this on Twitter, Reverse Bechdel. There’s no value to it because there isn’t an issue with the way men are portrayed in movies. But I could imagine a test that many movies would fail where the topic is we can’t — do men talk about things other than women, crime, partying, or a job?

Now, granted, I’ve just expanded the topics, but you know, I don’t talk about job, partying — in fact, take out job. The test is do men talk about something other than women, partying, or crime? And I think a lot of movies would fail when in fact typically on a given day most men aren’t talking about partying or crime at all.

**John:** Yeah. In a more general sense I would say that I tend to find movies fascinating where a woman has to make an ethical choice, because so rarely do we see that. And an example for me is Michael Clayton, where Tilda Swinton’s character is sort of this corporate monster and you see her doing these terrible things and you just never see — you so rarely see a woman sort of in that position, doing those terrible things. And where we’ve seen like the “white guy” do that a thousand times.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. And the reason I think for that, we’ve talked about it before, is that there’s a natural bias that I think everyone has, men and women, towards women being more moral than men. And the reason we have that bias is because it’s true. It’s true — women are more moral than men. Just look at violent crime statistics. And just right off the bat, just murder statistics alone, we can say that men are just…

**John:** Much more likely to murder somebody than a woman.

**Craig:** Vastly more likely to murder. Vastly more likely to maim, to rape, to steal. Men are just morally worse than women. So, naturally we push these things in drama.

I should point out that I got my ass handed to me by critics because I dared to make a female character unlikeable and then ask you to like her. And there was a level of sexism to it, I felt. That there was just frankly a level of sexism because I’ve seen so many comedies where men are behaving boorishly but yet it’s charming.

Wedding Crashers somehow critics had no problem falling in love with two guys who literally lie and cheat their way into weddings to have sex with women and then abandon them. But, you know, when you have a woman make weird ethical choices like Melissa McCarthy’s character did in Identity Thief, she’s just an awful person and how could we ever like her. It’s gross to me.

And that part is sexist. The part where people criticize me is sexist. [laughs]

**John:** Still going back to Star Trek into Darkness, the women in the movie are Uhura and Carol Marcus are sort of the only — I’m trying to think if there are any other women who are…

**Craig:** Boy, they kind of stepped it in on that one, didn’t they?

**John:** Yeah. So, Carol Marcus, the issue with that which they did, sort of both Damon and JJ went on press to talk about the scene where she’s changing clothes. It feels gratuitous in the movie just because of how it was put into the movie. And I get that. I think it’s a weird complaint to level against that movie compared to like 90% of other movies, but I understand people’s concern. There’s an opportunity to — to me, if you were to want to address the Bechdel of it all, a good opportunity would be to do essentially the Tilda Swinton thing and take Carol Marcus’s father, who is the — this is a mild spoiler, this is not going to ruin this movie for anybody — take the Peter Weller character who is Carol Marcus’s father and make that her mother. And to me that would be a really fascinating character to have the woman who is the war mongerer, she is going to do whatever it takes to get rid of those Klingons and make this thing happen.

That would have been an interesting choice, for me, if I were making Star Trek into Darkness.

**Craig:** Yeah. Star Trek is kind of in a funky little trap because it’s based on a television show that was remarkably progressive for the 1960s, but remarkable progressive for the 1960s meant that there was one woman on the bridge of the ship, and she was black, which was a crazy huge thing. Well, okay, they’ve carried that through. Their captain isn’t a woman, and Spock isn’t a woman.

I don’t know. I mean, it’s possible just for interest sake, given that they have a whole sideways timeline thing going on, I don’t know, if Bones were a woman or something, but Star Trek is one of those things to me that’s like progressive politics but really it’s just Flash Gordon. I mean, space warriors will always be space warriors.

Yeah. It would be cool if they did a little bit more there, but look, I wrote The Hangover movies. What the hell?

**John:** In the Academy panel I did I actually talked with Damon a little bit about this, because one of the challenges of making a Star Trek movie is that you’re dealing with a vision of the future that was actually a 1960s vision of what the future is supposed to be, so how do you both honor the future that we see from here and the future that they saw from there? And I think largely they’ve done a very smart job of it. And there are things you can sort of like poke at, but are also sort of like understandable choices. Things like, you know, the communicators are flip open, which is like, well, nothing does that anymore. But that’s the way it does in the original canon. That’s what it is.

And they’ve found other ways to sort of update the uniforms so they’re both the old idea but also something that a person could conceivably wear in this future time. This was an opportunity where I thought they could have done something different and yet I can see why they did what they did.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that — and this is where Bechdel kind of starts to become annoying a little bit, because the one thing I don’t think anybody would want this test to be, including the people who initially popularized it, is kind of a scolding nanny over the shoulders of filmmakers. We don’t want to put women in movies because we’re being told we ought to, otherwise we’re jerks.

What we should be trying to do is what I guess I would call a kind of general positive acceptance of a world where there are more interesting female characters in movies who are behaving in ways that aren’t contextualized entirely by men or their relationships with men.

And if that works for your story, great. Because you’ve decided if it could work for my story it should work for story. But that doesn’t mean like, okay, the nun is going to slap you on the knuckles with her ruler if you fail.

**John:** Agreed. I think the last thing we want to have happen is sort of the black judge syndrome.

**Craig:** Oh god! That’s the worst.

**John:** So, people who don’t know this trope, essentially you want to have a black character somewhere in your courtroom drama, so you make the judge a black man, or a black woman often, so you sort of get the twofer of that.

**Craig:** It’s almost always a black woman, [laughs], because, yeah, there’s a built in nobility to it all because, you know, every black woman is Maya Angelou, you see, and so it all makes — it’s like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It’s pandering.

**John:** It’s pandering. And that’s the issue. You want to make sure that you’re not just — don’t just put more powerful women into your stories. Make sure you put more flawed women into your stories and more women who are responsible for the story and to the story and not just the person who’s there to be the woman in the story. And then if their function in your plot is to be the woman, then their function is not being especially — then you need to rethink their function.

**Craig:** 100 percent.

**John:** Unless you’re making a movie that is specifically the romantic comedy of it all, and I think many romantic comedies probably would fail the Bechdel Test because the women in the movies are probably talking about the men in the movies.

**Craig:** Yeah. Their about romance, so I guess it makes sense.

**John:** So, on our discussion of tropes and movies and plots and story, let’s go on to the next article by David Wong. And he took a look at sort of lessons from superhero movies. The article was actually called The 5 Ugly Lessons Hiding in Every Superhero Movie.

So, you sent this to me. What intrigued you about this?

**Craig:** I did. Well, David does a very good job of pulling out some implications in superhero movies that are really worth examining. But there was a kind of a level underneath it that I think he missed and so I wanted to kind of toss it back out there and see what you guys thought and if David listens to us what he thought.

So, he’s got five myths here and I’ll just run through — sorry, five lessons inside every superhero movie and I’ll run them through for you.

Number five: Common folk are all helpless and incompetent. And that does seem true. When you look at these movies, basically regular people, like for instance policemen and National Guard are absolutely helpless in the face of disasters. The one example that he gives is in The Avengers aliens are attacking New York. And simply no one is there to stop them. No one.

The National Guard isn’t available. And the police are just stumped. [laughs] They don’t know what to do until Captain America shows up and says, “You need men in these buildings, go here, do this.” And as David points out, “See, because without Captain America to tell them, these professional law enforcement officers would have had no concept of evacuating civilians away from where violence is occurring. These people have had no training at all for what to do in the case of, say, a terrorist attack. Why would they? They’re just cops working in post-9/11 New York, while Captain America is an unfrozen science experiment from 1942.”

So, great point. Great point.

Number four: Only raw talent and wealth makes someone fit to be in charge. So, he points out these dichotomies. Hero vs. Villain. Superman or Lex Luthor. Batman/Joker. Batman/Bane. Tony Stark/Obadiah Stane. Tony Stark/Whiplash. And in each case the hero is somebody who has inherited his wealth or abilities and the villain is a self-made man who came up from nothing. And, as David points out, “Each time we’re rooting for the rich guy born on third who thinks he hit a triple.”

**John:** But I want to point out Spiderman. Spiderman came from nothing versus Green Goblin who came from great privilege and wealth. So, there are obviously some counter examples.

**Craig:** Yes. There are some exceptions. Although…

**John:** I would say Spiderman is exceptional in many ways in terms of his ordinary man-ness.

**Craig:** He is. Although Spiderman does get, Peter Parker gets bit by a spider that gives him all these powers, just grants them to him, whereas you got the feeling the Green Goblin actually probably did start as a self-made man and built his business up and used his intellect.

**John:** Yeah. I was thinking sort of his son.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, his son is a jerk.

**John:** That’s true.

**Craig:** Okay. Next one. The only thing preventing justice is this due process bullshit. So, this is absolutely true. We know this to be true. Batman, you know, in 1989 Batman, we’ve seen this repeated a 100 times in superhero movies. An innocent woman is walking down an alley at night with her child. A pair of thugs jump out, demand money at gunpoint. They steal the money. Batman is watching. And then he sneaks up as they’re trying to get away, beats them all up, and wins the day.

And as David says, “Did you spot his secret superpower there? The power is certainty. Specifically, it’s the magical ability to know with 100 percent certainty” that a is going to occur right there and that Batman did no misinterpret what he saw and heard from his advantage point, 100 feet in the air at night. That the guys he tracked down were in fact the same guys he saw that commit the crime and that there would be no negative repercussions from beating and humiliating two violent armed men. All true.

So, superhero movies are entirely about vigilante justice. The notion of due process, deliberation, all the rest of it just gets in the way of what we want.

**John:** I would say in general superhero movies there is this talk about “I am going to bring justice,” but the justice is basically, “I am going to beat you down.” And then the result is, well, maybe the police will take you off at the end, but more likely I will just defeat you and that’s the end of scene.

**Craig:** Exactly. Exactly. There’s no the thought of you being arrested is ridiculous.

**John:** I would like to point out Manhunter, which is one of my favorite books that never sort of progressed past this, the reinvention of that — Kate Spencer was a lawyer who sort of took all this gear and became a vigilante sort of superhero herself. So, she was the person who was responsible for prosecuting the crimes that these super villains did. And that was actually tremendously fun.

**Craig:** I like that.

**John:** It was a courtroom drama, but she also kicked ass.

**Craig:** Yeah. As a side note, someone sent me a comic book they were trying to adapt called, I think it was called Damage Control. And it was about a company that basically cleaned up after. It was like the superheroes had pulled their money together for an insurance company and these guys would come clean up the mess afterwards.

**John:** That sounds good.

**Craig:** Number two: Violence has no possible negative consequences as long as the right people do it. So, the notion is that when the right guys are doing this sort of thing, we’re killing these people, the heroes are killing the bad guys, when bad guys try and hurt the hero they get these tiny little impacts, basically bruises, minor cuts. The point being, I mean, they even point out here the Iron Man movies make it clear that when made to fight without a suit Tony Stark still absolutely kicks ass. Essentially the superheroes are able to deal out violence perfectly and violence never slingshots back to hurt them at all.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And last but not least: Screw the underdog. Root for the rich kid. Which is kind of — I mean, he sort of covered that in the earlier one, but basically from a storytelling point of view the idea of these superhero movies is that we are meant to root for the over — the person with overwhelming power, like Hulk.

Okay, so what’s this all about? And really what David is asking is, I guess his point at the end ultimately is shouldn’t we ask ourselves if our enjoyment of this is an indication of something kind of gross inside of us.

Well, I kind of think it is. I think he’s right. But there’s something else I think hiding behind under all this, and here’s where I’m going to get in trouble. You ready?

**John:** I’m ready.

**Craig:** I want to talk about another superhero who inherited all of his power, like many of these of sort-of quasi orphan. This superhero is able to do amazing things with his power and ultimately delivers this insanely wrathful justice on the average villains around him.

And that’s Jesus Christ.

So, superheroes are Jesus stories. And Jesus, you can’t kill Jesus, he rises again. Jesus obviously inherits his power just as Superman inherits his power from this amazing dude somewhere out there. The people that attempt to take Jesus Christ down are average people with no powers. They are incompetent on many levels. They try and torture him and he ultimately cannot be hurt, rises again, and sends them to their doom to burn in a lake of fire forever. Forever.

To me, what’s hiding behind all these superhero movies is just that. It’s the same thing that draws us, I think, to the story of Jesus Christ. And that is that those of us — that there is a reward for being good inside and having the spirit of justice inside. And that those of us who are meek and weak, we get to look to somebody who is just like us on the inside, but on the outside is a massive ass-kicker.

**John:** Okay. I think that’s fair. Some people will flip out about that, but I think it’s fair. But, I would generalize that actually out past Jesus. I would say that Jesus as a mythological character, because Jesus, or Hercules, or sort of any of these sort of — I’m going to call them a demigod, I guess — but whereas they were touched by something beyond this world and beyond this universe so that they seem like they’re normal people, but they’re more than normal people, so it’s Hercules and his quests and his adventures, and his ability to do things.

We’ve told these stories. The bigger point is that we’ve told some version of these superhero stories way book to Homer.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that these are the modern versions of those things. And if you look for the same patterns that David Wong points out here, you’re going to find them all the way back through the Ancient Greeks.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** And so I think Jesus being an example of that same kind of story in the same way that all of the bible stories have that mythological basis, sure, I will buy that.

**Craig:** Back to the Bhagavad Gita.

**John:** Exactly. So, Arjuna being how to accept that he’s not like the others and find that truth in him. So, yes, and so the new Superman movie will be a version of the Jesus story regardless. Jor-El will send Kal-El to this new world that will not be ready for him.

**Craig:** Right. And he will suffer for our sins and then rise again.

**John:** Yes. So, that is a completely valid and sort of an overarching theme. But I would say there’s another reason why I think we may find some of these lessons in his story, which I think is also the American experience. We want to take a look at raw talent and wealth makes somebody fit to be in charge. Like we’re the wealthiest country, so therefore we should be in charge.

The only thing we’re going to adjust is this due process bullshit; that is also kind of — you know, we believe in a fair trial and all that stuff, but it’s also that American sort of: “We will get our enemies and we will get them. And is the UN or whoever else is standing in our way from doing that.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Violence has no possible consequences, so violence has no consequences when we do it overseas. It’s only when someone does something to us, that’s a horrible affront. And screw the underdog/root for the rich kid. That sense of like the overwhelming power. And so it’s like, “Yeah, we went in and we kicked their ass.” Well, yeah, we kicked their ass. We’re like fifty times the size and we have a military that’s so mighty.

So, as a parallel to American militarism, I think our superhero movies also correlate well.

**Craig:** Right. I totally agree with everything you said. And then the real question is: Are these ugly lessons — I guess this is really what David is saying — these ugly lessons hiding in every superhero movie are the ugly lessons hiding in our politics and our religion.

They are the ugly lessons of resentment and superiority fantasies. That the reason we are drawn to superheroes is because we have fantasies of overwhelming power to get back at all the people that hurt us. And we create — the only drama in these movies — the only drama is the drama of delay. They are going to put the crown of thorns on Jesus and nail his to a cross, and torture him, and scourge him, and mock him. But it’s just the drama of delay, because that rock is going to be rolled away and he’s going to be gone, and then oh my god, all those people, lake of fire.

**John:** Yeah. I do feel like you’re stretching a little bit on the Jesus as vengeance kind of person, because that doesn’t really happen in the biblical stories. It’s sort of an after thing that we’ve put on to him.

**Craig:** Well, we didn’t put on it. It’s there. It’s there. It’s part of the New Testament.

**John:** Well, the lake of fire is Revelations, you’re talking, that kind of vengeance?

**Craig:** Yeah. No, there are mentions of hell throughout the New Testament. I’m not saying Jesus himself, let’s presume that Jesus was there and he said — he’s a super nice guy, he was a great guy. I don’t believe personally that Jesus did rise again. I don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah. You know, I don’t believe in God.

But, the things that he said were lovely. I’m just talking about the religion and the religion is kind of a — I think all religion to some extent has that thread of retribution against people that are screwing with us right here and now. We’ll get them later in the end.

**John:** Yeah. That is true. And I would say I would agree with you on the sense of like the Jesus stuff, sort of the story, he’s actually a really fascinating character even if you’re not a religious person. Go read the Sermon on the Mount, which I hadn’t read since I was in junior high, but I just randomly read it a couple months ago. It’s actually great. It’s terrific. And it’s like a nice thing to read sort of independent of everything else around it.

**Craig:** The story of Jesus and his life and death, I guess the passion, is the best story ever written, as far as I’m concerned. Narratively it’s the best.

**John:** Great.

So, what lessons should we as screenwriters take from David Wong’s lessons from these superhero movies? I guess to be aware of the tropes. I would say that doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to avoid all the tropes, or play into all the tropes, but sort of like the Bechdel Test you have to be aware that this is a system of thought out there. And so if you are coming into work on a superhero movie, or create a new superhero, be aware of these patterns and recognize to what degree you’re matching these patterns and what degree you are subverting these patterns.

And I think Spiderman largely subverts these patterns in ways that are interesting. Even as a hero he’s the outsider hero who is looked down upon by the city who doesn’t have the money to do anything useful, which is — I think — fascinating.

**Craig:** I am currently writing a screenplay that is kind of a — I guess it’s a new take on what it means to be a superhero. And it defies all of these things. And it’s funny, what I took away from this was: I’m dead.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That this is what people want and I’m doing the opposite of that. But, eh, let’s see what happens. I mean, it will be interesting to say the least.

**John:** Cool. Our last topic today: Justin Marks wrote a piece in the May 24th issue of the Hollywood Reporter which I thought was a terrific. I linked to it on the blog. And I put a little quote there on the blog. I want to read a different quote from his article because I thought it was really useful to us.

It starts: “It was 5 p.m., and I was playing Call of Duty. Why? Because I wanted to. The phone rang; it was a producer with whom I’d just spent the past two years laboring over a cable pilot, a time-travelly science fiction thing. We’d delivered the final cut to the network, and we were awaiting The Call — the one where you hear that your show, which tested well, is being picked up, that your life is about to change.

“But the producer had That Voice. Any experienced writer knows That Voice. Because That Voice means one thing: The network passed. ‘Hey,’ the producer said, ‘we fought for it till the end. We’ll find something else.’ I agreed. And that was that.

“Probably not three minutes had elapsed in my game of Call of Duty. Two more minutes to go upstairs and erase my now-dead pilot’s name off the list of projects on my dry-erase board. Two years of effort gone in five minutes.”

Skipping ahead a little bit. “We learn to numb ourselves to the ups and downs. Especially the downs. No one likes to linger on failure in Hollywood — not execs, not agents, not us. We erase the failure in our minds. We move on to the next great hope.”

Which I thought was a very nice encapsulation of what that feels like.

**Craig:** Yeah. Justin is a great guy. I’ve known him for some time. And he does a great service here. I think any time screenwriters talk about what’s happening internally they are doing a great service to their fellow writer. Whether other writers even agree or don’t agree, there’s something about sharing the experience of doing this job which is so strange, and so stressful, and so emotionally difficult at times that just the notion that you’re not alone, that you’re not alone out there.

So, I mean, first of all there’s just the life of that. It’s the middle class screenwriting life, which is tough. It is, you know, there is no certainty and you are… — You know, there’s that famous experiment of the mice in the cage that would get shocked with the little light, you know about that experiment?

**John:** Yeah, yeah. But talk us through it so we’re talking about the same thing.

**Craig:** So, they would put some mice in a cage and they would flash a green light and then shock the floor of the cage. And obviously mice don’t like that. They don’t like getting shocked. And another cage where they would flash the green light and then sometimes shock the cage, sometimes not. Sometimes they would just shock the cage and not flash the green light.

The mice in the cage where the shock always followed the green light did just fine. The mice in the cage where the shock was random died of stress because they had nothing to sort of prepare them for the shock ever. And that’s kind of what it’s like to be a screenwriter. You’re in a cage where the light is constantly going on and off, but shocks have seemingly come out of nowhere.

And it’s tough. And it’s good to kind of talk about that, I think, for anyone who’s getting into it or is in it.

**John:** Yeah. You’re describing in general that pattern matching that the mice are going through. Like they’re trying to look for a pattern, they can’t find the pattern. And I will say that as I’ve gone through my career I’ve been able to sort of recognize the patterns more.

So, just like Justin described, he recognized that voice. I recognize like there are ways that things fall apart. And if it looks like this is a thing that is going to fall apart that way, I could try to keep it together, or I could recognize like this is going to fall apart. And maybe I will let this fall apart and now use this as sort of the snow day that lets me go and work on this other thing that I want to work on.

Because most things will fall apart. And that’s the reason why we talk about like your life is not one script. It’s about a writing career. It’s working on a bunch of things because you never know what the thing is going to be. Or, why we talk about like there’s not –it’s kind of useless to talk about how people broke into the industry because no two people are going to break in the same way. You don’t know what it’s going to be. It’s just a serious of events and conversations at certain times become something bigger and sometimes don’t.

**Craig:** Yeah. He also has this great line here, which is this why screenwriting — this is why I hate screenwriting. “I had the fantasies of what this life would be like — a life that, for most, never will be a reality.”

And I stopped there because I thought, well, of course you did because you’re a screenwriter. And that’s what we do. We’re constantly imagining and fantasizing and dreaming and thinking of things. And it’s only natural then that we would do it for ourselves. And life is never like that, ever. Even when you get the things you fantasized about they’re not like that. You know, he says, “I wanted trips to backlots, premieres, moments of seeing my movie on the shelf at the video store. That’s what we sign up for.”

Maybe so. And then I thought when I was reading that, except that when I see the word “trips to backlots, premieres, moments of seeing my movie on the shelf at the video store,” I feel anxious all of the sudden. Because those things are associated with anxiety for me. [laughs] So, there’s no winning. There’s just no winning. All there is is the work.

And then as he describes there is the other 90 percent, “Waking up, walking the dogs, grinding away at my computer in the clothes I slept in. Occasional fits of creative euphoria interrupted by phone calls…or arguments…or the dogs barking.”

And that’s exactly right.

**John:** Yeah. If you think you’re going to be happy because you got to the premiere, then you’re in the wrong thing. Because that premiere is like, maybe 20 minutes of fun over three hours. And then it’s done. And then you have — it just goes away. And that’s not going to be a lingering great feeling.

You have to be happy about the stuff you’re working on day after day. And it’s hard to say like, you know, “Oh, you need to enjoy every day bit of work,” because that’s not true either, because that sets a false expectation. Like I’m not happy to be writing most times I’m writing. It’s actually I have to force myself to do it. And then if it’s going well I really like it, but it’s hard for me to start. Every time I sit down it’s hard for me to start. If it’s going really well, I’m in a flow, then I’m just delighted, and then sometimes then I’m really happy, and those are some of my best days.

Same with production. It’s like production is awful, except when it’s actually kind of really great, and stuff is going really well, and you’re excited about the stuff you’re seeing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Post is the same way. Like you’ll get through a cut, you’re like, “Oh my god, that was amazing.” And you’ll get a great reaction. And then there will be one thing you need to work on and you’ll have to rip everything apart and then you’re back at it again.

And that’s the reality. I had a five-hour Big Fish meeting today. And it’s that same situation where you’re constantly doing it.

So, some general lessons: Because you’re going to be going through these bad things, try to go through them with better people, if you can; people you don’t mind being with because you’re going to be spending so much time with them. Make your environment the best and most conducive it can be. It doesn’t mean you have to have the best chair and the best computer, or whatever, but don’t make yourself more miserable than you have to.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s unfortunate, though, because when we start out in this business or as we proceed through that kind of second act of our careers, we often are stuck working in bad situations, with bad people, with bad tools, and in bad, toxic environments. And surviving those, wanting to even survive them, is hard.

You know, he also says here — and I like this, you know — he says what carries him into the next day, those moments where he’s been privileged to walk through his own imagination. That is to say there on a set and seeing somebody in a wedding dress because he wrote a scene where somebody gets married. And those things are the things that carry us through. He says, “Everything else is just stuff we try to forget.”

And I thought it was really great that he said, “We try to forget,” because it’s hard to forget it sometimes when you are seizing on these moments and purity and happiness while you’re being beaten up by your employers, or whomever. It’s hard. And you question why.

I question it all the time. Why? Why do I want to do this? [laughs]

**John:** Well, people will ask me, I’ll describe sort of like the thing I went through, it’s like, “God, why would anybody want to be a screenwriter in Los Angeles.” And, well, it is actually — it’s rough. It’s not the most pleasant thing to be, but I also look at the other categories of wannabe people here — like to be a wannabe actor, at least like I’m not walking in a room and being rejected for how I look.

**Craig:** [laughs] Exactly.

**John:** That just kills you.

**Craig:** That is the worst. Believe me. And then, of course, there’s the actual world beyond Hollywood, where you know what’s really the worst is…

**John:** Musicians?

**Craig:** …just cleaning out sewers, and breaking your leg, and drowning in sewage.

**John:** Oh yeah. But, I mean, in terms of aspirational careers, I mean I think that people come to Los Angeles to become screenwriters, actors, musicians to some degree.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Musicians is its own dicey thing. I used to live right by the guitar schools. And, yeah, maybe some of you will kind of make it, but I don’t know how you’re going to make it. Are you going to write a hit song? Are you going to be in a band?

**Craig:** And even if you make it, what’s making it?

**John:** Yeah, what is making it? You have no idea what that is. And so like you’re going to play crappy gigs where you don’t get to keep the money from the door? How do you make a sustainable life there?

So, you’re not alone in Los Angeles. There are a lot of people who are going to be going through exactly what you’re trying to go through. At least you’re not going to be rejected walking out the door. And at least you are allowed to practice some part of your craft just by yourself. And you can just write whatever you want to write. The difference if you were writing novels, at least you would have written a novel that could be done and be finished.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And Justin Marks, he hasn’t had a lot of movies made. He’s going to get a lot of these situations where he’ll get that call and that thing he thought was going to happen is not going to happen. And you and I have that happen all the time, too. That movie seemed to be on track to get made, and it’s just not going to get made. And at some point you have to move on into the next thing.

**Craig:** You have to move onto the next thing. And for a business that seems entirely about outcomes, outcomes are the least valuable things in this business. Personally. I mean, for everybody else that’s what matters. For the people that actually make money off of movies, and they’re not screenwriters, or directors, or actors, it’s the studios — that’s what matters.

But, in the end, we’re in an outcome business doing a non-outcome job. And so you have to find a way to enjoy the part of it that isn’t about outcome but about process because the outcome itself is…it’s not…it’s just…even when you love the way the movie comes out and people like it and it’s a hit, or whatever, it’s that feeling you got when you finish building a Lego thing. Well, I guess I’ll stare at this now, show it to my mom, be proud of it, and then smash it. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Because what else is there to do?

**John:** Yeah. That’s been one of the most interesting things with Big Fish is that because we’re putting on the show every night, like literally I could spend the whole day working on stuff and go through all the stresses of that, but then I get to see the show with a crowd — and granted you’re terrified when you’re watching it that nothing is going to go wrong — but then like everyone applause. You actually get the applause every night, which is an unusual thing for a writer.

**Craig:** I know. That’s really cool.

**John:** That’s been good. I mean, terrifying, too, but mostly good.

**Craig:** Excellent.

**John:** I have a One Cool Thing this week. I don’t know if you are ready with One Cool Thing.

**Craig:** Somebody sent me one that I thought was really great. I’m digging it up while you…

**John:** Mine is actually a link that everyone can go to and burn a good hour/half hour of your day. Jason Kottke had linked to it early this week. It’s a Wikipedia list of common misconceptions. And it’s actually fascinating. Things you sort of think are like, “Oh, well that, yeah, that’s totally true.” It’s like, no, that’s actually not true at all. And just everyone thinks it’s true.

So, things like you have to wait 24 hours before reporting a missing person. No, you don’t. If you have reason to believe a person is missing and in trouble you’re supposed to actually call right away and get that done.

Many things about sort of animal misconceptions. Statistical misconceptions like lightning never strikes the same place twice. Actually, that happens quite a lot. Very understandable reasons.

**Craig:** Totally.

**John:** So, I would send people to the Wikipedia list of common misconceptions.

**Craig:** I love all that stuff. I like anything that talks about how we are weak and the world is a lie, because that’s basically so much of my…

**John:** Well, because, just like stereotypes. Like they’re useful because they’re ways of sort of like not having to think so much. But in not having to think so much you’re actually missing the point often.

**Craig:** Yeah. The brain is an organ. Here’s another organ: The eyeball. What is the purpose of the eyeball? To perceive reality. The eyeball cannot perceive reality behind the eyeball. The brain is as limited as the eyeball. And yet we assume that because we’re seeing and thinking it, it must be true. Nope. No, no, no. No. We are terribly limited people.

My Cool Thing was sent to me by a follower on Twitter. His name is Ryan Conroy. And he said, In case you need One Cool Thing for next week…” and I thought, uh, I always need One Cool Thing for next week. Thank you, Ryan.

And this is fantastic and Ryan certainly knows what I like. An 18-year-old in the United States by the name of Esha Khare — and again I will say 18 years old — has developed a potentially revolutionary device that can charge a mobile phone in just 20 seconds. It is called a supercapacitor and in case you think, “Oh, this is just a bunch of baloney,” she won $50,000 for her invention at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix.

And she is a student of nanochemistry. She is going to Harvard. And you know who just called her? Google.

**John:** How nice.

**Craig:** Yeah. “Asked what inspired her to work on the technology, Khare said: ‘My cell phone battery always dies.'”

And I just think that’s amazing. And let me just say, I love you, America, and this is what I love about our country. I loathe the fact that our public schools are failing our kids in math and sciences as poorly as they are. So, I get very excited when I hear that students are doing well. She’s from Saratoga. Hopefully there is a public school there that was doing well by her. She’s pretty spectacular. Esha, awesome job. I can’t wait to charge my phone in 20 seconds.

**John:** Fantastic. Great, Craig, thank you again for another fun podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** And if you have questions about anything we talked about this week you can go to johnaugust.com/podcast and you will see a little link there for sending a question to us. You can also tweet us. I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

For this podcast, and for all our podcasts, we have a list of links of the things we talked about, so things like the articles we mentioned, or Justin Marks’s article. You can find them at, again, johnaugust.com/podcast for a list of all those.

And that is it.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s it. No more.

**John:** Not one more.

**Craig:** Not one more thing.

**John:** And I will talk to you next week.

**Craig:** Bye.

**John:** Bye.

LINKS:

* [The Hangover Part III](http://www.hangoverpart3.com/) is in theaters now!
* [CinemaScore](http://www.cinemascore.com/)’s official site, and [on Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScore)
* The [Bechdel Test](http://bechdeltest.com/)
* John’s 2010 blog post on [Women in film](http://johnaugust.com/2010/women-in-film)
* [The 5 Ugly Lessons Hiding in Every Superhero Movie](http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-ugly-lessons-hiding-in-every-superhero-movie/) by David Wong
* [My Life as a Screenwriter You’ve Never Heard Of](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/my-life-as-a-screenwriter-520979) by Justin Marks
* Wikipedia’s [list of common misconceptions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions)
* Esha Khare’s [twenty-second phone charger](http://in.news.yahoo.com/indian-girl-invents-device-charge-phone-20-seconds-153130999.html) (via [Ryan Conroy](https://twitter.com/RyConTiki/status/337409509569994752))
* OUTRO: The Clique’s [Superman](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjASX8ugl_E) covered by Rob Lamber

« 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 (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.