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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep 60: The Black List, and a stack of scenes — Transcript

October 25, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/the-black-list-and-a-stack-of-scenes).

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

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

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

Now, Craig, something feels different today. Is it an earlier time?

**Craig:** It’s definitely early. I’m feeling it. But I also feel like we’re not alone.

**John:** Oh, there’s an audience. [Applause] Hello! This is our first ever live Scriptnotes…

**Craig:** That was great.

**John:** …and people who are listening to this at home, they think like, “Wow, that is a huge crowd.” And they are exactly right. I cannot believe how big this crowd is.

**Craig:** I can’t believe how much noise 12 people can make.

**John:** Yeah. People were waiting in line. People have been camping out since 5 in the morning. So, thank you guys all so much for coming today.

**Craig:** Welcome, lucky ticket holders!

**John:** Yeah. Because, you know, it’s one thing when you see the download numbers, and it’s like, “Oh, that seems like a lot of people.” But when you actually see all of these people in front of us.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah. All 800,000 of them. It is a…

**John:** It’s crazy.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** So, this is our first ever live episode. But we’re also going to treat it like a normal episode, too; we’re going to do the kind of stuff we would normally do. So, we’re going to talk about some news. We’re going to talk about the craft a little bit, and answer some questions. The different thing is that we’re going to have some questions live here in the room, which is exciting.

So, in the news this week, one thing that came up a lot on Twitter, people have asked: What is the deal with the Black List? The Black List made some changes and it’s now a very different kind of thing. And so we’re going to talk about that. We’re going to welcome our first ever special live screenwriter guest.

**Craig:** I’m so excited.

**John:** And she’ll be up here on stage with us. Her name is Aline Brosh McKenna, and she’s kind of great. And we’re going to do these questions. Let’s get to it. Craig —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The Black List. Have you heard of this thing called the Black List?

**Craig:** Sure. So, I’ll tell you what I know about the Black List…

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** …and then you tell me if I’m wrong. The Black List is basically the product of, well, Franklin Leonard started it, who’s an executive producer guy in Hollywood. And the idea was that assistants, and I guess some development people, read everything in Hollywood. They read all the scripts, and he basically decided that each year they should vote on the scripts they liked the most. Not necessarily the best scripts, or the ones that would sell, or the ones that didn’t sell, just the ones they liked the most, some of which I think haven’t even been bought, some of which have, some of which even were heading into development.

I think the deal is just that they couldn’t have been produced I guess in that year. And Hollywood loves lists. They love it. They’re obsessed with ranking things. And this really caught on. And I guess normally I’m — I don’t know, lists and rankings I go, “Ew,” but the great thing about it is that it helps scripts that otherwise would not have found homes, because Hollywood is obsessed with lists.

If you are one person in Hollywood and you read a script and you think, “Well this is very good, but no one else seems to have heard about it,” or “I’m just not going to talk about. It’s not on the list.” But suddenly it was on a list. And then a lot of scripts, and more importantly the screenwriters of those scripts, gained access inside of Hollywood. Malcolm Spellman and Tim Talbott who are here sort of famously got work because a script of theirs, which was completely unproduceable, was on the Black List.

**John:** That was the Robotard 8000 script.

**Craig:** The Robotard 8000 script. Exactly.

**John:** So, a crucial thing to understand about the Black List and its original incarnation is that executives are reading these scripts anyway. And so they had informal ways that they were always talking with each other about the things they were reading, and this was a way to sort of formalize it, but also anonymously sort of come to aggregate that information into sort of one master list of what the people who are actually reading those scripts and making those decisions thought were the most interesting things of the year.

And so it was very helpful to people to show up on the Black List, because that was a real mark of a possibility for them. So, this last week the change that happened is Franklin Leonard announced — and he actually tipped us off first he was going to be doing this — is changing the access, expanding sort of the mission of the Black List so that writers who wanted to submit their scripts to the Black List — to a site, a website for the Black List — could have their scripts read by executives who wanted to see it. People could read scripts on the Black List, rank them, rate them, contact those writers. It was a way for writers to be discovered through that process.

The issues that sort of immediately came up and sort of why people wanted us to talk about it is there was a fee to be listed on the site.

**Craig:** And you know how I feel about fees.

**John:** You love fees. You’re a fee-based person.

**Craig:** I’m going to get angry. It’s early.

**John:** I sense there could be some umbrage coming. That’s why everybody wanted us to talk about it.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** And there’s also, you could have a professional reader associated with the Black List read your script and provide ratings for it to tell you sort of what they thought of the script.

**Craig:** I wish that this guy were here so we could ask him exactly…

**John:** Yeah, ask exactly those questions.

**Craig:** Yeah, just so we could grill him and make him uncomfortable.

**John:** That would be good.

**Craig:** Is he here?

**John:** He is in fact here.

**Craig:** He’s right over there?

**John:** So, let’s welcome up Franklin Leonard to talk about it.

[Applause]

So, this is again the luxury of being live in a place, and right now we’re in Austin; we can actually ask these questions of a person. So, Franklin, tell us sort of what the impetus was to create this new site/service that changes things.

**Franklin Leonard:** Well, I think the biggest one was probably the fact that everywhere I went — whether it was the Austin Film Festival, anywhere in Los Angeles, when I was on a plane and told someone what I did in Hollywood — the first question that I got was, “So, I wrote this screenplay. What do I do with it now?” And I never really had a good answer.

You know, there was “send query letters,” there was “enter the Nicholl, and the Austin Film Festival Screenplay competition.” And as I thought about it, those really seemed like inefficient ways to sort of get your script to the people who would actually read it. And in the cases where even that was successful, it created a situation I think for writers that was sort of less than ideal, or less than what could be ideal for the writer’s position.

And so I began to think that, “Hey, the Black List sort of aggregated this conversation around writers that people were liking — wouldn’t it be great if you could do the same thing for writers that weren’t necessary part of the system yet, and put them in a position of power where all of a sudden if their script was really strong they had one, five, a dozen people pursuing them, and then they could chose multiple options?”

**Craig:** And to be clear, what you’re offering now is separate the Black List, which still continues on and has nothing to do with who sent a script in or anything?

**Franklin:** That’s absolutely right. And that distinction I think is critical because a lot of people are like, “Oh, the Black List has lost its way.”

**Craig:** “They sold the Black List. Argh!”

**Franklin:** Exactly. No. We have not at all. The annual Black List remains a separate and distinct thing that will be voted on using the exact same process that was used for the last seven years. It has born a lot of really positive results. And it will still exist as the annual Black List. And I don’t think that there will be, at least in Hollywood at least, much confusion about the difference between this annual list that goes out and this new sort of website ecosystem community that will allow people access that they might heretofore not have had.

**Craig:** Right. Got it.

**John:** So, my kneejerk reaction — I think a lot of people’s kneejerk reactions — was that it felt weird that the business model was based around charging fees for people with dreams. Essentially there’s that mentality of making money off the backs of people who are trying to get into the system versus, you know… — And also the question of who is really the user of this thing: is it aspiring writers or is it producers and development executives who are looking for talent? Tell us about that.

**Franklin:** Right. I have the same level of discomfort with it, I suspect, as you do. And we designed it that way for a few reasons. The first of which is if the goal is to aggregate as many possible eyeballs from the film community as possible on the possible screenplays of aspiring writers, the best way to do that at least initially would be to have an incredibly low price point for the industry members that were coming on to join.

Anecdotally when we were in beta and developing the site we actually did charge industry members a very small fee which was in part designed to prevent us from taking sort of third party financing of venture capital, which would have prevented us from actually sort of staying very close to this goal that we have of creating opportunity.

And when we made the transition from charging industry folks to going free we quadrupled our membership in 48 hours. And so by being free it means that we can have the most possible sort of eyeballs on your possible scripts and that they’re good.

And then in terms of why we charge writers, I mean, first of all we do need a business model in order to function, in order to allow this thing to exist. But I also wanted to provide a slight disincentive for sort of throwing everything up against the wall and hoping it sticks. It’s really important that you believe in your script enough to pay some small amount of money. And we’ve kept the price point far lower than I know we could have charged for it because the price and elasticity of demand of something like this is actually very, very low.

And so as much as I would like to have the business model be different, I think this is the one that is sort of optimal in terms of making sure there are as many industry people as possible looking at these scripts. And making sure that we get a higher quality of material that we’re then going to wade through and have readers read.

**Craig:** I mean, look, you know how my thing is: screenwriting is the last free thing to do. I don’t hate this. I really don’t. I like a lot of it actually. And the part that — here’s what I hate most of all about, not about your thing, but about…

**Franklin:** It’s that you hate me, right?

**Craig:** Well, I don’t like you.

**Franklin:** There you go.

**Craig:** I love you.

**Franklin:** I love you, too.

**Craig:** Thank you. There is a world of charlatans who prey on you folks out there. And they prey upon you in the worst way by promising you access and insight that they simply don’t have. They don’t have access; that’s pretty much easy to see. They certainly don’t have insight. It’s a simple rule of thumb: If they had insight they would probably be doing what John does or Franklin does. They don’t. They’re doing what they do which is buying business cards for $14 and then convincing you that they have insight.

And even worse, they charge you a lot. They charge you $500. They charge you $1,000. And then they charge you by time, or by read, and then they promise you improvement. And so you just give them a little bit more, and a little bit more. And suddenly it’s like a therapist that keeps telling you, “If you just keep paying me, one day you will be better.”

But, also as is in the case with therapists, that’s not true. You’re not going to be better necessarily from them, because they don’t really know what they’re talking about. Here’s what I like about this — two things: One, it’s a flat fee per script. And that fee is?

**Franklin:** $25 per month.

**Craig:** $25 per month. So, $25 per month and your script will be read by industry readers who actually have access, because the people who go to the site for free, who aren’t charged, are basically people in the actual business, in your business, who are looking for scripts.

**Franklin:** Absolutely. And there are a lot of them. I mean, we have at present 1,150 industry members ranging from agency assistants to studio presidents in production.

**Craig:** And the way the system works is you submit a script for $25, it’s read by the industry readers, and then it is ranked.

**Franklin:** Well, not exactly. So, the way it works is you upload a script for $25 a month. That makes it available to our entire membership, and it is indexed along a number of different metrics that you provide. And then for $50 you can pay for one of our readers that we’ve hired to read it…

**Craig:** Oh, now it’s $50. Okay.

**Franklin:** No, no, let me explain.

**Craig:** All right.

**Franklin:** And that reader will evaluate the script. I think that’s another thing that differs between us and a lot of coverage services for example. We’re not offering you — we’ll give you an evaluation and you can take with that evaluation maybe insight into how to improve your script, but this is not something that you should be using to identify the things wrong with your script so that you can then improve it and sort of keep coming back to us for that.

**Craig:** It’s just a tool for the other people who are on the site to see what someone thought?

**Franklin:** Right. And the data that is generated by those evaluations we can use to create sort of a Black List of non-professional scripts, sort of a real time, that is sortable by genre, subgenre, words that feature in the log line. And then we also built a recommendations algorithm similar to what exists on Netflix and Amazon so that based on all of our 1,150 members’ individual taste, in the event that a script is particularly suited to one of those members’ taste we can send them an email and say, “Hey, our algorithm thinks that you’re going to love this script. You individually are going to love this script and you should check it out.”

And the reality is, and you guys know this, there are not a lot of great screenplays out there. The vast majority of the screenplays that are submitted to our site are not going to get discovered and create screenwriting careers that last a lifetime. But, for the people who have written great scripts, this is a fast track to getting it to the people that love it. And it is a far more efficient way I think than anything that currently exists to match those great scripts with people who can make them.

And hopefully put the writers in a situation where people are competing for their services and that people aren’t just taking the first option and the first phone call they get.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, a question about the evaluation. You have professional readers who are reading these scripts. $50 seems like a really low amount of money, not to write a check for $50, but $50 isn’t a lot of money to get paid to read a script, and they’re not making all that $50. So, what is that book report like? It’s not really coverage…

**Franklin:** It’s not coverage. And I think that’s one of the reasons why we’re able to pay far lower than what would be expected to pay for coverage. Because the vast majority — look, the reading of the script is not really what you’re paying for when you’re paying for coverage. You’re paying for the hour or two of sitting down and writing three, four pages of notes that require not only writing well but sort of giving intelligent, critical assessments of someone’s work.

Our evaluation includes an overall rating of 1 to 10. A rating of 1 of 10 along five different metrics, including dialogue, structure, setting, premise. And then three short answers to questions about the script’s greatest strengths, weaknesses, and commercial viability. And that’s I think why we’re able to do that is because ultimately for our readers we’re asking them for an hour and a half, at most two hours of their time instead of the five and six hours.

And I actually think we’re probably paying more per hour to our readers than a lot of coverage services are.

**John:** Okay. A question about sort of… — I can see how it makes sense for an aspiring writer. I can see how it makes sense for a development executive. Does it make sense for a writer who is actually working to have their scripts anywhere near this site?

**Franklin:** I think it can. I’ll admit that it remains to be seen exactly how it does. And one of the things I’m very excited about is being able to make available a lot of the quantitative data around how people are using the site, once the gears begin turning and sort of moving smoothly.

I think that there does exist that potential. I think there is a sort of site that exists alongside this and is part of it that basically the script titles and authors of professional scripts are also rated by these development executives and sort of moved through a real time Black List and recommendation engine as well. And I’ve already spoken with a number of development executives who sort of return to it daily to find out if there is a script that they didn’t know about that they need to know about.

It functions essentially exactly the same way as the annual Black List does, except instead of once a year in December everybody being able to find out the scripts that may not have known about, they’re able to say in the middle of May, “What are the most liked comedies that don’t have a director but do have a producer attached?” and that list is auto-generated. Or, “Which comedies without a director am I likely to like based on my tastes?” And then they can call the agent and get a copy of it.

And our industry professional membership is limited to those people who basically would have access to make those phone calls to those representatives or producers so they can get a copy of the script. We’ve had over 5,000 people apply for membership and have accepted less than 1,200.

**Craig:** I mean, look, we don’t endorse anything; that’s not our gig. But I do spend a lot of time attacking things.

**Franklin:** So, the not-attack I’m very proud of.

**Craig:** I’m going to give this a not-attack, which is pretty great. It’s my highest award.

**Franklin:** And it is immensely appreciated.

**Craig:** No, no. I think that what I like is that ultimately for — that you are providing access, true access. The thing that drives me the craziest about these services is that they fake access. Like when you go to the LA Convention Center and you meet people. None of those people can do anything for you except take your money. So, this is legitimate access. And, also, you guys don’t make a dime in their success.

**Franklin:** No, not at all.

**Craig:** You make money, you make your $25 a month. You make your $50 per evaluation.

**Franklin:** That’s right.

**Craig:** If they sell the script for $1 million you get zero of that $1 million. And that’s a really important firewall, because all of these pitch festivals and things that are actually — they’ve got their hand in one pocket, they’re reaching into that other pocket if you should actually do something. So, I think — I give this my highest rating of I-don’t-attack-it.

**Franklin:** But we do ask one thing in return is that if they find that success that they email us and let us know so we can join in that celebration.

**Craig:** I think they can do that.

**John:** They can do that.

Franklin, thank you so much for doing this.

**Franklin:** Thank you so much for having me.

**Craig:** Thank you, Franklin.

**John:** Thank you for coming here.

Just like all of our other podcasts, there will be show notes for this one at johnaugust.com/podcast. So, we’ll have a link to Franklin’s site. We’ll have a link to some good follow up questions that Franklin answered after the thing was announced. I did really respect that he took the time to sort of figure out, “These are the things people keep asking and I’m going to answer them in detail.” So, thank you very much for doing that.

And we have our first screenwriter guest. I’m so excited.

**Craig:** You don’t seem excited. [laughs]

**John:** I’m excited. I’m excited.

**Craig:** Did you just simulate excitement?

**John:** I’m excited because I know who she is. It’s a neighbor. These are good things.

So, we’d always talked about having guests. Like even from the very first episodes we were like, “Oh, we could have a guest on,” because we thought we wouldn’t have enough to talk about.

**Craig:** Well, but the truth is the two of us are so weird and we’re very… — You know, I was making fun of John for being so consistent about the way he starts every podcast, but I’m the same way. I think we’re both very happy just doing it the way we do it. And then I think somewhere around Episode 20 the thought of change started to freak me out. [laughs]

So, but this is great, because we’re in a different place. So, it doesn’t matter. It’s a road game.

**John:** New rules.

**Craig:** We can do anything, man.

**John:** Quite early on when the idea of coming to the Austin Film Festival and maybe doing the first live Scriptnotes, we were like, “Well who would be a great guest to have up on stage with us?” and we both though of…

**Craig:** Derek Haas.

**John:** Derek Haas.

**Craig:** But he was not available. So then…

**John:** [laughs] So, our second choice was this writer who worked on — who wrote The Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses, Morning Glory, a movie that I really dug which not a lot of people saw, but I really liked it a lot. And I Don’t Know How She Does it. And We Bought a Zoo. She wrote all these movies, and she’s kind of awesome, and she’s a neighbor. And she’s the only woman who I think really intimidates Craig consistently.

**Craig:** Dude, like you have no idea. Scares me to death.

**John:** So, if you could all welcome Aline Brosh McKenna.

[Applause]

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** Hi guys!

**John:** Hello! And welcome.

**Aline:** How are you?

**Craig:** See? Scary.

**Aline:** Lovely to see you. Terrifying.

**John:** A terrifying person.

**Craig:** Very.

**John:** How is Austin so far for you?

**Aline:** Oh, it’s been great. I’ve really been having a good time.

**John:** Is this your first?

**Aline:** I came here five years ago. And this is the first time I’ve been back since then. And it has been fun; I love being here. It’s great.

**Craig:** Oh, I feel like you’re going to hit me. I really do.

**Aline:** Except that Craig’s here!

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah. See?

**John:** All good except for that. This is my fourth time at the Austin Film Festival and I really enjoy it. The weird thing is I’m much more recognized now and that is — it’s lovely. And everyone is super, super nice, and so thank you; you can please feel free to say hello. But, it’s a little exhausting.

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** I hosted a party the first night and first off I had to say, I was supposed to welcome everybody to it, but it was so loud that I was like standing at the bar and I had a microphone, and everybody could see that I was up there and had a microphone but couldn’t hear me.

**Craig:** Were you there? It was awesome.

**Aline:** It was.

**Craig:** This is what it sounded like at first, because, so you stood up there, because I was in the back, so I had a great view of this. And you had a microphone. And you were going — and then you realized nobody could hear you, so then you went [muffled indecipherable speaking]. And then nobody could hear that, either. So, then you realized, okay, well that’s not going to work, so I’m going to pull back a little bit. And then you just went back to — [audience laughs]. And you seemed happy with that actually.

**Aline:** John, the reason people are coming over to you is not the writing fame, it’s just sheer sex appeal. That’s it.

**John:** There’s that, too. Yeah.

**Craig:** We’re you talking to me?

**John:** Craig, do people recognize you here that much?

**Craig:** Yeah, people do. You know, they talk this year more about the podcast than anything else, which is very cool. You know, if I do a panel in the morning then they’ll come and they’ll say, “Hey, bad job,” or whatever.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But, no, people are listening to the podcast and so they say that a lot. They come up to me and say, “Cool podcast, man,” which is nice. I like that.

**John:** And, Aline, part of the reason why we wanted you on the show is because you actually listen to the podcast.

**Aline:** I really wanted to come on and talk about things that are [pause] interesting to screenwriters.

**Craig:** You’ve noticed that, right?

**Aline:** Interesting.

**Craig:** Yeah. Interesting.

**Aline:** What is that? What regional diction is giving you interesting?

**John:** Interesting. The way I leave out the T? Yeah, interesting.

**Aline:** No, I love it. I love the podcast. I love the Cool Thing. That’s what I listen to when I work out. Hmm, embarrassing.

**John:** Nice. So, today I thought we might talk a little bit about — a little crafty in the sense of I think I have noticed starting this summer I described some movies that I saw that I really liked, but I didn’t love, and I described them as “a stack of scenes.” And as I was thinking back to these movies, I liked a lot of stuff that happened in them, and I liked the things that I could sort of tell you, the things that happened, but I didn’t really feel like they held together as movies. And I want to talk about the difference between good stuff in a movie and a movie that holds together well.

And I thought you were a good choice for this because I look at the movies you do, and I was describing them yesterday as “want-coms.” People want to say they’re romantic comedies, but they’re not really romantic comedies. It’s usually a character who is very proficient who wants — is aiming for something. In Morning Glory, she wants to run this show, and there is romantic stuff that happens, but it’s really about her journey there. Same with Devil Wears Prada.

So, I want to talk a little bit about what it is that makes a movie story hold together.

**Aline:** Am I allowed to use profanity on this show?

**John:** Uh, yeah, you can use some profanity.

**Craig:** [Sighs]

**John:** We’re going to lose our little Clean rating in iTunes, but that’s okay.

**Aline:** Here it goes…

**Craig:** Just remember that Jesus is listening to you.

**Aline:** [laughs] I’ll give you the profane and then I’ll give you the airline version.

**Craig:** Cool.

**Aline:** My term for movies like that is Shit Happens movies. But for airplane purposes you could call them Crap Happens movies.

You want all your scenes to have a “Because” between them and not an “And Then” between them. And it’s something that you learn and get better at which is having everything cause everything, and everything build on everything. But I have noticed, particularly in the action genre, it seems like things have gotten very episodic. And there’s been episodic movies — have been around for a long time.

I don’t do it primarily because I can’t do it well. I can’t keep myself… — When you’re writing a script you don’t want to feel like these things could be in any order. And if you can, then that’s a problem. Another way to think about it is what you’re constructing is a story which should be as entertaining a story as you would tell to someone at drinks. It should be, “And then this happened, and then this, and then this,” and it has distinct causality, and if you told it in a different way it wouldn’t be entertaining. And that’s something to remind yourself of: Can you put the script down, can you look away from Final Draft and turn to someone and say, “This is the story of the movie.” And it’s particularly challenging in the second act.

And that’s what I find is a lot of movies have a ramp up, and they have some sense of where they want to go, and then in the middle you get scene salad.

**John:** Yes. And so I don’t want to slam on any particular movies, but I want to offer some concrete examples. So, this is not to slam on these movies or these screenwriters, but these are the movies I said a stack of scenes about.

The Master, which is really well made, but a few days later as I was thinking back to The Master I couldn’t tell you what order most of those scenes happened. And I felt like you could have rearranged a lot of that stuff in that movie and it would have been largely the same movie. There’s a sequence where Joaquin Phoenix is walking from the wall to the window, from the wall to the window. And it’s a really interesting sequence but it didn’t actually end up changing — you could have moved it to other places in the movie; it wouldn’t have changed the nature of the movie.

Prometheus is another movie where a bunch of stuff happens, but it could have happened in a lot different order. And I really like your “because” versus “and then.” It was a lot of “and thens,” “and thens,” and it was like every moment I was like, “Well, what is an interesting thing that could happen now?” It’s like, “That is an interesting thing that could happen but it didn’t change the nature of the movie. There wasn’t a ‘because’ stuck in there.”

**Craig:** You know, my thing about this, because if you just look at a plot it is “and then, and then, and then,” and hopefully there is a causality between those two that creates the “because” or “and so.” But, let’s say you’re writing a road trip or any kind of movie where it seems like the flow of the plot requires episodes. Then really the thing that connects these things together and makes them a story is theme and the characters.

**Aline:** And character.

**Craig:** Exactly. So, theme and characters. So, you can have, “and then, and then” episodes, but if the theme and the characters are evolving through those then I feel like there is some glue. How do you approach that when you’re dealing with that?

**Aline:** That’s a really good way to put it, because a lot of the stuff I’ve written, the plots are not exactly highly propulsive. And so you have to find propulsion, and it’s almost always in, “Okay, this character starts here and what don’t they know? What do they think they want but they don’t know they want this other thing? What is the trajectory of the goal they think they’re heading towards but the actual goal they should be heading towards — what is the tension between those two things?” And that is really what’s providing you your arc.

You know, the story stuff needs to be… — And in some ways what’s interesting is you can take the same plot elements, and it might be a good exercise, you can take the same plot elements of story and rearrange them, as long as you’re repurposing them character or theme wise. Do you know what I’m saying?

**Craig:** Yes.

**Aline:** Like you could say, “Craig and I had breakfast, and played Scrabble.” But if it’s like, “And that’s when I realized he was a serial killer,” where you place those revelations…

**Craig:** It’s a weird place to finally say it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** [laughs] Where you place those revelations, where you place the character on their journey in the events. And what I’ve noticed — And I can’t speak to it for The Master, because I feel like The Master is doing something else, and I feel like part of what The Master was doing was addressing this issue of do people change? do they progress? So, I feel like it’s slightly different. But — I have noticed that there are movies where they have now decided that it’s cool to dispense with setting up a character at all.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Aline:** So, things just start and you’re in motion, which I appreciate. You know, I like a movie where you get into the story pretty quickly. But sometimes I don’t know anything about the character. I don’t care. I’m not invested. I don’t understand where they’re starting psychologically. And so it is hard for me — I just feel like I didn’t get on the train. So, I’m not on the train; I’m just watching the train go by.

**John:** Yeah. The most recent Bourne movie is another movie I described as a stack of scenes in that each set piece is really lovely, but I felt like I was watching a video game that sort of like moves to the next section. And all the stuff that happens within that little section is like, “Oh, that’s all smartly done and really good. But I didn’t know who those characters were beforehand.” I couldn’t track that anything had progressed or anything had changed because I didn’t know where we really started.

**Aline:** Do you think video games have a lot to do with that?

**John:** I think there’s an aspect of it.

**Craig:** I don’t know. I mean, the truth is, because I do play a lot of video games, and frankly it seems like they are more invested in narrative and setup now than some of the movies. The really good ones at least are getting very cinematic and very narrative and they seem actually really obsessed with character.

I mean, obviously they play out in very different ways. The one thing that video games do that I don’t like, and I will see in movies, is they create segments that are entirely about the cleverness of the action, which I understand because it’s a video game and you need to play the game. But it does seem to me like sometimes screenwriters forget that clever is not good.

You may have a really cool idea for a scene in the flow of your plot, but frankly the only value of any scene, for me at least, even in action movies, is: What does it mean for the character? And what does it mean for the theme? I think one of the reasons we love Die Hard is because we’re watching a guy suffer. And each time he suffers he seems to be enlightened from the suffering. And we don’t like Commando as much because Arnold Schwarzenegger just seems to just get on a plane, shoot, get on a plane, shoot, get on a chopper, shoot.

So, I like to think about these things, like what the episode should be really should be the test for what the character needs at that moment to then move forward.

**Aline:** Right. I want to bring up something else which is a little slightly off-topic but I think interesting is: I think television is a huge part of this. And I think we consume way more television at this point than movies; I think that’s correct. But, anyway, we’re all consuming tons of television. And one thing I think is interesting is there is a trend now, a lot of feature writers are going into television, and a lot of people do both. But I have this belief that they’re fundamentally different types of storytelling.

I think TV and film are completely different. There are many people who have equal mastery. But I feel like I have spent so much of my career training myself to write something that could only have happened this one time. It has to be — it’s a cumulative thing. This is a singular thing that happened to this character and the stakes are as high as possible.

So, I have not trained myself to tell stories that can generate themselves over at the end. And some people do that extremely well, and a great television series often is something that can kick out iterations of itself. Now, some TV series it seems to me, like Mad Men seems to me to be a 100-minute long movie. And that’s an amazing skill to do, because he doesn’t repeat, he progresses. But I think that a traditional, in particular a procedural or a sitcom, is something that needs to be able to be repeated. And I think that’s a huge part of how people process stories now.

**John:** You’re really talking about: what is the engine? And so in television there is an engine for the self-contained one hour. There’s an engine for the 30-minute sitcom. And there’s also this sort of new engine for this sort of mega novel series, like the way that Lost is: every episode has its closure but there’s a bigger ongoing cycle.

And I feel like my frustration with some of these movies recently is I felt like they haven’t had good movie engines to them. And in the movie engine, like natural consequence, characters trying to go through things. Even simple things like, “Tell me where the characters think they’re trying to get to,” which I think is — your movies point to — your characters clearly state their goals in terms of what they’re trying to do. And they may not reach those goals, the goals may change, but you know what the character is trying to do over the course of this movie. And you are invested in them because you want to see them — are they going to make that thing?

You talk about, it’s a race; it’s like we’re a very specific kind of runner. We’re not a sprinter. We’re not a season-long marathoner, but we run like a 10K. And some of these movies aren’t running their 10Ks the way you kind of hope that they could.

**Craig:** Well, the other thing, and this is something for you guys to keep in mind when you’re writing, is that all the pressure to reduce will be on the first act. I love first acts. I’m obsessed with them. I love setting characters. My favorite pages are the first ten pages. I care about them more than anything. And not in the script stage — I think in the script stage I think they all really appreciate it. It’s when they’re making the movie, or when they’re cutting the movie and they’re like, “Can we just get into this faster?” That’s their thing.

Once they’ve read it once — Sorry Franklin, I keep saying “they,” but it’s “they” — once they’ve read it once they forgot that they read it and so when they read it a second time they’re like, “Eh, oh yeah,” so they just skip past it because they’ve read it. They don’t realize that no one else has read it. The audience hasn’t read it yet. They’re only going to read it when they see the movie. But all the pressure then becomes like, “Well, I’m bored; I’m sitting here. I just watching you guys set up. It’s boring, it’s boring, it’s boring. Let’s just go, let’s just go, let’s just go.”

So, when you’re writing, because setup is everything, be tight. Be compact. Those first ten are precious. And when we read the first three pages, sometimes the first three pages seem so, I don’t know, just…

**Aline:** Purposeless.

**Craig:** And really just spendy. They’re spending their pages.

**Aline:** Right. And it’s such precious real estate.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** I’m going to stand up and argue for the last ten pages of a script, too, which is another challenge. You get to the end of some of these movies and it’s like, “Well, we got there? Was that a rewarding place for us to get? I trusted you with two hours of my time and I thought we would get to a more interesting, better place than that.” And the movies that I love tend to have great beginnings, but they tend to have great endings, like you really got to someplace really meaningful.

**Aline:** One screenplay I would recommend, and I think it’s pretty easily available online, is the True Grit screenplay, which is a clinic on both of those things. I mean, they set up the tone, the story, they get you into the magic of that movie instantly, and then they have this beautiful epilogue/coda ending. And it’s also for people to read, it’s just as a reading experience. They don’t use — have you ever read it?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** There are no slug lines.

**Craig:** Yeah, I like that.

**Aline:** It’s beautiful.

**Craig:** Don’t do that, by the way. But I do like it.

**Aline:** Yeah. [laughs]

**John:** The Coen brothers can do that. The other ones don’t do that.

**Craig:** When you’ve made like 20 films, and you’re a genius, and you’re writing for your brother, then you can do it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** But in terms of getting into, there are some scripts that are — it’s very deft if you can do that, get in, and have it feel purposeful because there’s a lot of hitting an alarm clock in the beginning of scripts. You know, there’s a lot of, “They start their day, they take a shower.” You know, generally there are a lot of tropes in the beginning. And you want to find some way to start that the audience thinks, “Oh, this is — wow, what’s happening here?”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. I mean, you know, it’s interesting, because it is the first ten and the last ten that I always think about. When you start screenplays — I don’t know if you’re like me — I need to know the beginning, and I need to know the end. I need to know the theme. I need to know why this story for that character is interesting. Do you always know the beginning, and the end, and the middle?

**Aline:** I always know the end. I always know the end. Because the end, I mean, the end is why you’re there in a lot of ways. The end is what you’re doing.

I love writing first acts. And they usually come very quickly because this is sort of the — they’re really fun, I think, to write. And if you’re set up properly the third, though it might not be fun, should be pretty quick.

**Craig:** Right.

**Aline:** I think second acts are the bear. And I think second acts, you know, separate the men from the boys. And I feel like it was Ted Elliott…

**Craig:** Sexist.

**Aline:** Yes. The boys from the men, or the Boyz II Men.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** Oh!

**Aline:** I think it was Ted Elliott who said the second act is the movie you wanted to write. It’s the thing that people came to see. It’s what is on the poster. You know, if you’re going to see ET it’s the part where there is an ET and they’re interacting. But it is that thing of it is hard in the second act not to stack scenes in exactly that way you’re talking about.

And I think what happens is in a pitching, in a development process you will find when you pitch a movie, if you’re pitching for 12 minutes you pitch the first act for six minutes. And you pitch the setup, and you know the setup, and you really worked on it. And so you sit down and write the script, and you bust out the first act, and you feel awesome, and you feel like a regular person. And then you get to the second act and there are parts where you go, “We never talked about this!”

**John:** The vast wasteland in the middle of the movie.

**Aline:** It’s a lot of real estate. And you have to construct it. And so I actually try and blow through the first act quickly so that I can focus on that stuff. But I always know, and sometimes it shifts, but I have to know where I want the character to end up at the end and what sort of ending I have in mind, even if you end up joojing the particles.

**Craig:** Joojing.

**Aline:** Jooj.

**John:** I will write the last ten pages really early on in the process. I will tend to write the first act, then write the last ten pages, and then sort of paint in towards the middle. Partly it’s just a work process. Those last bits of things you’re going to write you’re always going to have to sort of rush to get done I find. I’m always sort of behind on a deadline. And I’d rather be painting towards the middle of the room rather than sort of painting towards the edge. I don’t want those ten pages to feel rushed.

If I’m going to rush I want to rush that —

**Craig:** Can you do that? I can’t do that.

**Aline:** No, I can’t do that. I think of it more like you’re weaving something, and you weave, weave, weave, and you know kind of roughly where you’re heading in the second act, but you don’t really know what you need for — I mean, in the third act — but you don’t really know what you need. And if you’ve constructed the carpet properly you’ll have a lot of cool threads. And what I enjoy about the third act is, like, “Oh, you can pay off this, and pay off that.” And it only works if you’ve woven everything into the second act.

**Craig:** It’s a devastating critique of your entire career.

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

**Aline:** I do a weird thing which is I sketch the whole story in a very, very rough, unreadable…

**Craig:** I do that, too.

**Aline:** I sketch the whole thing.

**Craig:** I do that on a piece of paper. And I make a line, and I sketch it.

**Aline:** No, I mean, oh, I mean I go through…

**John:** Craig, you’re wrong.

**Craig:** I sketch it.

**Aline:** [laughs] No, I go through and barf out a whole pass that’s legible.

**Craig:** Oh, you do that thing?

**Aline:** I am that thing. I build a skeleton. Because what I have found, early on in my career I would write that first act and then I would polish it, and perfect it, and hang little Christmas ornaments on it. And then it would be like, “Oh! I’ve got all this other stuff I got to do.” And you wouldn’t know, “Hey, the first act needs to be 10 pages shorter!” until you’ve done all this other stuff.

So, for me, I do a skeleton of the entire screenplay and then I go back and I put in the mosaics.

**John:** I will tend to do my last ten pages. I know that I’ll have to change some stuff in the last ten pages because I’ll discover other things along the way, but I tend to do that, filling in the skeleton sort of as part of my process. If I’m writing a scene and I’m basically done for the day, I’ll slug line the next seven things that happen so I can work on those things next, so I actually have —

**Aline:** That’s super smart. Because you want to have something to open up the next day.

**Craig:** I really note card it out. I always know what I’m doing the next day, you know. And my day — we work so differently, so my thing is I go, whatever I wrote for that day, the next day I start by going backwards and rewriting it. Because I just feel like sleeping has helped me. And also it just gives me a running start into the work of today.

**Aline:** But don’t you sometimes end up spending 80% of your time on the rewriting part?

**Craig:** You know, here’s the deal: I don’t work that much. There’s like jobs where people are on the highway working for ten hours. If I write for three hours it’s a pretty good day. So, if I spend two hours polishing and then one hour in a kind of burst of inspiration that that got me running into, you know, it’s hard to beat myself up for it. “Oh my god, I might have to work a fourth hour today!”

So I can’t — I’m okay with that. And my whole thing about the second act is really just to look at the character and their relation to the central arc or the theme. And I have a basic sketch out. And then I really sit — I just feel like even though I deviate from the note cards as I go, I never feel lost. I never hit a moment of despair. I get anxious, you know, I get worried. I stop and I go, “Okay, I’ve got a note card problem here.” But I’m never full of despair.

**Aline:** But for me the outline/note card brain is different from the writing brain. So, the outline/note — that’s why I don’t really love doing extensive, extensive outlines with people, particularly before. I will do a verbal outline of the whole thing that last about 15 minutes where I can pitch you through the whole story. But I find that they’re not very good guides of what it feels like to be in the movie.

And so I feel like it’s very theoretical information and often I’ll have in an outline or a note card, and then I’ll be in the scene and be like, “Oh, nobody wants to do — none of the characters want to do this thing that’s on this card.”

**Craig:** That, you know what I do, because you’re right — and so I have actually two rows of notes. More note cards is the solution. So, I have my this is what happens note card, but next to that note card, in a different colored note card…

**John:** Wow.

**Aline:** Wow. See, serial killer. I said that.

**Craig:** Okay. What I do — well, first I tell the people in my basement to shut up.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** I’m working! And then — and then — next to the what happens note card is a why, a why it happens note card. Because I feel like that is important. If I know why things are happening, how their relationship is changing, what it means, what they notice, then frankly the what can change to 100 different things. But really what I’m outlining is my intention as opposed to plot.

And when I outline my intention then I feel like the second act isn’t so scary anymore.

**Aline:** I like that.

**Craig:** Well thank you. You’re free to go.

**John:** [laughs] No, you’re actually free to stay. We are going to open up for some questions. And so if you have a question that you wanted to ask us…

**Aline:** Wow. The crowd has like doubled since we got here.

**Craig:** I know. It’s like The Birds.

**Aline:** There’s at 17 or 18 people here now.

**John:** Let us take, the jacket right here. Question?

**Male Audience Member:** What about openings? Can you talk about character introductions and really crafting the first time the audience meets our protagonist?

**John:** So, I’m going to repeat this just in case it didn’t get recorded well. The question is about introducing characters and how to handle that the first time we meet somebody.

**Craig:** Didn’t we do a podcast on that?

**John:** We did talk about it, but we could talk about how Aline does it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The first time you meet a character in one of your scripts, how many words do you give them?

**Aline:** I don’t do a lot, I don’t do a ton, because I feel like you’re going to want to learn from behavior. And you want to have them behaving right off the bat in some way that tells — you want them to do something that tells the audience everything you need to know about the character. But I really do, I was very influenced by the William Goldman book. And so I really do do that thing where picking out a detail about a character the way you would say to someone, sort of like if you met someone at a party and you were going to describe them to your friend, you would say, “Oh, he’s the guy who… He’s the type of person who… She’s the kind of person who would say this/wear this/be friends with this/live here.”

You’re looking for the salient detail. What I would avoid is things which are — the character descriptions should be as purposeful as your story. So, I would not include a lot of extraneous stuff, descriptions about clothing, or hair, or whatever unless it really is…

**Craig:** No hair.

**Aline:** Unless it is germane to the story.

**Craig:** Yeah, I’m not a big fan of these character introductions where you tell me stuff that I haven’t seen in the movie yet. I hate that. Yeah, I’m getting there. You know, “When Jim walks in the room he’s had a life of woe, but he’s about to meet…”

**Aline:** “He thinks of his mother.”

**Craig:** All I really try and do in a character introduction really is convey immediately non-verbally or sub-textually, “What is this character’s strength and what is their problem, the problem that they’re not aware of yet?” I just want to know what that is. I want to know what they’re good at and I want to know what they’re bad at.

And by “bad at” I mean just that they’re maybe misaligned, maybe priority out of whack, something tiny. But I think that’s ultimately what we hook into on characters is their strengths and their weaknesses, what they want will emerge naturally from the circumstances of the plot, but I want to know why they’re going to have a problem getting it. I want to know why they don’t already have it. But I want to see what is good and unique about them, because I’m with them, you know.

**John:** I agree very much with what they’ve said. The only thing I’ll add is use character introductions, use the extra sentence you might give to a significant character’s introduction as a way of distinguishing between the important characters and the less important characters. So, if it’s your hero, feel free giving an extra sentence or two to sort of setup, “This is your hero — yes, reader, pay attention — this really is your main person.”

Don’t do that for the person who is only going to be in the one scene, or the unimportant person, because it will throw the reader off and make them think this character is much more important than they really are. And so that’s why I don’t tend to give really minor characters individual names. They might be Agitated Guy versus giving him a name. Because the minute we see a name we think, “Oh, that’s an important person I need to keep track of.” And it sort of goes in your little mental checklist, like, “What happened to that guy who had the name?” So do that.

Another question from the audience. Here.

**Male Audience Member:** How do you guys feel about interactive storytelling, like the YouTube videos that allow the audience to make decisions that impact story. Have you seen it done well?

**John:** So, the question is about interactive storytelling that YouTube videos have, the ones where you can click and sort of fork through different paths. Have you guys done those at all?

**Craig:** No, I hate it. I mean, to me, that’s a game. I mean, I remember reading those books when I was a kid, Choose Your Own Adventure, and they’re a goof. But the point is, that’s not why people watch things. That’s not why people read things. They don’t want to play Choose Your Own Adventure beyond just a party game. They want a voice to carry them through a story. We love narrative.

That’s why the Bible continues to — it’s not Choose Your Own Bible. People actually want a narrative. And I’m not a big Bible fan, but the Bible does have impressive sales numbers.

No, I mean, I just don’t think — people will occasionally say, “Well, it’s the new thing, that’s where it’s going because people want to be involved.” They don’t. Going to the movies, watching TV, the engagement that we have is one in which we are accepting an artist’s intention or rejecting it, but not participating in it.

**Aline:** But it’s also telling you about, how a story turns out is your education about the world. It’s how we get information about what could happen, should happen, does happen. So, if you’re saying, you know, “this could happen, or that could happen,” to me it undermines the fundamental — I was never interested in those books, and it always seemed like a giant copout for me that you’re not giving anyone any information about your narrative. So, taste wise it’s not for me.

**Craig:** And it could only be about plot. Because what are you suggesting, that this character from the beginning somehow should live or should die, or should get married, or should have the kid, or shouldn’t? Oh, I guess it could be anything, so it doesn’t matter.

**John:** So, a little counter argument here. I would say…

**Craig:** Ugh.

**Aline:** No.

**John:** I’m saying in the video game world — and Craig, you play Skyrim.

**Craig:** I do, yes.

**Aline:** Wrong.

**John:** So, I would say there’s a kind of cinematic storytelling that’s happening mostly in video games that is very much: You’re choosing your path, but you really are the character. And that’s the thing that is happening in video games where the lead character is the person who’s playing it.

And so my friend Jordan Mechner often talks about, “You have to make sure that the story moments are playable,” that it’s not like you’re watching a cut scene where that cool thing happened, where you made that cool thing happen. And that’s an incredibly complicated, different, new kind of world to move into, that’s not sort of what we do. But the sense that you have changed the world in this way and because of what you did everything is now different is challenging.

**Aline:** One of the things that’s really interesting about writing a screenplay is you’re balancing, it has to feel completely ineluctable, but surprising.

**Craig:** That’s a great word.

**John:** First time it’s ever been used on this podcast.

**Aline:** That is what you’re doing. It has to be like it was destined to be this way and yet I was surprised that it happened that way. That is your job number one. Because a lot scripts you read that are not successful, that are proficient, tell you a story in a way that just seems like it could have been ordered in any way, or they tell you something where it does seem relatively organic but it doesn’t happen in a surprising way. Those are the two — a really satisfying movie satisfies those two things.

So, I think we’re the wrong people to ask because we’ve sort of dedicated our lives to making a story seem ineluctable, and that the characters don’t have choices.

**Craig:** Good stories can only be that way. Even video games… — Look, I played Skyrim a lot. The truth is, those moments are playable, but those are the moments you get. You don’t get other moments. You need to follow their story. It must end a certain way or you keep dying and you have to restart. You know what I mean? They won’t let you off those rails.

What video games do, and I actually hate it, is they will build in these silly choices like, “Well, if you were chaotic then you’ll get this cut scene ending, and if you were cool you’ll get this one.” It’s dumb. There’s really one ending. You can tell which one the ending is. Even then you can tell, “Well this was the ending they wanted. This is — ” Like I’m play Dishonored right now, and you have choice: As you go through you can be stealthy and just choke people out and let them sleep, or you can kill them. And if you kill them…

**John:** I think Craig kills people.

**Craig:** Wrong.

**John:** Ah!

**Craig:** Because I’m escaping from my normal life of killing. So, in the video game I just choke them out. Because I can tell the game wants me to. I can tell that that is the narrative, that’s the right one. This is the whole point — intention and purpose, they are the bedrock foundation of good storytelling and narrative. Without it, shh. I just made that up. It’s my version of ineluctable.

**John:** Another question please. Over here.

**Male Audience Member:** If we have a lot of ideas about sound design… [Inaudible].

**John:** So, a question about writing and sound design and sound in movies. And music.

**Craig:** Put it in. I mean, look, don’t get annoying. You don’t want to have a cue for every scene, because that can be annoying, unless your movie is about music and then in which case, okay.

You’re not stepping on anybody’s toes. By the time it gets to post-production your toes have been lopped off, chopped, fed back to you anyway. Everybody is going to have ideas. Music costs money; that’s obviously one of the factors. The director is going to…

**Aline:** I’m going to counter that just a little bit, which is I would only do it if it is something that your reader is going to recognize and understand the purpose of. Because I have a pet peeve about reading scripts where it’s like, you know, “This jangly song by obscure band,” and it means a lot to the writer and it means nothing to the audience. And I don’t want to go to iTunes.

So, if there’s a reason that you want to put in something, and it’s super specific. And I understand clearly it’s…it has to be what?

**Craig:** It’s got to be Free Bird.

**Aline:** If it’s so motivated by the story, and it’s so integrated in the story, and I’ve certainly seen it done well, but it starts to feel like non-sequiturs that are done to either demonstrate your groovy taste or because you’re insecure about your through line.

If you can take it out and it doesn’t make a difference in your story, then don’t do it. But if the audience is going to understand you’re using Brown Sugar here because you’re trying to evoke something specific and maybe you’re quoting a lyric, then by all means do it.

I think — if there’s one thing I could say that’s my recent, more recent, obsession is: Put less stuff in there. Just put less stuff in there. You probably have 20% too much stuff. And I notice when I first write, there’s just too much information. You want to be as — and I’m not saying write at a minimal style, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying you want as much information as is necessary to move your story where you need it to go. And sometimes stuff like your cool Snow Patrol song is just cluttering. That’s just my opinion.

**Craig:** I mean, he doesn’t seem like that kind of guy.

**Aline:** Snow Patrol?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The thing I’ll say is: Remember that a screenplay is only what you can see and what you can hear. And so most of what’s going on in a screenplay is the stuff you see, it’s the scene description, and it’s the dialogue, it’s the stuff that you’re going to hear.

If there is something really important that we need to hear that’s not dialogue, you can tell us, and that’s great. But I will very rarely use a specific song, but I might say, “Music swells as we transition to this.” It can also help make it clear to the reader like, “This is a sequence that is going to take us through…”

**Aline:** Oh, definitely. Didn’t you just write a script where there was a “Whomp” or something?

**John:** Yeah. “Woooooooom.” Yeah. Where, “There’s a reason why I’m calling this out, that there’s a song here is because these next couple scenes are one big sequence that all has to hold together.” So, think about these next things with a sound cue under it that’s uniting all those things.

**Craig:** That’s pretty much what I do, too.

**John:** Cool. Another questions. Right here.

**Female Audience Member:** I’m penning a novel version of one of my scripts. And over the last few days of the festival [inaudible]. How to attract interest in your screenplay by roundabout means, including a blog, or a website [inaudible]?

**John:** Cool. So, recapping the question: She is taking her screenplay and turning it into a novel, and what do we think about this sort of reverse engineering to create underlined material?

**Craig:** I mean, you know, look: If it’s a bad script you will successful reverse engineer it into a bad novel.

**Female Audience Member:** That’s not the case.

**Craig:** Oh! Then I have great news. Great news for you! You don’t have to turn it into a novel! It’s a great script! I mean, look, there are some people who — I think on some level there’s some specific material where you think, “Well, if they read it as a book they might like it more as a screenplay.” But, you know, the problem with access, and publishing has become a world of complete open access now where anyone can have a book on Amazon. You just self publish it and voila. Now anyone can have a book on Amazon, so that’s sort of gone away, too.

The agencies in Hollywood aren’t looking through Amazon to see who got the most hits on self-published. They do not care. Their feeling is…

**Aline:** Unless it’s a phenomenon. Unless it’s one of those phenomena.

**Craig:** Oh, but then that’s, yeah. If a sales number, Fifty Shades of Grey hits, but look at the numbers it had to hit — like mind-boggling — before they went, “Oh, okay, well this book that publishing houses didn’t want, people want.”

I personally think that you’d be better served either revising or improving your screenplay if you feel it’s necessary, or writing another screenplay, or being a novelist. But gaming the system by double writing your thing and seeing if they’d like a book and then, “Oh, look, here’s a screenplay!” seems an inefficient way to proceed through our short, brief, blink-like time on this planet.

**John:** What I will say is, there was for a time, people would do comic books or graphic novels. They’d write the script and then they’d actually make the comic book version of it, and then they’d sell the comic book version. And so some of those things sold. I don’t know of any ones that actually got made. And, so, yes, maybe there’s a chance that something could sell, but really your goal is to get a movie made. And I don’t know if that’s going get you much faster or closer to a movie being made.

**Male Audience Member:** Cowboys & Aliens.

**John:** Cowboys & Aliens, all right.

**Craig:** That’s why they don’t do it anymore. No, I mean, it’s true. Cowboys & Aliens was famously bought because of the title and the cover. And it was an amazing title and cover. Very cool. Man on cowboy and horseback, riding, looking back over an alien ship shooting at him. Cowboys & Aliens. And then, you know, you had to write it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it was like, “Oh god, there’s still Cowboys & Aliens. Uh…what do we do?”

I have a friend I know who’s a writer, and he had an idea, and this was about six or seven years ago when this was in vogue, and he and his friend just sort of wrote it up quickly as a thing for a graphic novel, and then they got it set up because — they didn’t even write the graphic novel. And this was sort of happening a lot six or seven years ago. Less now. I think everybody was sort of hip to it. They’re like, you know, “Just write a screenplay for us.” They make so many fewer movies now than they did six or seven years ago that their desire to churn through material, it’s been diminished and…

**John:** The only other counter example that just occurred to me is Derek Haas’s Popcorn Fiction. So, Derek Haas has this great site that he set up and other people are now running that does short stories written by screenwriters basically. And so Derek had a story that he wrote there that someone bought. It hasn’t gotten made, so it’s gotten made, so it’s not a good example.

Eric Heisserer did actually write a short story with the intention, but here’s the crucial distinction is he wrote the short story knowing he would love to make a movie out of it, but he wrote the short story first because that was the thing that he could sell, and then he wrote the script.

**Craig:** The short story essentially is a prose pitch, really. The thing is a novel, that’s a novel.

**John:** That’s a novel. A novel is a lot of work.

**Craig:** That’s a lot of work. It’s lot of work to do all of it and, you know what I mean, you might as well just write five pages of it and see if that. Or, you’re screenplay is already done.

**John:** Yeah, done.

**Craig:** You’re done.

**John:** A question from the audience. In back there, you.

**Male Audience Member:** [Inaudible]

**Craig:** Oh, d’oh! No.

**Male Audience Member:** [Inaudible]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Yeah, well don’t put babies in boxes.

**Aline:** Nobody puts baby in a box.

**Craig:** Nobody puts baby in a box.

**John:** Was that all of your question or was there more to it?

**Craig:** Was your question “Should I have done that?”

**John:** How do I get my baby out of a box?

**Craig:** How do you get your baby out of a box?

**Male Audience Member:** [Inaudible]

**John:** Oh, no, you’re basically asking Craig to take umbrage.

**Craig:** Did I pay you to do this?

**John:** …And you’re going to poke him with a stick.

**Aline:** Before, no, but you know what? I’m going to say this in defense of books, which is this: I think you can read one and I think it doesn’t matter which one it is. I think you could also take a six-week writing class. I think if you don’t know anything, if you’re starting from scratch, you need something that familiarizes you with the basic, it’s a three act… —

I mean, honestly, it’s a three act structure. There’s about ten or fifteen, you know, I guess you could call them rules, but ten or fifteen sort of givens that people have when they’re talking about scripts. I think most of the books, and I would just go with what are the most famous ones, will familiarize you with that. That’s all you need. You do not need to follow them. You just need to be familiar with those concepts.

And, what I always say is the good thing about — the best thing about writing is it’s highly, highly, highly subjective practice. So, anything that you do over, and over, and over again you will get good at. And the more you write the better you will write. So, that’s why I like, in an instance with the screenplay/novel thing, I would just say keep writing screenplays. Keep practicing. You’re going to get better.

I think it is good to be familiar with the basic, right?

**Craig:** Yeah. But read screenplays and you’ll become familiar with them. I mean, look, here’s the deal: Very simple solution. Whatever you did to your script, did you like it before you read the stupid book? Okay. So, throw away the one that’s the stupid one now. Go back to the one you wrote and just think about it. And think about, and show it to people that you care about and who are willing to be honest with you. And ask them for feedback. You cannot get through it but for going through it.

And certainly what you can’t do is impose something artificial on top of it, like a fake structure that a million movies defy anyway. And I will point out, as I’ve pointed out a million times: none of those people — none of them — are as successful as her, or me, or John at doing this. None of them.

Don’t you think that if they knew really the secret they would just write movies?

**Aline:** Yeah. But I still think you can pick up Syd Field and just get the basics.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Aline:** And there are certainly people who write about writing where writing is not the — he’s doing an analysis. I took a class at NYU with a great teacher who was a screenwriter, but one of the things that he said which has really stuck with me, on the first day he gave us a handout and he said, “You know how to tell stories.” You know, the average person by the time they’re 30 has watched something like 20,000 hours of narrative. I mean, it’s something absurd like that.

We have that in our bones. The problem is that what you know in your instinct and you gut is a great story, it gets confused when people start writing. And I’m not sure why that is, but it is sort of — even somebody who’s a great storyteller at the bar will sit down to write and all of a sudden they start violating everything that they instinctively know is a story.

**Craig:** Because it’s a long story. I mean, honestly, no one sits at a bar and tells a story for two hours.

**Aline:** Yeah. But people don’t sit down and write great 20 minute stories, either. I mean, it’s not like it’s easy to find a short film either.

**Craig:** I agree.

**Aline:** It’s just somehow the process of taking what we intuitively understand is a great yarn, and learning how to craft it…

**John:** Knowing the order in which it needs to go so that it actually makes the most sense, like the first time through it all makes sense, so you can’t sort of stop and restart.

**Craig:** There’s our lady.

**John:** Yeah, so we have five minutes, which is the perfect amount of time for some One Good Things.

**Aline:** Aren’t they One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean…

**John:** One Cool Thing/One Good Thing, we change it up.

**Craig:** No, we’ve never changed it until now.

**John:** So, Aline, if you have a One Cool Thing you can share it with us, or you can do what Craig does, when he does not have an idea, and then by the time I finish talking…

**Aline:** I want to hear what you guys do. I want to wrap it up.

**John:** Cool. My One Cool Thing is actually a website that I started and kind of forgot about, but then Stuart actually maintains. So, I have screenwriting.io. And so on johnaugust.com I started that site by answering a lot of questions. People would write in questions — actually, I originally did it as part of IMDb, so like people would write in questions about screenwriting, and I would answer the screenwriting questions, and Penelope Spears would answer the directing questions, and Oliver Stapleton would answer the cinematographer questions.

So, I started answering those questions. I started answering them on my site after awhile, and I just kind of sick of it because they were just kind of the same questions again and again. But people still have those questions, and I wanted people to be able to get those answers. So, I started screenwriting.io, and it’s just those answers. That’s all it is is just answers to common screenwriting questions. And like nothing is too basic to ask, sort of like, the old question used to be like, How many brads do you put in a script?” And people don’t really use brads anymore because they send PDFs. But answering really basic questions.

So, if you have a basic question about screenwriting, or somebody asks you a basic question and you’re like, “I don’t know,” you can send them there. So, it’s just screenwriting.io.

**Craig:** Well, I have a One Cool Thing, and it seems like it’s a little bit of a copout, and usually they are because like he says I think of them while he’s talking. But this is really is a Cool Thing. And my Cool Thing is this, is the Austin Screenwriting Conference, and I’ll tell you why.

**John:** Yay!

**Aline:** Shameless pandering.

**Craig:** Yup. Absolutely. Because get so angry, box baby guy, because I get so angry about these books and stuff, and you know, Syd Field, like learning about three acts and all that is great, but the truth is for you guys you are beset upon by charlatans, and thieves, and frauds. It is amazing; the industry of lies that surround the aspiring screenwriter is just so disturbing. And the titles of the books alone, it’s almost like they betray — they are crafted to be the opposite of what they are. How to Make a Good Script Great. Or, How to Make Your Okay Script Shitty. I mean, that’s really what happens.

Everything about it is wrong. And the only way — I do feel like the only way I’ve ever gotten better over the course of my career is by being friends with and talking to writers who are better than I was, and who have been doing it longer than I had been doing it. And who could look at me and say, “Eh,” because they had authority. And the authority came from experience. That’s why I like this.

If you’re going to spend your money on screenwriting, this is where you should spend it, because you hear from people who actually do it. You will get the actual truth, then stop spending money. So, you go here, so this is your money-spending for screenwriting for the year. Do it, and then don’t spend anymore until next October.

But, I think it’s a great thing that they do here and I want to thank them for doing it. It’s terrific and I’m very happy that you guys come to this. This is worth it, so good for you.

**Aline:** Wow. That should have been the last one.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That’s how I roll.

**John:** He’s the closer.

**Aline:** Yeah, well you close.

**Craig:** “There’s an app I really like…”

**Aline:** Yup. It’s going to be like that. I’m done.

**Craig:** No, no, do it, do it, do it.

**Aline:** No.

**Craig:** Do it. Do it. Do the app.

**Aline:** So, I was going to recommend a blog, which is one of the few blogs that I read. Because I wanted to bring some lady energy to the panel, and because I told Craig months ago that I would be wearing my YSL Tribute Platforms, and I wanted to make sure he wasn’t going to be wearing his as well.

**Craig:** Fluevogs.

**Aline:** Oh, I know, you like those weird shoes. There’s a blogger, and her blog is called The Man Repeller. Has anyone heard of Man Repeller? It’s been around for a couple of years. And her name is Leandra Medine. And the reason that I’m drawing attention to it, it’s a fashion blog, but the reason I’m drawing attention to it on the podcast is she’s a really good writer.

And what I think is interesting is that her basic premise is that to dress for men would be a simple thing. You would wear a tight black dress, and high heels, and men would be happy.

**Craig:** Sounds good. Tell me more.

**Aline:** But what she does is use fashion sort of as a means of expressing herself, and being innovative, and mixing classic things with funky things, and really showing what you can do as a woman, not always worrying about what’s going to showcase your butt.

And I think she does it in a way that’s so funny, and so witty, and she’s very young — I think she’ s in her early 20’s. And she’s very clever. And if you guys have an interest in fashion — she’s just a great female writer. I think she has a really unique voice. And so I know that once Craig and John read that, the next time they do the podcast they’re going to be wearing something super cool and man repelling.

**John:** Done. Guys, thank you so very much.

**Craig:** Thank you, everyone.

**John:** Thank you, Aline.

**Craig:** Thank you, Aline. Thank you, Franklin.

**John:** Thank you, Franklin Leonard.

**Craig:** Thank you, Austin.

**John:** Have a good afternoon.

**Aline:** Thanks everybody.

Scriptnotes, Ep 59: Plot holes, and the myth of perseveraversity — Transcript

October 19, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/plot-holes-and-the-myth-of-perseveraversity).

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, episode 59, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

How are you, Craig?

**Craig:** I’m doing fine, John. How are you after Halloweenie?

**John:** I’m doing pretty well. I actually wrote a little blog post about my feelings on it, because as we talked during the last podcast I didn’t know which of three futures we were living in — whether we were living in future where Frankenweenie did extraordinarily well, did just fine, or did less than hoped. And we are in the “less than hoped” alternate universe.

And yet I wanted to make sure that… — I was blogging about I want to make sure that I wasn’t letting that disappointment over how much money we made sour my experience of the whole movie, which has been my experience on other things where something you really love a lot, a bad thing happens, and suddenly you feel like, “Well I can’t love it anymore; I can’t even think about it anymore,” because you only remember the bad stuff.

So, it was a very therapeutic blog post.

**Craig:** I think that’s exactly right. And the truth is that these movies get discovered, and sometimes they get discovered in their own time. Didn’t Nightmare Before Christmas kind of go through a — it wasn’t a big box office hit, and then it just exploded later?

**John:** Absolutely. It became a phenomenon quite later. So, I think, that’s one of the things I cite in the blog post, but also Go, which did not come out roaring in the box office and ended up being a very useful thing for my career. So, yeah.

I’d rather have a good movie that doesn’t make a lot of money than a bad movie that makes a lot of money.

**Craig:** I’ll tell you the worst situation is when you have a bad movie that also doesn’t make a lot of money. [laughs] Because, you know, I mean one day we should do a podcast on Superhero, or what was absurdly retitled Superhero Movie, and what an awful experience it was for me to work on it, and make it, and then also to watch it crash and burn.

It was just sort of… — That might be therapeutic for me.

**John:** [laughs] Talking through it. The second Charlie’s Angels is a bit of that for me, because the first Charlie’s Angels was, you know, an adrenaline high of a really hard to make movie, but we ended up doing it right, and people liked it a lot, and it became sort of — we were an underdog. And then coming in with the expectations of the second movie, which was just a nightmare to shoot, and it not performing well, it was frustrating on a lot of levels.

**Craig:** Yeah. You never want to… — We are taught, there’s a narrative that if you persevere in the face of terrible adversity you will come out on the other end successful. And yet there are times when you persevere through terrible adversity and you still die. [laughs] You know, you battle cancer and they give you a clean bill of health and you walk out of the hospital and a bus mows you down. And those are rough moments, and frankly hard to derive very positive lessons from them beyond “sometimes you lose,” you know?

But that’s not what happened here, I don’t think, at all. I think you have a great attitude about it. Because I suspect that this movie will — good movies, especially good movies for kids, and especially good movies for kids that are tied to holidays, they have a way of living forever.

**John:** Yeah. Plus movies about kids and dogs.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. That’s exactly right.

**John:** Done. You have kids, dogs, Halloween, you’ve got animation of the dead.

**Craig:** And you have a great title, Halloweenie.

**John:** Exactly. If only we had chosen the Craig Mazin title rather than the actual title that we used.

**Craig:** I may be onto something.

**John:** So, last week was our very special episode in that we looked at the very first screenplays that we had ever written, and so we did our Three Page Challenge on ourselves, and looked at those three pages.

And one of our listeners wrote in a very smart follow up question. Kevin in Sydney, Australia wrote, “If you could each give your first screenplay writing selves one piece of advice that would help you learn the craft a little quicker, what would it be? Or, conversely, what thing were you stressed out about that turned out to be really unimportant?”

**Craig:** Well, I think I kind of said it in our last horrifying podcast. For me it would be to not overlook good, basic, non-comedy oriented storytelling. Make really good characters. Write really good interesting scenes. Don’t let the comedy lead everything, because you’re not doing a sitcom; you’re doing a movie.

And what was the second part of that question?

**John:** “Conversely, was there anything that you were stressed out about when you were writing that first screenplay that ended up being really unimportant?”

**Craig:** Oh, just, like, “there has to be five jokes on every page?”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** No. One really, really good one is much better.

**John:** I would agree with you there. My two pieces of advice to young John August would be to make things worse for my hero. I think I had this sense, and a lot of new writers have, is that you love your characters and don’t want bad things to happen to them. But, no, you’re a screenwriter and you should make terrible things happen to your [characters], and so you should embarrass them in comedies and kill their loved ones in dramas. You need to make things as difficult as possible for your heroes, and that’s a hard lesson to learn, because you love these characters and you don’t want anything bad to happen to them.

But you have to make bad things happen to them, because you’re god. And god has to make disasters and floods.

**Craig:** That’s right. That’s right. And specifically you, as god, you look at a character and you decide, “I must put them through the most miserable thing for them, or else they will not come out the other end improved.”

**John:** Yeah. And I think my converse advice is that early on in my career I was so worried about pleasing everybody that I would sort of take notes and really try to work notes that were just not the right notes. And I would take notes from people who just really didn’t understand what I was trying to do and try to implement them. And that is just a recipe for disaster.

**Craig:** It is. That is a burden that we carry our entire careers. And there is always a time, in every movie, no matter how well it’s going, where you suddenly have a moment of clarity and realize: “I’m actually now just writing towards people, specific people. I’m no longer writing towards the audience.” And that’s when you need to stop.

And I have to tell you, in general, when you say to people, “Look, I feel like this is what’s happening,” they, too, suddenly become scared. They don’t want to be responsible for something bad. You can’t obviously say it every day, but when you have that feeling, you got to put your hand up. You have to put the movie before your own feelings, your need to be accepted, your fears, etc.

**John:** Yeah. It’s hard as screenwriters because I think we are by nature good boys, and we want to please people. And you are not always going to be able to please people. And it took me years to learn that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, today I thought we’d talk about three things. First, I want to answer some listener questions, because it’s been awhile and they’re sort of stacking up. Second, you had suggested we talk about plot holes, so let’s talk about plot holes. And third, we have two Three Page samples that we meant to get to last week, we didn’t get to last week, so I thought we’d do those this week.

**Craig:** Perfect.

**John:** It’s going to be a full show. Let’s get started.

**Craig:** Do it.

**John:** First question comes from Ricardo in Italy. He writes, “I haven’t seen Frankenweenie yet, because the movie will come out here only in January, but I would like to ask you something. What is the exact meaning of all the names? I think I get all the references to classic monster movies, but why Persephone, Colossus, Toshiaki, Rzykruski? And Weird Girl has no real name?”

So, I’ve answered some questions on the blog people have written about Frankenweenie, but this was a good general purpose question, because I think how you name your characters is really important, so I can talk about sort of why I named these characters these names.

The hero of the story is Victor Frankenstein, because it’s always as Victor Frankenstein, but the rest of the characters are essentially new to the story. So, Mr. Burgermeister is the next door neighbor. “Burgermeister” actually means “mayor,” and so it’s like this fake Dutch town, and so Burgermeister is just the mayor of this town.

Persephone is the dog next door. Persephone is the queen of the undead in Greek mythology, and so it’s sort of nice to have a reference there. I think we had a different P name for the dog originally, the poodle, and Persephone just felt right.

Colossus is a joke. So, one of the boys, Nassor, resurrects his beloved pet and has this massive tomb, and he says, “Rise, Colossus,” and of course a little hamster comes out. So, it’s just the joke of Colossus.

Toshiaki, I needed a Japanese name, and it sounded like a good Japanese name. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t using the same first letter as any of the other characters in the story.

Rzykruski was the instinct to have the most difficult to pronounce name you could find so that all the characters in the movie would sort of avoid saying it if they could. And so when he wrote it on the board it was funny.

So, they’re all there to be sort of specific, and I didn’t want any Joneses or Smiths. There’s one Bob, but he actually just looks like a Bob. He’s sort of a big, chubby boy. And the rest of the parents, like the mom and the dad don’t have specific names. Bob’s mom is just Bob’s Mom. It’s really a story about the kids.

**Craig:** Should I give my answer now? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Yeah, what’s your answer?

**Craig:** I actually think that that’s really interesting. I obsess over the names. Obsess.

**John:** I do too.

**Craig:** And it’s funny because sometimes when you’re writing a movie where it’s not fantastic and it’s just regular people you think, “Well, why obsess over a name like Phil?” But it’s either right or it’s wrong, and you will type that name over, and over, and over. Don’t be afraid to change it if it feels wrong.

**John:** So, the pilot that I’m writing right now for ABC, there’s a family of four, and I knew one of the girl’s names right from the very start. It was an interesting name that was believable enough but obscure enough — that’s just right. I knew the dad’s name. The boy, found a good name for him. And then the mom, the wife, she was the hardest character because I had this image in my head of who she was, and she’s sort of an Amanda Peet kind of character. And so what do you name Amanda Peet in this role?

**Craig:** Well, I just did it. So, what did you name her?

**John:** I ended up naming her Lisa.

**Craig:** I went for Trish.

**John:** Trish? Trish is a great name. But Trish feels more like the snarky Amanda Peet, and this is sort of the little bit more serious Amanda Peet.

**Craig:** Yeah, my Amanda Peet was, yeah, she was kind of a slightly sassy but understanding wife. And I know a Trish who is a slightly sassy understanding wife, so maybe that’s — really, sometimes that’s all it is.

**John:** Yeah. Lisa feels like she could be an accountant. And so I had to violate one of my principal rules in that I have Lisa and Logan — Logan is the son. And usually I would not have two L names in a script, but they’re such different names, and one is a boy and one is a mom. I just felt like no one is going to get them confused.

**Craig:** A general piece of advice: If your character reminds you of or is inspired by somebody that you know in real life, take the name. Because just using the name sometimes helps, just helps you kind of connect with the person that you’re writing.

**John:** I agree.

Our next question is from Jack in Massachusetts who writes, “I heard on your latest podcast that Craig wrote the script Identity Thief. I wrote a much different script called Fake ID about two guys who steal the identity of a newly married man and woman and go on their honeymoon. So, although the premise of stealing an identity is the same, my script was obviously very different. Should I give up on the dream of having my script sold, or do you think because they’re so different I shouldn’t worry about another ID movie being made?”

**Craig:** Oh, I mean, if — Here’s the problem. There are two possibilities. Identity Thief is a hit or Identity Thief is not a hit. If it is a hit, you should know that that space has been occupied by a hit movie and it’s going to be tough for you to not look like a copycat. If it’s a bomb everyone’s going to say, “Oh, we don’t make movies about people stealing IDs. Remember Identity Thief? What a bomb.” So, it definitely impacts the salability of your script.

What Identity Thief nor any movie can impact is the quality of your script. So, while I and Universal Studios may have negatively impacted your fortune here, if you’ve written a really good script you will be noticed as a writer and you will work. So, I can’t say it’s all good news, but it’s not the worst possible situation.

**John:** I would reframe how he thinks of his movie. Because I think part of the problem is his title. Fake ID, the ID sounds like Identity Thief; it puts people in the same mind frame as that. But this is the logline or pitch for his movie: These two con artists take another couple’s honeymoon and hilarity ensues. Essentially if you frame it as these people and not sort of the identify theft of it all you have a valid premise there. So, I wouldn’t try to put a giant spotlight on the stuff that’s obviously similar, like the word “identity” or “ID.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And there you have a premise. Because people impersonating other people, that’s a standard premise. That goes back to Greek drama or comedy.

**Craig:** Yeah. Maybe just re-title it Stolen Honeymoon.

**John:** Yeah. Done.

**Craig:** Or something like that. And then — great point — then you sort of avoid the stink of it and you don’t have to worry so much about it. And, frankly, I don’t even think, just from what he described as his premise, the actual theft of the ID is probably something that you could change or alter anyway so that it’s not ID based.

**John:** Yeah, completely. I wanted to throw that question in because a lot of times I’ll be flipping through the trades or something and see a premise for something and it’s like, “Oh my god, that’s so totally my movie.” But that’s because I’m reading like a sentence of a log line. I’m seeing a title that seems similar to something that I’m working on. But, if I actually really dug into it, they are not related at all.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s only because in my head everything is about this one movie that I’m working on. And that’s not at all the reality on the ground.

A question from Joseph, who I don’t have a city for: “With the Austin Festival approaching I was wondering what type of experience an aspiring writer/director could have attending alone. Is it easy to network on your own? Or does everyone attend in groups?”

**Craig:** Well, my experience is that people do tend to show up with a friend or as part of a group, but networking — you know, I have been…that word has made me cringe for 20 years now. Because any social circumstance where you are trying to meet people or talk to people is akin to dating, and networking is very similar to going to a bar and working pickup lines, you know?

You will likely find other people with similar interests to you if you go to certain panels and you just strike up conversations. And don’t worry so much about networking, because the truth of the matter is most of the people you’re going to talk to at Austin Film Festival aren’t professionals. They’re not in the business. They’re just like you — they’re learning.

And so it’s less about networking and more about just making friends with similar interests. And if you go with that in mind, I think you’ll find that after basically once 8 o’clock comes around everybody starts drinking and having a great old time in the bar. And if you can meet some friends, you know, make some plans with them and get to know people and don’t be quite so calculating about it. I think you’ll have a good time.

**John:** I would agree. There is an opening night party. There’s the barbeque, which I assume is happening this year as well, which are sort of big open events where you’re sort of wandering around and it’s very easy to sort of strike up conversations with people.

I went to my first Austin Film Festival and it was really before I knew you and sort of the other screenwriters, and so I just wandered out there by myself and it’s fine. And everyone is friendly. And everyone is in the same boat, so you’re unlikely to have a bad outcome from just saying hello to a random person and talking. So, I would go for it.

**Craig:** Unless you’re a weirdo and then it’s just going to go as poorly for you as all other social interactions do.

**John:** Yeah. But, I mean, I would say you’re at least in good company. There could be plenty of other weirdos who are just as socially awkward as you are.

**Craig:** That’s absolutely true. There are a lot of weirdos there. I mean, they’re all good weirdos. I like — I mean screenwriting weirdos are a lovely group of people actually. I much prefer screenwriting weirdos to like Comic-Con weirdos…

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** …or even general movie weirdos that tend to obsess over source material and directors and actors. Screenwriting weirdos are actually pretty nice.

**John:** Yeah. So, people in Austin at the festival are good sorts overall, so I wouldn’t be too nervous about attending by yourself. And in a weird way going by yourself rather than going with some other friend, you may actually talk to more people, because if you’re just there with one friend you’re most likely going to just stare and talk at your one friend.

**Craig:** Correct. True.

**John:** James in Antioch, California writes, “I’m currently working on an outline for a drama that is heavily infused with Argentine Tango dance sequences. While there is a good portion of drama to fill the page, I have zero idea how to write the dance numbers that will appear throughout the script. Do I list specific dance moves? It sounds like it would be tedious, but then again writing ‘and they dance’ seems incredibly boring and shallow.”

So, this is really sort of a special case of how you write action. So, writing a car chase or a gun fight, you know, you’re going to have to write these things, or writing a sports movie — you’re going to have to write what you’re seeing on screen. And you want to write it in a way that’s interesting so the reader doesn’t just completely tune out of it. Dance isn’t one of the easier things to write. Craig, what’s your instinct?

**Craig:** I would think that every time your characters dance there is a dramatic purpose to that dance, something is going to change because of that dance. Someone is going to fail. Someone is going to fall in love. Someone is going to be inspired. Someone is going to realize that they’re better than they thought. Someone is going to realize that the competition is harder than they thought. So, that’s where you concentrate.

It’s less about the steps themselves, because frankly the steps are irrelevant. What matters is the drama and the characters and the change of state. So, that’s what you need to zero in on as they dance, and then as you describe the dance only describe the parts that really service that.

**John:** I agree. I would also point to looking at a scene; it’s not just the people who are dancing but everyone reacting to how they dance. And a lot of scene writing is just sort of painting with words what it kind of feels like. So, give some description for that. A good exercise for you honestly would be to look at some dance sequences in other movies, watch them a few times, and then just write what the scene would be that goes with that.

And if can sort of describe what’s happening in those great dance numbers in an interesting way, there is a good chance you’re going to be able to write a good dance number.

**Craig:** And I would do a quick search on the internet and see if you can find a screenplay for Strictly Ballroom, which is my favorite dance movie, and I think you could — if you find it, hopefully that would give you a great model for what you’re going for.

**John:** Dennis in New York City writes, “A lot of the movie I’m writing takes place on a computer interface which requires some Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. I can’t use Google, can I, or CNN, or Twitter? For example, there are scenes where someone is using someone else’s Facebook account to look at their lives. How do you show these real interfaces in film without being lame, like renaming Facebook to something stupid like Social Net, etc?”

**Craig:** You don’t. I mean, you, the screenwriter, write anything you want. I’m putting aside the issue that so much of your movie takes place on a computer screen, which I think has the potential for great disaster for you, but presuming that you’re spectacular and the story is great, write Facebook, write CNN, write whatever you want.

Down the line it will be other people’s issues to get the licensing and figure it out.

**John:** I would agree with you on both topics. Looking at computer screens in movies is not generally a great idea. The Social Network did it as well as any movie I’ve ever seen, but still you’re not doing coding or Facebook for very much of that movie. Use the real stuff until they tell you that you can’t use the real stuff. And even when they tell you that you can’t use the real stuff fight them on it because you probably can.

**Craig:** Absolutely. There are certain instances where you simply can’t use a product, or you can’t use a name. They are hard and fast, depending on the circumstances and the context. Then there is a certain class that you can always use, and then there’s this big old gray area and a negotiation ensues between the filmmakers, the creative side of the studio, the production side of the studio, and then the business affairs department who will always, of course, default to protecting themselves.

And I have found over my career that there is an always an overturn, one or two overturns of a decision when it really matters.

**John:** A question from Anna in Australia who writes: “I’m a 24 year old Australian aspiring writer and will soon be visiting LA. I have a year-long working holiday visa, some savings, scripts, and a handful of contacts. I hope to spend to spend the year dipping my toe in the water to gauge my prospects and see if I even like it in LA. My question: Should I take care to use Americanisms such as ‘trash’ instead of ‘rubbish,’ fahrenheit instead of celsius, and ‘color’ instead of ‘colour’ in the scripts I send out?”

I have sort of two opinions on that. If she’s representing herself as an Australian writer and the script that she’s writing is set in Australia, then she should use Australian words for things in dialogue and in scene description. If she’s writing a script that takes place in America and there is nothing about it that says “isn’t it so interesting it’s an Australian writer,” I would Americanize it and use the American words for things and don’t put anything in there that can stop the reader.

And, honestly, just throwing in that extra “u” every once in a while, or that different word for some things we describe, could stop somebody, so don’t risk stopping somebody.

**Craig:** I’m halfway there with you. I think you definitely don’t want to use terms that some readers simply might not get. You know, we get “rubbish,” but it would probably stop you. It just seems a little odd. I mean, for us. “Rubbish” is commonly used for garbage in the UK and in Australia; here, “rubbish” is an old fashioned word. It’s something almost comical to us.

So, things like that I wouldn’t use. I would not use celsius simply because a lot of people don’t know how to do the math on it, and frankly, why do you want to stop them for doing the math?

The only thing I would say though is different spellings, alternative spellings, like for example “colour,” might actually give you a little bit of, “Oh, there’s a slight foreign glamour.” If you’re, for instance, writing a prestige piece, an awards-drama kind of movie, it might not be such a bad thing to cloak yourself in the — because, you know Americans do think that UK and Australian spellings are somehow more erudite than ours. So, that, you know, that’s the only thing where I might say, “Okay, well I suppose that’s okay as long as it doesn’t stop anybody.”

**John:** Yeah. I had lunch last week with Jonah Nolan who is a screenwriter and writer on the most recent Batman movies and also does Person of Interest. And so Jonah Nolan, if you’ve met him, it’s like, “Oh, he’s an American.” But his brother Christopher Nolan, if you met him you’d say, “Oh, he’s British.” And it’s because while they are brothers, Christopher was raised more in the UK and Jonah was raised more in America.

And so it was interesting talking with him because every once in awhile there is a word that will slip out, I think it was “pro-cess” (process) he said. And so like everything else, his entire accent is completely American except for a few special words. And so, don’t change who you are necessarily. I would just say look for reasons why somebody might stop reading your script and don’t give them those reasons.

**Craig:** Canadians say “pro-cess” also. The Canadian thing is really interesting to me because everybody there is basically like Nolan. There is no clear accent. I mean, there is a little bit of an accent, but there is no clear accent. And yet you will hear “pro-cess.” They will say “past-a” instead of “pasta,” which his fascinating to me.

**John:** And, of course, “a-boot.”

**Craig:** And “a-boot.” Yeah, I mean, that’s sort of a general accent. But the complete alternate pronunciation on certain words. And “shed-ule” — I think a lot of them do say “shed-ule”. And I’m fascinated by cases like Chris and his brother because there are people that are really good accents. I mean, everybody remembers sitting in foreign language class in high school and some kids would just ace every test, but had the most atrocious accents. And other kids actually had great accents; they just couldn’t remember any of the grammar or vocabulary.

Accent is very musical. It’s just a different part of the brain than the actual linguistic part that processes grammar and words. And so I’m just fascinated by — for instance, my sister and grew up on Staten Island. And we have audio tapes of each other when we were kids with the most outrageous New York accents. And my parents have really strong New York accents. And my accent is gone. It just went away.

We moved to New Jersey and I’ve always, I don’t know, I have good accent ability. Don’t have great foreign language ability, but I have good accent ability. So, it just went away, and Karen’s stayed. It diminished, but it stayed. It’s an interesting skill that some people have. They just — it falls away.

**John:** Friends of mine moved to Australia with their daughter who is my daughter’s age. And so she was 6 when they moved to Australia. And so it was interesting, they came back after four months and the girl’s accent had started to drift to somewhere in the middle of the Pacific. And now you hear her and you go, “Oh, she’s completely Australian.” Things hit at a certain time and they’re not aware that they’ve changed these things, and they’re not aware that they’re doing it.

A question from Natesh in India. He says, “I live in India and my financial conditions aren’t so good, so I cannot come to LA to sell screenplays or search for agents in these conditions. What should I do? Do I need to be in LA if I want to sell my screenplay? I really want to break into Hollywood but I know I cannot come to LA now. So, how do I handle all of this from my place?”

“What should I do,” essentially, asked many more times.

Oh, Natesh.

**Craig:** Well, if he had asked this question 15 years ago I would have said nothing. But, we live in a time now where the Korean rapper Psy has 400 and something million hits for Gangnam Style. The internet is the world’s greatest megaphone. I think you should put your script on the internet. And I think you should put it on — obviously you speak English which is essentially the lingua franca of media.

**John:** Yes, big Hollywood media, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. So, you should put it on the internet. And you should try and see if you can attract attention that way because, frankly, I’m not quite sure — I mean, it sounds like you’re not interested in Bollywood or the very large industry there, so that’s what I would do. I’m not sure what else I could think that you would do.

**John:** If he has a hope, it is the internet. I would also write things that you can specifically make in your current situation that are smaller and shorter that you can actually put up online. So, if you have any interest in directing I would write yourself things you can direct locally and put up online so people can see them, and develop your skills as much as you can there since you can’t move someplace else.

And sometimes magic happens. I forget all the details about the South American visual effects filmmaker guy who did this sort of alien invasion movie that was a little short that was terrific. And he did it all sort of himself. And you could be that guy and find the way that it breaks out to the next step.

I would also look for every — sort of the Sundance model of script development and sort of like screenwriting labs. Almost all the other countries have their own equivalent of that now. So, I would look for what is the equivalent of Sundance in India and try to get involved with that and see if there are ways you can sort of reach out beyond your little smaller place to the bigger India. And eventually get to either the UK or America.

**Craig:** Yeah. And the last piece of advice I’ll give is that Hollywood tends to not notice things unless they accrue enormous attention prior to their attention. The good news is you don’t live in a small country. You live in an enormous country with a billion people. And if you put something up there, part of what you should be thinking about is how to show evidence of attention. A counter of how many times downloaded or viewed.

If millions of people are suddenly liking and enjoying what you have done, someone will notice at that point.

**John:** Last question comes from Joe in Rancho Cucamonga. “I wrote a script a few years ago that I gave to my mentor at the time to read. He’s a professional screenwriter with a few credits and I’ve always valued his opinion. He happened to like the script very much and had some notes and suggested I did a little rewriting and he could show it to people. I was thrilled and got to work right away. I incorporated his notes and worked with him closely to craft the script into a sellable or at least readable asset.

“He read the read the new draft and congratulated me on a much improved draft. However, then he laid a bombshell on me that I still have trouble understanding: My protagonist happens to be a screenwriter and the bulk of the second act involves the making of this fictional movie. My mentor told me that regardless of how good he thinks the script is screenplays about moviemaking get thrown into the trash.

“Rather than completely reconstruct my script I moved onto the next one. But, I still really like that script. Is that a real thing, or was that just his way of telling me that it wasn’t good enough and wanted to spare my feeling?”

**Craig:** Uh…go ahead.

**John:** I would say he’s — there’s an aspect of truth to what he’s saying. Movies about moviemaking are a hard sell. Movies about screenwriters are a hard sell. There are not a lot of big successful examples to point to. There are little successful ones to point to, which seems surprising considering screenwriters know screenwriters and could write about that craft very well.

So, I think there is some aspect of truth to what he’s saying. If you have really good writing in your script, that’s fantastic, and that’s great and good. But it shouldn’t be a surprise that Hollywood is not knocking down your door to make that movie because it’s just about a screenwriter. And, kind of who cares about a screenwriter?

**Craig:** Yeah. The thing about movies about Hollywood is that the point of a movie is to escape into a story, and no matter how good of a job you do writing about the making of movies, you are reminding people that they’re not watching a real story; they’re inside of a movie because you’re inside of a movie. The whole point of the movie is that the movies are fake and somebody is writing it, so that becomes a barrier between them and the experience of watching the movie.

It’s not impossible. The Player is a wonderful movie.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Didn’t really find an audience in theaters maybe because of this, but it’s about as good as you can do.

**John:** Sunset Boulevard.

**Craig:** Yeah. Sunset Boulevard. Yeah, you’re right, an absolute classic. But I’m a little annoyed that he didn’t just tell that right off the bat. It’s kind of lame — I mean, why tell you after you did all that work? But, that said, look, it could be both.

He’s right: Movies like this are a difficult sell. And also he may just be letting you down easy because he doesn’t like it. That might be true, too. But as we say over, and over, and over on here, a well-written script is its own reward and also will lead to other rewards.

**John:** Agreed. I would say there may be very good reasons why he said this thing about your script, partly because of what he read on the page and partly because of the genre and sort of the nature of trying to make a movie about Hollywood, or a movie about screenwriters.

If you’re picking your next thing to write, just a general audience thing, writing about screenwriters is not usually the best choice for a subject matter.

**Craig:** It does imply that you have a poverty of experience or insight into the world, because you’re writing about the thing that you’re literally doing in that moment. That’s sort of my gut feeling. You know, they always say, “Write what you know.” Well if you’re writing about being a screenwriter, I’m presuming that you don’t know anything else.

So, that’s a little bit of a ding on you. But, listen, if it’s a really good script, you know, I wouldn’t sweat it.

**John:** I agree. So, Craig, let’s talk plot holes, because you brought this up as a topic for something that we should discuss on the podcast. And when you brought it up I said, “Oh yeah, absolutely, sure.” But then I was like, “What are we going to mean by plot holes?” Because it could mean a couple different things. And so I wanted to give the Wikipedia definition of plot holes first and see if we agree with that.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** “A plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story’s plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behavior or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.”

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s not a bad definition. I tend to use plot hole to mean an omission, rather than an inconsistency or illogic. Although, I guess that’s a plot problem or just a mistake. [laughs] But to me, plot holes are things where it appears that you’ve left stuff out of a story because it would have made the scene you wanted to write impossible. And people stop and go, “But wait a second, how did he get there?”

**John:** Yeah. There’s a question of refrigerator logic, which is like, as you’re watching it, “Oh, okay,” and then as you’re going to get a soda out of the refrigerator you’re like, “Wait, that doesn’t actually make sense.”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. If you really look at the logic of it, the movie is impossible as constructed. There are movies that naturally invite this sort of thing, like time travel movies, because time travel is inherently impossible. It is inherently paradoxical. Therefore, every time travel movie will have some sort of plot hole or inconsistency.

But the areas where we have to really be careful about it is when we’re writing movies that don’t involve the supernatural or things that should invite plot holes. And what happens is, I think, a lot of times screenwriters come up with something they want to do in the story. It solves a lot of problems for them. It is interesting to them. It is dramatically compelling.

The problem is it’s just inconsistent with what’s come before it, and yet what’s come before it is what’s making the scene interesting. And so you suddenly have this cognitive dissonance between what you want to do and what you can do.

And, so, a lot of times people just go, “Yeah, screw it. No one will notice.” But they always do. [laughs]

**John:** They always do. And one of the sites that does, there’s actually a site called movieplotholes.com. And so I looked there and they defined, they have like different categories of plot holes which I thought was interesting. They have what they call “minor plot holes,” which is something that affects the logic of an individual scene. So, an example of that would be in Speed when Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock’s characters have an early conversation they know each other’s first names even though they’ve never introduced themselves to each other.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s a minor thing. It only affects that scene and the world is not going to come crashing to an end.

A major plot hole affects the logic of main characters. An example would be what they called “induced omissions or stupidity.” So, like, you have a character doing something that either they know way too much information or they are doing something dumb for the sake of necessary plot advancement.

An example they cite is in The Avengers, Loki, the evil Norse god, he does mind control over Hawkeye and he’s controlling him for a lot of that movie. But why Hawkeye? Why doesn’t he control somebody more useful or powerful like Nick Fury, who is, like, running S.H.I.E.L.D. and running the whole operation?

**Craig:** Yeah. That to me is less of a plot hole and more of just bad logic, you know. The plot hole to me is, for instance, the name thing. A lot these plot holes happen because of editing.

What happens is, if you run a movie site called movieplotholes.com, well, you’re going to go ahead and chase down those plot holes the way that the Gaffes Squad chases down the discontinuities in movies, like, “The liquid in the glass keeps going up and down.”

But when you screen movies for people, what happens is you start to realize that some of the information that you felt was necessary is not. And that, in fact, a two minute scene designed to actually strengthen and support something isn’t enjoyable for anybody and they don’t need it. There is actually a certain amount of plot hole that is required. Movies are discontinuous; we’re doing it all the time. I mean, people get in a car and suddenly they are somewhere else.

And so the intermittent motion of the film itself kind of metaphorically spills over into the story itself. So, in cases like, I guarantee that there is a scene that was cut out of Speed in which they learned each other’s name. But, everybody will presume that it was never shot or thought of by the screenwriter and will say, “It’s full of plot holes.”

I mean, The Hangover for instance, there is a big deal about “let’s not mess up my dad’s car.” And when they get home it is trashed. Well, the dad never says a word about it. It’s a deleted shot. Just, you know, they shot it. It’s just people didn’t care at that point. They were onto other things, didn’t matter to them, their attention was elsewhere.

My feeling is you actually don’t know what those things are going to be until you screen the movie, so as screenwriters we have to write the scene where the car is explained.

**John:** Yes. I think it’s very crucial just to point out that the ones the screenwriters are responsible for, and sometimes those are the questions of motivation. Like, suddenly a character is acting in a very different way for no clear reason, or has information that they couldn’t possibly have. And that is often a screenwriting problem. You needed them to do that and that’s why you’re having them do that, but it doesn’t actually make sense. And then a lot of what we call plot holes are really just deleted scenes.

And, in Frankenweenie, suddenly Weird Girl shows up along with this group of boys to go reanimate the dead. Well, where does she come from? We hadn’t seen her for awhile and suddenly she’s with this group of boys. Well, there is a small deleted scene where she joins in with them, but it wasn’t crucial enough in the story to get that little bit in there.

**Craig:** Exactly. I think for the audience — I think people who get outraged over certain plot holes need to understand that it likely… — And people who get enraged but also are surprised that other people aren’t enraged need to understand that it’s because other people aren’t enraged that the plot hole exists. That the idea of the movie isn’t to satisfy the most demanding logician; it’s to satisfy the broadest audience.

**John:** And so this website also defines what they call a “Super Plot Hole,” which is a plot hole that makes you question the entire logic of the story. And this is, I think, a meaningful one for us to talk about screenwriting. An example would be like a villain has a weapon that can destroy a whole city but he’s using it to rob a bank. Or things like Signs or War of the Worlds where the aliens are invading but they seem to have no basic idea of how earth works, that water can kill them.

**Craig:** Right. Signs was sort of rife with them. I mean, there’s this whole thing where they just didn’t know how to turn a door knob but they had mastered intergalactic travel. And at that point what happens is you just get angry, because you understand that Shyamalan had come up with this really cool scary scene with this thing in a closet, and a knife under the door, and it was tense, and it was Hitchcockian and cool. The problem is it just didn’t make sense with what had come before it. And so it’s just not legal. And it angers people.

**John:** There are two last categories I want to talk through because I thought they were good ways to distinguish two ideas. A “plot contrivance” is an unlikely event or coincidence. And I’ve talked a lot about sort of the perils of coincidence on the blog, and I’ll link back to my post on that, but I feel like a movie gets one, maybe two coincidences that can happen.

A premise coincidence is absolutely fine and good. Like in Identity Thief, the coincidence is that these two people have the same name. That’s the premise of the movie so you can’t say that’s really coincidence. That’s the premise. Or in a romantic comedy, like these two people happen to meet and they wouldn’t have otherwise met. They could have met anyone else, that’s great.

It’s when you have a bunch of things, like they just happened to be there at the right moment to see this thing in the third act. That feels frustrating.

**Craig:** Actually even in Identity Thief they don’t have the same name. She basically just looks for people whose names she can pretend to be.

**John:** Even better.

**Craig:** But every movie needs a contrivance or coincidence to get things going, because the whole point is the story of a movie is exceptional. So, therefore, one exceptional thing should happen. In the case of Identity Thief, she makes an appointment at a salon under his name and they call to confirm Jason Bateman. And when he realizes that someone has stolen his identity he also knows I know where she’s going to be at a certain day and time. And so that’s the contrivance or coincidence.

And you not only get one, you need one. But once you get into two, or three, then you realize that the screenwriter simply isn’t in control of a good story.

**John:** One thing I will say about coincidences: a good way to sort of take the curse off them is to give the coincidence to the villain every once and awhile. So, if the villain can have a happy lucky thing happen to them every once and awhile, then you can sort of take the sting off a little bit.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right. And also if there is a coincidence that gets a laugh then I think it’s good. I mean, there’s that moment in Pulp Fiction where Butch pulls up to the light and there’s Marsellus just happening across the street in front of him. They look at each other and it’s just funny. [laughs] It’s just funny, and so it’s okay.

**John:** The last thing they separate out is an “unaddressed issue,” which is like a natural question that comes up about the plot or the universe of the world that the movie doesn’t really address. And that’s fair, and I think it’s nice to sort of separate that out from plot holes. Yes, in this elaborate science fiction universe we’ve created of Star Wars there is stuff that you don’t really know how that all works, but every movie isn’t responsible for answering all of those questions, because if they did you would have no movie. You would just be — a bunch of people giving exposition to the screen.

You can’t answer all of those questions that could come up because of the nature of your movie or your universe.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it gets a little uncomfortable at times when you’re in the test screening process and you realize that there’s been some information left out that does make you uncomfortable that it’s not there. You feel like, “Okay, people are going to think I did a bad job here.” But the audience just doesn’t seem to care. I mean, there’s like three people that are grumbling about it, but everybody else is like, “Ah, shut up.”

Because the truth is as screenwriters we are that guy. We’re always the guy who is like, “But, but, but.” And so sometimes it’s a little uncomfortable. It’s one of those things, I always talk about the illusion of intentionality, that when an audience or critics view a movie the presumption is that every single thing was intentional and that nothing else was shot. “There was not one other foot of film shot other than what I saw, and no mistakes were made.”

**John:** And if it’s a legendary director like Kubrick that intentionality means that, well, that chair that’s there in one shot and not there in the next shot, that was a deliberate choice.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Where if it’s a comedy then these people are hacks who don’t know what they’re doing.

**Craig:** Pretty much. “They didn’t even bother to explain why A and B happened.” Mm, they probably did and the audience was squirming in their seats at that point and didn’t seem to care. And so what do you do at times like that? It’s a tough one.

**John:** So, as a screenwriter what we’re talking about with plot holes and trying to anticipate what could be perceived as plot holes is you’re really trying to make sure that people are going to be able to suspend their disbelief throughout the entire read and then through the entire movie that they’re watching. There is nothing that’s going to come up that’s going to make them say, “Hey, wait a second. That doesn’t actually make sense.”

And there are two techniques which I sort of commonly go to when faced with these issues. The first is to take away the questions, which is to anticipate when they’re going to start asking those questions and answer them before they can ask them. And sometimes you can collapse a lot of questions together.

I worked on — we talked about time travel movies — Minority Report is essentially a time travel movie, that you have these people who can see the future. And it creates a host of story and logic problems, because if they can see the future how can they know what the future is? One of the ways I tried to address that is a scene where Tom Cruise’s character rolls a ball down a table and Cog girl’s character catches it before it drops off the end. He’s like, “Why did you catch that? It was going to fall.” “How did you know it was going to fall?” And the fact that Cog girl stopped it didn’t mean that it wasn’t going to fall.

I’m explaining this poorly. This is explained better in the dialogue in the actual movie. But it was a way to sort of — there were going to be all these questions about causality and how if you’re stopping the crimes these things can come up. And so very early on I needed to have a scene that sort of took all those questions off the table, like, “We understand, this is what we’re saying in this movie, and let’s not keep asking that question again and again.”

**Craig:** Precisely. I mean, there’s a scene in Identity Thief where he kind of comes up with this plan and Jason Bateman and I spent days and days just sort of going back and forth about the need to know that when this guy goes to get this woman it makes sense, it is the only option, there is nothing else that’s going to help him. It must be this.

Because if people are going, “Well, but why is he — why don’t they just call the police,” then you don’t have a movie. So, you have to make those as interesting as you can. You have to make them as compelling as you can without turning into homework. And it’s a real challenge.

**John:** It is. The second technique is something that Jane Espenson’s blog referred to as “Hanging a Lantern,” which is if there is something that sort of sticks out, you hang a lantern on it so that people say, like, “Oh, yeah, I’m aware that this thing is here and it’s addressed and we know it’s there and we’re going to keep moving on.” And so you’re in a space environment and you need to talk about the lack of gravity — gravity being there/not being there is important. You sort of hang a lantern on it by having the gravity generators fail at a certain point so you can say like, “Yes, we do know that there is gravity, or people are referring to it.” So, you’re acknowledging that this is part of the rules of the universe of your movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, what’s that line from Casablanca? “Of all the gin joints in the world she had to walk into mine.”

**John:** Classic example.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, yeah, that is pretty insane. And yet it needed to happen for the movie and he acknowledges that it’s a wild coincidence, but here we are.

**John:** So, that is some plot hole talk. Let’s go to our samples now.

**Craig:** Let’s do it. Which one first?

**John:** Well, last week I had said that we’d gotten 200 samples. I was wrong. Stuart says we’ve actually gotten more than 500 samples.

**Craig:** Good god almighty.

**John:** So, Stuart as read all of them, except for the ones that didn’t have like the proper header stuff which he deletes immediately.

**Craig:** Stuart has read 500 of these things? [laughs]

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Oh my god. Stuart…

**John:** Yeah, Stuart, god bless him.

**Craig:** I’ve got to get him some flowers.

**John:** Our first script that we’re going to look at today is from Greg in Lichtenstein. And here is a summary — we don’t have a title for it, so here is Greg in Lichtenstein’s script in summary.

**Craig:** [Thunder rolls] Did you hear that?

**John:** That was great thunder. I like it a lot. Now is there actual rain with your thunder or not?

**Craig:** Is it rainy thunder did you say?

**John:** Yeah, is it rain or just thunder?

**Craig:** Oh, no, no. It’s raining here. It’s coming, buddy.

**John:** Oh, it’s sunshine here.

**Craig:** As goes Pasadena goes Hancock Park.

**John:** I don’t think that’s how it works, but that’s okay.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** We open in Central Park where a bird, a harrier, catches a worm and swoops up to its nest, which is high atop the Empire State Building, which is still being built. It’s 1929. A rope snaps, a beam falls, and the nest is knocked down. As it falls a single egg in the nest remarkably survives by falling into a truck full of pillows, then it hatches revealing a little chick named Dave. He gets washed into the sewers, emerging later as an adolescent harrier.

We seem him chase a squirrel named Skip, but he’s not trying to eat him, they are friends. And that’s the three pages of Greg’s script.

**Craig:** Yes it is. And it appears to be an animated movie.

**John:** Yeah, and I wasn’t sure it was animated at the start, because I thought, “Oh, maybe this bird is actually setting up the world of New York City.” And then by the time you get to the animals are talking, it’s probably animation.

**Craig:** Yeah. I really liked when I saw the Empire State Building being constructed. I thought, “What a great way of establishing our place and our time.” It was very cool.

However, I didn’t like the fact that I was delayed, because here’s the thing: This bird is flying along Fifth Avenue and getting dangerously close to the ground in the middle of rush hour traffic. Well, those cars would be cars from the ’20s, ’30s. Whenever the Empire State Building was built. Oh, it’s…

**John:** 1929.

**Craig:** Oh, it was on the edge. So, we would already, the surprise is ruined. The Empire State Building being constructed is such a great surprise, and since New York is such a relatively old city, I would have just hit that first.

We then have an impossible sequence. I mean, this is a real problem. The idea of the movie clearly is that this harrier eagle, this harrier eagle egg, is dropped and separated from his family, although, then later it seems like his father is still around, and goes through this traumatic thing, and yet the baby survives. And that’s fine if it’s possible.

And so our writer does a pretty good job of showing how the egg is falling through some shades and things, and there’s a gag I’ve seen a lot where there’s a pillow truck. You know, it’s the old feather truck gag they’ve done on the Simpsons. And then you miss the feather truck, and you land in the glass shards truck. So, I’ve seen that joke too many times.

But the point is the egg hits the street. It hits the street after falling from the top of the Empire State Building. It says, “The egg hits the street — missing the pillow truck — the shell breaks in half — a miracle — the very cute, helpless BABY HARRIER is still alive. This is DAVE.” No, he’s not. He’s dead.

Sorry. [laughs] ‘Cause I don’t know — if you want me to believe that bird is alive, there are no stakes left in the movie anymore, because I can’t think of anything more dangerous that you could do to unhatched egg than drop it from the Empire State Building and have it hit the street. So, that’s a huge mistake.

**John:** I agree. I feel like it could land in somebody’s drink or something like that. I would buy that there’s some way it could land, but just not on the street.

**Craig:** Right. Not on the street. And then we sort of jump ahead to the modern day. It appears that, I guess Dave has been adopted by other creatures and he is — we now do a little bit of a misdirect. He is flying but then it turns out he’s not flying, he’s running, which I liked. So, I like the idea of a bird that never learned to fly. I can see where this movie is going already. I can already tell you in the end he has to fly, and that’s great. I’m all for that.

He is with his buddy, Skip, who is I assume like an adopted brother. He’s a squirrel. And the squirrel is beating him in the race, which is cute. And then he stops, turns around, and starts his victory dance. “Ha, ha! I win again? I am a winner, You are a looser. I am a winner, You are a looser.” But, Greg from Lichtenstein has spelled loser “looser” not loser. And you and I had a little pre-conversation about this — people misspell loser on the internet constantly. It’s one of those words that, I don’t know why it’s hard for people to spell it L-O-S-E-R as in I lose, loser, as opposed to looser.

So, I don’t know if Greg is making the internet mistake or making an English mistake. Or, as you thought, maybe he was trying to say “Looooser” mocking, in which case he needs a couple extra Os.

**John:** You need at least four Os to make it clear that it’s not a typo. “I’m deliberately spelling it wrong to draw something out.”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. And then the last line of dialogue is a bit too — it’s one of those lines where someone is saying exactly what they’re thinking.

**John:** Yeah. The last line of dialogue is, “It was only three times and we really have to get going now. I don’t want a sermon from dad again for being late.”

**Craig:** Right. Better maybe if the dad just delivers the sermon when they get back.

So, I think there is the bones of a good animated film idea here about an eagle that’s been adopted by squirrels and doesn’t know how to fly. I can see a grand adventure and I love the setting of art deco 1930s New York. We just need to work a little bit on some of the mistakes.

**John:** I agree. My issues were, from the very start, what is a harrier? He doesn’t say it’s a bird, and so I’m reading this and I’m like, “Is it a jet? What is it?” It took me awhile. I had to keep reading the first couple sentences again. I was like, “Oh, a harrier is a bird.” I just wasn’t clear. And even once I knew it was a bird, I didn’t know what kind of bird that is. Is it like a dove? Looks like it’s more like an eagle, I guess.

But assume your reader has no idea of what a harrier is. So, I would start with that.

I thought the opening gave us a lot of scale, and once I understood it was animation I was less frightened by sort of the unproduceability of it. In animation, unproduceable stuff is fantastic because you’re doing things you couldn’t do in real world stuff. But I wasn’t getting a lot of sense of character or comedy or what kind of movie this was.

And once we actually started getting into dialogue it wasn’t funny, so that is an issue. Because I feel like this wants to be a comedy — the premise is a comedy premise. So, those first lines need to be funny, and it didn’t feel like we were going to get there.

**Craig:** Yeah. The scenario, the concept that he’s running and not flying, it was a good way to introduce that important fact right off the bat, but it didn’t actually — the scenario itself, the character of his friend, it was playing very young.

You know, Pixar does such a good job of pitching their comedy to adults, and yet also being acceptable and enjoyable by kids. And this just felt very kind of Nickelodeon sitcom.

**John:** Yeah. And I should have said right from the very start that if you want to read along with us on any of these Three Page Samples, there are links along with this podcast. you can look at johnaugust.com/podcast and find all of the links to the samples that we’re talking about today.

Our second script sample is by Vance Kotrla. I asked Stuart to pick the most difficult names possible.

**Craig:** He’s doing a great job of that.

**John:** It’s good stuff. It’s a script called State Champs. So, here is the summary: We start in 1987 at the Houston Astrodome, Texas, at the Texas 5A High School Football Championship. With a minute left in the game Quarterback Martin Peavey, 17, gets sacked. His finger is dislocated but he doesn’t want to get off the field, so tailback Dave Enstein yanks it back into place. In the final seconds Martin throws a shaky pass that nevertheless results in a game-winning touchdown.

We dissolve to today where 42 year old Martin throws a football in the back yard with his 10 year old daughter, Rachel, who doesn’t even like sports. Meanwhile, Martin’s son, Sebastian, is at a high school football practice. And as we come to the bottom of page three he has closed his eyes preparing to get hit.

**Craig:** Right. Would you like to begin?

**John:** I will begin. Oh, so we start in a football game, and football games are not my forte. It was an okay description of a football game. There was nothing kind of unique or magical about this one football game. It felt like a Texas football game.

My concern was that we’re being introduced to a lot of characters along the way, so Dave Enstein, some of these people may come back, some of these people may not come back, but I was having a hard time following what was going to be unique about this thing, because I’ve seen that last minute left to play a lot. And I’ve seen it as an opening a lot, and it wasn’t particularly wonderful or special. I wasn’t even sure kind of how to feel about sort of the shaky pass that he wins. I was concerned that we were getting into cliché territory really, really fast with this opening.

Then we jump forward to the present. We see the 42 year old guy. I didn’t get a lot of sense of who he was now, and then why it was important that I saw the young version, sort of how he grew into it.

We meet the daughter, but there’s barely any time to sort of know who the daughter is. And then it’s not fair to criticize Sebastian because he was just barely getting started there.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, I would say by the bottom of page three I wasn’t sure what kind of movie this was. And is this a family comedy? Is it a comedy? It felt like it was trying to be funny. I just didn’t know where we were aiming as we got to the bottom of page three.

**Craig:** Well, Vance is lucky because he comes a week after my disastrous debut as a screenwriter in 1995. So, please Vance, take all of this in the context of I too once fumbled badly. This is a comedy. It is a comedy for sure. It wants to be a comedy. And I understand why we’re opening where we are. This is going to be a redemption story where the father whose life was defined by one moment of glory in high school, and who I suspect probably no longer has any glory like that wants to relive it again through his children. And yet comedically it is the daughter that has all the talent and the son doesn’t, and he’s going to have to figure out how to connect with both of them and accept them for who they are.

That’s okay. I don’t mind predictable. [laughs] Here’s what I mind. The opening sequence, I agree with you by the way, I get a little confused, especially when I have Claire and Coach Stapp and they both begin with C. These little things, believe it or not. And Clear Lake.

We have Clear Lake. Claire. Coach Stapp.

**John:** Conroe. The other team is Conroe.

**Craig:** Exactly. So we have a ton of Cs. I’m confused between Clear Lake and Conroe. I had to go backwards when I saw that he was playing, that Sebastian was playing with Clear Lake High School. I had to go backwards to make sure they hadn’t left town and gone somewhere new.

But, look, those are minor things. Here’s the biggest issue: We have a dramatic situation here where this young quarterback, who is pretty great, and who has a girlfriend that perhaps he’s now married to, Claire, is worried because it looks like he’s been hurt, and he’s hiding this pretty severe injury. I do not think that the way to go about this is to be broad. The injury itself is rather severe. He’s dislocated his finger and he doesn’t want to come out.

I need two things. One, I need to understand why that’s not a selfish, bad thing to do. Or, is it a selfish bad thing to do? When you’re hurt, and the game is on the line, and you’ve dislocated your finger and you’re job is to throw a ball, you need to tell me either, A, the backup quarterback is a disaster and you guys know as well as I do if I don’t throw this it’s not happening. Or, B, someone needs to say, “Look, we’ve got a good backup over there.” “No, I’m doing this. Pull it back into position.”

So, I just need a character moment there to explain. Because the truth is, staying in a game when you’re hurt like that is meaningful, and I need to know which way it’s meaning about this guy.

**John:** It’s being selfish or selfless?

**Craig:** Exactly. So, that’s question one. Then the second thing is when they snap the finger back in place, don’t do, “I need someone to pull my finger,” ha, ha, ha. You’re just killing the drama of the situation. The whole point is the movie is going to rest on this dramatic thing. And if it’s not dramatic and stupid, or goofy, then we just don’t care. Why am I supposed to cheer for a bunch of guys laughing about pulling fingers? And I say that as someone who has written far too many fart jokes in his life.

And, similarly, “You gonna pass out? I think I am,” and then “without warning Dave gives Lucky a NIPPLE TWISTER.” Now we’re doing gags between secondary characters and I would argue that if the point of all this is to setup people that we’re going to see later, don’t. We need the big ones. We need Dave, we need his wife, or his future wife Claire, or maybe she’s the one that got away. Either way, I’m sure she’s important. And maybe Coach Stapp who’s still the coach. And maybe even if you needed his buddy Dave, I understand, I’m sorry, Martin. But then to add on Lucky and to have them interrupting everything with a nipple twister is just off tone. It’s just a bad idea — don’t do it.

**John:** I would agree. If you look at page two, most of the dialogue comes from these minor characters. Dave and Lucky have the bulk of page two, and who wants that? That’s not your story. That’s not what you should be focusing on.

I would probably call Dave “Enstein” rather than calling him Dave. Using somebody’s last name helps distinguish that first names could be your primary characters and secondary characters have their last names, so that’s a thought there.

Just fewer people talking, less C words and I’d be able to follow the sequence more clearly. And really know what the stakes are. Putting a joke on something so early kills all the tension. I think you’re much better to cut that out.

**Craig:** Yeah. And then on page three we’ve got bad dialogue here. Martin throws a pass to his daughter, who catches it, and I like that. And I like that she doesn’t like the fact that he’s working her so hard. And then she says, “Maybe if you went slower…” And he says, “We’ve got a winning tradition in this family. I’m counting on you to keep it going.”

No. No, no. Humans don’t say stuff like that. That is entirely subtext. And no one should announce. And then she says, “But I don’t like sports.”

**John:** “Why can’t Sebastian do it.”

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s like, come on. We’ve got to do better than that for sure. For sure.

**John:** Cool. I want to thank our two writers this week, Greg and Vance, for sending in their scripts, because that was hugely brave of you, and useful, and helpful, and I got something out of it. I hope people did who are listening. And I hoped we helped some.

**Craig:** As do I.

**John:** Craig, do you have a Cool Thing this week?

**Craig:** Ugh, you know, last week I had one and you weren’t going to do it. And then I wasted it last week.

**John:** Yeah, that’s fine. I’ll talk about mine, and maybe you’ll think about yours in the meantime.

**Craig:** Okay, yeah, sometimes that happens.

**John:** Sometimes it happens. My Cool Thing is I got the new Kindle. And I really liked my old Kindle. I had the $79 cheap Kindle that I liked a lot. And I use it, especially if I got to New York. I can stick it in my pocket and read at restaurants. Or, if I’m not home with my family I tend to read myself to sleep and it was great for that.

But what wasn’t great is because it was an e-ink Kindle, you had to have a light turned on in order to read it. And so it was tough for reading in bed. The new Kindle, the $119 version that has a side lit screen, so it’s not really backlit, it’s lit from the sides. But it’s really well lit. And it’s actually quite great. I’m enjoying it a lot.

The way the side lighting works is that during daylight hours the light is actually on quite bright, so it makes the screen look much whiter than a normal Kindle screen does, because Kindle screens have always been kind of gray. And so this one actually looks white, and it looks really, really nice. And then at nighttime you can bump the brightness way, way down and you can read in bed or in the dark with it, and it’s actually quite pleasing. And it’s not as hard on your eyes as trying to read on a iPad which is like glowing at you full time.

So, I really quite like it. It’s a tiny bit thicker than the cheap $79 Kindle that I had. And I wish it were not thicker, but I’m happy to have the light. And I’m sure that’s the battery that’s mostly doing that. The touch screen works pretty well. The interface is a lot better than the other Kindle was. So, I enjoy.

I would recommend it. If you’re considering a Kindle for reading books, I think it’s great. Some people always ask, “Oh, can you read scripts on it?” And the answer is yes, sort of. You can email yourself a PDF and it will do a reasonably good job of trying to convert that to read on the screen, but it’s not ideal. And I think if you want to read scripts you’re probably better off with an iPad.

**Craig:** I have heard good things about the new Kindle, so I’m going to check that. And while you were talking a Cool Thing did emerge for me.

**John:** See, I thought it might.

**Craig:** And you know what? It’s a Cool Place. I spent the last three, four days in Nogales, Arizona, where we were shooting The Hangover Part 3. And Nogales is a border town. We were literally feet from the actual border. It was kind of bizarre to be somewhere that close to the border where you can see folks on the other side watching you, looking at you. Border guards everywhere on bikes. Guns. It’s an interesting environment.

But, when you come to a small town, and Nogales is a small town, which a large movie production it is disruptive. You’re disrupting traffic. And you’re also recruiting, in this case, because we were shooting outside and we were shooting both day and night scenes, we were on splits which is, for those of you don’t know, a split schedule is when you’re in a location and you need to do both daytime and nighttime work. So, you start shooting at say two in the afternoon and you finish at two in the morning. It’s sort of the most dreaded of production schedules for crews.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But we needed people, we needed a lot of extras, so we needed a lot of local people to come out. And I have to say the people of Nogales were spectacular. They were — they kind of reminded me that this is actually fun. That as hard of a job as it is, it’s fun. And to the point where there was a crowd that came, the first night we were there the crew was really just sitting up and rigging lights. And they stayed with us until two in the morning, just a crowd of people, just watching us rig lights.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** I mean, I wasn’t rigging lights. [laughs] But, they really were — they just loved it. And all the extras who came out, and extras — so, extras are people that are walking through the scene, but a lot of people don’t realize a lot of times extras are people just driving their cars through a scene.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And so they just drive in a loop. And they drive on a loop all night until two in the morning. And when you come back the next night, because you’re shooting a different part of the same scene, you think to yourself, “Oh, they’re not going to come back. I mean, they’re just going to say, ‘Well the hell with this. I’m not driving in a circle.'” They did. They all came back. And they came back again.

And the crowds of people, you know, cheering for the actors and the actors were great, and talked to them and held up signs and things. And also for all the people that were standing out there and who could have disrupted shooting by being noisy or honking horns or being disruptive, incredibly quite, and respectful.

It was a wonderful place to shoot and I just want to thank the people of Nogales and the mayor for just coming out and being the perfect town for us to be in and visit and they were great hosts. So, thank you, Nogales.

**John:** That’s wonderful. It’s great when production shooting goes well on location. Because there are horror stories, so it’s nice to hear the happy stories.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly.

**John:** Hooray. Well, Craig, thank you for another fun podcast. if you have comments about this podcast you can Twitter to Craig, @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. You can also leave a comment for us in iTunes, which we love, which is helpful and helps other people find the show.

And that’s our week.

**Craig:** And are we going to record again before our big live podcast in Austin? Or is that the next one we do?

**John:** I think that may be the next one we do. We’ll check our schedules. So, our next one, it could be you and me in the studio, or it could be a live festival in Austin, so we’ll see.

**Craig:** We’re getting close. I love it.

**John:** Getting close. All right, Craig, thanks so much. Have a great week.

**Craig:** You too, John. Bye-bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 58: Writing your very first screenplay — Transcript

October 11, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/writing-your-very-first-screenplay).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 58 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

So, Craig, you may be familiar with the sort of classic technique in dramatic writing where you create tension by letting the audience know something that the characters on screen don’t know.

So, an example: you’d have like a spy who places a bomb underneath the table, and then when the hero is eating dinner at that table, some of that dinner is filled with tension, because you as the audience know there’s a bomb under the table and the hero does not know there’s a bomb under the table.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** A good, classic technique. And that’s sort of what I’m feeling right now, because the audience, our listeners, have information that I don’t have.

**Craig:** Right. About Halloweenie.

**John:** Yes. It’s called Frankenweenie, but thank you so much.

**Craig:** I know. [laughs] I’ve been calling it Halloweenie lately. I just like that; I don’t know why.

**John:** I like it, too. So, we’re recording this on a Friday, a Friday afternoon, which is the day that Frankenweenie comes out. But most of our audience will be listening to this on Tuesday at the earliest.

— Maybe we should have, like, people could pay money to hear it early. That would be crazy, wouldn’t it?

**Craig:** Yeah, like a Scriptnotes Premium?

**John:** Premium. Yeah, like — we would charge extra money rather than nothing.

**Craig:** Double nothing.

**John:** Double nothing. Yes, exactly. You could pay zero dollars rather than free.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, anyway, our audience is hearing this on Tuesday. So, they are knowing how well the movie did. So, we got great reviews, and that’s all great, but in terms of how we did at the box office, they have information that I don’t have.

They are living in one of three possible futures: the future where we did outstandingly well, the future where we did fine, and the future in which we didn’t do as well as we might have hoped.

And I would love to know which future our audience is living in, but I really have no good sense of that, because the tracking on the movie has been just bizarre. And so, like, the people who you usually go to ask, “How much do you think the movie will make?” they have said like, “Oh, it will make between $10 million and $30 million this weekend.”

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s very, very difficult to track children’s movies. I mean, first of all congratulations; the reviews were outstanding, so it’s always good to see.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** The way tracking works is they call people up at home and they say, “What race are you? What gender are you? How old are you? Here are a bunch of movies. First of all, what are movies you’ve heard of — we’re not going to say any names.” That’s called unaided awareness. “Now, here’s a bunch of movies, have you heard of those?” That’s called aided awareness.

Then, “Which of these movies would you definitely recommend to friends,” or, I’m sorry, “which of these movies are you definitely interested in seeing?” And then, “Can you tell us which of these movies would be your first choice to see?” And then, “Which of the movies that are actually available for you to see — which one of these would be your first choice to see?”

The problem with kids’ movies is that kids’ movie-viewing is driven by moms, mostly, and kids. And a lot of times moms aren’t aware of what their kids want to see until it’s Saturday at noon, so very difficult to get a sense ahead of time what kids’ movies are going to do. They often surprise people. Typically they surprise you in a good way. Sometimes they Oogielove all over you, and then you’re just crying.

**John:** I don’t think anyone was surprised by Oogielove. That was not a surprise to anyone. But, like, the surprise last weekend was the Hotel Transylvania which did much better than people were expecting. And so the second weekend of whatever that movie will be, even if it drops a tremendous amount of money, will be a lot of money. So, people will go see that movie because it’s out there in theaters as well.

Anyway, it shouldn’t really matter that much. I’m delighted the movie did so well. It’s not going to help me or hurt sort of how much it does, but you want people to come see the movie. You want it to be successful.

So, I’ve been trying not to… — I know that the reviews are good because I sort of the scan the page of Rotten Tomatoes. This time I’m trying not to actually read the reviews because I find I can just sort of get sucked into a K-hole of reading all the reviews, which is just not helpful or productive to anyone.

But, my new time suck has been going on Twitter and just doing a Twitter search for Frankenweenie.

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** And so you see all the people who are just seeing the movie right then. And so at midnight on the east coast, or two in the morning on the east coast before I went to bed, I could see all the people who were just coming out of Frankenweenie and crying and talking about how much they liked it, which was really nice.

**Craig:** That is terrific. I totally know where you’re coming from. I used to be obsessed with reviews, and obsessed with this, and obsessed with that. But Twitter has not only supplanted the importance of all that in my mind, I think frankly it’s just eliminating the actual practical value of critics. I’m not talking about their theoretical value, or their intellectual value, or cultural value, just their practical value of “Should I go see a movie or not? Let me check a particular critic. Let me check Metacritic. Let me check Rotten Tomatoes.”

It seems entirely driven by Twitter. So, even when the Identity Thief teaser hit, I went and searched and was getting — just kind of rolling through the reactions. And people are super honest, which is great. And it was a good reaction, so it’s always good to see.

But, you should be — eyes glued to Twitter, all weekend. But, you also know — I don’t know if people know this — but I mean, I guess most people by now know by Saturday morning or even frankly by tonight you’ll have a pretty decent idea of what the movie is going to do.

**John:** Absolutely. By tonight we’ll know whether sort of grownups, how many grownups went to see it. And based off of that they can do their little metrics and figure out with this kind of movie what they could expect for a Saturday, which would be a much bigger day for families, and Sunday, which is also a big day for a family movie.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes, exactly. So, they just sort of compare it to a similar film and use the same multiplier and you should… — But, I would be shocked if it were on the low end of that. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were on the high end. So, good luck.

**John:** Yeah. Fingers crossed. But, I thought we might escape from this stress by reverting to a simpler time in the podcast today and really think back to what it was like when we were writing our very first scripts. Because before you have a movie that you have to worry about NRG tracking, you have this first screenplay that you’re trying to write. And so I thought today would be a walk down the hallways of history back to the time when we were not screenwriters yet, and we had not finished a script, and we were just getting started.

And so I don’t think I know — what was the first screenplay you ever read?

**Craig:** Screenplay I ever read? It was probably, oh, that’s a really good question.

**John:** As a related question, when were you aware that there was such a thing as screenwriting?

**Craig:** Pretty early on.

**John:** You grew up in a neighborhood with writers.

**Craig:** I knew in high school that there were screenwriters. I don’t know if I knew in middle school.

**John:** So, what do you think was the first time you started thinking about the script behind a movie? Because to me, I’ll give you my example first, is my brother and I had rented War of the Roses on VHS. And so we watched it and I was like, “I love this movie.” And then we rewound it and my brother went upstairs and I, like, I started just playing the movie again and started writing down everything people said.

And, I realized, “Oh, you know what? Someone must have written the things they’re saying. Like, there’s a whole plan for this.” Which sounds incredibly naïve, but I guess I just didn’t really realize that movies were sort of like plays. I’d read plays, but I didn’t realize that movies must have worked the same way. And so, just on a sheet of legal paper I was like trying to figure out what scenes were and what — I was trying to reverse engineer War of the Roses.

**Craig:** Huh. I actually remember before ever reading anything, I actually remember writing a script in — I wrote a script in eighth grade. So, I must have been aware of it. I didn’t write a script with proper FADE IN, and INT./EXT., or anything like that, but we were supposed to do a skit in our drama class and I wrote the whole thing.

**John:** Yeah, but that was a play, though. Because you’d experienced plays before. So was it more like a play, or was it really meant to be a script for filming something?

**Craig:** No, it was definitely more like a play, because we could not film anything.

— Hold on, I have to pee. If I don’t pee now it’s going to be a disaster.

**John:** Okay, go pee.

**Craig:** I can feel it. I’ll be right back.

**John:** So, Craig thinks we’re going to cut this part out of the podcast, but no; I’m actually going to just leave it in. So, this is a chance for us to talk about Craig while he’s not around.

Yup.

Just talking.

**Craig:** Uh! So much better.

**John:** Good. I talked a lot while you were gone. So, Stuart may leave that in, or may cut it out.

**Craig:** I think it’s great.

**John:** Yeah. Honesty in the podcast at this point.

**Craig:** I had to pee.

**John:** Yeah. We’re at episode 58. We’re not going to hide anything here.

**Craig:** No. Because if I try to pee in a bottle or something like that — I mean, if they can hear an electronic cigarette, they’re going to hear pee.

**John:** Yeah, that’s true. You shouldn’t try to pee in a bottle.

So, you were saying that you wrote this little skit, or sketchy kind of thing. So you had a sense of what a play was like. But to me it was a weird change, because I had a read a lot of plays. I’d read Shakespeare and I read sort of The Importance of Being Earnest, but I just hadn’t associated that movies were written the same way.

So, the first script I was able to find — this is Boulder, Colorado; this is early ’90s — the only script I could find was Steven Soderbergh’s script for Sex, Lies, and Videotape, because that was published in a book. It was his production diary and his script. And so I bought that, I read it, and then I read it like while the movie was playing. And I was like, “Oh my god, everything they’re saying is in there, and this is what a scene is. And this EXT must be exterior and INT must be interior,” which sounds so hopelessly naïve now, but this was a time before the internet was everywhere, and before you could sort of find that information.

I had maybe, like, Premiere Magazine as my only source of film information. And that was just a revelation. So, first off, thank you Steven Soderbergh for making that movie and publishing your script. But it actually was one of the reasons why on my own website I do publish as many of the scripts as I can, because I feel like I want people to be able to see what the scripts were like behind the movies.

**Craig:** I think probably the first screenplay-type material I ever read — I guess it was more teleplay material — was in 1991, the summer of 1991, I had gotten an internship through the Television Academy. And I came out to LA that summer between my junior and senior year, and I worked in the current programming department. And that was the first time I was exposed to teleplays. So, I was reading scripts for The Simpsons.

**John:** How lucky are you?

**Craig:** — And I was reading scripts for their other sitcoms and their not-sitcoms. And I distinctly remember being surprised at how dead it all seemed on the page. That was interesting to me. Learning how to fill that in, just from text to images in your mind. It’s weird; you almost have to learn how to read before you can learn how to write, because screenplays are such a strange animal. That was probably the beginning, yeah.

**John:** It was also a strange situation reading Simpsons scripts because the scripts for an established TV series tend to be much less detailed in terms of scene description, because you don’t have to introduce who Homer Simpson is. And so you were reading a very dry version of what a script would be.

What was the first script you tried to write?

**Craig:** Well, I started — the very first things I tried to write were television scripts. I thought I would break into sitcoms. So, the very first script I ever wrote was a spec script for Frasier I believe. And I did that with my partner at the time.

**John:** The very first thing I tried to write was, well, I sort of transcribed an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. So, literally, I recorded it and then I wrote it all down. And then I tried to sort of reverse engineer what the script was like. And, so, all the dialogue I used from the dialogue that I saw in the show, but I tried to make the scene description feel like what the actual scene description probably was for it. It was a good exercise. I would recommend it to any high school student who’s listening who wants to sort of figure it out.

So, I was obsessed with, like, “Oh, I’m going to write a spec episode of Star Trek and…” you know, because sometimes Star Trek at that era would take a spec episode and actually produce it. That was my first obsession. And then I decided I was going to adapt Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s not at all ambitious.

**John:** No, not at all. And so I got through about two and a half pages of that, because it’s a simple little story of the American south when told with multiple narrators and many flashbacks. Easy.

**Craig:** Yeah. No problem.

**John:** No problems. But, when I finally came out to Los Angeles I had the opportunity to read a ton of screenplays and realize sort of all the things I didn’t know. And one of the great luxuries of the Stark Program that I was in is that we had at USC a great film library. So, you could check out all these scripts, you know, James Cameron’s Aliens, but like everything you could possibly ever want.

And Laura Ziskin, who taught our very first development class, she had her own library, so everybody could check out two scripts from her. I learned how to write up coverage. You could even go and compare two different drafts. So, you could see, like, an early draft of Hero and the shooting draft. You’d see sort of all the changes that happened along the way. And that was fascinating. And that got me over some of my fear of it. Because when you first encounter the screenplay form, it’s just alien. It’s not like any other kind of writing you’re going to experience.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So in addition to these great scripts we had to read at USC, I also started interning. And so I wan interning at a little production company called Prelude Pictures that was based at Paramount. So I would read scripts for them and write up coverage. And at first it was free, and then I got a different job where I got paid for it. But I was reading a bunch of honestly terrible screenplays. And that was really useful to me, too, because I was reading these great screenplays in class of these like produced movies, and I was reading these bad screenplays. And to be able to compare and contrast the two of those was fantastic.

And at the same time, I was starting to write my own screenplays. And it taught me a lot of what I didn’t want to do.

**Craig:** Yeah. Certainly. You know, the thing about comedy — and I remember at the time, this is when I started thinking about writing comedy screenplays. It was 1994/1995, in that zone, and PG comedy was sort of ruling the day. Family comedy was ruling the day at the time; at least it seemed that way to me.

And I just sort of thought, “Well, you know, I’ll try my hand at that.” And so many of those scripts were bad. And, so, in a weird way I had the kind of opposite instruction. I was reading scripts that I thought were goofy but they were successful. And I kind of [laughs] wandered down a weird path there for awhile because I thought, “You know, in that kind middle class-ish, sort of 24-year old way I should probably just write what they’re buying, shouldn’t I?” I didn’t know any better.

**John:** Yeah. Very much the high concept PG comedy was the sweet spot at that time, wasn’t it?

**Craig:** For sure.

**John:** So, I want to talk about some of the common characteristics I’ve noticed in people’s first screenplays. Over the years I’ve read a lot of people’s first scripts. And they’re often like, you know, friends of colleagues. Classically sort of like your gardener’s sister wrote a script and would you read it? And I try not to read those, but I do sometimes need to read them. Or, just other people who I think are smart overall, but they’re just new to the format.

So, some characteristics I’ve noticed of first screenplays, and in listing these hopefully people will recognize them and try to move past them. And you can add to these as you hear.

If I see a scene that’s three pages long, it’s probably a first script, or a very early script. Produced screenplays tend to have short scenes. They don’t tend to go on for a very long time. Three pages of, you know, a speech. If a speech goes on for more than a page, that’s unusual.

**Craig:** Yeah. We have a general rhythm where scenes should — the typical scene, not big ones, but typical scenes should fit in a day of work. And a day of work on a major motion picture film is 2.5 pages. And any time I get past 2.5 pages I start getting a little itchy.

**John:** Well, and the experience of watching a movie, if you actually were to pull out your stop watch and as you were clocking a movie, you would recognize that very few scenes are more than three minutes long. There will occasionally be some scenes that are more than three minutes long, but three minutes in one place and one time with two people talking feels like an eternity in most movies.

**Craig:** For sure. And I just want to point out that there’s a distinction between scenes and sequences. So, when you’re thinking about the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark, it’s one big sequence that begins with a shot of a mountain and ends with Indy flying away on a plane. But there are a lot of little scenes within it.

**John:** Yes.

Another characteristic of first screenplays: shot-gunning characters. So, if I see, if you introduce eight characters in the first page or two pages, that’s not going to be a happy outcome most likely. If you’re trying to overload us with a bunch of people all at once and tell us everything about them we’re not going to be able to keep them straight. More sophisticated screenplays tend to sort of understand the readers and recognize, “I’m going to highlight these people who are important and save other people for later on in the story.”

**Craig:** I agree with that.

**John:** Same token: when you over-describe a minor character. So, that doesn’t mean everybody needs to be Security Guard #2, but if you’re giving a lot of description to a minor character who’s never going to appear again, that’s not a good idea. Because we as the audience and the reader are going to think, “Well, this person must be really important so I’m going to ascribe a lot of mental energy to remembering this person,” when they’re never going to come back again.

**Craig:** Another good one.

**John:** Weird formatting is always a standout for me, because people tend to freak out about formatting, but if it is wrong it feels wrong.

When did you feel like you understood the formatting of scripts?

**Craig:** Well, I think I started basically by just mimicking the formatting that I saw in actual screenplays. I picked up a copy of Syd Field’s…it wasn’t the Syd Field book that people normally read. It was a book called Syd Field’s Workbook, or something like that. And it was very technical and really just about where-do-you-put-the-margins and interior and exterior. And so I just sort of copied that faithfully. So, I don’t think I ever went down a weird formatting hole.

**John:** What were you writing in originally?

**Craig:** Believe it or not, Final Draft.

**John:** Oh, you started on Final Draft?

**Craig:** I just couldn’t bear the thought of doing all the work of writing in Microsoft Word like that, and it was — I want to say it was 1993. And I was working at an ad agency and a guy who was working there was friends with this dude named Mark Madnick who had invented this really cool program called Final Draft. And it was on floppy disks. And I drove to Santa Monica and they had a little bungalow there. And I bought it right from them. I bought it from Mark Madnick. [laughs] I wrote him a check and he gave me two floppies for Final Draft 2.0.

**John:** That’s fantastic. How much was the check?

**Craig:** Oh boy.

**John:** Was it like $200?

**Craig:** I mean, my guess would be something like $40. I’m just guessing.

**John:** All right. Because it’s now up to like $199.

**Craig:** Yeah. It was nowhere near that. I couldn’t have afforded it.

**John:** I started in Microsoft Word. And so in preparation for this podcast I was looking at early script and it is in like an ancient version of Microsoft Word. It’s very easy to sort of slam on Final Draft for some of the things that have gotten frustrating over the years, but if you try to write a screenplay in just Microsoft Word and do all the formatting yourself it is really maddening. Like when you have to do a page break, that becomes just a brutal, brutal exercise. So, it was a good innovation.

But my first, up through Go, I never had Final Draft. And so that was all Microsoft Word.

**Craig:** Awful.

**John:** Awful. Awful stuff

A common feature of many first scripts is what I call D&D descriptions: “There are,” “there is.” You’re talking about a room as if you were the dungeon master describing the room in which the player characters have come into. And so it’s very much like, you know, “15 feet to the left there is this,” as if characters need to figure out how to avoid traps on the floor. They’re not sort of painting the scene the way a screenwriter does.

**Craig:** Yeah. Another thing I sometimes see is a weird over-appreciation for one’s own dialogue. The characters get very florid and a little too over-literate as they speak. And you get these long — I think first time screenwriters love speeches. They all think that the movie is going to be chock full of those great monologue moments. And, if you have one monologue in a movie that’s a lot. Most movies have none.

**John:** I also notice first time screenwriters have a hard time getting a character into a scene. There is a lot of like walking through doors.

**Craig:** Yeah. Shoe leather.

**John:** Yeah, they’re shoe leather. Characters will say hello and goodbye and do all of this stuff that people do in the real world, but there’s ways you find how to do in screenplays where you don’t need those intros and outros and you can just, you know, get to the meat of the scene much quicker.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** By the same token, a lot of times these movies will spend 20 pages setting stuff up, and you will have no sense of where this is going. And in most movies, quite early on you get a sense at least that you’re on a path to some place. You don’t need to know all the details, but if you’re just spinning your wheels, you have no idea what the next, what the characters are trying to do after 20 pages, there’s a real issue.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s also a thing I’ll see a lot in first scripts or relatively early scripts in someone’s path is an abundance of plot and almost no character at all.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, the movie becomes about exciting sequences, and I couldn’t care less about any of the people involved.

**John:** Sometimes you will often see the flip, where it’s just exceedingly low ambition for a script, where it’s just a bunch of characters hanging out, talking about marital problems…

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** …but not in a fascinating or interesting way. So it’s like: put a little more story in there, like actually have your characters do something rather than just sit around and kind of complain.

**Craig:** Yeah. And the whole idea is that the story should be matched to the character, and the character should be matched to the story in an interesting oppositional way. A lot of times you just get, like you said, people talking, or frankly what’s even worse to me, people acting but not actually being people.

**John:** Ideally you want to match the character to a story in a way that is answering both questions. Who is the most appropriate character for this story? And who is the sort of least appropriate character for this story? Who would this story impact the most? Who would this idea have the biggest impact on and thus, you know, that character would be a fascinating person to see in this world and in this universe. And too often they’re kind of matched too perfectly.

Like, “He’s a schlub who wants to impress his wife.” It’s like, eh, I don’t care.

Another, sort of like the walking through doors problem, is when one character tells another character something we as the audience already know.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, I see that. “As you know, to review…” I was just going through these the other day with somebody. There’s “As you know, to review,” and then there’s one of my favorites: “Wait, wait, wait. Tell me that again?”

**John:** Oh my, yeah. So, those are all things, like, trying to summarize stuff. It’s easy to understand the instinct. The screenwriter needs the audience to know that the other characters are also aware of this fact or information, but the actual scene in which you’re doing it is terrible, and you will try to find a way to cut it out when you actually make the movie. So, don’t write this scene. And find some way that we’re running up and we’re getting ahead of that, because those things are deathly.

And weirdly I find I don’t encounter that nearly as much now as I used to. I think subconsciously I’m already avoiding those scenes way ahead of time. I’m doing the judo so that those scenes can never have to happen.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, to me it’s just a sign that your story is all wrong anyway. I mean, if you find yourself in a spot where suddenly one character has to explain a bunch of stuff to another one, something is just in your story. If it’s important for one character to know it’s important for me to watch it happen or see it. So, figure out a way to illustrate it dramatically to me, whether it’s a flashback… There are always creative ways to get this information across.

**John:** Agreed. Although you say flashback; unnecessary flashbacks are also pretty much the pinnacle of first screenplay-ness. It’s just like, you know, “Here’s a big flashback to tell you about how bad my dad was.” It’s like, that’s not important.

**Craig:** Well, unnecessary flashback, unnecessary narration.

**John:** Ugh.

**Craig:** These are the crutches we use when we’re not quite sure how to tell the story that we have, because maybe it’s not the right story to be telling.

**John:** Yup.

So, Craig, are you ready for this now?

**Craig:** Dude, I was born ready!

**John:** Ah! So the reason why we’re talking about this: it’s been so nice that so many of our listeners, more than 200 of our listeners have written in with their three page samples. And so Craig and I are actually going to give you three page samples from our very first screenplays.

**Craig:** Very, very first. And so, you know, I had such a… — When you suggested this I thought, “That’s a great idea/that’s a terrible idea.” [laughs] Because it’s so embarrassing and it’s so awful.

**John:** [laughs] Yes. It is. It is so awful. So, it was my idea, so I’ll start first just to rip the Band-Aid off.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** So, my sample is from my very first script. I wrote it while I was in grad school. And I’ll give some back story on when I wrote this. Between my first and second years of grad school I was interning at Universal. And I had a job for the head of physical production. And I was the intern below three assistants. Like, there was nothing that they actually needed me to do. It was very nice of them to give me a little job, but there was nothing for me to do. So, I would file a couple of papers a day.

So, I would come home from work and I had not used any brain cells, and so I would just write at night. And so I hand wrote at night, and then during my lunch break I would type up the pages. And actually wrote most of the screenplay during that summer at Universal.

The script I wrote is called Here and Now. It was originally called Now and Then, but then there was a movie with Demi Moore that was called Now and Then while I was writing this, so I had to change it to Here and Now. So, these are the three pages from Here and Now which you will find on the website, along with all the other three page samples.

A summary of what happens in these three pages: We open in a crowded parking lot of a shopping mall. It’s snowy, Christmastime. Two passing women talk about someone’s sudden death. We meat Karen Miller, a young woman. She’s in her car. She’s trying to back out. Another car slams into her. Her airbag blows. She’s not badly hurt, but as she looks into the window’s reflection she sees someone behind her, someone who is not actually there.

We cut to one year earlier, and we’re at the University of Colorado. We see some background action describing the student body. And that’s the end of our three pages.

**Craig:** Well, it’s a pretty good summary, and if you had written that summary I think you’d be in good shape. [laughs]

**John:** Ha-ha-ha. So…

**Craig:** Do you want me to go after you because you get to… — I mean, I want to go after myself, too. So, maybe you want to go after yourself first?

**John:** Yeah, I’ll go after myself first. So, a lot of the stuff I talked about in the criteria of like first scripts, you see some of that here. There’s a lot of over-description of things. And our protagonist, our Karen Miller, first off we say her name but we don’t’ actually give her any description whatsoever. So, there’s nothing to sort of signal that she’s actually who she is as a person. She’s just a young woman in a car. And so we don’t know anything special about her. She’s not driving this introductory scene. She’s not doing anything interesting. She’s just a passenger in the scene.

And she’s a passenger who gets hit in the scene. And that’s not a terrible opening, but it’s not a great opening. It’s setting up that there’s some mystery there. And it may be a bit of a misdirect in terms of sort of what the tone of this is going to be. It feels just sort of wintery and snowy. And then by the end we get to the University of Colorado a year earlier and it’s just, you know, a picture postcard. It’s just painting, “this is what a campus looks like.” And it’s like, “Oh, but that is probably what a campus looks like.” But we haven’t really gotten any story started and we’re three pages in.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, look: the truth is I like your pages better, your first pages better, than I like my first pages. That’s the awful thing about comedy is when they’re not funny, that’s just — that’s the headline…

**John:** I wasn’t aiming for funny.

**Craig:** You don’t have that sort of objecting, “ugh.” However, there’s just nothing really happening here. I mean, she gets hit by another woman, and there’s a lot of description of what’s happening with the cars and the geography of the space and how she actually gets hit, although it’s really just a fender bender so the car crash itself isn’t that interesting.

There is one interesting thing buried in there, which is that she sees somebody that isn’t there. So, you sort of like made a real meal out of all these mundane things that frankly just aren’t that interesting and then kind of, like, da-da-da, passed the one thing that really is interesting. And so the scene has this lack of focus. And I always like to say — and this is a classic new writer thing: You are not directing my attention to where it’s supposed to be. You’re directing my attention to where it’s not.

So, there is a paragraph, or descriptions of what the engine sounds like as the car stops. [laughs] But, then, you know, very little thing — I mean, you underline “Someone is standing directly behind her.” There’s no one there. But then we’re back and then there’s just more discussion of the woman. And then, yeah, some of the description is awesome. I mean, I got to hand it you. “Brown mutant icicles hunched behind the wheels,” is spectacular.

**John:** But it’s novelistic. I mean, I think you can get away with some of it. And I think “brown mutant icicles” could last if there wasn’t so much other stuff around it.

I don’t like these five sentence blocks of scene description. They’re intimidating to read, and so people skip them.

**Craig:** Thank god I didn’t do that. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. Thank god you didn’t do that.

**Craig:** That’s the worst. But we’re getting there.

**John:** On page two, midway, actually near the bottom of page two, I actually finally do give a description of Karen. So, “She’s really very pretty, a page torn from a J. Crew catalog, fresh-faced and a little delicate.” That’s actually not bad description. But that should have come when we first met Karen Miller, and not, you know, two pages in.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I also feel like we have this — we’re concentrating on what these two women that we will never see again — I presume, because they’re Woman 1 and Woman 2 — are saying, when really what I wanted desperately is a moment before Karen Miller gets in her car and starts to pull out and gets hit. I just want to be contextualized with my protagonist, not with weather and extras.

**John:** I agree.

**Craig:** But, here’s what’s good. I want to sort of say, “Okay, but here’s the sign that the guy who wrote this would one day write Halloweenie.”

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** [laughs] I just love saying Halloweenie.

**John:** Yeah, that’s fine.

**Craig:** There is a specificity to the way you’re writing this. And, more importantly, it is visual. It’s not always interesting in terms of what you’re visualizing, but you’re being visual. And you’re also being very sparse with the dialogue. The dialogue felt real to me.

And, you know, these are things like pitch that you can’t teach. Either you can or can’t sing. Either you can or can’t feel rhythm. And so I see that there is somebody writing this who has an ear, and somebody who has a rhythm. And, you know, this was — can I say what year this was?

**John:** Oh yeah. This is 1994.

**Craig:** Yeah. So this was February of 1994. And that’s 18 years ago, actually. And you can see there is something going on here. There is an intelligence behind this. And there is a voice. And also little things, like for instance, just to show that you understand the language of cinema — as the sequence ends, Karen looks up at the Donna Karan woman, gives a half a laugh, smiles a little to herself, which I like the sense of mystery. “In the distance, CARILLON BELLS ring, continuing as we cut to:
TITLE OVER BLACK
One year earlier.”

And there are the Carillon bells. That’s how I pronounce it, right? Carol-on?

**John:** Yeah. Carillon bells.

**Craig:** And so you got already that there was a language where sound could sort of play oppositional to time stream. And these are things that are precise.

**John:** It was my very first pre-lap. And lord knows I pre-lap the hell out of things these days.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So, I’m not embarrassed by these three pages. It’s just that they’re not the way I would have written them right now.

So, reading these three pages, what kind of story do you think this is?

**Craig:** I would suspect it’s some kind of supernatural — what I got was a supernatural love story.

**John:** It is a love story, but it’s actually not supernatural. It is a weepy. And it was my first weepy. So, it’s actually good that it’s on a Frankenweenie release date. Because it was the first time that I made people cry. And that was actually the thing about this script is I could kind of consistently make people cry. And that got me an agent. It got me sort of started, because people weren’t used to actually reading a script and crying.

So, it’s a tiny romantic tragedy set in Boulder, Colorado, which is my hometown. Again, a very sort of first script thing where it’s like you write things that you know so well that they might not be interesting to other people. And it suffered from another first script problem, which is that I tried to cram everything I knew about everything into it. Because, like, “Well maybe I’ll never write another script, so I should shove everything I know about everything into it.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. A lot of speeches.

Well, great. Thank you for looking at that. I’m not horrifically embarrassed. Let’s take a look at Craig’s script. The Stunt Family.

**Craig:** Yes. The Stunt Family. Just a year later, February of 1995. And the background on this is I was working at Disney in the marketing department. And my boss was Oren Aviv, who would later go on to actually run Disney and now is the head of marketing at Fox.

And Oren took a shine to me and suggested that I try my hand at writing a movie and then he could produce it. And he had an idea for a movie. And his idea was called The Stunt Family. And it was going to be a big, broad, physical comedy for kids about a family of stunt men who live their lives as if every day and every moment were a stunt. And they would go on a grand adventure and kind of use their fearlessness. But one of the family members, of course, just didn’t really feel like he fit in.

And so I wrote it with my then partner, Greg Erb, and it was the first screenplay I’d ever written. These were the first screen pages I’d ever written. And so, I mean…God.

**John:** [laughs] Well, for people who are just listening who aren’t on the page in front of them, do you want to give the summary?

**Craig:** Sure. So the summary is: We are on a backlot of Maxwell Studios, which is essentially like Universal Studios if any of you have visited Universal Studios where you take the tour of the actual backlot of the studio in the little tram. And they’ve kind of combined the actual working backlot with attractions. Like at Universal there’s a fake earthquake and then Jaws comes out of the lake and stuff like that.

And so you’re sort of on a tour with a tour guide who apparently is on his first day and isn’t very well prepared. And they pass by the stunt house and we start meeting members of the Stunt Family who are waking up to their morning routine. And their morning routine is sort of a very Addams Family combination of living in the middle of a working attraction. And it seems like they are living in a rather dangerous life, and yet they seem kind of curiously okay with it.

**John:** Yeah. And we get to the bottom of page three, we’ve met — have we met all the family by that point?

**Craig:** No. You meet sort of the [laughs], this is probably not a great idea. But you meet the protagonist on page 4 who is the one who doesn’t feel like he fits in.

**John:** Okay, cool. So, Craig, do you want to pull the Band-Aid first? I mean, how are you feeling?

**Craig:** Well, I feel pretty bad.

**John:** [laugh]

**Craig:** And this is when I talk to some of the people who send pages in who are writing comedy, and I say, “Listen, I’ve been there. I’ve done these mistakes.” I really have. And you can see it here, even though this was 17 years ago, it hurts to read. First of all, you have these huge chunks of description. And even though they’re not particularly prosy, it’s just a ton of unimportant detail.

We have a run, a page and a half run of back and forth dialogue between the tour guide and some people on the tour that is really broad, poorly written, not at all funny, illogical. Just bad. Really forced and awful.

**John:** And I would assume, just as the movie starts, that Zeke is actually our hero because he’s the guy who’s given a name and give, you know, he seems to be the center of the story but he’s not.

**Craig:** No. You sure would think that. And he’s not. And nothing is grounded. Not even the name of the studio and their mascot is grounded. It’s Zeke’s first day and yet apparently they don’t train people there, so he’s overly stupid and doesn’t know what anything is and makes ridiculous mistakes in order to set up bad punch lines.

So, the first page and a half is an unmitigated disaster. It gets a little bit more interesting when we actually get inside the stunt house, because you do have this kind, I guess I would describe, as sort of Addams Family setting. And even though, again, way too much description, there’s some interesting things happening.

This old man wakes up, and as the clock goes from 7:59 to 8:00 his eyes open up and this huge rot iron spiky chandelier plummets from the ceiling, puncturing the bed, and he rolls out the way and looks at his wristwatch and says, “I’m getting slower.” So, that’s kind of interesting, like, okay, they’ve rigged the house like Cato and Inspector Clouseau. A kind of constant test for them.

And on the third page you can see that their house is actually — and this is of course unfilmable; I mean, this comedy would have cost $400 million to do — the house literally is besieged by a fake flash flood. The people inside kind of amusingly know how to work with it. They’re using the flood waters to clean dishes. More terrible lines. It’s terrible.

**John:** Yeah. I do like, at the start of page three, the idea of the bus tram tour and the inept tour guide is funny. And there’s reason why, like, Kenneth the page works on 30 Rock. There’s a way that can work; where things go a little bit wrong, he’s saying the wrong stuff.

So, I did like at the top of page three it’s like, “‘Rumor has it that Wilford and his family still live in the old house, but I sure hope not, because I smell SMOKE!’

A simulated FLASH FLOOD is unleashed.

‘I mean…water.'”

That’s a good joke. The scene description line didn’t really help us there. But it is a nice idea. You set the wrong expectation and suddenly a flood comes by. You get a joke for that, the unexpected.

**Craig:** Yeah. I wouldn’t call that a joke. [laughs] I just think it’s awful. I mean, I hate it. And I think it’s really just juvenile and even more juvenile than for me. It’s really juvenile.

I mean, I don’t know. The only thing I look at this, I mean, I would have said had I read these pages, “This guy is never going to make it,” personally.

**John:** I see competence in there. I see, you know, I see you setting up sort of — trying to setup a world, trying to get into something. I see the instinct behind t”his is how we would set up a studio by giving a studio tour.” So, you had a sense of what the Universal thing would be. And once you get to Wilford’s room, and since you said Addams Family, I get that more now. I just didn’t get it on the page. But I can see where that would be.

But partly why I want to talk about first scripts is you kind of have to get one out of your system. You kind of have to get through it, just so you can get familiar with the format and just finish a document that’s 120 pages long, which is going to be the longest thing that most human beings will ever write. So, it’s just that process is an important part of getting started.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right. I think doing this script, one of the things it drove home for me, if I can remember that accurately that far back, is that there was a lot — it was really important to take care of the fundamentals that weren’t related to comedy. To make sure that the story was well told and the characters were real and relatable and that the plot moved in an interesting way.

And even though the next script I wrote with Greg was also very ridiculous, and broad, and family-oriented, it was a movie. And they made it. And that was the second thing I ever wrote. So, I surely needed to do this.

**John:** Yeah. And I couldn’t have written Go as my first script. Go was too complicated. I needed to be confident with the format. Although I will say I wrote the first section of Go at about the same time I wrote Here and Now. The first section of Go was X, which was a short film which became the whole movie, but it’s really just that first act of Go. And if people are thinking about trying the format, writing something short might be a really good idea, because at least it will get you familiar with the format and you’re not juggling all of the complexities of how-do-you-tell-a-story-over-two-hours. You’re just trying to tell a story over a shorter period of time.

That’s a small bit of advice. But, eventually you do have to write a full lengthy script and there are going to be all of the challenges that come with writing a full length script. And it won’t be perfect, so don’t expect it to be perfect.

**Craig:** No. It will likely be absolute garbage.

**John:** Yeah. But people don’t remember the first time they wrote a school report. People don’t remember the first time they wrote a paragraph. This is such a bigger step that it’s hard to expect that it’s going to be great the first time.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I think I want to actually wrap it up today because this was actually sort of meaningful and touching. And we’ll save other Three Page Challenges for a future time.

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah. I’m glad you find it meaningful and touching. I just find it awful and depressing.

**John:** Well, see, we’ve come full circle then. Because I started the podcast sort of stressed out because of Halloweenie, and now I feel actually kind of better about myself, because in a slightly Schadenfreude way my pages were better than yours. So…

**Craig:** Well, I mean, honestly, you could have wiped your butt with three pages and roughly assembled the fecal smears into Courier shape and they would have been better than that. I mean, that’s just the worst. When I look at that stuff and I just think, “Good lord, what was I thinking?”

**John:** Yeah. Clearly your co-writer is the problem.

**Craig:** No. I can’t really blame him at all. [laughs] I can’t.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** No. I mean, the one thing when we talked about doing this, I did think, “Well, you know, it might not be fair because I did write it with somebody, and maybe the better way of approaching this would be for me to submit the first three pages of the first thing I wrote on my own.”

**John:** That’s not fair at all.

**Craig:** But that was kind of a cheat, because frankly that was a really good script. And, even though it didn’t get made, it’s probably why it didn’t get made because it was good. And I really love those first three pages of that thing. And I thought, “Well, this is just cheating. I’ve got to actually go back and just pull up The Stunt Family, for the love of god.”

But, I was 24 and foolish. You apparently were 24 and wise.

**John:** Yeah. Wise beyond my years. I decided to write, like while everyone was writing the high concept comedy I was writing the weepy, which didn’t get made either, but it got me started. So, god bless those first scripts.

**Craig:** I guess that’s the way you’ve got to look at it. This one got me going, too.

**John:** Every once and awhile a producer will ask for, or a development executive, will call my agent and say, “Hey, do we have any of John’s old scripts? Can we read some of his early things?” Or they will ask for the script specifically. And I had to say no. I don’t want that out anymore because it’s just not me anymore. There’s a reason why it’s not part of my active file.

**Craig:** That’s interesting. I would say that the one script I just brought up that was sort of the first one that I wrote on my own I would love to see made. I think it still is an interesting one that works. Scott Frank is prepping a movie right now to direct that he wrote called The Walk Among the Tombstones, which he adapted from a Larry Block novel. I think. And he actually wrote that in ’97, I think, or ’98. And sort of it’s always been there and he’s kind of dusted it off and polished it up and gotten it ready to go.

**John:** That can work. Often there are bad examples, but there are also good examples. Unforgiven was an old script that sat around for a long time and someone said, “Hey, let’s make that script.”

**Craig:** Well, actually, Clint Eastwood bought when — David Peoples wrote that script. Clint Eastwood bought it, I think it was in the late ’70s or early ’80s I want to say. And put it in a drawer on purpose because he knew he wasn’t old enough to play the part. So, he bought it and just aged it like wine until he was ready.

**John:** I’m sure David Peoples was delighted.

**Craig:** You know what? He should be, because it’s one of the greatest movies ever made.

**John:** Yeah. Agreed. Agreed. But at the time, I mean, do you think for those 30 years David Peoples was like, “I’m so lucky that Clint Eastwood hasn’t made my movie.”

**Craig:** It wasn’t 30. It was like 12.

**John:** Everything feels like more time.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** So, Craig, our last piece of housekeeping. Scriptnotes Live in Austin, at the Austin Film Festival, is October 20 at 9am. So, people have written on Twitter to ask, “Hey, can I just get a ticket for that one event?” And I don’t think you can. I think it’s actually part of the Austin Film Festival.

**Craig:** Yeah. The Austin Film Festival would be silly if they started to do things like that. I mean, the whole point is that they break even. And I don’t think it’s a profit organization, so they do need people to buy their passes to actually put on these things and support these events. So, no, you can’t just go see it. You have to buy a pass to the event. They are still available online. And there are a lot of other wonderful things to go see there.

**John:** Great writers there.

**Craig:** I mean, we will be, spectacular, no question. But…

**John:** And we have Aline Brosh McKenna is really our secret weapon.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think I’m our secret weapon.

**John:** Well, yeah, you’re right. That too. And if you want to talk to our secret weapon, Craig Mazin, on Twitter, you are @clmazin?

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I am @johnaugust. That’s a good way if you have like small questions for us. If you have bigger questions, or if things you need to send in or ask us about, you can write to ask@johnaugust.com. There is a whole form on the website, johnaugust.com, about how to write stuff in.

And, thank you very much for listening to our podcast. Subscribe in iTunes if you don’t.

**Craig:** Wait! I have a Cool Thing, finally, and you’re just blowing right through it.

**John:** Oh, I blew right past it. Tell us your Cool Thing, Craig.

**Craig:** I’ll be really fast. It’s an App. It’s a game. It’s called The Room. The Room. It is for the iPad. It’s spectacular. I like these puzzle games. I like games that are sort of Myst-like if you remember that one.

**John:** I love Myst.

**Craig:** This one is gorgeously done. It’s beautiful. It’s in the perfect space of not too hard, not too easy. A really good hint system if you need it. Incredibly simple. You don’t know who you are. You’re in an attic and there is a box in front of you. And you proceed to examine the box, and open the box up, and then open the box inside the box, and a house inside the box, inside the house. It is spectacular. It’s so well-done. Download it.

**John:** Hooray. If you’re doing yours, I’m going to do mine. Mine rhymes with yours. Mine is called Moom. And it is an app for the Macintosh. And what Moom does is a very simple thing. It resizes windows in a very specific grid-like way. And so if you’re trying to have multiple windows open, like I am right now while we’re recording this podcast, that little green dot in the title bar of every window, which is mostly kind of useless, now when you hover over that with Moom it pops up a little gird and you can sort of draw how big you want that window to be.

And it just stacks your windows really nicely. So, it’s very helpful on a big monitor, but it’s also really helpful on smaller monitors as well, when you need to have two windows side by side. So, Moom for the Macintosh. It’s in the Mac App Store.

**Craig:** Room and Boom.

**John:** Moom.

**Craig:** Boom. [laughs]

**John:** Done. Podcast.

**Craig:** Podcast. Boom. [laughs]

**John:** Mic drop. Now.

**Craig:** Good luck, John, with Halloweenie and I’ll talk to you next week.

**John:** Thanks, bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 57: What is a movie idea? — Transcript

October 4, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/what-is-a-movie-idea).

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

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

**John:** And this is episode 57 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, the one thing that’s interesting to me as a screenwriter is I just saw your trailer for Identify Thief.

**Craig:** Teaser trailer.

**John:** Teaser trailer is the short version. But it felt like a satisfying appetizer to a big meal.

**Craig:** That’s the idea, yeah. It was interesting. There’s a lot about it that’s very cool that I like. I mean, sort of selling the scope and the action of the movie. My suspicion is that the official trailer when it finally comes will have more character and interaction between Jason and Melissa, which is for me the fun part. So, I’m kind of excited to see where it evolves.

But I love the posters. I think they’re really funny and cool.

**John:** Oh, what I liked about this teaser trailer is it setup what the basic idea of the movie is. So, Jason Bateman is a person whose identity gets stolen. He has a name that could be mistaken as a woman’s name, and in fact Melissa McCarthy is the woman who has assumed his identity. And she is insane, which is crucial.

**Craig:** Yeah. She’s pretty out there. But one thing I like about the movie is that she’s out there, but not maybe as out there as you might initially think. So, there some cool surprises and some cool twists.

And this wasn’t my original idea. A guy named Jerry Eaton wrote a spec script many years ago and I essentially did a page one rewrite. I mean, I sort of just started fresh, but I used… — It’s a great idea. And I think it’s one of those ideas that’s great because it’s relevant.

And it’s also one of those ideas where you hear it and you go, “I can’t believe no one else thought of that. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that. Why didn’t I think of that?” So, kudos to Jerry for a spectacular idea. And I have high hopes. I think people will like it.

**John:** Great. And it occurs to me now that this will be the last podcast before Frankenweenie comes out.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Frankenweenie will be in theaters this Friday, for people who are listening to this on Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday. And Frankenweenie turned out really, really well. It’s nice to have a movie that I can sort of talk freely about, because it’s been screened enough that I don’t have to keep any secrets back or away. We screened at Fantastic Fest in Austin. And we’re screening at the London Film Festival, and lots of places where people can see this movie.

And it turned out really nicely. So, I thought today we would talk about three different things, one of them being this process of putting out a movie. Topics I proposed for today:

First is, what is a movie idea? And so what is the difference between an idea that might be great for a book, or great for a play, but what is a movie idea.

Second, I want to talk about press junkets, something that I just went through, and you’ve been through a bunch of times. And it’s sort of how the sausage is made.

And, finally, David Denby has a long article in the New York — actually, I think the New Republic…

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** …on sort of the perceived death of not the film industry overall, but of a certain kind of movie. And I thought we might talk about that a little bit, too.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Cool. So, let’s start on, this actually came from a question that a reader wrote in. I will read you this question. John from Austin asks, “On the podcast you and Craig both say that one of the first questions a screenwriter should ask him or herself is, ‘Why should this be a movie?’ I was wondering how you guys answer that question when you set out to write your scripts. For instance, why do you think Go needed to be a movie? Or why Big Fish needed to be adapted into a movie and now a play? Is it because the material is highly visual, or action-packed? When writing myself I usually answer the ‘why should this be a movie?’ question with, ‘because I want it to be.'”

And so I want to sort of pull that apart into two threads here and really talk about one of them. When you say something “wants to be a movie,” you’re really talking about two different things. One is does the universe want this story to sort of exist? Does it feel like the kind of thing where there’s an audience for some version of this story about your blind pickle maker who inherits a rat factory? Does this want to be told in some capacity?

And if the answer to that is yes, this is really the more crucial piece that we’ll talk about right now, is that idea a movie idea or is it some other kind of idea? Is it really a better idea for a TV series, or a short film, or a short story, or a play? Does it want to be a movie? Is that the best incarnation of that idea? So, I thought we’d talk about what makes a good movie idea.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, we’ve talked in the past about the idea of why the sort of heart and soul of whatever the movie is. And so, I just like to ask what would an audience relate to through this story that is not specific to the plot of the story, which is a weird kind of thing to say, but we tell stories because there are universal truths. There is some kind of enlightenment inside of them that is applicable for everyone sitting in the theater. Everyone.

So few of us have been in a car chase, and yet there is something about a car chase. So few of us have had a spouse kidnapped, but there’s something about that that allows us to put ourselves in the position. And ideally there is a takeaway from the movie that isn’t about the specifics, but rather is about a larger dramatic question. “Is it better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all?” That can be put into any number of scenarios that have nothing to do plot-wise with each other.

So, that’s the first question when I ask does this need to be a movie, or should this be a movie. I want to know that there is something at the heart of it that is relevant beyond the details of the movie itself.

**John:** But when you talk about that central dramatic question, I agree that’s a crucial element to a movie. I really feel like that’s a crucial element to most kinds of literature we’re talking about though. That’s a crucial question for a novel, that’s a crucial question for many things.

**Craig:** You’re right.

**John:** So I want to sort of drill it down on sort of what makes something a movie idea. And I had a couple criteria, and maybe you can add some criteria or push back on anything you don’t agree with.

I think a movie idea tends to have, no, it needs to have a beginning, and a middle, and an end. Which is that a movie idea has to have an idea that is expressed well in, “This is how the story starts, this is the middle of the story, and this is the end of the story.”

And, if you think about a TV series, a TV series doesn’t necessarily have an end. A TV series is the kind of story, the kind of idea, that should be able to sort of keep propagating itself, and keep rolling along. So, a TV series can go on for seven seasons. Or, some British TV series may only last for eight episodes, but eight episodes is a very different feeling than a two-hour movie.

So, is the best form of this story going to be told with a beginning, a middle, and an end that’s going to fall in about a two-hour window?

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** And some ideas lend themselves to that; some don’t. Second thing I would point out with movies is: movies are about characters. An essay could be about an idea. A choreographed number could have people in it, but they’re actually representing the waves, or — like — a wall. The movies are about characters. And specifically they’re about characters who have some sort of identifiable objective or goal.

It may not be classically the Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Quest, but there is something — you can point at a character in any movie that you watch on the big screen and you know what that character is trying to do, both in that moment and hopefully overall within the course of the story. Fair?

**Craig:** Yeah. That is fair, well, to an extent, because television is also about characters.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Specifically when I think of sitcoms, they’re almost solely about characters, even though they’re called “situation comedies,” the whole point is the situations themselves, they’re farcical or they’re silly, but it really is just about watching these people navigate their daily lives.

The thing about movie characters is they are in need of completion. Movies are conclusive. So, if your story seems to want to be about someone who has a specific flaw that needs to be repaired, somebody who has an injury that needs to be healed, somebody who has a fear that needs to be overcome. And all those sentences involve conclusion, and completion, then it seems like a movie story.

If you have an idea that’s really about characters who are slowly evolving, changing, falling in love, falling out of love, encountering a new way of life and it’s more of a — and the value of your story seems to be more in the journey than in a sense of conclusivity, then it may be more of a TV idea.

**John:** Absolutely. There is a reason why Friends is a TV series. And that you’re watching these characters week after week, and you’re watching them slowly grow and change. And what you can point to, “This is Rachel’s objective in this episode.” That’s not her overall life objective that we’re seeing reach some sort of conclusion in this period of time.

**Craig:** Right. In fact, she doesn’t have an overall life objective.

**John:** Which is part of her character. Yeah.

Another thing I would say as you’re looking at movie ideas: movies are set in some kind of concrete space and time. So, you can say there is central dramatic question, but behind them and behind those characters and the things they are doing, they take place in an identifiable world or universe. Now, it could be a completely made up world. It could be the Matrix, or it could be Avatar, but there’s something we’re seeing on screen behind those characters. And you compare that to some surrealist fiction, or you compare that to songs, or essays, or dance pieces, those can be really abstract and do not have to be pinned down to any one place or time.

Movies are more literal. There’s going to be something that you’re seeing on screen. And if you’re not sure of what you would actually see on screen, then that maybe is not a movie idea yet. Or you haven’t found the expression that it is a movie idea.

**Craig:** Right. Yes. If your story seems to demand a limitation of space, if you want to tell — and I hesitate to say this because there are always exceptions, you know. But if you are telling the story of three friends who meet every Friday at a diner, it may be a TV show. Now it also turned out to be a movie. [laughs]

**John:** And now it’s a musical.

**Craig:** And there have been wonderful movies that seemed to be centered around a place. There’s that terrific movie Smoke, I really like that movie, and that really takes place in a shop mostly. But by and large if your story is confined by a single space it may be better suited for either a stage play or a television show, because stage plays and television shows are also confined by space. The economics of television, for sitcoms specifically, demands kind of a set place. They try and limit your locations.

Now, if you were getting at a comedy, if you’re talking about a story that seems to require serialization, you certainly want to obviously go towards television. You never, and I hear people say things like this, they’ll say, “Well, I’m writing a movie, and it’s really the first of five movies,” or “it’s the first of a trilogy.” Don’t do that, because nobody is really buying a trilogy, ever.

They’re going to need to make your movie. It’s going to need to stand up on its own, by itself, and then they’ll decide if they want another installment.

**John:** It’s great that you have an idea for what the trilogy would be…

**Craig:** But if you need that, then you should be dealing in television

**John:** Yeah. Last sort of criteria I would say is that movies need to make sense while you’re watching them. And that sounds crazy, but if you’re reading a book you have the opportunity to stop and go back and flip through pages, like, “Oh, I forgot who that character was; I can go back and see that.” Movies have to be able to make sense the first time through.

That doesn’t mean that a person couldn’t be watching it on DVD and go back and see something, or on the third time viewing it they catch something new. But on the whole they need to actually make sense the first time through. That’s not necessarily going to apply for a short story, or an essay, or a choreographed performance.

Something that’s a movie needs to actually make sense by the time the lights come up.

**Craig:** Yeah. Television has a rhythm that demands cliffhangers. Even if you’re, aside from commercial television, cable television demands cliffhangers because people will watch their episode and that last scene needs to tease them to watch the next one. And we don’t have that in movies. We have reversals, and we have mysteries, and we have moments, but our stories don’t demand cliffhangers. If you’re writing television, any serialized television, your story needs to be able to provide you cliffhangers.

I guess we could talk about the reverse question, “Well, is this really a TV idea or is this more of a movie idea?” If your serialized television idea doesn’t inherently provide you the opportunity for cliffhangers, you might want to think about maybe a movie.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s take a look at some actual properties. Let’s take a look at Game of Thrones. So, Game of Thrones, based on a wildly popular series of giant novels, was adapted as a television series. And so why does that want to be a television series as opposed to a movie? Or, what would be different if we were looking at that as a movie idea?

**Craig:** Well, first of all, you’re dealing with scope. So, the scope of the source material is such that a movie is impossible. There is some source material that could go either way. The Watchmen very famously was sort of viewed as unadaptable for many years because it was 12 comic books, each one of them was very dense with material and it just didn’t seem possible to tell the story coherently, even though once you had read — as a movie — even though once you had read all 12 you could see that there was an enormous amount of thematic unification in the whole thing. And it would be ideal if it were a movie.

I actually think that Zack Snyder did a pretty good job. But when you look at Game of Thrones, there’s no question. You simply could not contain that world and therefore you could not deliver what is satisfying about the books if you jammed it into even a three hour movie.

It’s the same reason that Peter Jackson famously turned down the opportunity to make Lord of the Rings as one movie with the Weinsteins and instead made it as three movies with New Line.

**John:** But what I would point out with Lord of the Rings, though, is Lord of the Rings at least has a clear beginning, middle, and end. You have a quest to do something. We have to bring this ring, you know, there’s one specific thing we’re trying to do. It’s incredibly complicated all the way around it, but there is a beginning, a middle, and end to that…

**Craig:** True.

**John:** …which is there is not in Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones is an ongoing saga with no clear central protagonist, very long arcs, sudden reversals. To me it feels like a TV idea.

**Craig:** For sure. Yeah, and you’re right because in fact there was an animated movie of The Lord of the Rings that was made in the ’70s and it was one movie. I mean, that is a containable — you’re right: One protagonist; one main quest line. And quite the opposite for Game of Thrones.

Also, Game of Thrones is not yet resolved, [laughs] so you don’t even know if you even wanted to try and tell the story of Game of Thrones in one movie. You couldn’t because it hasn’t been written yet.

And, so, you just have to ask: where is all the joy? Where is all the good stuff in this? And the good stuff in Game of Thrones is in the details. And if you read those books you will see even how Martin will end chapters with cliffhangers. And you realize, “Oh, well that’s where the episode should end.” You know, David Benioff and Dan Weiss do a spectacular job of corralling that material into discrete episodes, each one of which feels like it deserves to exist, and none of them feel like a filler episode just to pad out a season. I suspect that that is 50% of the agony of making that show is trying to figure out how to compress that which needs to be compressed and how to expand that which feels like it should be expanded.

But, yeah, you could never do that as a… — You could do it as a movie, it would just stink. So why?

**John:** Yeah. You’d be leaving out so much stuff that it wouldn’t be the same idea. So, let’s talk about another example. This is the Charlie’s Angels movie, the first movie, which is based on a TV series. And so I want to talk about the changes you make in taking a property that was a TV series and worked as a TV series and how we had to look at it as a movie.

Obviously the plot of the movie has to be… — We have to introduce, a TV series you don’t have to introduce the Angels each time. You introduce them in the pilot episode and then it’s just a given that these are the three Angels who work for Charlie, and they go on these cases, and there is going to be resolution with the cases every week. In a movie we have to introduce who these young women are. We have to introduce what these women want. And the characters themselves have to motivate much more of the plot and the story than they would in any given episode of Charlie’s Angels.

Charlie’s Angels as a TV series, the plot is beamed in. The plot is given to them and they work on the plot and they solve the plot. In a movie version of Charlie’s Angels, the Angels have to create a lot more of the plot, and that means in many cases it’s really the subplots, the individual things they’re trying to do. But they’re responsible themselves for much more of the plot. And it needs to be a story that can have the builds and changes over the course of a two-hour movie that a one-hour episode would never have to do.

So, you couldn’t just take, “Oh, that was a really good episode of the show,” and sort of expand it into a movie. It had to have its own engine. And the Angels themselves had to be at the wheel for the story.

**Craig:** Yeah. For sure. When you adapt for the screen you also have to account for just the size. Just the size of the screen. Television is small. They’re getting bigger, but traditionally small, certainly in the time of Charlie’s Angels they were small.

And so it’s a bit of a waste to create large cinematic set pieces because they just wouldn’t fit very well on the screen. They’d look dumb. When you’re making a movie on a big screen you want to excite the audience and you want to use the physical space you have in front of them.

When I adapted Harvey, I was adapting Mary Chase’s play. And so it was set up for stage. And I think there were two sets basically, two places. Three, sorry. There was a bar, a house, and basically a mental institution.

**John:** But I would point out that in the actual play you never go to that bar. They talk about the bar, but you never actually go to that bar.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, you’re right. You know what? The bar was actually in the movie in the first adaptation. But even the movie — when they made movies of plays they oftentimes just shot them like the play because it was cheap, and it was easy, and people were used to movies on sets.

The old movies, a lot of old movies look like filmed stage plays. Not all of them, of course. We’ll be talking about Stagecoach and The Searchers later. But, when I did my adaptation I really tried to avoid what I called “claustrophobia,” for lack of a better word. I wanted to get outside. I wanted to see New York. I wanted to put them in the park. I wanted to put them on the street. I wanted to have them get out of the city for a day and make that meaningful and make the change of space meaningful.

These are the things you have to think about, because ultimately someone’s going to have to sit down and shoot this thing. And after the twelfth day of shooting in the same room, everyone is going to look at each other and say, “Why are we still here shooting?”

**John:** Yeah. That’s not to say you can’t make My Dinner with Andre. It’s just that’s going to be challenging in ways that you’re probably not anticipating sustaining the audience’s interest, because you are not using most of the tools that you’ve been given for making a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I want to also talk, one last thing occurs to me that could kind of go both ways, which is Preacher, which I adapted as a movie, and before had been adapted as a TV series, neither of which has shot. And when I got the assignment to write Preacher as a movie, there was a tremendous amount of fan boy comments, like, “Oh, that’s a terrible idea; it should be an HBO series. It should be a series for cable.”

And I think the instinct behind that was that people were looking at the comic book series and seeing like there are all of these stories and there’s all this stuff that happens. And if it’s too much for one movie, and so therefore it needs to be a series. And people were sort of figuring out, “Oh, these things together could be one season.” They basically had everything mapped out for me, so that was great — so just go ahead and do that.

And someone actually had tried to do it as a series for HBO and it hadn’t happened and it hadn’t worked. So, when I took Preacher as a movie, what I argued is that — I had sort of this road trip analogy in that the heart of Preacher to me is a road trip with these three characters. And it’s a cross-country road trip to discover what’s really going on here. And that the journey of Preacher is really about being in the car with these three people.

And so if in the comic book series they took a 50 day road trip across America and this winding path all across the 48 states, the movie version of this would be a quicker route through some different places, but the same kinds of things would happen because you have the same three people in the car, and that the same character stories could very easily happen in a movie version, and it would be a rewarding experience.

So, some things can go different ways.

**Craig:** Well, people who love material tend to want to see all of it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If you’re going to shoot something I love and I know every single panel of, or every single word of, I want you to shoot all of it, and I want it to be just like I saw it in my head. And I don’t want you to cut corners. And I don’t want you to leave things out. And for the love of God, I certainly don’t want you to change the story just to make it fit.

But, you have to look at what the material is. And there are times when frankly not everybody loves it quite as dearly as some of the people who are devoted to it. Now, one interesting example of this is Sandman, the absolutely mind-blowing graphic novel series by Neil Gaiman. One of my favorite things — I won’t even say one of my favorite pieces of art or literature; just one of my favorite things.

And Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott were hired many years ago by Warner Brothers to try and make one movie out of it, which on its face seems just as impossible as making a movie of Game of Thrones. I mean, there were — I’m not sure how many specific volumes of Sandman there are, but it covered many years and it is — in scope it is mind-boggling, absolutely mind-boggling. You’re going across thousands of years, multiple dimensions, probably 50, 60, 70 characters. Sequences that completely remove you from the narrative and put you into side narratives.

All of which amazingly reconnect, like, two years later into the series. I mean, I don’t know how he did it. Truly, I can’t imagine how he did it. But, so Terry and Ted have this seemingly impossible task, and they made a choice, which was to pull one story out, a good one, a significant one, and tell the Sandman story just limited through the lens of that story.

And ultimately Warner Brothers didn’t make the movie. I would love to see Benioff and Weiss take a crack at that one when Game of Thrones runs its course. I think they would be — to turn that into an HBO series would just be unbelievable. Unbelievable.

**John:** Yeah. So we look at however many issues of Sandman there were, it is a drop in the bucket to how many episodes and issues there were of Batman.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so you say like, “Oh, you’ve changed something in Batman.” Well, which Batman are you talking about? Are you talking about the original Bob Kane Batman? That would be really fascinating to see that as a movie, or a series, or anything else. But that’s not sort of Batman anymore.

And so in the process of time and other adaptations, Batman becomes a generalized enough character that we’ve accepted the fact that there can be multiple incarnations of it. And so we can do a Batman movie and it makes sense.

And now it seems weird to think of a Batman series, but of course you could do a Batman series.

**Craig:** And they did.

**John:** Yeah. And we have the Spiderman Musical.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, look, Batman is the work of collective authorship, even though Bob Kane sort of — it begins with him. There have been many people who have written for Batman. You can’t look at Batman and say this is the work of singular authorship. Frank Miller reinvented Batman. There are multiple people involved.

Sandman is Neil Gaiman. Just like Watchmen was Alan Moore. And they were contained. Nobody — I mean, they’re trying to do a new Watchmen, and I think they are doing a new Watchmen. I’m not going to look at it, I just can’t. But there shouldn’t be any other Sandman, just that one, you know. So, when it’s a standalone work of single authorship it’s harder to sort of just do another thing. Whereas Batman, Spiderman, Superman, they feel accessible and retellable. And I think that is function of the multiple author nature of that storyline.

**John:** Great. So I want to take a quick pass at two ideas and let’s talk about them as movie ideas versus other kinds of ideas. So, just random ideas.

So, an alien artifact is discovered in the Himalayas. What’s the movie version of that? Or what’s a movie version of that?

**Craig:** And actual existing movie you mean?

**John:** No. If that was the idea, like there’s this alien artifact and it’s discovered in the Himalayas. So, how does that want to tell itself as a movie.

**Craig:** I mean, my immediate instinct is that you’ve got an expedition trying to climb Everest. And probably a character that needs to climb Everest. And then they encounter this thing and the climb becomes — which was already a difficult test — becomes one of much larger survival. Man versus alien in the snowy cliffs of the Himalayas.

**John:** Exactly. So, there are characters who are doing something whose trajectory is changed by the discovery of this thing and they have to resolve what this thing has unleashed in the course of that two-hour movie.

**Craig:** It’s a pretty cool idea for a movie.

**John:** As opposed to, that could also be the inciting incident for the pilot of a TV series. But then it would be sort of like: What has this artifact changed about the world so that the nature of our world is different on a week, to week, to week basis?

**Craig:** Yeah. It can’t be a TV show because you’re stuck in the Himalayas.

**John:** You’re not necessarily stuck in the Himalayas. Maybe you’re discovering this thing in the Himalayas but you’re transporting it someplace else.

**Craig:** Yeah. Maybe then.

**John:** Another simpler topic. So, the idea is a family in which everyone has that disease the kids have in The Others where they can’t be in sunlight, so the whole family has that disease. So, as a TV series, you can sort of see that. That they are sort of like the night family. Their world is upside down because they’re at night.

In a movie, though… — So you could accept that as a preexisting situation in a TV series.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** In a movie there would be a new thing that happened in the movie, or something big has to happen at the start of that movie that creates a specific situation for this family that changes their situation.

**Craig:** Yeah. If you were doing a movie version, I could see that you would start with say a girl who moves to town and is normal and meets this guy at night. And then discovers he can’t be outside during the day. And there is some kind of romance and test. But, it seems…

**John:** It’s like a Nicholas Sparks. It’s like a really dark Nicholas Sparks movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. And a little bit of kind of vampire romance, even though they’re not vampires. But it’s not resolvable. And, frankly, it seems so odd; it seems like when the movie ends you think, “Yeah, but they’re still stuck in their house.” There’s something — the premise that you just laid out there implies continuation.

**John:** I agree with you. And so I think that family is only half of a movie idea. I think it’s a good underlying TV idea. It’s only really half a movie idea because that’s not actually telling you plot. Whereas that alien artifacts sort of implied a plot. We need to know what the resolvable plot is within the course of this two hours for this to be a successful movie.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah. Because they can’t go outside. So, if they can’t go outside there’s no completion there. It just seems a little odd.

**John:** Yeah.

All right. Next topic. I want to talk about junkets, usually press junkets, because I just went through this this last weekend for Frankenweenie. And they’re bizarre. And the only, I think, onscreen portrayal I’ve ever seen of them was in this movie America’s Sweethearts with Julia Roberts and John Cusack. And I didn’t love the movie, but it sort of felt like what a press junket feels like.

So, here’s the idea behind a press junket, is there are so many newspapers, magazines, and particularly blogs that you want to put your filmmakers in front of and your cast in front of. And if you were to try to do this individually it would take forever. And so, “Well, what if we just got all of our cast and all of our filmmakers together and we got all of these journalists together and we stuck them in rooms? And just over the course of one or two days just banged it all out?” And that was the instinct behind a press junket.

And so I just went through this this last weekend for Frankenweenie. And this was at the Grand California, the big hotel that’s next to California Adventure/Disneyland.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And, it was kind of fun. It was kind of exhausting. And you’ve been through this on many movies probably, right?

**Craig:** Oh yeah, for sure.

**John:** Yeah. So I’ll talk through what happened with this, but it’s pretty typical and we can talk sort of pros and cons and what you learn from them.

So, in the morning they gather everybody together, they feed them with coffee, and they give them lots of sort of swag from the movie, little dolls and things. And then they break the journalists up into different rooms. And so in this case there were seven rooms. And so there were maybe 10 or 12 journalists in each room.

At the front of the room is a table, and there were two microphones, because they broke us into teams of two. So, Tim was talking to journalists I think by himself. But all the rest of us were in teams of two. So, I was partnered with Don Hahn, Executive Producer of the movie and sort of animation legend. And the cast were partnered in twos.

And so they sit you down at the front of this table and the journalists ask questions. And it goes on for about ten minutes and then a publicist says, “Time’s up.” They grab you and they pull you to the next room. And so essentially there are seven teams that are sort of rotating through all the rooms. The journalists stay put and they move the cast and talent around between the rooms.

So, people are asking similar questions, but you quickly figure out what the theme is of that room. And so like, “Oh, you are all Japanese journalists, okay. You’re going to ask me the normal questions but you’re also going to ask me about sort of Kaiju monster movies and those kind of things.”

This one room was clearly like mommy bloggers. [laughs] Another room was like, “Oh, these are the dog people.” And I remember from Big Fish one room was like — “What is this room?” And I was trying to figure out. And I was like, “Oh, it’s all the Christian press.” And there was a Christian press room for Big Fish.

So, that’s the morning. And then you break for lunch and Martin Landau tells you stories of how it was back in the day that are fascinating. And then in the afternoon what they had us do is they would put each of us in a separate room and then they would send in certain journalists who got to have one-on-one interviews with us for like ten minutes, or sometimes up to 30 minutes, and they can ask you more detailed questions about things.

So, in both cases there are a bunch of recorders sitting on the table, and I meant to take a picture of like all the different iPhones recording the conversations throughout the time. But, you do this, and then all of these interviews that happen during this time are basically banked for a day or two before the movie opens. So, the movie opens October 5, so October 3 you’ll suddenly see all this stuff as if on that day I did it.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah, it’s a bit of a surreal experience. The other movie I would point people to is Notting Hill. There’s a — I don’t know if you ever saw it.

**John:** Oh, absolutely, yeah.

**Craig:** There’s a great sequence where Hugh Grant arrives at a hotel to talk to Julia Roberts, who is this big movie star, and he kind of gets mistaken as press, and he invents a magazine. I think it’s like Horse Fancy or something like that, unique, and he starts acting like a press person at one of these things. They’re very odd. I find, having gone through a few junkets, a couple of things stand out.

As the screenwriter you need to understand that you are not anyone’s first pick for an interview. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just that people like movie stars — that’s who they want to talk to. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I find sometimes that the best interviews for screenwriters at these things are with people that are slightly off the beaten path of mainstream press because they are specifically interested in the screenwriter and what the screenwriter does.

So, I tend to enjoy those more. I don’t get caught up in, “Well, why am I not on camera with ABC. Why am I here with…” you know. And then you realize, well, actually I’m doing a phone interview with Cole Abaius, who has an awesome podcast, you know, and who cares, and actually asks great questions.

So, you shouldn’t get hung up on stuff like that. It does give me an appreciation for why actors get tired of press. It’s easy to sort of say, you know, “You made millions of dollars on a movie and you’re complaining about press? Come on, man.” And yet when you’ve been asked the same question for the four millionth time something happens in your bones and violence starts to rise up. You start to feel like you’re in a dream world where you’re just answering the same question over, and over, and over, and over. And you slip into the zone.

Phil Hay, who is a friend of ours, a screenwriter, said at some point in the middle things you stop really answering questions and you start trying to just not make a mistake because you don’t want to say anything dumb, or insulting, or something that’s going to hurt the movie.

But in general they are fun to do. They are more fun to do for movies you like. They’re more fun to do for big movies. When you have a little movie that’s struggling or isn’t that great, and I’ve been there, no one wants to be there. You don’t want to be there and they don’t want to be there. [laughs] That’s awful. But, you know, for the one or two times a year that screenwriters do these things, they’re pretty fun.

**John:** I think the role a screenwriter can play in these junkets sometimes is the provider of logic or the provider of like helping people fit things together. Because in most cases they will have just seen the movie and they’re trying to formulate their opinions or how to actually talk about the disparate facts they’re getting.

And so sometimes you can be the person who is providing framework, or at least talking about one aspect of the move that no one else up there is going to be able to talk about because it’s not really their — it’s not what they did. And so Frankenweenie has a large sort of pro-science bias, which is sort of unusual for a monster movie because most monster movies are about the dangers of science and ours is about the dangers of ignorance and sort of ignoring a science. And so that sort of became part of my function to talk through that.

And a weird thing happens in a lot of these junkets and stuff that like by two-thirds of the way through the day someone will ask a question that — either the question, in this case the question — sometimes I just formulate it but never answer. And I realized like, “Oh wow, I wish I could like go back and redo all those other interviews because I now have a much better thing to say.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, one of the interviewers, and I can’t remember which one it was, said, “In the movie the teacher, Rzykruski, says that perhaps the difference between why your first science experiment turned out well is because you did it with love and your second science experiment turned out poorly because you didn’t care about it. Is that really a metaphor for the artistic process and sort of movies you care about and movies you don’t care about?” And I was like, wow, that completely is a metaphor for that, and it was not an intentional thing, but I would have completely claimed credit for that.

Because it’s true. There are the movies that you deeply love and that turn out really, really well because you were deeply 100 percent emotionally connected and invested in them. And then there are some moves that you know aren’t right and aren’t working that way, and so you do disconnect to some degree and the movie suffers for that. So, it was a really great insight that was not mine at all, but I’m gladly going to keep repeating it as if it were my insight.

So, that part of it is cool. And I like talking, but after awhile it’s not just that you’re sick of giving the same answers. You can’t remember if you just said that same thing to the same person. And that gets to be challenging.

**Craig:** It does. It gets exhausting, but you’re right that for a screenwriter press junkets are an opportunity to convey your intention. And people will often miss these things. Sometimes they’ll misconstrue them. And sometimes they’ll believe that something was done for a reason and it’s just not true. And so it’s an opportunity to get into it and talk about the whys of things and to sort of give your opinion on things. We are generally unseen and unheard. And I’m not so militant as to demand that screenwriters be on the cover of Us [Weekly], but we do have a very interesting perspective on these things, because we were there with the intention before the execution.

And, so we actually can provide a pre-context of things that no one else can. Literally no one else can. And for that reason alone these things are good for screenwriters to do.

In the past, when I first started in the ’90s, it was rare that screenwriters would even be invited to these things. And I understood why. There were so few outlets. Frankly, the people doing the interviews didn’t care about the screenwriters. And nobody bothered.

That’s really changed. The way that entertainment news is reported now, there’s 1,000 outlets. And there are people that really are interested solely in the screenwriter. So, it’s a much more interesting thing for screenwriters to do now. And I would encourage all screenwriters to be active. Frankly, if you have a big movie coming out I think it’s a good idea to get yourself a publicity person and help kind of generate opportunities for you. Not because you need to get your name out there for ego purposes, but frankly just to provide some interesting context for the movie.

We do love and care about these things — usually — so, why not help others see what we were trying to do? And then they can decide if they liked it or not.

**John:** One of the points of context I think that was really helpful in terms of the mommy bloggers of this was I was talking about I wanted to make sure that the rules of the world were clearly a little bit magical. So, even though he’s bringing it back with science, there’s something unusual about this town, about the windmill.

Very early on we set up the fact that there is something strange going on in this town, which is why kids are able to bring their dogs back and their animals back to life. That was born out of just as a parental concern that I didn’t want kids trying to plug their hamster into the wall. And so that gets a laugh, but it’s also true; I was genuinely concerned about sort of the contract we were making with parents, like, “We’re not going to encourage your kids to do dangerous things that are going to get them electrocuted.”

And so that’s a helpful thing that as a screenwriter I could do.

**Craig:** Yeah. You saved a hamster.

**John:** I hopefully save a hamster, or maybe even a small child.

Our last topic today is this very long article by David Denby, a prominent critic, who wrote this for The New Republic. And I thought it was really interesting. And he wrote a critique of how Hollywood is making its movies and really focusing mostly on our action movies, although it sort of talks about all aspects of movies, and where it’s missing the boat.

And what I liked about it is that sometimes it picked on some really easy targets, and sometimes it picked on some — like it picked on The Avengers, which is a movie that I really loved, and he was able to make points though about it that I was like, “Well, I will acknowledge that point. It doesn’t mean I necessarily agree, but I see the point you’re trying to make there.”

And I also respected that he seemed to be able to anticipate exactly the criticism that he would face with the article and was sort of ready for it. So, Craig, what did you think of this thing, because I just sent it to you this morning.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m not sure he’s going to anticipate my criticism. Maybe he has. It wasn’t evident in this article in which he spared no words. It’s funny, I think that David Denby has a very good point; he’s just made a terrible argument in support of his point.

And I want to talk first a little bit, and people are going to have to read this thing. You’re just going to have to slog through it. It is quite long and —

**John:** Craig, I thought I might hit a few little high points in it first, so if people haven’t read it. So, one of his central theses is that, “It has come to this: A movie studio can no longer risk making good movies.” And those are his words. And the elaboration on that is, essentially: in trying to only pursue these giant tent-pole movies, they can’t worry about something that’s — they can’t even try to make something that’s execution dependent, because that’s too big a risk. So, they’re only going to try to make the safest, biggest movies they can make.

**Craig:** But in support of that he comes up with a bunch of bad reasoning. I think he misses what’s really going on here. And I’m not surprised he missed what’s going on because he is a film critic, and he is an educator, a professor of film. I don’t believe he’s spent any time doing what we do. He is examining the sausage and saying, “This is not very good sausage; it used to be much better sausage. They don’t like to make good sausage anymore because they want to see more sausage.”

They’ve always wanted to do that. Anyone who thinks that the business people running Hollywood have ever cared about anything other than money needs to get their head examined. That has been the way since celluloid was invented, since Laemmle and Edison put sprocket holes in film. That’s why the people running studios have made movies.

And he doesn’t have the benefit of seeing the killing floor the way you and I do. He makes a couple of mistakes. He makes a few mistakes, I think, of logic. One is he cherry picks. He tends to say things like, “Well, movies in the ’30s were better because look at Stagecoach and now look at the 2000s.” Well, yeah, but there were also about — I don’t know — 80 or 90 miles of film of crap in the ’30s, just as there is today. It’s a little unfair to sort of cherry pick and say “Okay, well that was going on there.”

He has certain opinions that he confounds with fact. For instance, he holds up Inception as an example of studio failure of risk when in fact I think Inception may be the riskiest movie ever made. Incredibly expensive. I loved Inception. I think he’s wrong about it. Interestingly, he’s also offbeat critically. So, he takes a movie that frankly disproves his central thesis and argues that it proves it because he just doesn’t like it, and I don’t think that that is quite logically compelling.

Similarly, The Avengers, you know, I wasn’t a huge fan of The Avengers, but again he seems out of step with critics; at some point you do have to say, “Well, if the great majority of the audience and the great majority of the critics all together like this movie, I’m not sure I can hold it up as an example that I’m right when I say it’s not very good.

He tends to do a little bit of apologizing. For instance, the deconstruction of cinema was okay in movies he liked, like Annie Hall. It’s not okay in movies he doesn’t like, like the Michael Bay films.

And, lastly, he makes a couple of factual errors. For instance, he cites The Hangover obliquely, by referring to “hangover debauchery,” I think, as an example of movies that studios make because they can’t miss, when in fact The Hangover was considered such a risk the director had to forgo his entire salary in order to get it made for $33 million. So, he’s just wrong about that.

What he’s right about is that Hollywood has changed to the extent that they are very scared of a certain kind of movie they made all the time, and that was profitable for them a lot. The one thing he doesn’t point out, and to me it’s the only reason that this is happening: It’s not that Hollywood has gotten more venal or vulgar. It has always been venal or vulgar. It is not that Hollywood has suddenly become greedy. It has always been greedy. And it is not that people have become more or less stupid or interested in nonsense. Children have always loved nonsense and always will, just as they will always love candy and always will.

The problem is one of attention. The problem with Hollywood today is that in order to get people’s attention in a world where there are more ways to divide their attention, they have to spend more, often, than they spend on the movie just to let you know the movie exists. And that is what has corrupted the process. Not stupidity. Not venality. Not giving up on quality. None of that.

He’s wrong about why things have gone wrong. But he is right that they’ve gone wrong. Unfortunately for him, and me, and people who like lots of different kinds of movies, his argument provides a way out. Mine doesn’t. [laughs] That’s the really depressing thing. If I take David Denby’s argument to heart, I can think, “Well, different people running the studio with different values and different approaches could revive a certain kind of film.”

But, given the way attention is these days to get people to see a film, I don’t know how we get there again. I don’t. And it does depress me, because I don’t just like, you know, I don’t just like big, huge, incredibly marketable spectacles. I like all sorts of movies.

**John:** I’ll step in as sort of like partial defender to Denby just because he’s not here. He has his own essay to defend himself a little bit. I would say he — I felt that he recognized that he was cherry picking to some degree and that in talking about the, citing that the movies of the ’30s were better, I felt like I actually saw him sort of acknowledging the fact that critics of this essay are going to say that “I have selective memory, too. I’m forgetting all the bad things that happened back in those days.” So, he does do a little bit of that. Maybe not enough.

And my recollection of his concern with Inception wasn’t the cowardice of the studio, that it was a safe choice. It was really a criticism of the film itself, and sort of what the film was attempting to do. His criticism of like sort of where we’ve come to in movies I thought was interesting. Not always apt, but interesting.

A couple things I highlighted from what he said: “The problem is that too many ordinary scenes in big movies are cut like car chases.” Maybe? I think it’s a valid idea to look at sort of, why has everything become so fast cutting? Maybe that’s just the style.

**Craig:** I don’t know that that’s true. Over time we have become better at processing audio visual information. Children today are better at processing audio visual information than I am. And I’m better at it than my parents are.

Naturally, the language of cinema will change to that end. I don’t know if that’s bad. I mean, if I’m moved by a movie, I’m moved by a movie.

**John:** But he would argue “that you leave the theater vibrating, but a day later you don’t feel a thing.”

**Craig:** But that’s not true, because I still think about Inception. And I’ll go back to Inception, because there were scenes that I thought were paced quite deliberately in that movie. And really what it comes down to is he’s saying, “Inception is an example of what I’m talking about because I don’t like it.” He says specifically it portrays dream states and they don’t feel like dreams at all. Well, I completely disagree. I mean, the last thing I wanted to see was a very lazy, “Ooh, we’re a surreal dreamy world,” because I’ve seen that already. And I thought it was actually a very smart choice by Nolan to not do that.

So, what I didn’t like about his citation of Inception was that he seemed to be saying, “I’m going to actively discount a movie that obviously rebuts what I’m saying.” And, frankly, the fact that he is anticipating criticism does not qualify as rebutting the criticism. It’s just simply saying that he anticipate it.

**John:** Absolutely. I was trying to use some of his anticipation as an in-the-moment rebuttal. Then let’s talk about the Michael Bay aspect of it all, because he does harp on Pearl Harbor a bit, which I think some people can say is an easy target. He would say that Annie Hall is deliberately knowing that it’s breaking these conventions in order for it to achieve a certain effect. Pearl Harbor many times I feel is just cutting to cut. And it’s just basically, “How many shots can we cram into a 30-second reel?” And there’s not intention behind it.

**Craig:** He’s right. I don’t like Michael Bay movies. I think Michael Bay — when Michael Bay shoots action sequences, often they’re spectacular. I think the car chase scene in The Island is one of the greatest car chases ever put on film; I just thought it was spectacular. I don’t like the movie. And I don’t like Michael Bay movies in general.

But, Michael Bay becomes a convenient exemplifier for what when wrong with Hollywood. There have always been movies made by people who have an aesthetic that is very fast food and very, I guess, freebase cocaine style. “I’m just going to strip away subtly and nuance and just pound you in the face.” There have always been those. Maybe they’re not quite like Michael Bay movies, but Michael Bay isn’t ruining Hollywood. He’s not.

All Michael Bay is doing is making movies for people that like Michael Bay movies.

**John:** I would take away from Denby’s argument that he wants to be able to see filmmakers get budgets to make bigger movies that are not big blockbuster action movies. And I think that’s something that I would like to see, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. I guess. Where he’s right is that it is criminal that guys like Paul Thomas Anderson have to try and scrounge for financing. On the other hand, Paul Thomas Anderson made Boogie Nights on a shoestring and it’s sublime. It’s just perfection.

Woody Allen’s movies in the ’70s, and ’80s, and ’90s, and 2000s, and 2010s are not high budget movies, nor do they need to be high budget movies. Not everything needs to have money.

The one guy that he points out that I do think, when I go, “Oh, boy, great point, David Denby,” is the guy who did Children of Men.

**John:** Oh, yeah, Alfonso Cuarón. Alfonso Cuarón is maybe what’s like a Kubrick. Like, you wish he just always had the money to make whatever he wants to make.

**Craig:** Alfonso Cuarón is really, really, really good at what he does. And, the kinds of movies he makes actually do require a budget. And I don’t know why it is that Alfonso Cuarón hasn’t had a movie in theaters since Children of Men, which I think is amazing.

It may be that he can’t find the budgets for the movies he wants to do. It may be, frankly, that he just hasn’t found the right thing or that he hasn’t perfected it. I don’t know. But it does give me pause. I hesitate to think that Alfonso Cuarón isn’t making movies because they’re shifting that money to do a 7-day reshoot on a big popcorn spectacle that frankly could have just as easily done without that money.

You know, they’re remaking half of the zombie movie at Paramount at tremendous expense. And, sure, it would be great to see that that money go to something for $30 million or $40 million that could actually be amazing. But, again, I’ll just say: at no point in Hollywood’s history have movie studios just thrown money at artists because they wanted to see a good movie. They don’t do it. They want to make money with everything.

So, the attention thing — to me the attention thing has driven marketing budgets up and it’s reduced the amount of movies they make. That’s the problem. That’s what I think is limiting opportunities for guys like Alfonso Cuarón.

I still think that people like Paul Thomas Anderson can get their movies made for reasonable budgets. I don’t think Paul Thomas Anderson needs $40 million or $50 million. The actors often work for scale and participation at the end.

**John:** Although, if you see The Master, The Master looks really, really expensive. There’s a reason why that movie cost a lot of money.

**Craig:** I haven’t seen it yet.

**John:** It’s really — I loved it.

**Craig:** I’m looking forward to it. It’s certainly not a new problem. The issue of money and art goes back to pre-Renaissance. It’s always been a problem. Art costs money and some art makes its money and some art makes less money. And this has been an age-old problem.

But, again, I’ll point to a movie like The Hangover — which he seems to think is an example of an easy give — and say: With due respect sir, absolutely not.

**John:** The second Hangover was an easy give.

**Craig:** Yeah, of course. You don’t get to the second Hangover if you don’t take the risk on the first one. If Todd Phillips doesn’t say, “I’ll work for nothing; I’ll just work for backend and a gamble here because I want to make this kind of movie. I want to make a rated-R comedy when they’re not hot. I want to make a rated-R comedy with three guys that aren’t big movie stars. I want to make a rated-R comedy that at times gets pretty out there. And I’m willing to work for nothing to do it if you’ll let me do it.” And that’s what it took.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know. So, I don’t think that — sometimes what happens is people reverse engineer from the results.

**John:** Totally. All the James Cameron successes. “Well, of course that was a success.” Then if you actually look at sort of the actual process of making it, it was anything but obvious.

**Craig:** And that was also another thing that kind of surprised me is that he had this kind of interesting love for Avatar, which I didn’t like at all, and yet was beating up Inception.

And I’m not a James Cameron basher. I think the guy is a genius on a different level. And I will defend Titanic and the screenplay for Titanic with my dying breath, even though many people malign it. But I just thought, you know, at some point it just seemed like basically he looked, saw a problem, and decided the reason for the problem was that that the movies that he didn’t like were being made. And the movies that he did like weren’t being made enough.

And, frankly, that’s simply not correct.

**John:** Cool. So, anyway, we’ll have links to that and everything else we talked about in the show notes at johnaugust.com/podcast.

Craig, let’s do our One Cool Things. I know you have a One Cool Thing which is actually a repeat of an earlier thing that is still going on. So, do you want to tell us about the Heart Walk?

**Craig:** Yes. So this is your last opportunity, folks. So here is the deal. For all of you out there, I mentioned this in a prior podcast. For all of you out there who wail, “Why will no one read my script?” Somebody will read your script. In fact, Daniel Vang at Benderspink, which is a real actual legitimate production company, and he’s an actual legitimate real manager, he will read your script. He will read it!

And here’s what you have to do: You have to donate to a charity. Not put money in the pocket of some baloney screen guru who has never done anything and has absolutely no relation to Hollywood whatsoever.

If you donate $25 to the American Heart Association’s South Sound Heart Walk, then Daniel Vang of Benderspink will read the first ten pages of your screenplay. And if he really, really likes the first ten, he might even go further on his own. If you donate $50, he’s read the first 50 pages. Again, if he really, really likes it he might just keep reading.

If you donate $100 he will read your entire script. There are guys out there charging $1,000 to put in their pockets — who couldn’t help you no matter what — to read your screenplay. And here’s a guy saying, “You give $100 to the American Heart Association, I’m actually in the business, I manage screenwriters, I produce movies, I work at a real company. I’ll read your entire script.” I don’t understand why everybody isn’t take advantage of this.

You have a limited time here. Donations will be accepted up until October 6, which is, by the time the podcast airs, imminent.

**John:** Imminent. Yes. It will be the day after Frankenweenie opens.

**Craig:** It is what we like to call post-Frankenweenie.

**John:** Yes. The post-Frankenweenie era.

**Craig:** Correct. In the post-Frankenweenie era. So, this is day one of PFW. And you want to know how to do this, very simple. Go to John’s website, and he will have a link for you.

**John:** Yeah. And you’ll click it.

**Craig:** Oh, and this was all organized by Joe Nienalt, a screenwriter. So, a ton of credit to Joe for doing this. And a ton of credit to Daniel for doing this. And please, please, even if you don’t think your screenplay is any good, donate.

**John:** Cool.

My One Cool Thing this week is called The Last Express. And it is a great game from way back in time from the ’80s and ’90s that Jordan Mechner created. And he created it for the normal computers, the computers we had at the era. Well, the computers we have of this era are iPads and iPhones, and so there is a brilliant new port he’s just done of The Last Express.

So, this isn’t a remake of the game. This isn’t a reimagining of the game. This is actually the game which was, in its time, very sort of groundbreaking in the sense of it was animated and takes place on a train and is sort of for grownups. And there is adventure, and mystery, and intrigue.

So, what I love about it is it is both kind of fresh because it is this really unusual sort of cell frame animation, but it’s also vintage in a way that’s really, really fun. So, you may remember the game from its original incarnation.

**Craig:** I don’t. I don’t remember this.

**John:** You may have never seen the game before, but it’s really worth checking out. It’s $4.99 for iPad or for iPhone. It’s on the App Store. I think you will dig it. So, that is my One Cool Thing this week. And there will be a link to that in the show notes as well.

**Craig:** Is it action? What is it?

**John:** It’s an adventure game. So it’s not like, “pick up knife, poke knife in hole.” It’s not Zork like.

**Craig:** But it’s Zork-ish?

**John:** It’s an adventure game taking place on the Orient Express.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** And very much has that Murder on the Orient Express kind of feel, that period-vintage feel done with sort of story animation, done with sort of beautifully drawn things which at the time were ground-breaking to be able to happen in a computer game, and now feel kind of ground-breaking to happen on an iPad.

And it weirdly feels like it should always be on this.

**Craig:** Well, you know what, I’m downloading it right now.

**John:** Craig, you should probably wait to download it until we’re actually off the podcast so it doesn’t interfere with the Skype.

**Craig:** Well, I’m doing it. It’s too late. [laughs]

**John:** Craig, you ruin everything.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, but thank you so much for a fun podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you, too. And thank you, David Denby, for writing a very thought-provoking essay, even if I didn’t agree with all of it. I think you have identified a very real problem, sir.

**John:** Yes. So, we got some Denby, we got some junkets, we got some movie stories. It was a good week for us.

**Craig:** I think it was a pretty good week. And we are closing in on Austin. Let’s not forget. Do people know?

**John:** I think people know. So, as we’ve talked about before, we are doing our first ever live Scriptnotes. It will be at the Austin Film Festival on Saturday, October 20, I want to say.

**Craig:** Yeah, sounds right.

**John:** If I had the notes in front of me, that would be like an organized podcast. But, anyway, the Saturday of the Austin Film Festival in the morning we will be doing the first ever live Scriptnotes. It will be me and Craig and the show, and our special guest which we can announce now, Aline Brosh McKenna, who is fantastic.

**Craig:** Aline. Yes. And, frankly, having been to Austin a few times, I can tell you this will be the greatest thing that ever happened at that screenwriting conference. Period. The end.

**John:** It may be the best thing to ever happen in Austin. But I don’t want to oversell it.

**Craig:** It might be the best thing that ever happened in history.

**John:** It could be fantastic. We will be doing live questions and answers in the audience. It’s going to be longer than our usual show, so it should be fun.

If you are able to come to Austin to come to this event you should come to this event. If you’re not able to come to this event we will have audio for our week’s podcast shortly after the event.

**Craig:** Awesome.

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

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (490)
  • Formatting (130)
  • 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

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.