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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep 53: Action is more than just gunfights and car chases — Transcript

September 7, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/action).

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

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

**John:** And this is episode 53 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

So, Craig, right before we started recording this you were going to tell me the history of “D’oh!”

**Craig:** D’oh! So, I said “D’oh!” or you said “D’oh!” because I hit the button wrong. And so you pointed out correctly that “D’oh!” as popularized by Dan Castellaneta, the actor behind Homer Simpson, is never actually written out as “D’oh!” in the scripts. It’s written out as…

**John:** Exasperated gasp or grunt?

**Craig:** Annoyed grunt.

**John:** Annoyed grunt.

**Craig:** Annoyed grunt. It’s always been “annoyed grunt.” No Simpsons script ever says, “D’oh!” And there was an interesting interview with Dan — an awesome guy, by the way, I don’t know if you’ve ever met him; the nicest guy in the world. And he, when they asked him to come up with something there for annoyed grunt, because there was nothing there, they didn’t even know, they were just thinking that it would just be some kind of annoyed grunt. He remembered that there was this actor, I believe his name is Jim Finlayson — I think it’s Finlayson — who is a Scottish actor who played the straight guy in a lot of old Laurel & Hardy movies.

And he would go, “Doohh!” and usually it was because the idea was that he was trying to say “damn” but you couldn’t say “damn” back then.

**John:** A-ha. Yeah.

**Craig:** So he would say, “Doohh!” [laughs] And so Dan Castellaneta sort of converted that into “D’oh!” and gave us this wonderful annoyed grunt that we have today.

**John:** Yeah, the world is better for having “D’oh!”

**Craig:** Oh for sure.

**John:** It’s fantastic.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah. Doohh! I like the old Scottish word, “Doohh!” It’s somewhere online. You know what? I’ll send you a link and you can put it up for the podcast. There’s actually a very brief clip of Jim Finlayson saying, “Doohh!” on YouTube. It’s quite educational.

**John:** Very good.

Craig, today I thought we would talk about action.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** And so I’m not talking about action like a genre, so we’re not talking Lethal Weapon movies, but action as stuff that characters do. So, anything a character says, well that’s dialogue. Anything a character does, that’s action.

So when you look at it at that level, really almost any script you’re going to write is going to be full of action. I guess maybe some genres, like a romantic comedy or like My Dinner with Andre, wouldn’t have a lot of action, but most movies are going to have a tremendous amount of action. It’s the kind of thing we don’t pay necessarily as much attention to because you never really get credit for it as a screenwriter.

**Craig:** That’s true.

**John:** If there’s dialogue people will say, “Oh, well somebody wrote that funny dialogue.” If there is a well-constructed sequence of action, no one really thinks about the fact that the screenwriter had to write that. But somebody did write that, and this is going to be talking about writing that kind of stuff.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** So, there are certain movies where action is just sort of peppered in between things. And so, you know, a lot of comedies there will be action, but it’s mostly about the talking. Some genres, you know, horror movies, war movies, will have big set pieces that are all action. And writing those is incredibly draining and difficult, but rewarding when it’s done just right. So, let’s talk about making those awesome.

**Craig:** Yeah. What should we do? How do we make it awesome?

**John:** Well, I think the first thing to think about is: think about reading the action sequences. And obviously the first thing a screenwriter needs to do is read a ton of scripts. And if you read a lot of scripts that have long action sequences, you’ll start to recognize what does not work on the page. And what tends to not work on the page is the stuff that makes you want to stop reading it. Either you stop reading the script all together or you just sort of skim the page and you don’t really read the action.

And if a person isn’t really reading the action in a comedy, it’s probably going to be okay, because that’s not really the meat of it. But if you’re writing a war movie and they stop reading the action, or a horror movie and they stop reading the action, you’re sort of dead. So…

**Craig:** Yeah. This is one of the most frustrating things about writing action in the screenplay format. Because you’ve made two interesting points. The first point is that it is incumbent upon us as screenwriters to actually create the action that we intend to see on film. It may not work out exactly like that, but ultimately the — For instance, let’s take Die Hard: So he’s on a roof and he has to get off the roof because there is going to be a bomb going off and he sees that there’s a fire hose, a water hose for fire. And he takes that and he wraps it around his waist. And he jumps, and he goes down, and then the thing goes against the thing. And then it falls over…

**John:** It breaks.

**Craig:** …and he shoots his way through the glass. That’s an idea that the writer has to invent. So you are responsible for what’s on the screen. But, your second point: very well taken. You are responsible up to a point. The point where you have to stop being responsible is the point where it gets really boring to read. So we are forced to be both creative and incredibly economic in the way that we get those ideas across. It can be a challenge.

**John:** Yeah. So some suggestions I have for any action sequence or any bit of action that you have to describe: Keep your sentences short. Long sentences are more likely to get skipped and short sentences feel short; it feels like you’re getting right to it.

Keep your blocks of action scene description short. Three lines is probably a lot. You can vary them up — some can be one line, some can be two lines, some can be three lines, but if you have action blocks that are four lines, five lines, ten lines, people are going to skip them. They just will. So, as you’re going through your script and you see blocks of action that are more than five lines, see how you can break them up. See if there’s ways you can make them… either by cutting inside there or by just breaking them in half so that they not so intimidating for a reader to read.

Now, that’s not universal. Some writers love big blocks of action, and they get away with it. I read a David Koepp script that was like a half a page solid of action. But, in general, as I find the scripts that I’m actually willing to read, they keep those action lines short and tight. And they keep the blocks kind of small.

**Craig:** Yeah. Another tip is to think about how the text actually looks on the page. I get very OCD and finicky about it, particularly when the action leads up to something. Every action moment should be its own microcosm of beginning, middle, and end. And the end should be something that is surprising, and a revelation, and interesting, and moving us forward to the next thing.

You don’t want to necessarily have that thing drop off and end up on the top of the next page. You want it to pay off in that moment, and you want to use white space on the page to create suspense and tension. It actually works very well that way. Sometimes the best way to write action is to actually use more space, so take away some of the text and use some of the white page to really create impact.

And you can also — and I hesitate to say this because I don’t want people to go nuts with this — but I have seen some scripts where people use interesting formatting choices to kind of sell the action. I read a script from a young writer named Adam Barker, he’s very talented, and he did a very cool thing. There was an action sequence where someone is stalking somebody in the woods and our stalker has a bow and an arrow. And he pulls the bow back and he…

LETS…

IT…

FLY…

And “Lets” was its own line. And then “It” was kind of indented in. And “Fly” was indented even more. Like you could see the arrow flying just from the way he indented the words. Very clever. And it was fun to read. And it evoked — in its own way it evoked what his intention was, was for that arrow release to be a real release, instead of just, “He picks up the arrow and fires.”

**John:** Exactly. Remember, you’re always trying to create the experience of watching and hearing the movie in the theater just on the page. So, breaking those into three separate lines makes it feel like you’re really in that moment. You’re trying to create this hyper present tense as you’re working with the words on the page.

A script I did pretty recently, there is this very giant mechanical sound that preceded just really bad things happening, and so it’s a DWAAARRRM. And so for that DWAAARRRM I wrote it out as a big long onomatopoetic word. And that’s one of my rare sort of bold underlined words with double exclamation points at the end. But it’s saying, like, this is a really important thing. You are really going to pay attention and everyone is going to really notice this thing.

It’s important the first time it happens, but it becomes an important rhyming device, because later on in the sequence when you hear that thing happening you know stuff is about to get much, much, much worse. So, keeping in mind sort of how — not just how the reader is going to read that one page, but how you are structuring the sequence overall so that there is give and there is build.

And talk about white space, one of the most useful things I have found is using intermediate slug lines. So, a slug line is just a word over in the left hand margin, or a couple of words on the left hand margin, all upper case, that highlight a new moment within the action. So, it’s not that you’re moving to a different scene usually, but you’re going to a different moment in the action, or you’re highlighting a certain aspect of what’s going on there.

It replaces a lot of times, used to do “Angle On” or “Close-up Of.” A lot of times the slug line just by itself can give you that feeling of what the camera is doing next.

**Craig:** Yeah. I also like capitalize. And I don’t have a specific set of rules for when I capitalize or not, but sometimes in action if there’s something I want people to pull out of it, assuming they’re skimming, I give it all caps. He FALLS. “Falls” might be in all caps. Grabbing onto a ROPE. Swinging down and landing with a crunch, he looks up, BLOOD. And “blood” is in all caps. Something just to engage — you know, you can actually see this in children’s books. Children’s authors have gotten really good at figuring how to capture young readers’ imaginations just through the manipulation of text font size, style, and even though we don’t quite need that level of ADD-oriented writing for our readers, it’s nice to at least throw them some things so it’s not all just a stream of Courier.

Because, your script is the fourth script they’re going to read today, of twelve maybe.

**John:** Yeah. To clarify, we’re not saying that you shouldn’t be writing in Courier. You should write in Courier. Your script should only be in Courier. I don’t think I’ve ever read a good script that used anything other than Courier, have you?

**Craig:** I’ve never written a script that used anything other than Courier.

**John:** There was Gus Van Sant script at one point that like every line was sort of in a different font, and it was as crazy as it sounds.

So, you’re still using Courier. What we’re saying is that there may be special cases where you are breaking out the bold or you’re breaking out the underline. But those should be special treats.

If you need the reader to focus on something, you can give it upper case. You can sort of break the lines in a certain way that they’re going to be noticing that special thing. I’ll put down a script if I see page after page where things get, like, asterisked and double underlined and bold faced. If you are shouting that everything is important then nothing becomes important.

**Craig:** Correct. Yeah. You don’t want to turn it into something ugly. And this comes down to taste. And now suddenly the writer has to be visually aware of what the page actually looks like.

There is sort of a trope that you can sort of tell if the script is bad just by flipping through it and looking at the way the pages look. And, it’s not always true, but there is something to it, that well-composed pages that have a… — You know, for instance, I don’t like pages to just have dialogue on them. And I see it all the time.

I’ll add action lines just to break up the dialogue, even if they’re not technically necessary, because I just don’t like the strips, you know?

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** There’s just something about the way the page looks that becomes more pleasing and inviting to the reader.

**John:** When you have a lot of pages that is just dialogue, it looks like a bobsled shoot, like you’re just going to shoot down the page and nothing is going to stop it. And you want something that just breaks it up in the right place. You know, actual people speaking does have give and take and starts and stops. And just adding that bit of sort of throwaway action that people aren’t really even reading the action, it’s just stopping them enough so that it has some texture to it.

**Craig:** And it reminds you along the way that maybe you’re missing an opportunity for something to be going on beyond two people talking. You know, Ted Elliott tells this great story about how he and Terry Rossio were hired to work on Aladdin. And it was their first animated movie. And so they wrote this scene where Aladdin meets the princess in the marketplace and she’s disguised as a beggar and he doesn’t know she’s a princess. And they wrote the scene, it was really good dialogue that they liked between the two of them.

And then the story artist showed them what it looked like and it was basically his face, her face, his face, her face, his face, her face. And they looked at each other like, “Oh no, that’s really boring.” And that’s when they decided to… — Then they said, “Okay, well we have this monkey; maybe the monkey is jealous? Maybe the monkey is doing something behind their back while they’re…”

And suddenly the scene became a scene. And that’s a great lesson to think about when you’re talking about live action, too. Sometimes just ping-ponging back and forth between faces is boring. And if you look at a script at you just see strips of dialogue, in your mind that’s what will be happening. Ping-ponging.

**John:** The point you’re making there is it’s crucial because we shouldn’t just be talking about action like this, action sequences. Action is what’s happening within the scenes. It’s all the stuff that the characters are doing. And so you had a scene that the dialogue was fine but you still have to be able to write all that action of what that monkey is doing that’s making that scene interesting and alive. And making sure that however you’re writing the action for the monkey is really interesting, but it’s not going to pull the reader away from what’s actually happening in the dialogue.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so finding that balance is really tough, so that it can both be about the dialogue and be about the background action that’s happening as part of it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Ideally they’re both interrelated and that’s how you get layering.

**John:** Yeah. Another sort of technique you can think about for when you need to write action is what I call parallel structure, which is that sometimes you can find — if you have a lot of sentences that start like, “He runs down the alley. He breaks open the door. He charges up the stairs.” You can often lop off your subjects of those lines. So, “He runs down the alley. Busts open the door. Races up the stairs.”

You can often use fragments once you’ve established what the subject of those sentences is going to be. It’s a way again of just making you feel very present in those moments by losing little bits of it. You can often still lose punctuation. So, a lot of times when you have action sequences, a couple action lines, especially if they’re feeding into some dialogue, don’t end the sentence. Give it like two dashes or a dot-dot-dot that feeds into the next line of dialogue.

So, just don’t stop things. Let them keep running.

**Craig:** Yeah. For sure. It’s rare that I put a period on the end of anything, really, I mean unless it’s sort of a final thing. You should just ask yourself what am I supposed to — what do I want the audience to be feeling right now? If I want them to feel anxious sometimes I’ll run a bunch of words together and take the spaces out from between the words, like the paragraph is on coke, you know?

There are all sorts of things you can do. You don’t want to overdo them. You just want to be aware. And you want to ask yourself is this action paragraph or action sentence conveying a sense of my intention or is it just boringly descriptive, or is over descriptive, is it prosy? That’s the other classic rookie mistake is to write action like you’re writing a novel, describing the shade of the light as it passes over the glistening due covering the flowers, the blah, blah, blah.

**John:** Yeah. And it’s not just an adjective problem. I find a lot of times it is people use really poetic verbs to describe some things that are like, wow, that just pulled me completely out of the moment. It’s too much — the sky is always being painted by things.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And a little of that scene description can be lovely. Too much of it becomes really, really frustrating. I find characters also have a hard time walking in scripts. They’re always “approaching,” and “advancing,” and “skulking.” And sometimes that specificity is really important and sometimes people should just walk. Or sometimes people should just be where they need to be.

**Craig:** I like “crossing,” because at that point… — See, sometimes what I don’t like about the purple prose is that it is giving me the sense that the writer isn’t really into the movie. They’re into their document of the screenplay. And I want the reader to be into the movie. So, I like crossing because that’s in fact what’s happening.

“He crosses over to her.” We’re blocking now. We’re making a movie. Sometimes you do need to be more descriptive about how people move, but yeah, the skulking stuff and all that, it can get a little much.

**John:** So, general advice for all of these kinds of situations is to read a lot of scripts and read scripts of movies you like and try to find styles of stuff you like. For me, and actually for most writers I think of my generation, the James Cameron scripts were incredibly influential and incredibly helpful. So you read James Cameron’s Aliens script and you have a really good sense of what this world is going to be like and how it’s going to feel.

And the kinds of things we’re talking about — the keeping the blocks short, keeping sentences short, only talking about the camera when you really need to talk about the camera — that’s a very James Cameron kind of thing to do. And that was an incredibly important thing for me. The Aliens script, the Point Break script were both hugely influential.

But we have some different scripts that we can talk about today because we are actually going to do four samples…

**Craig:** Four!

**John:** …of the Three Page Challenge. So, it’s a groundbreaking episode in that we’re going to talk about four. And we specifically chose these samples because they’re about action. And so we can talk about what these scripts are doing terrifically well in action, and what they could do a little bit better in action.

So, we’ll talk about them overall and our impressions, but we’re really going to focus on the action in these scripts and what’s there and what could be better.

So, the four scripts that we’re going to talk about, if you want to read along with us they are all going to be in the show notes for the episode, so johnaugust.com, and podcast, and find this episode. And let’s get started.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** We’re going to start with a script by Ben Jacoby. And I’ll give you a little summary here of what happens. So, we open in an alley in Plav, Montenegro where we meet Terry Redding, who’s in his 40s. He meets up with Ian Morris, who is also in his 40s. Ian tells him that the target is upstairs and alone. So it feels like some sort of assassination or something is going on here.

We see Terry walking down a hallway. He passes some assault agents who are apparently on his side. From outside there are thermal sites that look through the brick wall and show that a man is sitting in a certain position in a room. Terry knocks on the door; there is no answer. He opens it to find General Aliyev bound to a chair. He’s dead, electrodes through his body, and there are these pipes that are pumping these colored fluids into him.

Terry realizes it’s a bomb. He runs for it. There is a huge explosion, blue flames that melt flash. At the bottom of page three we have an aerial shot of the CIA headquarters of Langley, and it’s snowing.

**Craig:** Yeah. I enjoyed it. I thought it moved along pretty snappily. I mean, there is a cool idea in it which I like, and I thought that the idea was revealed well. It was setup well and revealed well, so there is this concept: “We’re going to lure these guys to get someone and then we’re going to blow them up. But we know that they have thermal imaging and they can see if someone is alive or not, so they’re going to see this dead body in there and not fall for it. But what if we take this body, heat it up, and make it look like he’s alive with the very stuff that we’ll then use to blow these people up?”

So I thought it was actually setup well. There was good suspense. There was an explosion. I was a little confused by the nature of the explosion, which almost bordered on supernatural. Perhaps that’s intentional.

But, I wasn’t bored by much. I thought it was, you know, set the — I liked it. What do you think?

**John:** I liked it, too. There’s some really good stuff there. I actually really like the description of the explosion because it was sort of supernatural. It was clearly supposed to be a very unique kind of explosive device happening, and so I liked that the description took its time for that. And I liked the description of the machinery that was pumping the stuff through. I thought it was all really well done.

Just some style notes. This one, he uses bold slug lines, which is fine. If you like to bold your slug lines, go for it. And so there is no right or wrong bolding or not bolding it.

I thought he did a great job keeping his blocks of action pretty short.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I was never tempted to skip over stuff because I’m not making too much of a commitment to read two or three lines at a time.

I got confused by some stuff. On page two — I’m sorry, actually — On page one, “Terry advances down a dilapidated hallway.” Okay, “advances down” is one of sort of my, like, well he’s walking. I just felt like we could do better than “advancing” because it makes me think of, like, “What does advancing really mean?” I stop to think about it; and you never want me to stop and think.

**Craig:** Right. “Moves” would have been a perfectly good word there.

**John:** Yeah. “Moves.” “Makes his way down.”

“Pre-Soviet floorboards creak under each footfall as he passes ASSAULT AGENTS, one after another, nestled in nooks, Vector machine-guns at the ready.” Couple issues. First off, that’s a really long sentence that is bringing together a whole bunch of different stuff. So, are we focusing on the creaky floorboards, that it’s Pre-Soviet Russia, Assault Agents? I don’t know what Assault Agents are so I felt like I needed that broken into two sentences and, like, tell me who assault agents are. Are they soldiers with Kevlar and night vision goggles? I don’t know who these people are.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So I was confused and, again, I had to stop and think about it. Oh, and there was a bit of poetry at the start that I wasn’t crazy about. “Gray autumn wind strokes the streets with dead leaves.”

**Craig:** Ah, yeah. I mean, don’t need that sort of thing. It’s not the end of the world but, I think… I mean, ultimately here’s what happens: It doesn’t get read. It becomes literally whitewash for your eyeballs.

**John:** Yeah. Here’s the other thing I’d say: We can’t see wind. We can see dead leaves. And so if you really want the leaves blowing down the street, like, “Dead leaves scrape across the street as we reveal Terry Redding.” I mean, you can have those dead leaves there, but we can’t see gray wind, so give us the leaves if you’re going to do that kind of thing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** An overall general note: I liked sort of what happened in this teaser, but it felt like an Alias teaser to me. It felt like, okay, this is the first opening act thing and then we’re going to get to Langley and then we’re going to sort of start the story. I didn’t know anything about these characters, and I wanted to know a little bit more about what was unique or special about these people given these three pages. Just something more specific about them, because all the dialogue that we have here is very sort of standard boiler-platy for this kind of genre.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s true. Of course, page four could be spectacular and we could find out about these people and what happened. I hesitate to judge on that basis. I mean, yes, it’s true: many, many action movies open this way with guys on a mission and then something explodes. But, in terms of the way he crafted it, I thought it was well done. There is an interesting idea at the heart of it.

And I liked on page two, just to circle back to my point about white space, “Terry pauses. Deep breath.” Return. “HE KNOCKS ON THE DOOR.” All Caps. Return. “No response.”

I like that. He took the time on the page, and that creates anticipation. You know, what you can’t teach, what no one I don’t think can teach to screenwriters, is rhythm and dramatic rhythm. You know that this guy is going to walk up to a door. He’s going to knock on the door. And you know as the writer that on the other side of that door is something that is quite the opposite of what he expects, of what everyone expects. That justifies a sense of anticipation.

And that justifies writing it out this way. So there’s a good, innate sense of rhythm and how this should be executed. So, all told, I think it’s a good example of how to write action well. And good job. What was the writer’s name again?

**John:** Ben Jacoby.

**Craig:** Well done.

**John:** Yeah. Hooray. Congratulations, Ben.

Let’s move onto our next sample. This is by Trevor Hollen. And it’s a script, the title page on this was Everything Means Nothing to Me.

**Craig:** Great title.

**John:** It’s a great title. What a great title. It feels like a good dark anthem, or like sort of a punk rock emo kind of awesomeness. I like it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Really cool.

**John:** So some description about what’s happening here. So, we open with a beaten up woman named Max. She bursts out of a warehouse, handcuffed to a dead man, which she drags behind her. There are some headlights. She looks up as brakes squeal. We cut to Max watching a movie at a theater. This is obviously, evidently before, because she’s not beaten up. Then we’re with her in the lobby where she looks at a poster for a movie called Streets of Fire.

She checks her phone. Two missed messages. The battery dies. She drives and she smokes. Then, earlier that night, we have a scene at Meltdown Comics — which I think is where they record the Nerdist Podcast —

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** — where we meet a new guy named Johnny who shoplifts, and then he exits. We crosscut this with Max, and then we go back to Johnny, who is pursued by two guys. And that’s the end of page three.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, it’s hard to critique this on the basis of the way that the action was written out. It wasn’t that the action was written out poorly per se; it’s just that I was bored. I mean, and I shouldn’t have been bored because it starts with this woman — she’s not dragging a body; she’s got a body slung over her back, which immediately stops me. It’s not easy, assuming this is an average weight man of 175 pounds — 175 pounds of dead weight over a woman’s shoulder as she’s walking is a little bit of a tough one to buy, especially because she’s tiny.

And then these headlights light up her face. She turns. Brakes squeal. Okay, and now we’re in this theater. I got a little confused. I thought, okay, this is actually set in the ’80s because she’s watching… — the Streets of Fire is going to be coming up, but then I know she’s got a cell phone, it must be a retro theater, I guess, that shows old movies.

Now she’s in the car. I’m not sure if the scene, Int. Max’s Car, where she’s driving and listening to South Pacific, is necessary. Nothing happens in it.

We go to Johnny. Johnny is reading a comic book. He walks outside. And now he’s being followed. We cut back to Max’s car; she’s still singing — not sure why. And then now these other people are following Johnny and, oh my gosh, here comes a truck, which I just saw on page one. I just saw trucks. [laughs] This is a different truck, by the way.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If it were the same truck I’d think, “Okay, there’s killer trucks out there,” but there’s two box trucks on the first page. There is a pickup truck that is about to hit Johnny on page three. The whole “I’m about to get hit by a truck” thing is a tough one to pull off anyway because it’s a little bit cliché. To try it two times in the first three pages, you’re starting to push it.

**John:** When you first said that you got bored, and it seems like it should be really hard to get bored in three pages, but I kind of got bored, too. And it’s because I got confused. I got confused. I lost faith that my rapt attention would be rewarded.

I felt like the script wasn’t connecting, like the dots weren’t connecting, and I didn’t believe the dots necessarily were going to connect, especially while it’s sort of line to line. And it honestly starts at the very beginning for me, is that as I gave you the description I told you, like, this girl Max, but as it’s actually on the page, “Door flies open. MAX exits bloody as hell. Right eye is swollen shut. A (very dead) man is handcuffed to her left wrist and slung over her back.”

Okay, wait, so she’s a girl but the only way that we know that she’s a woman — Max feels like a man’s name — but we know it’s a woman because of “her left wrist.” But, why are you burying that here? Why did you let that go through… — You already gave us an image of her right eye being swollen shut, so we saw that in our head, but we think it’s a man. So, now we have to go back and replace that image in our head with a woman.

If you had just gave us like, “A young woman exits, bloody as hell. Right eye swollen shut. A man is handcuffed to her left wrist and slung over her back. This girl is MAX.” Then, like, okay, so we know it’s a woman first, and then we know her name. Then this would be a little bit more into this first moment that’s happening.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. That’s a really good point, John, because you know what: it’s funny — when I read that paragraph I just didn’t understand why, but you’ve put your finger on it, of why I stopped. My impression was that, “Oh, the author is being a bit clever here,” like, “Look, I’m just going to subtly point out she’s a woman this way.” And I thought, “Eh, don’t be clever, I hate that.”

But actually your point is the right one. I had to rebuild the image in my head. And that’s on the top of page one. That’s a bad feeling.

**John:** Yeah. Also at the top of page one. “FADE IN:”

“EXT. ABANDONED WAREHOUSE — NIGHT.”

Next line. “The Warehouse District of L.A.”

Okay, so you said warehouse twice in two lines. That doesn’t actually give me anything else. So, rather than sort of saying, “The Warehouse District of L.A.” that line could be something that gives me a sense of what this place is like. If you want to say that we’re in Los Angeles, that’s fine, but give us a sense of what this actual space is rather than just like “Warehouse District” because I don’t know what the Warehouse District looks like or feels like.

So, give us some color of light. Give us some dogs barking in the distance. Give us something else that gives us some color to it rather than just, like, giving me a thing that I don’t know.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** There was some stuff I did like, and I want to point that out. I felt like the writer had some interesting detail stuff that made me curious about the characters. I liked that her car stereo is ripped out of the dash, and so she’s listening to a boom box instead. That’s cool.

I like that we’re in specific places, like Meltdown Comics. But where I lost faith was we were cross-cutting between… — So we start in, it feels like, the presence tense, and then we move back in time, and we’re sort of catching up for awhile. But then we move to Johnny, that’s apparently earlier that night. And, like, okay, so we’re still moving back further in time, okay, but it’s not clear then — is he in the same timeline as Max at this point? And it’s only three pages in.

**Craig:** God, I didn’t even notice that. In my mind, literally in my mind, I just assumed that this was happening simultaneously. You’re right, it does say earlier. That’s insane; you can’t do that. You can’t do that. [laughs]

**John:** It’s unclear to me whether that “Earlier that night” means earlier than the very first scene we saw where she was dragging the body, or if it means earlier…

**Craig:** No, no.

**John:** …It should be earlier than the last thing we saw. And the last thing we saw was Max driving. And so, wait. Are we in a third time sequence here?

**Craig:** Yeah. We’re apparently going… — Maybe this is one of those going…No, it’s not a going in reverse movie because it starts after, and then we go back, and then we’re moving forward because she walks out of the theater. I don’t understand what’s going on now. Now I’m really confused. I also have to say, you know, you don’t want to read the first three pages and think there’s two scenes I could just cut here because they’re not doing anything for me. This is precious real estate; everything has to be earned.

Wow, you’re right. That is earlier. Yeah, no, you can’t do that.

**John:** So, Go, my first script, my first produced movie, it opens with something that happens later in the movie, so we see Ronna in the ditch and she’s “18, bloody, and bleeding,” and so that’s a description of her. And so we’re like, oh, we know that something interesting is going to happen there.

And then we have Claire giving some dialogue, which sort of sets up the question of the movie. And then it does start moving forward in time. But it’s not trying to be incredibly clever or sophisticated at that point. It’s like it is setting up sort of a world, and then the story starts. And I just didn’t have faith that this story was going to be starting here because just a bunch of stuff was happening.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a bit of a confusion that’s going on in there. So, I think this one needs a little love, a little help.

**John:** Needs a little love.

Next, go to a script by Randall Knox and Jason Zahodnik called Dog Tags. So, some description on Dog Tags. We begin at an infantry camp in North Africa, 1942 — I love period movies —

**Craig:** Me too.

**John:** — where a private slides a field report under Colonel Mason’s door. Inside the Colonel’s quarters we see a man in silhouette who is smoking. He looks through the field reports. A hand pulls out a handgun. Then a single gunshot. Only then do we realize there was a second man in the room and he’s staging this to look like a suicide.

We cut to a British transport plane roaring through the sky. Inside a few dozen soldiers. The copilot says they’ll be down in 20.

On the runway we single out a British officer, Jack Sherman, and an American military police officer named Richards. They introduce themselves to each other. The British Officer has, surprisingly, a southern accent. He’s here to investigate the Colonel’s death. And that’s the bottom of page three.

**Craig:** Right. Well, so this is sort of a prime example of overwriting action. Here’s the good news — I’ll lead with the good news. I really liked what was happening. I like the trick of what happened in the room. I thought there was a really good idea behind it. It was interesting. And I liked the final exchange between the guy who runs the outpost and the man who’s been sent to investigate this crime. It had good promise.

There are some dialogue issues. You made a point a couple of these, when we did one of these, remember there were three pages where the first line of dialogue was on the third page? There’s a little bit of dialogue on the first page. The second page is all dialogue-free. And then the third page, this copilot comes out and delivers very clunky dialogue. And similarly then Major Richards has clunky dialogue. And a lot of people announcing stuff that everybody in the scene already ought to know, that kind of thing.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But this could be improved greatly by just thinning out the action descriptions to get to the meat of what we need to know.

**John:** I agree. I felt that the opening was overwritten for what it was. All we’re seeing is a private delivering a folder to his commanding officer. And so there was a lot of stuff sort of happening that didn’t really get us very much of anything.

So, if you want to setup a world, maybe we should have walked through the camp a little bit more, seen a little bit more of sort of what this universe was. But it felt like a lot of shoe leather just to get a folder underneath the door.

Then, once we were inside, I actually kind of dug the description of what was going on. It felt very Hitchcockian, that it’s a very limited focus in that the camera is looking at this, the camera is looking at this. One thing I would point out though: there’s a lot of “we sees” and “we hears,” and some people hate “we see” and “we hear.” I actually like “we see” and “we hear” when used judiciously. Here I thought there was a little too much of it.

**Craig:** I agree actually. Yeah, I’m a big fan of “we see” when it is called for. But, for instance, “We see a limp arm dangling from a chair,” you could actually just say, “A limp arm.” Or, “we see” is okay there, but I don’t know…

**John:** On page two, it starts with, “We hear him sigh as he sets his glasses on the desk.”

**Craig:** That should be, “He sighs.”

**John:** “He sighs.” And I would make the…

**Craig:** “He sets his glasses on the desk,” you know.

**John:** I would make — “A limp arm dangles” is fine, too.

To me, here is the criteria for when I think you are justified using a “we see” or “we hear:” If the cause is invisible, a “we see” or “we hear” may save you. It might say like, okay, “We hear a tremendous rushing of something,” or a lot of times I’ll use the “we” for if we are describing how the camera is moving. So, like, “We float over the camp as we slowly descend into something.” I’ll use the “we”s for that, but a lot of times — I would always look for if I can take the “we see” or “we hear” out, and it makes as much sense, then cut it out.

**Craig:** Yeah, I tend to use “we see” for things that I want the audience to be aware of but also for the audience to be aware that other characters aren’t aware of. So, “A man rises. Behind him, we see a killer with a knife.” Because if you don’t say “we see” sometimes it is implied that he might know that there is a killer with a knife back there.

But, everybody has their different cause for it, but in this case what sort of pops out to me about the way this was written — I’m not surprised that you liked the action description of the part in the tent, because aside from the fact that it was innately interesting, we are more forging of description of big ticket items: murders, suicides, sex. We are far less forgiving of long descriptive paragraphs of sleepy military camps while folks snooze.

And, frankly, the biggest crime of the first paragraph is that by overwriting about the moonlight and the smoking cigarettes and the quiet and the sleeping, is that he’s burying — the writer is burying an important thing that he has put in there, which is that artillery is going off in the background.

**John:** I completely missed it.

**Craig:** And the reason that’s important, is because I believe now that someone could get shot and no one would flinch because they just think it’s just an artillery. So, if I were doing this I would probably say, “SUPER: North Africa — 1942. A military camp. Rows of tents. Men are sleeping. In the background, pop, pop, POP. Artillery goes off. The men barely flinch. They’re used to it by now. A private walks across to…”

You know what I mean? Make that something, so that we get that it is important later. You’d be surprised, screenwriters, how often the rest of the producing world, the directors and ADs and prop don’t ever get that that was important. [laughs] Do you know what I mean? So you make it important.

**John:** Looking back at that first paragraph, which I’ll admit I did skim because it was seven lines long, I missed that the artillery was going off partly because it wasn’t capitalized. And we’re sort of past the stage where like, oh, all sound effects and have to be capitalized. We’re not doing radio plays anymore, so it’s not that that’s important, but the artillery is really important. That’s the most important thing that’s helping to set up the scene there, so that should be capitalized.

I also feel like all the other people that he’s passing, or groups of people, capitalize them too so that we see that there are more people in this world. Because just looking at that first paragraph, I sort of assumed that the private was the only person that we’re seeing in the whole scene.

**Craig:** Yeah. And just very quickly on dialogue — because I read it and might as well help you out here if I can: What the private said was fine. And then we get to this copilot. “All right, you lot. We’re twenty minutes, give or take a tick, from the base, so be prepared to get out and unload sharpish. We’ve got to keep the runway clear.” That’s a lot of talking from a guy who’s talking to seasoned — what appears to be — seasoned people, or at least people who know what their job is. It’s not like they’re jumping out of a plane for the first time or getting off a plane for the first time.

To me it could be as simple as “’20 minutes.’ Slams the door shut.” Do you know what I mean? “The guys all look at each other.”

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Then, when they land, Jack, our hero I assume, who is going to be investigating this, comes out of the plane. And there is a pudgy military officer, Major Richards, and he says to Jack, “Major Sherman, I’m Major Richards. I’m the head Military Police officer here at the base. Welcome to Algeria.”

I’m pretty sure that he’s been expecting him. “Major Sherman. I’m Major Richards. Welcome to Algeria,” would be fine. “I’m the head military police officer here at the base” — eh, that’s probably unnecessary. We should be able to tell from his stature or from something that’s not spoken that he’s in charge.

“Given how quickly you were flown out here, I’m sure you’re wondering what the situation is.” Perhaps maybe just, “You’re probably wondering what the situation is.”

And then Jack says, “Y’all have a dead colonel on your hands and you need me to confirm how it happened.” “Oh, so you’ve been briefed.” “No.” I like that. I like the fact that he hadn’t been briefed, but somehow he knows what’s going on. That’s kind of cool.

But just watch the overdone dialogue, particularly when you’ve done such a good job of creating silent, interesting stuff — meaning dialogue-free interesting stuff.

**John:** Agreed.

One more thing I’m just catching on page three: So we’re at exterior runway, “20 minutes, give or take a tick later,” which is kind of funny. The copilot was saying, “Give or take a tick later,” and he uses that, that’s fine. But the actual scene description here, “The plane touches down and taxis to a halt. The men inside file down the staircase and unload their cargo from the rear.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** That’s — you both have the plane landing, taxiing…

**Craig:** And taxiing.

**John:** And the men have disembarked and gotten their gear. In two sentences. So that is fast. And while it’s true that once upon a time we used to do, “Atlanta burns” for like Gone with the Wind, and there wasn’t more description, it’s like…that is a tremendous amount to pack in two lines. So, I would question whether, do we need to see the plane land? Okay, let the plane land in a scene header and then let’s get right to the people that we want to pay attention to disembarking.

**Craig:** Totally.

**John:** Don’t setup all the background action.

**Craig:** Yeah, the way that’s going to be in the movie is, “A plane comes down for a landing. Cut to…” I mean, whether you want to write “Cut To” or not, “The men are offloading the plane.” We’re not watching planes land and taxiing. You might as well write that they unbuckle, send their service items to the aisle, etc.

**John:** Yeah. There are movies where all that specific detail is really important. This is clearly not that movie, so I would say: edit it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Yeah.

**John:** Our final action sequence for this batch is by David Stripinis. And let me give you some description here:

We start in a South Boston bar in 1984, where everyone is watching Mary Lou Retton win the Olympics. Fire trucks outside take us to a brownstone fire. One of the fire fighters, Kavanagh, is going through the house. In the nursery he finds a dead woman cradling a baby. The baby is still alive. Part of the house collapses, apparently trapping Kavanagh and the baby as we end page three.

**Craig:** Right. So, well, there’s a very, very, very generic thing going on here. It doesn’t start that way. I had hopes on the first page. There’s this bar scene; it’s very Boston. People are watching Mary Lou Retton. They’re getting excited. I understand completely what time it is because of that, which I thought was very nice.

And suddenly these fire trucks are going by, people run outside, and that carries us to this fire. Now, page two just comes from the generic fire book: men going through, saying things that firemen say like, “Get out of there,” and, “We’re out of here,” and, “No, I’m not leaving until I check this room. Someone is here.” “Get out of there.” Very, very rote.

And you have to be aware of the movies that have come before you and not simply just do exactly — I mean, that is the fire scene. Everybody has done that fire scene. But it’s not that it was written poorly — I mean, there are some interesting touches. A teddy bear that’s melting. That’s kind of cool.

So, in terms of action description, “Flames whip around a nursery. A large TEDDY BEAR melts, it’s polyester…” Now, “it’s” with an apostrophe is a problem. “It’s polyester guts oozing out.” If you had put a period there I would have given him a gold star. But he says, “It’s polyester guts oozing out like the lava of Kilauea.” So that’s what we call a mixed metaphor folks. [laughs] That is the definition of mixed metaphor. Try not to do that; it’s unnecessary.

And this man finds this baby, which is really horrifying. This is the other thing, is tonally I have no idea what the hell is going on, because we started with this kind of funny scene in a pub, then we go to a very standard B-movie firefighting scene, and on page three we are literally looking at the most horrifying graphic thing I’ve ever seen.

And if this movie rests on being super horrifying and graphic, okay. But truthfully, you have to be really aware when you get this graphic and gross. And you have to give it credit and you have to honor it. I mean, like in Silence of the Lambs there are moments that honor it, but they don’t come on page three. And you’re really putting people back on their feet with something this — that is, I mean, you’re going to get people walking out.

**John:** It’s a really gruesome image. I think it’s an effective image, it’s just really, really gruesome. And your point about Silence of the Lambs is key, because in Silence of the Lambs we have invested interest in Jodie Foster and these characters by the time the gross, gruesome stuff comes. So we’re not going to, like, turn off from the movie when it happens.

But here it is happening so early, like, oh my god, I don’t know if I want to keep watching that.

**Craig:** Well, also, there’s no reaction to it. I mean, in Silence of the Lambs you have people looking at photos and turning away and reacting and being human, even in small ways, because they are disgusted by what they see. This man looks at something that’s the grossest thing ever and no response from him whatsoever in the pages. And that’s the most important part is how the characters respond.

Just as a thought: in the beginning it seems to me that if you’re going to show this bar, you probably don’t need three-quarters of a page of bar stuff and then have trouble, unless you were going to interrupt it in an interesting way. For instance, they’re all sitting around, woo-woo, they’re all cheering for the Olympics, and then BOOM, something rattles the window and they all turn up and look. And then they move to the glass and they see in the distance, BOOM, another fire ball. And then three fire trucks go by. Something that’s a little more astonishing than — I mean, anyone who listens to this podcast hears three fire trucks going by on any given day. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Yeah. We don’t even look anymore. We just know that they’re going to pass by.

**Craig:** Exactly. They’re going to pass by.

**John:** I agree. To me that first sequence, I like that it is setting up 1984. I think Mary Lou Retton is actually a very smart way to tell us exactly when this is happening and sort of what our world is, but I want to get out of there right after the bartender’s first line, either with some explosion or just the passing lights that lead us to that thing to let us know that this is just to setup the world and the time and now we’re going to follow these fire trucks and we’ll be in a firefighting mode.

The dialogue is an issue, and I felt so many of these lines could have been in our podcast last week where we talked about those sort of, like, the lines that you keep hearing way too much in movies. “Someone’s in there. I’ve got a live one.”

**Craig:** Even “Pull your team out.”

**John:** Yeah, “Pull your team out.” That’s in every firefighter movie.

**Craig:** Yeah, “Get out.” Just, “All right, everyone out.”

**John:** Since we’re talking about action, I do want to talk about the action, because even some of the stuff felt a little cliché to me, the actual description of stuff happening was kind of nice. And that moment that was described was really gruesome, but it was well-described. Our block length is really short. I was never tempted to skim because most of these times I’m only committed to reading one and a half lines at a time. So, you’re going to get me through the page that way.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And a pretty good breakup of sort of dialogue — I wasn’t happy with some of the dialogue but I was happy that the dialogue was interspersing the action. So, it’s not just I’m going to commit to reading a line or a block of scene description, but if a page is nothing but scene description I will panic a bit because it is like, “Oh my god, I can’t read that whole page.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But because you were interspersing and you were doing other stuff on the page — in this case it is dialogue breaking up the page — I’m more inclined to actually read every word of it. So, that stuff I liked. And so to me it felt like a pretty good version of a scene that I’m going to probably see in Derek Haas’s firefighter show. But when Derek has his firefighter show I will know who these characters are ahead of time and will have a vested interest in their safety, and security, and what they’re doing in that scene.

Here I don’t because it’s the first time I’ve met this guy Kavanagh.

**Craig:** And I would be surprised if Derek’s show had this level of clamminess. “Get out of there.” “I told you get out of there, man.” You know, maybe it will, but hopefully not.

**John:** I think it can do better than that. But, at the bottom of page three right now Kavanagh is saying, “Sorry little guy. Guess I wasn’t meant to be a hero after all.”

**Craig:** Oh yeah. That’s brutal. Brutal.

**John:** What?! Maybe if you set up 15 pages before that his father never believed in him, or I don’t know, or where he’s going through training or something. But, like, what?!

**Craig:** It’s crazy. Who’s the screenwriter again of this one?

**John:** David Stripinis.

**Craig:** David. Okay, I like to talk to people by name. David, here’s the deal: This man just saw a burned alive woman with no eyes. Her eyes were melted away. He has found a live baby with a charred forearm. And injured babies are horrifying things for us to look at. He is facing death, and he has this very calm moment where he just sort of says, “Sorry little guy. Guess I wasn’t meant…”

I mean, no. Now here’s the thing: You don’t need that line at all. “He slumps down, back against the wall defeated. He pulls off his respirator.” That’s great. He’s giving up. I love it.

“The infant looks at him with a startling amount of clarity in his eyes. He looks back.” That’s all you need. No talking there. You’ve got to know when to talk and you’ve got to know when you don’t talk. And you don’t talk when you’re alone with a charred baby about to die.

You can get away with no talking there if you eliminate some of this other stuff. I would also argue, David, that you don’t need the whole “Get out” stuff. Because if you think about it, all you’re really doing is giving away what’s so shocking about what you’ve written. This should be quite the opposite. It’s a house fire, but it’s pretty standard. Everybody should be under control. We’re just doing what we do. It’s a fire. It’s dangerous. “How are we doing in there?” “Okay, just checking the last hallway.” “We gotta go man; this doesn’t look too good.” “Um, yeah, just give me one second.” “Boss says we gotta go now.” “Yeah, I said one second.” Opens up a door. There’s no one in there. And he walks over and he finds the baby. “Holy shit.” “We gotta go.”

And then suddenly out of nowhere, KABOOM.

It just would be so much more interesting than somebody explaining to us before we ever meet this guy, you’re about to die. Don’t you think?

**John:** I agree. Surprise. Because the minute we hear “Pull your people out,” it’s like we know the whole thing is going down.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. And the whole “Pull your people out,” the whole thing is going down — that is usually used as surprised stuffing. It’s like filler surprise. It’s not really surprise. It’s fake surprise because we’ve seen it so often, but that’s what it’s there for.

You don’t need that filler. You have an actual surprise: A baby underneath a burnt-alive woman. Yikes. Yuck. So, I mean, use that.

**John:** Good stuff.

**Craig:** Gross.

**John:** So, again, I want to thank our four people who wrote in with their samples, because these were amazing and you guys were so brave to write in and let us talk about your work. And I hope it was helpful.

Most people who have gone through this process seem to have enjoyed it. I’ve gotten good feedback from the people we’ve reviewed before, so I hope these four felt it was helpful and useful in their further writing careers.

**Craig:** And I just want to add, for our four people who sent things in, I just want to add for them that I thought each one of them had something that was very encouraging. There wasn’t one of them this week that I thought, “Oh, you’ll never be able to do this.” So, is that encouraging? Did that sound encouraging?

**John:** That did sound encouraging.

**Craig:** I love it.

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

**Craig:** Oh my god. I keep forgetting that we have One Cool Thing.

**John:** Yeah, that’s okay. I’ll just give you my One Cool Thing and we’ll wrap it up early.

My One Cool Thing is a movie that’s in theaters right now. It’s called Sleepwalk With Me. It’s by a guy named Mike Birbiglia, who is a comedian who starts in and co-wrote and directed this movie. And it’s really charming, and I would highly recommend it. It feels very much like Annie Hall as a structure, in that it’s a guy analyzing a relationship and talking to camera at times while the story is being told. But it’s really funny and really well done.

I first recognize Mike from he’s in Lena Dunham’s show, Girls. He plays the guy who — Lena does a job interview, and he’s the guy who may hire her. And they have a very funny just one-off scene. And the scene was so good just by itself that I’m like — he’s on my radar.

And, god bless him, he made a really good little movie. Ira Glass of NPR fame produced it and co-wrote it. And I highly recommend it. So it’s playing in like 140 theaters across the country and I think people will really like it. I think it’s going to be the one little movie this year that could really break out. So I would encourage you to see it if it’s in your neck of the woods.

**Craig:** Fantastic!

**John:** Great. Craig, thank you for a week full of action.

**Craig:** Yeah, that was, oh, I mean, I’m exhausted.

**John:** I know. Tiring.

**Craig:** Exhausted. Should we do another one? Should we stop the podcast and never do another one? Or should we keep going?

**John:** No, I think I’ll see you next week.

**Craig:** All right, screw it. Let’s do it again.

**John:** Talk to you soon. Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 52: Grammar, guns and butter — Transcript

August 30, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/grammar-guns-butter).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 52 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, 52!

**Craig:** A year of podcasts.

**John:** I was going to say it’s hard to believe, but it’s actually not hard to believe. It feels like 52 episodes to me. Does it feel like it to you?

**Craig:** I don’t think so. To me I would have… — If you had said we were over 40 I would have still been a little skeptical. I don’t know. They just go by kind of quickly.

**John:** They do. But I’m happy that we made it this far. I’m happy that people seem to be liking our show, so this is a good thing. And last week you treated us with a song.

**Craig:** A song.

**John:** That was very nice, Craig. Because we actually just let you play it out I didn’t get to sort of clap or applaud afterwards or hold up my little virtual lighter, but I thought you did a terrific job, so thank you very much for doing that.

**Craig:** Thank you. How nice of you to say. There were a lot of lovely comments from people on Twitter.

**John:** Good.

**Craig:** I now get to say stuff like, “Yeah, it’s blowing up on twitter, y’all.”

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** Although it’s not really blowing up. But it was fun to do and I think maybe I’ll do it again if we can get to…150?

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We’ll see.

**Craig:** We’ll pick an appropriate benchmark, because we can either do it more regularly or you could really go nuts and just say we’ve got to hit 500.

**John:** Yeah. That would be a lot. Another option might be a benchmark of like where we rank on iTunes, because that might be a little bit more indicative of people who are listening to it now or subscribing now versus just people who are catching up on previous episodes, because downloads can be people who are just going back through the whole catalog. We need those new, fresh listeners for some imaginary metric that doesn’t really mean anything because we’re not selling any advertising. So it’s just ego gratification, really.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, that’s what this is all about.

**John:** And on the topic of ego gratification, last week I… — we were doing the Three Page Challenges — and while reading one of the Three Page Challenges, I speculated that one of the people who wrote in was not a native English speaker. And you took a little umbrage at that. You took umbrage on his behalf that I did not believe that he was a native English speaker.

**Craig:** Yeah. Yup.

**John:** And I was right. So, Mario DiPesa wrote in to say, “I am from Montreal, Quebec and my native language is French. Although as most Montrealers I’ve been exposed to English at a pretty early age through TV, comic books, and movies, I’ve only been in the US for about five years and I just started using English as my main language.”

So some of his odd word choices that I noticed, that was because English is not his native language.

**Craig:** You were absolutely right. I was completely wrong. And I’m embarrassed, because this is the kind of thing I feel like I should be good at. It’s language. You picked up on something. I’m mortified. And the only way I can think of to rectify this error is to kill you. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** If I kill you, I feel like I set it right.

**John:** Yeah. There are times I’m very happy that we’re not recording this in the same space, that you are far off in Pasadena while I’m safely here in Hancock Park at an address you’ve never been to.

Ah, that’s not true; you’ve been to my house once.

**Craig:** I have. I’ve been there. I know exactly where to go. And I know exactly how I’m going to kill you. [laughs] So enjoy this victory.

**John:** Yes. By the time this podcast airs it will be past.

**Craig:** You’re dead.

**John:** But I wanted to talk a little bit about sort of what I noticed in Mario DiPesa’s writing and the sense… — Because it wasn’t ungrammatical in the sense of “these are the rules of English and he broke the rules of English.” It wasn’t that at all. Like everything in it was by the rules grammatical. But grammar is really how we speak; it’s how a native person speaks. And it didn’t sound like how a native person would use the language.

And that’s something I want to start talking about. We’ll get into some questions later on, but I want to start talking about this and get your feedback on it.

A lot of times when we talk about English and we talk about sort of people coming in from other languages, we always assume there’s a one-to-one correlation between the things we do in English and the things that people do in other languages. But that’s not really true, and you start to notice those things as you meet people who are writing in something that’s not their native language.

One example that often occurs to me is the sense of time. Because when you think of time as being, well there’s the past, the present, and the future, but if you actually listen to how we speak, our sense of time in spoken language and written language is actually quite a bit more complicated.

We have actions that were started in the past and completed in the past. We have actions that were started in the past but are still ongoing. We have things that we think are going to happen. Things that we know are going to happen. It’s much more complicated and a lot of languages treat it very differently.

One thing I notice from time to time is our nanny who is native Spanish speaking, her English is fantastic but she — if you ask her like what did she have for dinner tonight, she says, “Oh, she eats green beans and broccoli and chicken,” which would actually be a really good meal for my kid because my kid is a terrible eater. But she says, “She eats,” or like I’ll ask did she have a bath, it’s like, “She does.” And so she’s answering back in our present tense verb for something that we would use a past tense verb. And that’s just the way that Spanish works versus how English works.

Their sense of what you use the present tense for is wider than what we use the present tense for. In Spanish they put a wider umbrella over the present tense than we do in English. And so those things don’t match up perfectly.

**Craig:** No, that’s true. And the language where you’ll see huge differences like that, where it’s not even subtle, is Chinese. The Chinese language has a bunch of quirks. We would call them quirks. I assume that they would look at our language and call our language quirks. Here’s a sentence that — you can’t ask the following question in Chinese: You can’t say, “You’re not really thinking of doing that, are you?” They don’t recognize negatively phrased questions.

**John:** Yeah. And in Spanish that would kick into the subjunctive probably. And it’s more complicated. And I think people want to reduce things to simple rules that like could be machine translated between things, and it’s more complicated than that. It’s more subtle.

**Craig:** Yeah. There are a lot of strange things, just the way that — and I think we’ve had a Chomsky festival before on this podcast — but the grammar that we use reflects our consciousness and the way we think about things. But there are gaps. And you obviously picked up on a very subtle one in Mario’s language that I did not. I’m still going to kill you over this.

**John:** Which is fine.

A reader a couple of months ago sent in through — he had gone to one of those paid coverage services and he sent through the coverage. And it was too long to really talk about either on the website or on the podcast, but looking through it, I was a little bit frustrated by what this reader wrote in terms of his comments, like things to change in his script.

And it was something like he was criticizing him for using the passive voice. And the example the guy cited was something like, “Mary is cooking dinner.” And the reader said, “No, it should be, ‘Mary cooks dinner,'” which is wrong sort of on two levels. First off, that’s not passive voice.

**Craig:** Right. “The dinner was cooked by Mary” is passive.

**John:** Exactly. So passive is any construction in which the subject of the sentence is receiving the action of the verb. So, “The casket is lowered into the ground by the men.” That’s a passive voice.

And, first off, there is nothing wrong with a passive voice. There are a lot of reasons why you might want to use an active voice and there are a lot of reasons why in screenwriting you should be thinking about, like, “Wait — does the active voice make more sense for this?” Rather than “The blindfold is removed,” it’s like, you know, “The bandit removes the blindfold.” There may be reasons why the active voice works better for you. That’s not to say that passive voice is wrong.

But with, “Mary is cooking dinner,” that’s actually the present progressive, and that’s like a remarkably good thing that English has that not every language has. The present progressive is that “ing” form, so the “to be” plus an “ing.” So, “Mary is cooking. Bob is running.” And what’s great about the present progressive for screenwriting is that you can interrupt it. And so if a scene starts with, “Todd is running down the street.” You can — “Todd is running down the street when…” something happens. You can stop that action.

If it’s, “Todd runs down the street,” well, does he finish running down the street? It implies that something has been completed when it may be something that you want to stop midway.

**Craig:** This is one of those “rules” that you hear tossed around by halfwits on the internet who don’t know anything about what it means to write a screenplay effectively. They’ll say things like, “Go through your script and remove all ‘ing’ verbs.” No. No. Swallow poison, idiot, because that’s the… — These reductive nonsense rules that people use for screenplays make me crazier than anything.

Of course there are times when you want to say “is running’ or “is doing,” especially in a screenplay which is attempting to invite the reader into an immediate present. Something is happening RIGHT NOW. Isn’t that more dramatic than a thing happened?

So, not to highjack this and turn it into a celebration of my hatred for so many people, but you definitely hit upon something that invokes great umbrage-taking from me.

**John:** Oh, it wouldn’t be a year anniversary podcast without some umbrage.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** And really most of these so-called “rules” are people trying to implement Latin and English, or they’re trying to sort of pull rules from a perfect language, which they believe to be Latin, into English. So they say, “Well, Latin doesn’t do this so therefore we shouldn’t do this.” Like Latin doesn’t break up infinitives, so like, “To slowly roast…” they won’t put a word in between the “to” and the infinitive form of the verb. And so therefore we shouldn’t do it.

Well, Latin is different. And in English it tends to make a lot more sense to split up that infinitive in a lot of cases. And if it sounds better to the ear, well that’s the point.

**Craig:** I’m with you on that. Like I don’t understand the whole rule against split infinitive. Who cares? Sometimes it’s much better and much more expressive to do it that way. I’m not one of these people that fetishizes avoiding prepositions at the end of a sentence. It’s all silly.

And certainly when we talk about writing, the nice thing about screenwriting is you can write anything you want because it’s not going to be read.

**John:** Yeah. A weird thing happened in a script that I just finished, and Stuart and I went back and forth a couple times on this one line of dialogue. And the line is, “Ethics is easy when you’re winning.”

And so is it “ethics is easy” or “ethics are easy when you’re winning?” And so when you actually look it up it turns out ethic and ethics are two different words and they actually mean two different things.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So it became a very subtle, like, “Well what is the definition of this?” “What is the definition of this?” “What is the real sense in which the character is using this?” But it also became, “Which sounds better coming out of someone’s mouth?” “Which would you actually say?”

**Craig:** You could do it either. I think you could do it either way presuming that you’re not talking about the study of ethics but rather individual ethics, like having ethics. You could say, “Ethics is easy,” meaning the concept of having ethics which is silently implied. Or, ethics — plural — having them “are easy.” I think you could do either one.

But if you were talking about “ethics is easy when you’re winning,” meaning the class where they teach ethics, that would be “ethics is.”

**John:** The class Ethics — Ethics 101 is easy in winning.

**Craig:** Or the study of ethics or the field of ethics.

**John:** But ultimately it came down to which is going to sound better coming out of this character’s mouth, because this character isn’t going to know the distinction between these two things. I mean, maybe if he were a linguist he would… — If he were a linguist he would use the right one.

But he wasn’t a linguist. He was a sports coach, so it didn’t make sense he would actually say the grammatically correct one or the definitely correct one. So it’s which one sounds better.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** I thought this would be a good transition into some things that will always sound terrible. And this was a list that a listener sent in, which I thought is just terrific. It’s from Go Into The Story, and it’s a list of bits of dialogue that you should probably always avoid.

And so it’s a lengthy list and we’re going to do our best to sort of sell you on how they sound and why you should never hear them. They will all be familiar to you. And if you were going to use any of the lines we’re about to state, you can, but you’re going to have to spin them somehow to take the curse off them, because they are all kind of cursed lines.

**Craig:** Hmm. Or just don’t use them.

**John:** Or just don’t use them. But I would say in a comedy there is probably a way you could use them, but you’d have to do something very smart to spin it in a new direction. Or not.

**Craig:** Yes. I agree. Some of these unfortunately are already attempts to spin something. They are jokes that have been beaten to death, so I don’t know how you spin something that’s already poorly spun and over spun.

**John:** Yeah. Jane Espenson defines these as “clams.” And so they were funny once but through repetition they become really not funny and smell horrible.

**Craig:** Yes. [laughs] Correct. Clams.

**John:** So shall we do this? “Are you ready?”

**Craig:** “I was born ready.”

**John:** “Are you sitting down?”

**Craig:** “Let’s get out of here!”

**John:** “_____ is my middle name.”

**Craig:** “Is that all you got?” “I’m just getting started.”

**John:** “Are you thinking what I’m thinking?”

**Craig:** “Don’t you die on me!”

**John:** “Tell my wife and kids I love them.”

**Craig:** “Breathe, dammit!”

**John:** “Cover me. I’m going in.”

**Craig:** “He’s standing right behind me, isn’t he?”

**John:** “No, no, no, no, no, no, I’m not going.” Cut to them going.

**Craig:** “No, come in. _____ was just leaving.”

**John:** “You better come in.”

**Craig:** “So, we meet again.”

**John:** “We’ve got to stop meeting like this.”

**Craig:** “Well, if it isn’t _____.”

**John:** “I’m just doing my job.”

**Craig:** “You give ______ a bad name.” / “Calling you a ______ is an insult to ______.”

**John:** “You’ll never get away with this.” “Watch me.”

**Craig:** “Lookin’ good,” said into a mirror.

**John:** “Now, where were we?”

**Craig:** “What the…?”

**John:** “How hard can it be?”

**Craig:** “Time to die.”

**John:** “Follow that car!”

**Craig:** “Let’s do this thing!”

**John:** “You go girl!”

**Craig:** “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

**John:** “Yeah, a little too quiet.”

**Craig:** “If I’m not back in five minutes get out of here,” or, “blow the whole thing up,” or, “call the cops.”

**John:** “What part of _____ don’t you understand?”

**Craig:** “I’m not leaving you!” “You have to go on without me.”

**John:** “Don’t even go there.”

**Craig:** “I’ve always wanted to say that.”

**John:** “Ready when you are.”

**Craig:** “Is this some kind of sick joke?”

**John:** “Oh, ha, ha, very funny.”

**Craig:** “Did I just say that out loud?”

**John:** “Wait. Do you hear something?”

**Craig:** “It’s…just a scratch.”

**John:** “How is he?” “He’ll live.”

**Craig:** “I’m…so…cold!”

**John:** “Is that clear?” “Crystal.”

**Craig:** “What if…nah, it would never work.”

**John:** “And there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to stop me.”

**Craig:** “You say that like it’s a bad thing.”

**John:** “Note to self.”

**Craig:** “Honey, is that you?”

**John:** “What’s the meaning of this?”

**Craig:** “What seems to be the problem officer?”

**John:** “What’s the worst that could happen?” / “What have we got to lose?”

**Craig:** “I have a bad feeling about this.”

**John:** “Leave it. They’re already dead.”

**Craig:** “Don’t you think I know that?”

**John:** “Whatever you do, don’t look down.”

**Craig:** “Why won’t you die!”

**John:** “I eat guys like you for breakfast.”

**Craig:** “Oh, now you’re really starting to piss me off.”

**John:** “We’ve got company.”

**Craig:** “Hang on. If you’re here, then that means…uh-oh.”

**John:** “Oh, that’s not good.”

**Craig:** “Awkward!”

**John:** “What just happened?”

**Craig:** “We’ll never make it in time!”

**John:** “Stay here.” “No way, I’m coming with you.”

**Craig:** “This isn’t over.”

**John:** “Jesus H. Christ!”

**Craig:** “It’s no use!”

**John:** “It’s a trap!”

**Craig:** “She’s gonna blow!”

**John:** “Okay. Here’s what we do…” And cut to a different scene.

**Craig:** “Wait a minute. Are you saying…?”

**John:** “You’ll never take me alive.”

**Craig:** “Okay. Let’s call that Plan B.”

**John:** “I always knew you’d come crawling back.”

**Craig:** “Try to get some sleep.”

**John:** “I just threw up in my mouth a little.”

**Craig:** “Leave this to me. I’ve got a plan.”

**John:** “No. That’s what they want us to think.”

**Craig:** “Why are you doing this to me?!”

**John:** “When I’m through with you…”

**Craig:** “Impossible!”

**John:** “Wait! I can explain. This isn’t what it looks like.”

**Craig:** “Showtime!”

**John:** “You look like you’ve seen a ghost.”

**Craig:** “If we make this out alive…”

**John:** “That’s it! You’re off the case.”

**Craig:** “How long have we known each other?” “We go back a long way.”

**John:** “Well. Well. Well.”

**Craig:** “Ah-ha! I knew it!”

**John:** “Done and done!”

**Craig:** “Leave it. He’s not worth it.”

**John:** “In English please?”

**Craig:** “As many of you know…” and then a bunch of exposition.

**John:** “Too much information!”

**Craig:** “Yeah, you better run!”

**John:** “Unless…” “Unless what?”

**Craig:** “What are you doing here?” “I was about to ask you the same thing.”

**John:** “So, who died? Oh…”

**Craig:** “You’re either brave or very stupid. ”

**John:** “Oh, yeah? You and whose army?”

**Craig:** “Now that’s what I’m talking about.”

**John:** “Don’t call us. We’ll call you.”

**Craig:** “It’s not you. It’s me.”

**John:** “This just gets better and better.”

**Craig:** “This is not happening. This is not happening!”

**John:** “Make it stop!”

**Craig:** “Shut up and kiss me.”

**John:** “I’ll see you in hell.”

**Craig:** “Lock and load!”

**John:** “Oh, hell no!”

**Craig:** That was too white. [laughs]

**John:** [trying again] “Oh hell no!”

**Craig:** Yes. I love that one.

“Not on my watch!”

**John:** “You just don’t get it, do you?”

**Craig:** “I have got to get me one of these.”

**John:** “I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.”

**Craig:** “It’s called _____. You should try it sometime.”

**John:** “That went well.”

**Craig:** That did go well.

**John:** And scene.

**Craig:** So that was a pretty great list of awful, awful lines to not write. And there are so many more. I mean, people can write in. It’s a fun game of coming up with the cliché awful lines. I think in comedy it’s particularly embarrassing when you trot one of these things out as if you haven’t already seen it a hundred times on a sitcom. And for dramas, these kind of overwrought lines are actually indicative usually of stories and character issues.

I mean, in comedy, okay, you’re just going for an easy laugh with a joke. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there is wrought. But if you’re writing a drama and you have a scene where someone has tripped and fallen and the other person is trying to drag them away and they say, “No. Leave me. You go on.” You just…you blew it. There’s a big problem there.

**John:** Some of these are transitional phrases that they are trying to, like — the scene was going in this direction and then it has to go in a different direction. Like someone has to start some exposition or someone has to do something different. The energy of the scene has to change. And they are just space killers; you have to find a way to not do them, because in real world situations you wouldn’t say that, they wouldn’t be there. You would just actually start the next thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. This kind of stuff actually came in very handy when I was writing spoof movies, because the spoof characters almost only speak in these things. I used to talk about it with Anna Faris, because we were trying to figure out how it was that these sort of lines worked in spoof but not in anything else; in anything else they were horrible. And we both realized that in spoof, characters have no subtext whatsoever; they simply say what’s on their mind. [laughs] They’re just very, very stupid people.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And this is the way very, very stupid people talk. So don’t make your characters very, very stupid.

**John:** All of these lines sort of sound like a Tracy Jordan movie, from 30 Rock. So when they do the cutaways to one of the movies that Tracy has made, these are all lines that he would have said in one of his movies.

**Craig:** Exactly, like, “I’ve gotta get me one of these.” It’s just so…You’re just not trying at that point. And I don’t like using the word “lazy” for writing, because I feel like writing is super hard and there’s nothing lazy about it, but in that case it’s actually not hard to write that line. It was written for you, chewed up, and spat out 100 times. So now you’re just sort of retyping something. It’s not very inventive.

**John:** One of these lines, the first time I heard it was in Rawson Thurber’s script and his movie for Dodgeball, which was, “I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.” And maybe it was originally Rawson, or maybe it had been there for a long time and I just happened to never hear it, but Christine Taylor says it to Ben Stiller, and it actually works really well in the scene. But that was the first time I heard it. I don’t know if that that was the origin of it.

**Craig:** It long predates Dodgeball. When it showed up in Dodgeball it was kind of just sort of… — He was still in the safe zone, but it was already tilting into clamage. And the thing about those kinds of lines is that once they appear in something big and prominent and they use that in the ads, it’s done. Like, nobody else should go near it. So, you might say, “Oh man, you know, I came up with that line, I put it in a show and no one saw the show and then three years later I see it pop up in an ad for a movie, and now everyone thinks the movie came up with it.”

Well, you know, suck it up. That’s part of comedy and we’re all in this together. But, once it does show up in something like that, one cannot go near it again. It is done.

**John:** Done.

**Craig:** And yet I will still see it. You know, my daughter watches the Disney Channel sitcoms and they’re just clam festivals.

**John:** Yeah. It’s a clambake.

**Craig:** It’s a clambake like you have no idea. Yeah.

**John:** So here’s how I would use the “I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.” In a situation where that could be a line, why don’t you just have the character kind of throw up in their mouth and literally have to spit out the vomit? It’s funny again.

**Craig:** Right. Like I actually threw up in mouth.

**John:** So they don’t even have to say anything because we sort of know what it is. And so just, like, have them upchuck a little bit and have to put it in a little towel and it would be great.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Or in their hand, because bodily fluids in hands is funny.

**Craig:** Or like a man kisses a woman in a bar and she says, “I think I threw up in your mouth a little.” [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] That’s funnier.

**Craig:** However you need to put something on it.

**John:** Yeah. I think if he says, “I think you just threw up in my mouth a little.”

**Craig:** “Did you just throw up in my mouth a little?” [laughs] It could be a question.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah.

**Craig:** “I think I might have thrown up in your mouth a little.” Yeah. Hmm.

**John:** Hmm. It’s good. See, we’re writing here.

We have some questions, so let’s get to some questions, which is I think one of the things I’ve enjoyed most about doing this podcast over the last two years, answering some questions and getting some multiple opinions here.

So the question is from Jared in Weston, Connecticut. He asks, “What is the process of selling a spec script as a completely new writer? Maybe you could use Go as an example. Do you have to have representation in order to sell a spec? Who buys a spec — producers or studios? I totally understand if this is one of those cringe-worthy ‘how do I get an agent’ questions, but I’d really love to hear your insight into the process.”

So, yeah, I think some 101 questions are valid every once and awhile.

**Craig:** It’s a good question.

**John:** Good question. A spec is a script — just so we’ll define terms here from the start — a spec is a script that you wrote yourself that is not based on anything. It’s just you sat down at your computer and you wrote a spec script. This was 100 percent your idea and something you did. And you own it, completely, so no one owns any other part of it.

Generally, if it’s not a movie you’re going to make yourself but you’re trying to sell it to someone else to make it, that would go out into the world with an agent or a manager or someone else who is representing you and the script to buyers. Those buyers could be producers. Those buyers could be big studios. They could be some sort of in between production entity. But generally it’s pretty rare, I think, for a production company to find your script and directly buy it without some other intermediary force. Craig, you can correct me if you disagree.

**Craig:** No. I think that that’s absolutely correct and it’s going to be the studio that buys it, not a producer. Producers attach themselves to specs. Producers aren’t really employers. This is a hard concept for people to wrap their minds around when they haven’t been exposed to the very strange business of studios versus producers.

Producers basically are just hired guns by the studio to shepherd projects, but they don’t actually pay you. They don’t buy stuff. They may option things. I mean, occasionally they buy things if they have a discretionary fund, which is a pool of development money that the producer has access to and can use freely.

Still, even in those cases the money is from the studio. But you were right on.

**John:** So, the advantage of writing a spec script is that obviously you can just write it and it’s free and clear and it’s yours and you can do whatever you want with it. Maybe you will sell that script to somebody, and that script will not become a movie. Most cases, no one will buy that script. That doesn’t mean it’s not incredibly valuable.

So the first script I wrote was this romantic tragedy set in Boulder, Colorado. It never sold. God bless it, it should never have sold because it really is not a movie, but people read it because they could read it. And they liked it enough that it got me my first jobs, my first assignments.

Go was the first spec script that I sold, and that sold to a tiny little production company. But it was sent around all over town, so at that point I had an agent who sent it to all the studios who said, “We love the writing. We can’t make this movie.” And a little tiny company said yes and that was the start of that.

**Craig:** And that’s the case now more than ever. There once was a burgeoning spec market, not so much anymore. Occasionally still people sell specs. But more often than not the specs today are calling cards for people to advertise their talent and their abilities.

**John:** And so there are weird exceptions. Like Amazon Studios will buy things that has no agent or manager or sort of anybody representing it. But Amazon Studios is a weird, sort of special case that I wouldn’t strongly recommend to anybody.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** A question from Armin in Tehran, Iran. We have a listener in Tehran.

**Craig:** Cool!

**John:** How great is the world?

**Craig:** The world is pretty great. Iran is not so great. I just read that they are now banning women from various classes in their universities. Not cool.

**John:** Not cool at all.

**Craig:** But, you know, the other fascinating thing about Iran, and we’ll get to his question in a second, is that did you know that there are no gay people in Iran?

**John:** That’s fascinating.

**Craig:** Yeah. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assures us that there are no gay people in Iran. [laughs] It’s the one place in the world where they just don’t grow.

**John:** Yeah. Wow. They figured something out!

**Craig:** Cool guy. So, what’s the question? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] “I’m a screenwriter and I wrote some screenplays that I think have a chance to sell. Would you please help me know about ways to save my rights? As you know, unfortunately Iran isn’t under copyright law or a WTO copyright registration. So if I register my works at the WGA, how can I present them? I have a trustful friend in the USA, so is it possible to ship to him? If yes, what are the legal stages? Thanks for your attention.”

**Craig:** Oh boy. Wow.

**John:** So, way outside of our realm of experience. First off, I don’t know this to be true, so I’m taking him at his word that Iran actually doesn’t abide by copyright law. But that just kind of throws a wrench in everything.

**Craig:** It does. I mean, it may be true. There is copyright law which is country to country. And then there is essentially the Berne Convention, which is a kind of overarching regulator of copyright throughout the world, but even for instance the United States doesn’t subscribe to all the parts of the Berne Convention.

For instance, droit moral and so forth, we have work-for-hire, Europe doesn’t. Our copyright here in the United States is actually enshrined in the Constitution itself. Most people don’t know that. There’s part of the constitution that just talks about copyright. I have no idea what the situation is in Iran. I’m going to take his word for it that they don’t have any copyright protection, which seems odd to me.

And if that is the case and this person was trying to sell screenplays not in Iran, which I would imagine is the case given the situation there, then what I would do is probably send the script to, I guess, to the United States Copyright Office. Because the truth is anybody anywhere can register something with the Copyright Office in the United States. I don’t think you need to be a citizen, per se. And you would get the protections of that copyright where it applies, mainly the United States. But other people would respect it as well.

**John:** Yeah. My first line of investigation would be to figure out — there are Iranian filmmakers, and so obviously they are doing something. But, look at Iranian novelists or sort of anyone who is publishing outside of Iran and try to figure out how they’re doing what they’re doing, because they must have some copyright protection in places outside of Iran. So that would probably the first and best way to pursue — whatever they’re doing is probably the right thing to do.

US Copyright Office, certainly if a non-citizen can do that, that’s a great idea, too. Worse comes to worst, I think there might also be a way that if he has this trusted American friend — and again, this is just speculation, because it could be a work-for-hire in which the copyright vests in the employer — you could do something where potentially the person is buying it here for a nominal fee and registering that as being the owner — registering himself as being the owner of this copyrighted material.

**Craig:** You don’t actually need to do work-for-hire for that. You can transfer copyrights. The other thing is, the simplest thing if you wanted to go that route would simply be to send the script to your friend and have them register it as their own copyrighted work.

However, the purpose of copyright and all of this ultimately is to properly credit authorship. And the person who is writing the question is the author, not his friend. I have to believe somewhat that that can be protected. But, you know, this is one we’ll have to do a little research on and come back to, because that’s tricky. And I feel like I need more facts before I can answer properly.

**John:** Yeah. But I’m just excited that somebody in Iran is listening to our podcast.

**Craig:** That is fantastic, by the way. And we have here in Los Angeles we have a very large, very significant Persian community. I have a lot of Persian friends. And I am a fan of the people of Iran. Not so much the government, but the people.

**John:** We all hope for a very positive outcome in the decade to come for Iran.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** A question about following up after a meeting. So, Bin Lee writes in to ask, “By dumb luck I ran into an established Hollywood writer at an airport in Cleveland this weekend. He was very nice and gave me his email since we ran out of business cards.” We had an earlier conversation about business cards.

“The next day I sent him an email reminding him who I was and it was nice to meet him. I also asked if he was free to meet up for lunch so I could pick his brain on some topics. Was it too forward of me to ask him to meet for lunch? I know there’s a fine line between friendly and too aggressive. I’m sure he’s super busy and I’m a small fish, but let’s say he doesn’t reply to my email. How long should I wait before I try to email him again? Two weeks? One month?”

**Craig:** Well, there’s nothing wrong with asking somebody to lunch. There’s nothing particularly too forward about that. It’s only forward to presume that they must have lunch with you. And he doesn’t have to have lunch with you and he may not want to, because like you said he’s busy. I think you could always shoot him another one in a month I think is fair and just say, “Hey, doesn’t have to be lunch, by the way, maybe just coffee. Or maybe we just get on the phone for 20 minutes. I just have some questions.”

I think you should err on the side of making it as easy as possible for this person to help you.

**John:** I would agree. I would also… — The huge advantage to me for coffee is that coffee has a much more limited time commitment implicit. And so I will tend to do coffee with people who are sort of in the situation where he’s a friend of a friend who, you know, I don’t know whether this is going to be a good time or a not so good time. Coffee could be 15 minutes. It could be an hour. But it’s much less of a commitment, so that’s a helpful thing for me.

In terms of following up, I think it’s a great use of the email, that’s good initiative. If after a week you heard nothing, maybe lob another, but after two contacts and you hear nothing, let it be done, because it’s not something that’s going to… — More follow up isn’t going to make that better.

**Craig:** I totally agree. Two emails is plenty. The lack of response should be presumed to be a “no,” and while it may seem rude, and it technically is rude, the truth is I get a lot of emails from people. I don’t even know how some of them get my email. And what happens is I find myself suddenly spending an hour helping people with stuff. And I don’t have an hour sometimes.

Sometimes I have the hour, I just don’t want to do it. I just want to lie down.

**John:** Yeah, that’s fair.

Brendan writes, “My writing partner and I have recently collaborated with a director on an idea he had for a movie. It was made clear at the beginning that the director wanted a shared ‘Story by’ credit and some form of compensation since the pitch was based on his original idea. We agreed in principle to this — no contracts yet — and used the WGA residual formula to determine the percentage of any initial sale. Therefore, one-half of a ‘Story by’ credit is 12.5 percent. We then sold the pitch to a studio, and between our lawyers and studio business affairs no one can seem to come up with a clean way to execute what seems to be a standard type of situation. How does this not happen all the time? WGA says their jurisdiction begins at the written story treatment level and do not cover pitches. Any suggestions on how to proceed?”

**Craig:** Oh, boy. This sort of stuff happens all the time. The Writers Guild is correct. The problem is: What writers sell is written material; what producers sell are ideas. So, what I would suggest, since the director appears to have not written anything but rather tossed ideas around with you, gave you an idea which you then took and started to write, what I would suggest is that you take the amount of money that the studio is willing to pay you — let’s just say, we’ll call it $100,000. You take 87.5 percent of that. So you say to the studio reduce the amount you would give me for the writing by 12.5 percent. You are the only writer employed. Take that remaining money, whatever I just said, $12,500, give that to the director and pay him under a producing deal.

**John:** But here’s the problem: Ultimately if the movie gets made there’s nothing guaranteeing that director a ‘Story by’ credit when it comes to determining credits.

**Craig:** He shouldn’t have a “Story by” credit. Here’s the deal: He didn’t write it. And sometimes people get really cranky about this because they feel like, “Well but it was my idea and I talked it out and I told them what to do.” Yeah, but you didn’t write it. Trust me, pal, and I’m being mean to this guy, it’s not fair — I’ll be nice to him. Trust me, friend, [laughs], the reason that you told that thing to him and then had him write it is because writing is annoying and/or hard.

There is actually value in the writing itself. And that’s what screen credit is for. Writing credit is for written words on a page, not for ideas or thoughts. If you want to open up the notion that credit be for ideas and thoughts, everybody gets credit. You’re not the only one who is going to be asking for story credit. Why won’t the producer, the executives, the actors, everybody — the writing credit is a really specific thing. Words fixed on a page literary material.

**John:** So, I basically agree. I think Craig’s solution is probably the best solution for the situation as it exists right now. Let’s play time machine, though. If you decided at the start that this director wanted “Story by” credit, shared “Story by” credit, what you should have probably done is worked up the pitch in a written form with him involved in writing up the pitch so that he was one of the people who helped write the pitch for it. And therefore there was some literary material that you could register and say this was the underlying material behind this so that it was natural that he was going to be getting his percentage down the road, that this “Story by” credit was going to be shared between the three of you.

**Craig:** And if my solution doesn’t fly for any number of reasons, I guess the only remaining thing to do would be to resubmit the original treatment as written-by the two of you. And then the problem is solved.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It may not be true, though; in fact, it isn’t true. So the Writers Guild at that point may do something called a participating writer investigation or a pre-arbitration to make sure that you weren’t strong-armed into this sort of thing.

**John:** And it doesn’t sound like he was strong-armed. It sounds like from the very start this was the intention. And we don’t know all the facts on what this collaboration was. And maybe there were zillions of emails back and forth, and so there is writing happening on what this project was way back when. So, we’ll see.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** A question from Josh. Josh writes, “Scriptnotes has introduced me to podcasts and now I’m hungry for more. John has mentioned a few times listening to podcasts while doing dishes, so I’m wondering what other podcasts do you recommend for your listeners, either screenwriting related if there are others, or otherwise?”

So, Craig, if I recall correctly you don’t listen to any podcasts at all?

**Craig:** No. I do not listen to podcasts. I’m not a very auditory — auditorily inclined learner. I’m much more visual. So, I tend to read everything and listen to very little, except for music.

**John:** So I listen to a lot of podcasts. So, the four or five that I picked out, which I think are fantastic, which won’t be to everyone’s taste, but I recommend them so you should try them in iTunes. First is a comedy podcast called Throwing Shade with Erin Gibson and Bryan Safi. It’s absolutely filthy and it’s great fun.

Build & Analyze is a Mac iOS development centered — really iOS development centered podcast with Marco Arment that is fantastic, and Dave Benjamin.

John Gruber’s podcast I was on a couple months ago. He’s great. And so he’s been doing a podcast for quite a long time. He describes it as being the director’s commentary for Daring Fireball, his website, which is very popular and is good.

And then for all my political stuff I really love the Slate Political Gabfest, which is a weekly podcast which has three very smart people from Slate talking about three issues that are on the national stage. And so listening through the Republican primaries and sort of getting into the actual campaign season, it’s been a great source of both information and commentary about that.

For screenwriting, the only other one that I listen to with some regularity is the Nerdist Writer’s Podcast, which is actually fantastic. And so it’s a TV-focused podcast that talks to showrunners and other television writers about the craft, and it tends to be more of a roundtable setting, and it’s really great. And so we’ve talked about doing some sort of shared podcast with them at some point which hopefully in this next year will get to happen.

**Craig:** Oh, that sounds kind of cool.

**John:** Yeah. Our last question of the day is about finishing, so I thought this appropriate. Josh in LA writes, “I have a problem. And that problem is finishing a script. It may sound pathetic, but for me it’s very real and very worrisome. I have what I think are great ideas. I understand mechanics of writing and all that, but I find that during the process I either begin to dislike the idea or I’ll come up with some reason why it’s not the right script to be writing, and once that happens I’m zapped of all motivation.

“I produce a lot of material. I think it’s good material, but I seem to struggle with crossing the finish line. I have attention deficit disorder and I don’t take medication for it, which may have something to do with impatience or lack of focus, but outside of that I’m curious if this is a common problem and would be grateful to hear you or Craig give advice.”

**Craig:** I’m sorry. I just love “I have attention deficit disorder but I don’t take medication for it.” You know, maybe you do have attention deficit disorder; I don’t know. That has nothing to do with why you can’t finish your screenplay.

**John:** Not a bit.

**Craig:** If you enough attention to write 70 pages, you have enough attention to write 110 pages. The problem that you’re experiencing is very common and I would argue almost always is the result of poor planning before you start it. There is no reason that you shouldn’t know precisely what the ending of your movie is before you start writing it.

The beginning and the ending are married to each other. And the fun of writing the movie is moving from one to the other in an interesting way, taking a character from one to the other in an interesting way. So, if you don’t know how the movie ends or you lose sight of what the movie’s ending should be, it’s because you just didn’t start right. So I would suggest if you are not already doing this, you — specifically you — should outline your movie completely.

You should be able to describe the movie to somebody as if you just saw it scene by scene before you write “Fade In.”

**John:** A lot of what he’s facing I think is also the-grass-is-always-greener problem. When you are in the middle of a script, you see all the problems with your script because you’re facing them every day. And so every time you sit down to work on it, you’re bombarded by everything that’s not working right in your script.

And so there’s always going to be that shiny other idea that’s like, “Oh, well that would be a better thing for me to write because that’s all new.” It’s the pretty girl sitting over there that doesn’t have all the baggage of the girl who’s sitting in front of you.

So you are fascinated by that other thing because you are not aware of its problems. And so of course that other idea is going to look better. And you want to go off and write that one instead of the one you’re in right now.

You’ve got to finish. And what I think a lot of people don’t understand about screenwriting when they first start to work in the form is 120 pages is really long. I mean, it’s the longest thing that most people ever have to write. And it can be a challenge to get through it all. And so with good planning you’ll hopefully be able to know what the next thing is. When you encounter that second act malaise, which really I think encounter that moment of like, “Oh, I’m stuck in the middle of this and it doesn’t seem like it will ever end,” jump forward and write something else that is exciting for you to write. Write those things at the end. Write those things that got you excited about it.

And I always forget which writer first told me about this idea, but it’s a really good idea that I’ve never actually implemented but I sort of should. Right when you first get excited to write a project, when you first set out, this woman, she writes a letter to herself about how much she loves this project and why she’s writing it. She writes it. She seals it in an envelope. And then when she hits that moment where she can’t do anymore with it, she rips open the envelope and reads that letter and that helps her get through the draft.

**Craig:** Aw. She gives herself a hug.

**John:** She gives herself a big hug.

**Craig:** Aw!

**John:** Which is nice. So, I say, Josh, give yourself a big hug. Know that really every script sort of feels like it’s never going to be finished. I mean, this thing I just turned, it wasn’t that I was even struggling with the work — I wasn’t struggling with any scene or any one moment of it. I was just like, “I can never get this thing finished.” But then I got it finished and it’s mostly just sitting down, or in my case standing up, and doing the work.

**Craig:** Yeah. You certainly can’t let despair stop you. If you let despair stop you — if everyone who wrote screenplays let despair stop them, your multiplex would be empty.

**John:** Yup. And with that, I want to talk about One Cool Things. Do you have a One Cool Thing this week?

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

**John:** I hope ours isn’t the same thing. I worry that it might be the same thing.

**Craig:** There’s not a chance.

**John:** Okay, good.

**Craig:** You go first.

**John:** My one cool thing is a book trailer for a book by Derek Haas, who is a friend of both of ours.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, I liked his book trailer.

**John:** It’s a good book trailer. So, Derek Haas is a very prolific screenwriter and now a TV writer, and he has a new show, Chicago Fire, on NBC which was advertised incessantly during the Olympics. I felt like the Olympics were on fire how often they were showing that commercial. He writes with a writing partner, Michael Brandt, but he also by himself writes books.

And I don’t know how he does it. It’s some sort of drug that lets him just create a tremendous amount of words. But he has a new book coming out this fall called The Right Hand. And there is a trailer for the book which is actually really good. They did a great job with it.

And I’m not sure I completely believe in trailers for books, but this kind of sells me on it, because it feels like this is a spy novel and I see sort of why a person might see this and think, “Wow, I’d see that movie. Since the movie doesn’t exist yet I’ll read this book.”

So, in the show notes you’ll see a link to The Right Hand, a book by Derek Haas.

**Craig:** Excellent. Yeah. It’s very cool. And Derek is a good guy. I just, in fact, came back from lunch with him.

**John:** Ah.

**Craig:** He’s my friend. I have a Cool Thing this week that I don’t understand. And I think one of the great things about this podcast is that while ostensibly it’s about us helping people, I feel like we have this amazing cohort of listeners out there who are really smart. And I notice in the comments and tweets and things, sometimes they’re just a step ahead of us on some things. And I feel like somebody, one of our listeners, is going to be able to explain to me, because I’m so fascinated by it.

So there was this really cool article in Gizmodo, a website I love, and it was titled The Algorithm that Controls Your Life. Did you read this, John?

**John:** I did not.

**Craig:** It’s really cool. Okay. So an algorithm is basically a decision-making chart. It’s just a way of approaching how to make decisions and determine outcomes. And so, for instance, “A fund manager,” I’m reading from the article, “a fund manager might want to arrange a portfolio optimally to balance risk and expected return over a range of stocks. Or, a railway timetabler wants to decide how to best roster staff for trains. Or a factory manager tries to work out how to juggle finite machine resources. This is the job of the algorithm.”

There is one algorithm that emerged in the ’40s from the work of a mathematician here in the United States named George Dantzig. And his job back then was to increase the logistical efficiency of the US Air Force, a pretty mundane kind of problem. But what he came up with was an algorithm that is represented by something called a polytope; it’s basically a chart — a pathway decision chart. And it’s this kooky looking sort of — it looks like a weird gem almost. And his particular algorithm was called the simplex algorithm.

And it turns out that the simplex algorithm is the most useful algorithm of all. And it is used in everything — search engines, how food gets to the market, everything. One academic quoted in the article says, “Tens or hundreds of thousands of calls of the simplex method are made every minute.”

So, to you out there: What is this? [laughs] I need to know. I need you to explain the simplex algorithm and I need to understand how an algorithm is represented by a shape and why this one is so powerful.

**John:** That’s great. That’s a great call to action, because I think we have some very smart listeners who will be able to describe it in terms that are not necessarily layman, but smart-but-not-maybe-gear-heady people can understand. That would be great.

**Craig:** Yeah. I just love that there’s some dude in the ’40s who came up with a shape and the shape is controlling our lives. [laughs] It’s so cool. And I need to understand how. So thank you. Thank you, unnamed person.

**John:** I find all these kinds of optimization and sort of, you know, trying to look at how decisions are made fascinating. So, economics, I loved taking the classes but none of it really stuck. Like supply and demand stuck, but the bigger implications of it always sort of went over my head. And so I like that people understand it. I guess I trust that people understand it. Sometimes I have moments of doubt that where I think that people are sort of just making stuff up. But it’s neat.

**Craig:** The fun thing about economics — and I’m with you by the way, exactly with you; I understand basic concepts but then once they leap past those I’m gone — but economics is one of the few areas of academic study where no one seems to agree at all. It’s almost to the point where it’s useless. I mean, there’s a predominance of people who believe that something is true in terms of medicine or biology or physics.

I mean, most physicists believe that the Higgs boson was real. Some didn’t. But most did. Economics, it just seems like, well, you’ve got Vienna over here and you’ve got the other one over there. [laughs] Keynes. And they just don’t agree at all. And they argue all the time.

**John:** Well the trouble becomes is you’re trying to control — it all looks really pretty on a chart, but in the real world you are controlling for so many variables; you really can’t say whether that had this impact or had this impact. So, did raising that marginal tax rate make this change, or did it have all of these other manifestations in ways that you can’t have anticipated? So, that’s where I get confused.

And so it’s always fun to talk about, “oh, guns and butter,” but then when you actually really drill down and get into more specifics it’s not as simple or fun.

**Craig:** I feel like psychology is a bit like that, too. Psychology is so open-ended. It can almost account for any outcome. Any one theory can account for any outcome which makes all of it useless.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But not the simplex algorithm. That will someday tell us what to do. I think it already is, actually.

**John:** Yeah. Right now. It has told us that it is time to end this podcast.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** Craig, thank you for a fun year of Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** And here’s to many more. We should have a little cake. We should make a little cake and give it to our microphones.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** The microphone is one year old. So cute!

**John:** Which microphone are you using, by the way?

**Craig:** I use the same one you do, the AT2020.

**John:** It has a little glowing blue light.

**Craig:** The glowing blue light.

**John:** It makes me so happy.

**Craig:** Yeah. The glowing blue light is very comforting.

**John:** Craig, thank you again. Talk to you next week.

**Craig:** Thank you. You got it.

Scriptnotes, Ep 51: Dashes, ellipses and underground monsters — Transcript

August 24, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/dashes-ellipses-and-underground-monsters).

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

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

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

Craig, I have kind of a big agenda for us today.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** I thought we might answer four questions and do three samples of the Three Page Challenge.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** Are you up for it?

**Craig:** I’m always up for it.

**John:** Great. Let’s get right to it. This is a question from Bianca in Ann Arbor. She writes, “I’m moving to Los Angeles in a few months and I’ve already got a final interview lined up for an assistant position at a top 4 agency. I’ve already had the first interview. I want to be a writer and I have a short film I’d like to direct. A friend of mine says I should skip the assistant job and get a steady 9 to 5 non-industry job so I can have more time and money to work on my writing and directing. I wanted your honest opinion: Am I better off pursuing an entry level industry job with long hours and low wages so I can make contacts and learn how the business works, or should I get a steady 9 to 5 job outside the industry that leaves more time for writing and directing? I’m not sure which way to go.”

**Craig:** I am. [laughs]

**John:** What’s your opinion?

**Craig:** I’m super sure which way to go. You should go work at the agency. Of course. Of course. Look, yeah, it’ll be long hours. But, did she say how old she was?

**John:** She did not. My guess is she is kind of immediately post-college.

**Craig:** Okay great. So, guess what? You’re bulletproof and immortal and you can work a lot longer hours than I can. You don’t have a family, you don’t have children. You’re going to work. Yeah, of course. But the point is by working at an agency you are going to have people to give your script to. You’re going to have access to people who represent the best writers, actors, directors in the world. You will not get any of that working at TJ Maxx. I’m sorry. I don’t understand your friend’s advice at all. It makes no sense to me.

I’m sorry you might be a little tired. Yeah, tough. That’s called breaking into the business. Your friend could not be wrongerer.

**John:** Here’s where I think the friend has the right instinct but isn’t sort of putting all the pieces together: Bianca is moving from Ann Arbor. She probably doesn’t know a lot about how the film industry works. She probably doesn’t have a lot of contacts. She would get both those things working at an agency.

She would also have a tremendous amount of stress and long hours and she probably wouldn’t get as much creative work done for the first year that she’s in Los Angeles. Maybe that’s okay, because the tradeoffs, the things she would get out of it, are pretty great.

Should she stay in a very busy industry job she despises after a year or so of experience? Maybe not. And I think there does come a point in time where if you really are going to be a writer-director, if you’re really going to be trying to do that stuff, you can’t have an agent-assistant job and still be working on being a writer-director. There could be a place in your early career where you have to sort of pull the rip cord, get a boring job, and just buckle down and write. But that’s not when you’re first moving to Los Angeles.

**Craig:** Yeah. 100 percent. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. And I want to add another thing: Right now you think you want to be a writer-director. No, no, right now — I take it back. You do want to be a writer-director, but the point is you don’t really know what writing and directing professionally means exactly.

One of the interesting things that happens when people move to Los Angeles and get involved in the entertainment business is they suddenly find that there are 50 different things to do. And their skill set, their passion level, may change. What we see in front of us affects what we’re going to do.

I didn’t come out here to be a screenwriter. I just kind of found it and it was exciting. But really I came out with a very open mind. Some people do come out to be screenwriters and that’s exactly what they become. Some people want to be producers that become screenwriters. Some people want to be screenwriters that become directors.

But the point is access, friends, people that you can show your work to, people who can help you find financing — frankly, these are the things that set apart most people from the hundreds or thousands behind them who just have a script. So, I strongly urge you to take the agency job.

**John:** Yeah. Is there a chance you could become trapped in an agency job and not fulfill your dreams of writing and directing? Yes. But you would have trapped yourself. And you can’t be voluntarily trapped, so you can always leave the job if it’s not what you need it to be.

I moved out to Los Angeles to come to film school at USC. I got into a producers’ program, so I was learning sort of the nuts and bolts of the business, everything from contract negotiation to scheduling and budgeting. And development was part of it, but my whole life plan wasn’t to be a writer-director. I kind of knew I would write, but I didn’t know what it was. And that’s the place that you’re at right now. You don’t know what it is that you’re really going to end up doing. So why not go someplace where you can see as much as you possibly can, read a ton of scripts, and figure out what you want to do?

**Craig:** Yeah. For sure.

**John:** Next question. Mike writes, “I work on a TV writing staff where one of the junior writers rather brazenly bragged about writing during the WGA strike.” So, the great WGA strike of a couple of years ago. “She thought it was highly amusing that she wrote for studios at night while picketing during the day. Needless to say, no one else found this amusing. I’m very curious what you or Craig would do in the situation, which unfortunately probably happens more than anyone would like. Should I call the WGA? Should I talk to her one-on-one about how her selfish, self-centered actions affect others? Just forget she ever said it and move on?”

**Craig:** Boy. I mean, look, I have no, not one ounce of sympathy for somebody who was scabbing during the strike. I mean, if they’re a WGA member and they’re writing for signatories during a strike, I loathe them. I loathe them.

Yes, I think there is an excellent case to be made that you should pick up a phone and call the Guild and tell them what you heard. I don’t like — we all have a kind of “don’t be a tattle tale, don’t be a rat” built into us. I don’t think talking to her directly is going to do a damn thing. She’s already made herself and her position clear. I’m not sure what talking to her is going to do other than maybe she’ll think twice when the next strike rolls around?

No, I think that frankly there is a case to be made that, yeah, you pick up the phone and call the guild. I don’t like it any more than you do, but if we’re going to strike and people are going to do this, I mean, what’s the point? How do I turn around and tell somebody who’s barely hanging on, “Yeah, don’t write,” because we’re all in this together except for that person.

**John:** I think my overall concern… — I have two concerns. One is that this writer evidently did scab and write during the strike. Sort of my bigger, more immediate concern is that she’s bragging about it, and which to me sets a very dangerous culture of expectations so that, “Oh, it’s fine.” If you sort of let that go unchallenged like, “Oh, it’s fine that you did that.” If you don’t say anything, it’s sort of tacit approval. So I think having the conversation with the staff, “That’s not cool,” is make sure that everyone who has heard this conversation understands why that’s really not cool.

And then, listen, I don’t know your position on the staff, I don’t know her position on the staff. I don’t know sort of how it all works there. But I would say, “You know what, that’s not cool.” If nothing else it will probably shut her up from saying that again and again and setting this expectation that what she did was okay.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s important to make sure that she actually was scabbing. Because she’s an assistant, there’s a chance here in my mind that she actually wasn’t a Writers Guild member. If she wasn’t a Writers Guild member, she was not — I mean, she was essentially hurting the strike, but she wasn’t breaking any rules.

**John:** Well it says here, it doesn’t say that she was an assistant during that time. It says, “One of the junior writers rather brazenly…”

**Craig:** Oh, junior writer. Oh, I’m sorry. I heard wrong. Well then I’m going to presume that she was a member of the Writers Guild. So I do agree that, yes, everybody else in that room needs to know that’s not cool. Frankly, I would think about firing her for sure because that’s disgusting to me. And then on top of that I would call the Guild. I hate to say it, but yeah.

**John:** Next question from Sean. “When writing slug lines for scenes that take place in a high school, is it acceptable to write, for instance, ‘INT. HIGH SCHOOL — STAIRWAY — DAY?’ Or it preferable just to write ‘INT. HIGH SCHOOL STAIRWELL — DAY?’ The majority of the film takes place in a school, so it seemed to make sense to specify the exact area of the school in the slug line. I’m just not sure which or either is the correct approach.”

**Craig:** How would you go about that? I mean, I know what I would do.

**John:** If most of the movie is taking place at the high school, to me I would cut the “high school” out of it at a certain point.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Because it would just become an extra sort of cruft on the page. There are times where I will do the specifiers where you talk about the general location — dash — the specifying location inside that. But that’s usually if it’s going to be… — You’re always thinking about the reader. What’s going to make most sense for the reader? Is the reader going to get confused if I don’t do it this way?

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right. If most of the movie is set in this high school, or a long sequence is set in the high school moving around within different locations inside the high school, once you’ve established that you’re definitely in the high school it’s okay to just lose that part and just say INT. STAIRWAY, INT. HALLWAY, INT. PRINCIPAL’S OFFICE, INT. CLASSROOM.

The second you leave the high school when you come back you’ve got to do high school again. The whole point of the slug line stuff, at least initially, is to make sure the reader knows where the hell they are. There is no slavish need to follow some kind of orthodoxy. Eventually when the movie goes into production, if there’s any question or concern from the first AD they will come and ask you, “Is this is the high school or…?”

But, I mean, everybody should be able to get it. So, clarity should be the rule of the day.

**John:** Absolutely. So, clarity for the reader. Simplicity for the reader. Ultimately you’re trying to avoid ambiguity for production so that if it says INT. HALLWAY, “Wait, is it the hallway of the high school or is it the hallway of the house?” You have to sort that stuff out. But at this stage, generally the shorter slug line is going to be the better choice.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** Next question is not really a question. It’s one of those things that it’s sort of phrased like a question, but at the end it’s just, “So what do you think?” So it’s really more of a statement.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s a little essay?

**John:** It’s a small essay with a question mark at the end.

**Craig:** [laughs] Oh, okay.

**John:** But I thought I would bring it up because it’s a guy who wrote in before and I thought it made interesting points that we can talk about. Tucker writes, “From where I sit the business looks like it’s in real trouble. The business model itself seems broken, especially on the creative side. Making big, dumb, loud movies to build international franchises is fine if people buy tickets and like the product. The problem is they don’t and they aren’t. This has been a bad year at theaters; attendance is in a major downturn.”

So I’m going to pause here for one second because I want to challenge the thesis of that second part which I think it’s reported a lot really without backup. So the idea that the business is down a lot isn’t really… — It’s harder to defend that. If you actually look at the year to date, this year versus previous years, going up through — we’re recording this on August 15th. I pulled it up on Box Office Mojo.

Year to date we’re at $7.1 billion for 2012 versus $6.8 billion in 2011. So we’re actually $300 million ahead of where we were this time last year, so you can’t say that the business is down. You can say that attendance is probably down. I don’t have it broken down by the months, but overall ticket purchases have dropped since the high in 2002, so that is true to say that it’s down. But I get frustrated by the articles that sort of preface themselves saying, “Everybody knows the movie industry is falling apart,” when in fact by the actual dollar figures it isn’t down.

So, that’s my pause.

**Craig:** I agree with your pause. I have more to say, but go ahead, keep reading.

**John:** Tucker continues, “And I feel there is a perfect storm going on. The studios need to make big bets on big franchises that makes big committees come together to manage the creative, and there are all these Hollywood pros and execs in a grip of fear from the bleeding the business is going through, and that fear makes us play either safe or stupid, so the product lacks innovation and freshness and passion. And the public notices and stays away.”

So, let’s go back to the pause.

**Craig:** Wait. Wait. Where was the question?

**John:** Oh, I had cut out the part of the question which was the, “What do you guys think?”

**Craig:** [laughs] Ah, if that was the question I would give him a… — Look, I think that he’s half right. There’s no question that the business has become obsessed with big, loud franchise event movies. They are convincing themselves that event movies are the business of movies and that that’s where all the money is going to be. Event movies lend themselves to 3D and IMAX, which allows everyone to greedily pull down higher ticket prices.

And they are doing that in part to supplant the disappearance or the continuing disappearance of the DVD market. Where he’s wrong is that people are absolutely still showing up. No question. You can’t look at The Avengers — which I think would be a prime example of what he would call big and loud, because it is big and loud, it’s an enormous, big, loud movie, although I liked it —

**John:** It’s not dumb. It’s very popcorn, but it’s not dumb.

**Craig:** It’s not dumb. I mean, look: when he says “dumb,” I don’t know what he thinks dumb is. I don’t know if he thinks dumb is anything that’s big. I don’t know what he thinks dumb is. All I can say is you can’t look at what The Avengers did and go, “Oh yeah, the movie business doesn’t work anymore and people don’t want to go see this stuff.”

They absolutely want to see it. And frankly international audiences want to see it just as much if not more so than domestic audiences. So, really part of what’s going on in Hollywood is that they’ve decided that there’s a certain kind of movie that they should make. And it’s not that the audiences are rewarding them. It’s just that the audiences are failing to punish them for it. I don’t recognize that the movie business is floundering. They still pack ’em in, all over the world.

I absolutely recognize that the movie business is under-serving a certain market. And they seem to have forgotten that you can still make a lot of money making a certain kind of movie that isn’t the big, huge, loud spectacle.

**John:** Yeah. A lot of what we talk about on the podcast comes from the perspective of screenwriters who are trying to write the movies that will three years down the road become the big movies. And as the studios have pursued these big giant tent poles, my frustration which I think you share is that a lot of times the decision is basically, “We’re going to make this movie come hell or high water. We will throw a director at it. We’ll throw an actor on it. And somehow we’ll make it happen.” And they are not actually developing movies to shoot anymore. They’re just trying to… — They’re writing a one sheet and figuring out what a trailer is and then trying to make the movies to match that.

That is absolutely true, and that’s a frustration of content creation and the process early on. But as far as what is actually hitting in theaters right now, I don’t think that’s really entirely fair to be slamming the movies that are coming out right now. Often when people talk about like, “Oh, the movie business is doomed,” they try to bring up John Carter from earlier this year. And there’s nothing at all cynical about John Carter. I saw John Carter. I mean, John Carter is a big, goofy, delightful film.

I wish it had made a lot more money, but it’s not indicative of some sort of, like, Hollywood falling apart. Yes, it was really expensive. You can talk about it being really probably too expensive. But you can’t say that it was trying to be this big, dumb movie when it was kind of a swing for the fences. And so I kind of wish we would reward the chance that it took, or acknowledge the risk that was taken on John Carter, and not be slamming it for its simplicity.

**Craig:** John Carter is the worst example for people to use. The fact is when people think about risk they are completely upside down on the reality. They think that small independent movies take on this enormous financial risk and studio films aren’t risky at all. It’s the opposite.

The little independent movies, people have to understand this: They don’t get made unless… — not unless — often unless the financiers can pre-sell that movie overseas. So if the movie is going to cost $5 million and it’s this little beautiful, not loud, not noisy, not dumb art film, they’re not making it for $5 million unless they know ahead of time, “I’ve actually already sold this movie overseas based on who’s in it, or who the director is, for $5 million.”

“When we start to make this movie, I’m even. There’s no risk there.” That’s that model. And then it really is just about, “Okay, can we make a little bit of money, or a decent amount of money, or a lot of money for the effort?” And that’s that model.

When you look at John Carter, that’s a company that decides, “We’re going to spend $300 million just on the production alone. We’re going to make a movie that is based on a book no one has read, and almost no one has heard of, Edgar Rice Burroughs. We’re going to hire a director that is brilliant but has no live action track record whatsoever. And we’re going to let him make his movie.”

I’m sorry. Yeah, it didn’t work out. Okay? They don’t always work out. But to me, John Carter is an example of studio bravery.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And so when people bring up John Carter I go, no, no, no, that’s not the problem. The problem is Battleship. That’s the problem.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I say that as somebody who is friends with a number of people who were involved. But the issue with Battleship is when you take something and you make it for too much money because you think the audience wants it, because they know the name or the word but there’s really nothing there.

I mean, look, John Carter is a novel. It was literature. I mean, I can’t say it’s great literature, but Burroughs is no slouch. Whereas Battleship was just pegs. It was pieces of plastic that were sold to us as children. And there is no narrative inherent to it. So, let’s not blame John Carter. But let’s also not engage in this pointless sort of… — I always smell resentment underneath these essays, like, “Good, the fat cats are dying. And now it will be time for the YouTubers to take over the world.”

No. Sorry. People still go to movies. I wish it were easier for $30 million comedies that are interesting to get made. I do. And it’s hard. But, you know, the same producer that made Battleship made Identity Thief. He’s a good guy. He sees that there are plays on both ends of the spectrum.

And so I would love to see Hollywood kind of be a little less pie-eyed about these big huge movies, especially when they can get you in trouble like this, you know, the World War Z movie that’s…

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** …you know, they’re going to have to do a lot of reshoots and a lot of money because they have so much into it. But, no, I don’t think we should be dancing on… — If you want to dance on the corpse of Hollywood, don’t dance with glee. Because I’ll tell you what, buddy: when this thing goes down, nothing will take its place, not like this.

**John:** I think the only time… I’m trying to think of examples of where you can really fault Hollywood cynicism. And Battleship does feel like one of those cases because Battleship was made kind of for the wrong reasons. To me they were clearly chasing Transformers. It felt like Transformers on water. And I wasn’t rooting against the movie, but I was concerned on those levels.

I see DC Comics/Warner Brothers trying to emulate the success of The Avengers and trying to put together the whole super group of their heroes, and that feels.. — I can’t help but feel that that seems a little cynical. “Well that worked for them, so we should do it with our group.”

It’s like, well, but there was something really inherently right about doing it the way Marvel did it, and it was tremendously risky and, god bless them, they took the risk and they made it. But I’m concerned that they’re going to spend $600 million, $800 million trying to assemble these heroes to make this movie that I’m not sure that we definitely need to make.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s possible. Certainly Hollywood, this is nothing new. They’ve always chased success. There’s a movie coming out about 21 year olds who have a hangover night. There is also a movie about 70 year olds who have a hangover night. [laughs] And there’s the DC one, Justice League, I think.

They have done this throughout history. A big movie comes out and then people make movies like that movie. They’ve been doing that since I got into the business. There’s no trend here. That’s standard operating procedure. Mind you, not only in this business, in every business.

Look around at smartphones and find me one that isn’t a rip-off of the iPhone. Everyone in every business does this. Absolutely normal. But, of course, it’s the people that innovate successfully and first, I guess that’s sort of inherent in the word innovate who really reap the benefits and the rewards.

And I have to say, year after year, while things get creaky and maybe things get really, really top heavy, there are always good movies that come out. There are always movies that take us by surprise and that we really like. And I just feel like if you’re going to take a look at the business, look at it objectively and leave the resentment out f it. Because I don’t hate Hollywood. I love it. I love it enough to say, “Stop doing dumb stuff like A, B, and C, and do more smart stuff like D, E, and F.”

But I do love it. I love movies and I love Hollywood.

**John:** Yeah. Schadenfreude helps nobody. And it’s sort of a cliché, but a rising tide lifts all boats. And you want the box office to be really good because then they’re going to be spending more money to make more movies. It does actually help everybody if my movies succeed.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** All right. I’m ready for our Three Page Challenges if you are ready to start?

**Craig:** Heck yeah. Gosh yes.

**John:** Let’s start with Terrance Mulloy’s one. It’s the one that starts in New York City. It doesn’t have a title.

**Craig:** You’re going to hear pages rustling around because I printed it out again, John.

**John:** You did? That’s fine. You’re allowed to print.

**Craig:** I know you hate that.

**John:** So while you’re rustling through your pages, I will give a quick summary of what Terrance’s script is about. I should say that if you are interested in reading any of these Three Page Challenges that people sent in, they are all linked to on johnaugust.com. You can go to the podcast section and read the screenplays along with us. So, we can pause here for a moment so you can do that.

**Craig:** Pausing.

**John:** Pausing. This is Terrance Mulloy’s script. And I want to thank our three people who wrote in and volunteered to have us be talking about their things on air. That was very generous of you.

So, here’s Terrance:

So we have establishing shots of New York City. We then descend through the concrete and into a subway tunnel where two MTA maintenance workers are walking and talking. They talk about chili and try to figure out where they are on this map. They get off the tracks and the train goes passed, or sort of rushes, blasts passed. And one of them sees a human shape hop down into a hole. After the train passes, they investigate, thinking it’s maybe a homeless person, but it’s not.

And one guy gets his throat ripped out as we get to the end of page three. So it’s some sort of monstrous creature is in the subway tunnel.

**Craig:** Underneath Manhattan.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** These pages were… — Nothing wrong with the way they were written. Everything seemed okay. The dialogue was sort of fine in its craft. Everything here was fine except that I’ve seen this a billion times.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** There’s no invention here really. I mean, if you were to say to anybody, “Can you write a scene like the one you’ve seen a million times in the horror/monster movies where two guys are just innocently walking along in the darkness, doing their job, chitchatting about nothing, and then suddenly a monster kills one of them and the other one goes, ‘Oh my god!'” It would be this. It’s incredibly generic. So, I’m not sure what else to say.

You can’t ignore the 14,000 movies that have come before you. You have to really surprise us.

**John:** Yeah. I feel like with this, the conventions, it’s following the conventions so closely that I wanted to see some pushback, because by the bottom of page one I kind of knew what was going to happen. Like, if we are descended down into the subway and two people are just walking and talking and doing normal stuff, the minute I see, like, a shadowy creature move by it’s like, “Well, I know exactly what movie this is.”

And so if you’re going to give us that shadowy creature walking by, surprise us somehow. Let us know that there’s something — there’s a reason that something different is going to be happening, that you’re aware of the conventions. I mean, it doesn’t have to be Scream where it’s meta conventions, but you need to surprise us a little bit more than I felt like we were getting in these three pages.

I would say overall I was more curious about the story than I was about the writing. And sometimes you can write something that’s kind of conventional, but if it was really, really well-written that could serve you very well. Here the writing, it was only okay. It was doing what it needed to do. There were some significant typos that I wanted to point out.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We had an “it’s” and “its” problem.

**Craig:** That kills me.

**John:** Yeah. So the possessive “its” is just I-T-S. There’s no apostrophe. And it doesn’t make sense, but it’s just how English works. “Chili” has one L. And then I want to talk about these two MTA workers who throughout the three pages are MTA Worker #1 and MTA Worker #2.

**Craig:** I got so confused. I didn’t even know who was dead at one point.

**John:** Yeah. So here’s the thing: It’s fine to say MTA Worker, but if you’re going to have two of them and they’re going to be talking for more than two lines, just give them actual names. I think they should probably have last names, so one is Ramirez and one is Jones. It doesn’t kind of really matter. You don’t have to get into great detail and you don’t have to write up whole backstories on them. But just so we can keep them straight, because there’s a lot of times in the scene description where like, “MTA Worker #1 stops to survey through his surroundings.” But it’s like, “Wait, which one is that? Is it the guy who said this, the guy who said that?”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Give us some actual names so that we can focus on that a little bit more.

**Craig:** Yeah. You get trapped in the garden of “he”s and “she”s where you’re not sure to whom the pronoun is referring. And also, I’ve got to tell you: if you write the script well enough and somebody wants to make this, sooner or later some casting lady is going to be calling going, “Um, MTA Worker #1, white, back, tall, short?”

**John:** That’s where Ramirez saves your ass. It’s like, boom, helps you figure it out.

**Craig:** Yeah. Give us something. I mean, but in general I can’t… — You’re right, if for instance, there are ways where you can sort of say, “You know what? The pot of this movie is going to be incredibly generic. What’s going to be interesting is the speech of the people in it. I’m going to go Tarantino on this,” if you want. And sometimes that works. But this sort of had generic… — It just felt like kind of one of those movies, you’re flipping around late at night, and then suddenly there’s this sort of generic never-was-released monster movie starring somebody that might have been on TV once. There’s nothing to it to make me go, “Ah, cool.”

**John:** Yeah. Syfy Channel does originals of those now.

**Craig:** Yeah, even the monster. I’m like, “Okay, so it’s a pale Gollumy dude. It’s C.H.U.D.” You know what I mean?

**John:** I’m actually fine with it if it’s unapologetically that. But maybe it needs to acknowledge what it is a little. I don’t know, it felt like it wasn’t quite acknowledging what it was yet. Granted, it was only three pages so maybe there was a remarkable twist on page 6 that we see that actually there is a bigger thing happening. But I don’t necessarily have faith…

**Craig:** Yeah. There wasn’t even a sense of campiness to it, like, “Okay, that’s where the fun is going to come in. This thing is going to be just over the top and sicko,” or something. It just felt very down the middle.

**John:** So, there was a question that came in this week and I thought I would not actually raise the question because we could talk about it here just on these pages, which is the difference between ellipses and double dashes, because this is a script that uses a lot of ellipses. And so it uses them — it never really ends sentences. There’s just a lot of “…” and “…” and it’s a style. You see a lot of screenwriters that use it, and it’s absolutely fine.

It’s not a style I particularly care for, but it’s certainly a style. So, if you’re trailing off the end of a sentence that’s leading into a line of dialogue, often you’ll see, often I will use “…” so it sort of flows into the next line of dialogue. So this is going from scene description into dialogue. Dashes also work. The Wibberleys are big dash uses. And so there’s a script that they worked on, that I worked on, that they worked on, and every time it went back and forth one of the first things we would ever do is change all their dashes to ellipses, and all the ellipses to dashes.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** Either one is fine. If you pick a style and you like it, that’s great. This guy is using “…” and it’s not a way I would do it, but it reads fine.

**Craig:** I didn’t mind it. I always say about these things: if the three pages had been really interesting and gripping, I wouldn’t have cared less. I will say that I tend to use “…” the way you do, to trail off things and then to break up things inside a paragraph if I’m sort of reporting. “He turns. Oh my god, a shot — ” Then I’ll do “–” because the “…”s somehow get a little…they look a little cluttery on the page. It makes my eyes hurt a little bit.

But it’s not really… — If somebody is writing a great script and they want to “…” the hell out of it, have fun.

**John:** Yeah. Either one is okay with us.

I’m trying to think of other last notes on this. The first bit of dialogue in a script is really crucial because that gives us a sense of the tone and sort of what kind of movie this is. Right now they’re having a discussion on chili con carne with garlic, and it just wasn’t great. And there’s probably a great version of this kind of conversation. Basically, if we’re laughing because what they’re saying is so funny then the horror stuff is great. But if it’s just so two people talking, it’s not going to really work for us.

**Craig:** Yeah. The only other suggestion I would make, just something to think about: I read once that Spielberg likes to find within the first image or the first few images something that’s thematically symbolic to the movie, to the guts of the movie.

I think the opening shot of Schindler’s List is a woman praying over a candle, and we just see the smoke kind of going up in the air and the whole thing, it’s like, “This is life, it burns and then it goes to smoke and it’s gone. It’s that fragile.” And I always thought that was a really interesting idea. And a lot of times I do try and think, “Well, what is that first thing I see?”

Now here it’s a trick, and it’s a trick we’ve seen, again, a billion times, where we do the macro to micro bit, where we fly down into Manhattan, and then we’re into people, and then we’re underground. But really all that’s done is say, “Look, there’s stuff underground Manhattan.” Yeah. We know. We know about the subway. [laughs]

So then the question is: what else could you do? I mean, is it two guys walking underneath and one of them sees like a bug and crushes it? Something where we get a sense that maybe there’s a bit of hubris that we think that we’re in charge here and actually there is this whole world underneath us that’s pissed off and ready to revolt?

Just find something that makes it visually significant. This to me was just, again, a very generic, technical trick. It was empty aesthetics.

**John:** It felt like the compulsory exercises in figure skating. It did its circle 8s, and it did a good job in circle 8s, but it wasn’t expressive in a way that could be awesome.

**Craig:** It was not a Triple Lutz.

**John:** No Triple Lutz there. There was no Lutz at all.

Next, let’s go to Trunk by Mario DiPesa. Here’s a synopsis of Trunk. So, we start at a tranquil lake and then suddenly a car plunges into it and sinks. Then we get a card that reads “Seconds Before.” We’re in a new scene. We see the car parked at the edge of a cliff. There’s a driver at the wheel. He looks at two bodies in the car. The police come up from behind, tell him to surrender. Then he drives the car off the cliff into the lake, so the thing we just saw before.

A new card that says “Minutes Earlier.” We see the car racing down a road pursued by the police. The men in the car are shooting at the cops who shoot back. And we have some dialogue among the men. And that’s the three pages.

**Craig:** Yeah. So you figure out pretty quickly that we’re doing a reverse narrative here. I presume that once we see that three scenes have now occurred moving backwards through time that we’re in Memento-ville.

And obviously that’s the first thing that people are going to read is, “Oh, okay, so we’re Memento-ing some kind of heist or criminal move that’s gone bad and we’re ending with a death and going backwards to see how it all starts.” And that’s, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that.

**John:** I don’t know. I’m not convinced…

**Craig:** If it works, and it’s great. Memento is so good and it’s so good at that, and there’s also that great Gaspar Noé, I mean, it’s kind of a sick Gaspar Noé movie called…

**John:** Irreversible?

**Craig:** …Irreversible, I believe. So, okay, you know, the reader will have to either be into that or not into that, and there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s your deal.

I like the way that this writer wrote. I thought the description was well done, because I didn’t get bored and I didn’t get lost in it. And I thought it was a nice mix of poetic but not purple. I was infuriated on page 2 when there was a type in dialogue.

**John:** That was terrible.

**Craig:** I mean, if you’re going to do the its/it’s thing in action, or you’re going to do something in action, I get it. But in dialogue, that’s just embarrassing.

**John:** You’re talking about, “Comes out now, this is your final warning.”

**Craig:** Yeah! I mean, guys, you’re only sending us three pages. We’re not asking you to proofread with a fine tooth comb 120 pages. At least read the three pages you’re sending. It’s embarrassing to you, because we’re going to make fun of you and embarrass you. [laughs] So don’t do that.

I also thought the dialogue, I liked the dialogue in the sense that it seemed very simple and realistic to the moment of what was going on. It was certainly not over-written. I’ll take under-written any day of the week when people are driving from cops, and wounded, and bleeding, and trying to get away.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, a lot of good things here to say.

**John:** I liked it too. I don’t know that this time conceit is actually going to stay for the whole movie. I feel like this may be a setup kind of thing and once, at a certain point we may not be moving backwards in time. So I’m curious whether that’s going to happen. And my curiosity is partly what would keep me reading more of the script.

So, I liked the technique and I thought it was sort of well-handled. I felt like if the driver is going to have a name he should have it by now. So right now the driver is just called Driver. And maybe that’s fine. I think he’s probably our main character. I think we’re going to follow him through the whole movie. If that’s the case, and he’s going to have a name at any point in the movie, he should have his name by now.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Maybe it’s Drive and he doesn’t have a name. And that’s fine. Maybe it’s actually a sequel to Drive.

My theory with the typo is I’m not convinced that Mario DiPesa is a native English speaker. While it’s well-written, there are some strange choices that to me indicated that English may not be his only language. On page 2 he says, “Shifts the car’s gear.” What is it, “He shifts the car’s gear.” That isn’t sort of the way we would actually say that.

**Craig:** I guess. But then so much of this other stuff feels, I mean, I agree that that’s a little awkward, but I mean a lot of this stuff feels like, the action stuff, it’s hard to imagine this isn’t somebody that speaks English.

**John:** I think he speaks English, but something feels a little wrong. Also on page 2, “Wheels SCREECH as dust fills the air behind the car.” Fills the air behind the car? That seems like it’s coming from a different language.

**Craig:** I’ve got to tell you, [laughs] if this guy isn’t foreign he’s putting a gun in his mouth right now.

**John:** He’s just mortified right now. Maybe he’s special.

**Craig:** I don’t know. But, “The car bobs like a cork for a brief moment, then slowly sinks.” That’s very colloquial.

**John:** But, and then in the next paragraph; this is a style thing which isn’t an English speaker or not, but first page: “Water explodes like a thousand broken mirrors. The car bobs like a cork for a brief moment, then slowly sinks.” The double simile isn’t the most graceful. They have two likes back to back. That’s not ideal.

So, we’re “like a thousand broken mirrors” and “like a cork” back to back. It feels a little less graceful

**Craig:** That I agree with. That’s the sort of thing you want to kind of comb through and not do, but that’s not indicative of not speaking English. That’s just indicative of…

**John:** Well I will say that if Mario DiPesa, if you do speak English natively I apologize for implying that you didn’t, but I think you’re a much better writer in English than many people are. Anyway, so…

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s terrible.

**John:** No! I’m saying…

**Craig:** Because I really do think he is. I think he’s American and I think he’s like so a better writer than people, than you are in French.

**John:** Oh my god. He’s so much better.

**Craig:** Thanks.

**John:** I’m just wondering whether maybe he’s spoken English for ten years, and so is therefore really good, but some stuff is always going to be a little bit off. I’m looking him up right now to just see if he has an international…

**Craig:** See, the “Comes out now” thing is definitely a typo. Because the captain says, “Come out of the car with your hands on your head.” And then two lines of dialogue later, “Comes out now. This is your final warning.” It has to be a typo.

Also, because S is right near E on the keyboard.

**John:** Oh my god. So I just checked through my email and I’m completely wrong. So, Mario, I believe reading an actual email from you.

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** For some reason I guessed that you are not a native speaker, but you are a native speaker.

**Craig:** Hey, Mario, listen, you don’t have to take this crap from him, okay? [laughs] I want you to do something. I want you to write in and really give him hell.

**John:** He actually wrote in about our last podcast and had, like, many paragraphs. And this does not feel at all like a person who does not speak English natively.

**Craig:** Shame. On. You.

**John:** Maybe he’s just poetic.

**Craig:** I think it was just a typo.

**John:** Well, no, “the car’s gear,” that read weird to me. Like I read that three times. Like, “Wait, that doesn’t actually make sense.”

**Craig:** It’s not good.

**John:** You don’t shift the car’s gear.

**Craig:** You’re right. That should have just been, you know, “Takes a deep breath. Puts the car in gear.” We put the car in gear. We don’t shift it into gear. But, meh.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not enough to take the guy’s citizenship away.

**John:** No, it really wasn’t.

Our last Three Page Challenge entry is by, oh, here I am going to try it: Andrew Lauwasser. Lauwasser? It’s a good name. I just don’t know how to pronounce it.

**Craig:** I would say Lau-wasser.

**John:** Lau-wasser?

**Craig:** Lau-wasser. Yeah.

**John:** Let me give you a summary here. So we meet Justin and Amy in their apartment. They’re both mid-20s. Amy tells Justin she’s breaking up with him. We cut to a new house where we meet Marshall who’s around 60, and Brooke, his wife, she’s mid-30s. She’s divorcing him. We cut back and forth between Justin and Amy and Marshall and Brooke while they have dialogue and start to break up and move stuff out.

And that’s the three pages.

**Craig:** You want to start?

**John:** I’ll go first. This felt very setup-y. And setup-y in a way that I could see some credits playing underneath this maybe? It was, you know, I’ll give it this: It gets going really quickly. You see like, okay, these are two guys who are being dumped by the women in their lives. And the script is called Wingmen. I suspect they’re going to buddy up and help each other out. See the guy in his 60s and a guy in his mid-20s and they’re going to help each other out. And so I get the conceit of the character.

The Amy character is so horrible; I want her to be eaten by sled dogs. She says just the meanest things. And not in sort of like a really funny way. I didn’t… — Weirdly I had… — This happens sometimes in movies: if you see somebody who is in a relationship with somebody who is just terrible you stop having sympathy for them at a certain point. It’s like, “Why are you with this person?” So I felt that with Amy.

**Craig:** Uh…yeah. Okay, well, and by the way, I kind of suspect that this is a father and son thing. I don’t know why.

**John:** Oh, maybe.

**Craig:** I think that’s what the payoff will be. But, look, Andrew, come here. Come here, buddy. Let’s sit down, okay, let’s have a drink. You and me.

So, you got your drink? Good. I’ve got mine, too. I have written stuff like this before. Okay? So don’t take this the wrong way. This does not mean that you stink. It just means these pages stink. Okay?

I’m glad you got these out of your system. They’re terrible, but I understand why you wrote them this way, because I’ve done it before. When I was starting out, I would do this a lot. What you’re doing is you’re supplanting clever and quippy for human. These are not human beings. They are little joke glands you’re squeezing to get out lines that you think are clever. Frankly, none of them are that clever anyway, and the worst thing about being clever is you never really get credit for it anyway.

People smile at clever things. Your job as a comedy writer is to be making them laugh. To make people laugh in a theater, it’s not easy. God knows I know it’s not easy. You’re trying to cause an involuntary physical response. It’s a tough deal, okay?

People laugh when they see human things happening. They can identify with the humanity in it. Even if it’s slapstick it is partly about connecting with the humanity of it. The issue with this stuff is none of these people are real. Nobody breaks up like this. Nobody talks like this.

Oh, ah, Marshall says — he’s the older man — “You’re leaving me?” Brooke, “I don’t like to think of it as leaving. More like escaping.” I mean, that line alone is brutal. I mean, escaping from — first of all, I’m like, “What? Was he beating her? What was going on that she needs to escape?” And it’s so cold. And by the way, that’s not the character that John is talking about, who’s even worse.

Then Marshall says, “Is there anything I should do?” Which is a weird thing to say. And he’s not upset oddly, and she says, “Ah! I almost forgot. I need you to sign the divorce papers.” How? Really? You almost forgot? And the divorce papers were shoved in your purse? And he didn’t know? And he just goes ahead and signs the? Without even reading them?

And then when he says, “How long have you been carrying these around?” “Since I started seeing Ian. Sign on the…” “I know where to sign. You’re cheating on me?” Really?

This just doesn’t feel like humans responding to human things. The Amy situation is much worse because Amy just seems sociopathic. You have to ask yourself: Why was this person with this other person in the first place? I mean, he says, “We’re going to sit here and we’re going to talk this out. You can’t just throw away nine years like that.” Nine years of what? Living with this psycho? It’s crazy.

Then let’s go back to Marshall. And listen, Andrew, I know this sucks, okay? But we have to do this because I want you to get this out of your system. Okay?

Your first scene with Marshall and Brooke. Marshall is oddly calm. “(Not upset),” in parentheses, “Is there anything I should do?” “Here. Sign the divorce papers.” “Okay. You’re cheating on me?”

Next scene. “You’re such a bitch.” What?!

Then he starts talking about her tits. And now he’s complaining about the tits and now doing a joke about gravity and Parkinson’s, like a boob joke. And now she’s doing a dick joke. None of this makes me understand a single thing about who these people are. Does this really hurt either one of them? Are they real? Is this the way people really do breakup?

No. Not even in comedies. Okay? So, I want you to say with me, Andrew, because I’m your friend. Because you’re a comedy writer and we’re all friends, okay? So say this with me: I’m going to let go of this clever stuff and I’m going to start writing people. And when I write people, unless I’m writing a spoof, and then you can be an absolute idiot, okay? It grants you full license. But if you’re writing a movie that’s a romantic comedy like this is going to be, then find the comedy in the real stuff. And you can push it a little bit, but you can’t do this.

**John:** No.

A few craft things I want to talk about along the way, as he’s rewriting this, and as people are reading along with this. I kind of liked what he said about Justin, “27 years old and lean, with a mop of curls on his head and a face that only knows puppy dog sincerity.” Sure.

But he introduces both Justin and Amy in the same very, very long sentence. That sentence is five lines long. No. Don’t do that. Shorten. Each of them, they’re main characters, they deserve their own sentence. Break that into two sentences.

Both of these introductory scenes would be so much better if we cut out the first lines of them. So if the first line of the movie were actually Amy’s, “I’m keeping the apartment, so technically you’re the one who’s leaving.” That’s a much funnier start of a scene than, “You’re leaving me?”

**Craig:** That’s a great note.

**John:** Start with the answer rather than the question. And then you can cut out Marshall’s question, too. Start with Brooke like, “I don’t like to think of it as leaving, more like escaping.” That’s a good start, a funny line of a scene. Kind of everything that follows after it has to change. But it’s not a bad way to start a scene.

**Craig:** I just want to interrupt you for a second. This is why I love what you’re saying. Because by cutting out that lead-in line, my mind will fill in that there was a reasonable, rational, human exchange that led to that line. But with the lead-in line there isn’t, because it’s not. So that’s a great, great note.

**John:** Cool.

Beyond that, my notes are your notes, but probably kinder and softer, but maybe some tough love was needed.

I get what he’s kind of going for here. I think he’s just so desperate to sort of start the comedy engine that he’s not taking the time to actually make these people real human beings. And he’s making the two women so unlikeable that we don’t know what kind of reality that we’re in.

**Craig:** Yeah. And there’s another danger here, too. I’ve read a million comedy scripts, so I’m going to tell you what happens in this one. These two guys are going to get together and they’re going to go looking for women. And they both feel beaten up by women and angry at women. And then they’re going to meet women and those women are going to change their minds. Naturally.

The problem is the script starts off extraordinarily misogynistically. [laughs] There’s nothing wrong with one mean woman. I loved, I loved Rachel Harris, right, in The Hangover. That’s her name, right? Rachel Harris, the actress?

**John:** Yeah, she’s awesome. Blonde.

**Craig:** Yeah. The blonde one. Exactly. Who’s married to Ed Helms. Are they married? No, they’re going to be married. They’re engaged to be married, I think.

**John:** Congratulations to them.

**Craig:** And she was hysterical because she was this over the top horror show, but I also understood that he was an absolute weenie. That was his character. He had no spine at all. That’s why their relationship was stable. He was the beaten wife and it was actually kind of funny. But, it came inside the context of a movie where another one of his friends is getting married to a really nice girl who’s a normal, healthy human being that isn’t mean or awful.

We are starting the movie with two mean, awful, cold women. And I’ve got to tell you, there isn’t a single woman in the audience who’s going to be interested in watching past that because, frankly, it’s insulting.

It’s also just not honest. I don’t think it’s honest. And if comedy is false it’s just not going to work.

**John:** Let’s think about those first two scenes where we’re meeting the guys, if they are going to be our protagonists for the course of the movie those scenes need to be about them. And it needs to give us a sense of what they need to accomplish over the course of the movie. So, your description about Ed Helms is apt. It’s like, you know, Rachel Harris’s character was there to let us see what was wrong with him and where he needed to grow. So, as he’s rewriting these scenes and figuring out how this movie starts, those scenes need to be about those guys and not about the relationship falling apart.

**Craig:** 100 percent. Because all I know about these guys is that they made really bad choices of women. I don’t know what’s wrong with them. They are the protagonists. It has to be about them. All the more reason, frankly, if these women are leaving that they should be right. The women should be correct to leave.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** Those are our pages.

**Craig:** But Andrew. Andrew, I’m serious dude, you can do this. Everybody that writes comedies makes this mistake at some point. You made yours. You can do this; I believe in you.

**John:** Yeah. Step away from the balcony.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Terrance, Andrew, and Mario, thank you so much for writing in with your three page samples. That was very brave of you and I hope it was helpful. I hope we gave you useful things to think about with this script and with the next thing. And thank you for sharing with everybody else who’s going to read these pages and get some sense of how they might want to start telling their stories.

I think the time has come for our One Cool Things. And you have a very cool thing this week in that you’re going to play us a song.

**Craig:** I’m going to play a song. That’s right. Do you have a cool — and by the way, because we have 100,000 people listening.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve consistently crossed over our 100,000 barrier. So we have a lot of good listeners out there. And 100,000 of them, at least, which is amazing.

**Craig:** It’s awesome.

**John:** And nuts. So, you will play us out this week so there won’t be a normal song, so I guess I should do my Cool Thing now, and then we can just be done.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So my Cool Thing, I recognize that a lot of times the Cool Things are like, “buy this product,” and that’s never the intention. I don’t want to have an Amazon link for everything that we talk about. So my One Cool Thing is absolutely free, which this week is the LA Public Library, and your local public library if you don’t live in Los Angeles.

Because the thing is I sort of stopped going to the library for many years until I had a kid, and then you go to the library because it saves you from having to buy a gazillion books. And so you just take them to the library and they pick a bunch of books off the shelf, and you return them after three weeks.

What’s weird is going back to the library as a grown up and recognizing that libraries are kind of amazing. It’s sort of like Netflix, but for books. And that you don’t have to like actually purchase things, you can just borrow them, and then when you’re done with them they go away and they don’t have to live in your house anymore. Because so much of what I read now I read on the Kindle or through iBooks or whatever. And that’s great for like the modern books, or the new book that you read about online and you really want to read the book.

What’s so good about the library is it’s not just… — The books that are on the shelves aren’t necessarily books that you would ever want to buy. They’re books that you wonder why they’re on the shelf at all, and that’s kind of amazing.

So these last couple weeks at the LA Public Library, I found The Anarchist Cookbook, which I can’t believe is actually…to me it always felt like the Necronomicon, like — one of those things that’s rumored but doesn’t actually exist.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But The Anarchist Cookbook, which was this sort of famous book of the late ’60s, which told you how to build bombs and stab police officers, is actually on the shelf there, which I thought was kind of amazing.

This last week I discovered that our local library actually has big books of sheet music. So there are piano songs I want to learn — they’re right there. So I would say go visit your local public library. It’s not just for homeless people who want to get out of the rain. It’s a useful resource that’s out there. And just take advantage of it. Go in there and wander.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Some of my favorite childhood memories are going with my dad to the New Dorp Library in Staten Island. New Dorp. [laughs] It’s one of the great names. New York was sort of founded and settled by the Dutch, so there are a lot of strange Dutch names. And the New Dorp Public Library was this wonderful old east coast institutional building. It was the kind that had the fallout shelter signs, you know. It was very midcentury-ish.

And I loved it. I loved going. And I would just go and just look through the stacks until I found a book that interested me. And I would always walk away with three, or four, or five of them because I loved reading. And I take my kids to the La Cañada Public Library, and it’s a great thing.

And for those of you who do live in Los Angeles, if you haven’t been to the big downtown library, just go and walk around to marvel at it. It’s gorgeous. It’s just a beautiful building. Absolutely beautiful. Even if you’re not there for a book, you just want to walk around. It’s spectacular.

**John:** Growing up, one of my favorite libraries in Boulder was this little small library they built into the Meadows Shopping Center. And it seemed so weird to stick a library in a shopping center, but it was actually kind of genius because it was around places where people already were. And so people could just, like, drop into the library. And it was close to the grocery store. I liked that it sort of took away the fanciness of like it’s its own building and has this great thing. Like, no, it’s part of the mall and you can go in there and get the books you want to get.

And libraries in all forms are great. And I think I had sort of forgotten about them until I had a kid and ended up going to the library more. They’re cool.

**Craig:** Yeah. Fantastic.

**John:** And also I should say: we’ve been trying to get rid of a lot of books. We’re sort of doing a house purge. And I have this sort of rule that if it’s a book that I haven’t touched in five years, I don’t think I’ll touch in the next five years, it’s better off on somebody else’s shelf. And so the library has been taking a lot of our old books and they sell them in book sales and they make some money. So libraries are also a great way to part with the books that you believe should be on someone else’s shelf.

**Craig:** For sure.

**John:** Cool.

So, Craig, it’s come to that time. So, what setup do we need to do for your song? Tell us about this?

**Craig:** There’s no real setup. I initially tried to figure out how to run my acoustic — I have an acoustic electric, so it’s an acoustic guitar but there’s a little pickup inside. And I bought this little Behringer thing to connect in directly so I could record the guitar on one track and my voice on the other. That thing does not work at all. [laughs] Could not get it to work at all. So, I think I’m just going to play guitar and sing into one mic. So, it’s going to sound a little different because I’ve got to adjust the mic and whatever.

But the song is by John Prine and it’s called Killing the Blues. It was made slightly more popular by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.

**John:** Krauss, yeah.

**Craig:** Is that right?

**John:** Yeah. Alison Krauss.

**Craig:** Yeah. Alison Kraus. And it’s short, so it won’t bore you. And there you go.

**John:** Great. Craig, thank you very much. Have a great week and we’ll let you play us out. Thanks. Bye.

**Craig:** Here we go.

[Strums and sings]

Sorry about all the bus noise. But no sirens!

Scriptnotes, Ep 50: The Somewhat Healthy Screenwriter — Transcript

August 17, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2012/the-somewhat-healthy-screenwriter).

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

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

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

Craig, can you feel it? It’s that time of year again.

**Craig:** It is my favorite time of year, John. My favorite time.

**John:** Because it’s WGA election season again.

**Craig:** Oh, so good.

**John:** Every year we get to pick new candidates for — not really new candidates — we get to pick new members to be on the Board of Directors for the Writers Guild.

**Craig:** We get to.

**John:** We get to. And for a very small percentage of our listenership are extraordinarily interested in it, and the rest of our listenership could kind of give a rat’s ass. But, I do want to talk about it because it’s important. And so it’s one of the things we’ll talk about today on the podcast.

And we’ll talk about actually a thing that is maybe a little bit more important and factors into more people’s lives, which is how to not be fat.

**Craig:** How to not be fat. For writers.

**John:** For writers, yeah. Really kind of for anybody. You can choose to not be fat and be an accountant, or an editor, or there’s many job which you can choose to not be fat. A sumo wrestler? This is not the podcast for you.

**Craig:** Right. That — we’ll be doing a future podcast called How to Be Fat.

**John:** And that’s just for sumo wrestlers. And we’ll give you fair warning that it’s not going to be for everyone.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Just like the career of screenwriting isn’t for everyone, the career of sumo wrestling is not for everyone. Did you ever see — there was a kid who really aspired to be a sumo wrestler, and he just wasn’t actually tall enough. And so he got essentially a silicon boob implant on the top of his head to give him enough height.

**Craig:** What?!

**John:** So, I swear this is real and I’ll try to find a link for it and put it in the show notes. This kid, he really wanted to be a sumo wrestler and he wasn’t tall enough. And so essentially they put in one of those expandable boob implants at the top of his head, like under the skin, between the skull and his hair line to raise up his head so he would be technically tall enough to compete in sumo.

**Craig:** But then unfortunately once the operation was complete he just spent all day feeling the top of his head.

**John:** Yeah. The things people will do. I mean, that’s crazy, but it’s crazier than like what many women in the 50’s will do to their faces.

**Craig:** Actually, I disagree. It is, in fact, crazier. He’s put a tit on the top of his head in order to be a sumo wrestler. First of all, sumo wrestling is a ridiculous sport. I know. I know, I’m going to get it from our sumo listening… — It’s really sumo wrestling is a legacy sport. It’s really done now I think mostly just to celebrate culture and tradition. It’s not actually really a good sport that anybody outside of Japan watches with any regularity.

I guess you could argue that — no, because baseball — people love baseball in Japan, and the Dominican Republic. It’s just a legacy sport. And this kid didn’t qualify for height, and this is a body size sport. Adding the head tit is not going to make him any better at sumo wrestling. He’s really just gaming the rules and he’s gonna get his ass kicked, I presume, because he’s just not tall enough.

And, also, he has a boob on his head which is insane. And I presume that, now that boob is there, that he’s going to spend the rest of his life as Tit Head.

**John:** Yeah. He could take the boob out if he needed to. He could have a head-breast reduction surgery.

**Craig:** It’s ridiculous. I mean, don’t get me wrong: I think that what a lot of women in their 50’s, and by the way, let’s be equal opportunity about this — men…

**John:** Oh yeah, do some crazy things too.

**Craig:** There’s a guy who’s reporting on the Olympics and my wife keeps…she insists I have to come in and see him every time because he’s so Botoxed up. But sometimes when they Botox you I guess they can’t hit the sides, they just get the front of your forehead. So he’s got this preternaturally smooth immovable forehead but every time he does move where his forehead would move, the sides wrinkle up. It’s kind of like Saran Wrap does when it’s over a nice chicken breast and then you squish it. It’s horrifying. Horrifying.

What are these people doing?

**John:** Which people? The people who are getting the Botox injections?

**Craig:** Right. I know what they’re doing. But why?

**John:** Because they see sometimes it actually works amazingly well and for some people it is fantastic. And god bless them if they want to look their best. But for other people it is just horrifying and they have some sort of mirror disease where they’re not actually seeing what’s in front of them.

**Craig:** Dysmorphia.

**John:** It’s dysmorphia, in fact.

**Craig:** Dysmorphia. But here’s my point: I grant you that in some limited cases with limited amounts of treatment it can make you look better, objectively better. But, over time that’s a losing battle. There is a tipping point for all human beings where all it does is make you look freaky. And at some point I suspect these people just don’t understand that they have to stop now. And it must be really hard because if you’re the kind of person that’s not willing to put up with a few wrinkles, you’re not going to be able to put up with looking like the prune that we all become.

**John:** The most impressive, I don’t know if it was plastic surgery or other work I ever saw done is Jaclyn Smith, who is, you know, from the original Charlie’s Angels. She’s also in the Charlie’s Angels sequel.

And so I met her and I’m like, oh my…I’d heard about…I’m like, “Oh my god, you are stunningly beautiful and you are a woman of quite a significant age.” And you can’t, I mean, literally her face was just perfect. But then you shake her hand and you’re like, “Oh, this is an older woman’s hand. This is the hand of the actual person you are.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** They can’t do anything for your hands. That’s why you can wear gloves.

**Craig:** And now you’re a glove-wearing freak. [laughs] You know, I remember Bill Maher years ago had a great thing — he was talking about how everybody would always say Sophia Loren is still the sexiest woman on the planet. And he’s like, “No she’s not. She’s a grandma. You don’t French kiss grandma. Let’s stop pretending that this 70 year old woman is the sexiest woman on the planet.”

There’s a whole reason that sexy is about young. It’s not about being offensive to old people. It’s because you’re not procreative anymore. Sexuality is tied to procreation. I mean, that’s why it’s there. Granted, in some cases orientation makes that impossible, but ultimately that’s why it exists in the first place. And we all stop being procreative after a certain age, so why would an 80 year old person be sexy, or a 60 year old person? They’re not really sexy.

And anybody who tells you that 60 year olds are sexy, they’re just being nice.

**John:** [laughs] Maybe so.

**Craig:** Ah, look, you see? This is where…so Pam Ribon, a good writer and a friend of ours, friend of the podcast, did a whole thing about the podcast the other day about why women aren’t sending in as many things and are they really less interested. And she, [laughs], she described it to us as you’re the nice, nurturing one and I was the rich, cranky guy.

**John:** Yeah, I don’t actually want to challenge you too badly on stuff, but there’s times where, yeah…

**Craig:** You think so?

**John:** …I disagree with you.

**Craig:** Well, first of all, can I just say, I know we’re wildly off-track now; we’re turning into the Howard Stern Show. But why am I the rich cranky guy and you’re the nurturing guy, but you’re not the rich nurturing guy? You’re rich.

**John:** Oh, that’s an interesting point of view. Nurturing I get; I do have this tendency to sort of look for the bright side of situations and to help people along. And I will humor people with their idiotic questions sometimes. Rich is an interesting distinction.

**Craig:** Yeah, like I’m the bad banker from It’s a Wonderful Life or something like that, you know. But then she called me out for referring to one of our submissions, and it was submitted by a woman, as being “cute.” And that was sort of, in her mind, it was a bit pejorative when…

**John:** See, I don’t think “cute” is pejorative at all.

**Craig:** I don’t either.

**John:** Like Frankenweenie is cute. My upcoming movie Frankenweenie is cute.

**Craig:** It is cute. Those ads are really cute. Exactly. Yeah. I don’t think so. And then also women call guys “cute” when they like them.

**John:** Totally. And I was just having a conversation with Mike Su, who is a video game developer for iPhone and iOS devices. And we were talking about like the best selling iOS games. And I pointed out, like, “They’re all cute.” The winning titles — they’re cute. They have to have something cute. And they need to have sort of bubbly heads and big eyes and those are the ones that are top sellers.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** There’s nothing wrong with cute.

**Craig:** So that’s my response. That’s my response. That’s my cranky response.

**John:** Let’s do some follow up.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Last week we talked about my concern that when you read reviews of movies, the screenwriter’s name seems to only be mentioned when it’s a negative review. And if it’s a positive review you’re not even going to her the screenwriter’s name.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so I asked if anybody who is like a grad student in statistics, or is pursuing that, wanted to actually do a study.

**Craig:** You’re not going to tell me that somebody actually — somebody actually did this?

**John:** Someone stepped up.

**Craig:** You’re kidding me. Already?

**John:** Already. So, Tim from Hollywood stepped up. And so he’s volunteered to do sort of a small pilot study. So he’s going to do 50 recent movies, looking through their Rotten Tomatoes, just to see if there’s something there.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So it’s just a test run to see if there’s something interesting worth studying there. If the results come back that there’s probably nothing there, yeah.

**Craig:** Hey, that is, you know, we have good listeners.

**John:** We have great listeners. We have the best listeners.

**Craig:** Really. Thank you. That’s awesome.

**John:** We have 99,000 brilliant listeners. And 1,000 people we could do without. But most, the people who are listening right now, they’re the best listeners in the world.

**Craig:** The best.

**John:** Mark writes in. “I listen to the podcast every week.” Thank you, Mark. “Ever since Craig mentioned his wacky electronic cigarette a few podcasts back I’ve noticed an odd sound that, upon closer listening, sounds a lot like someone inhaling a fake cigarette. It is telling that the sound always occurs when you, John, is talking, not Craig.

“Exhibits A through D in this week’s podcast: At 34:37 there’s a long inhaling sound followed by Craig’s ‘Yeah,’ which sounds like a veiled, gauzy, non-carcinogenic exhaled water vapor. The sound recurs at 35:09, 35:21, and 35:37. Is Craig toking like nuts to get through the show? Is this not a drug-free podcast? Can I believe the clean label on iTunes or are we mired in the filth of the explicit section. Please discuss.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Now last week, if you all recall, I was desperately tired. And I listened back to the podcast, [laughs], and I sounded like a different person. I was really mellow. Not at all rich and cranky, which is not like me. And, yeah, I was definitely puffing on my electronic cigarette. Now I’m going to do it now, and so for our sleuthy listener who is bordering, frankly, on obsessive and scary, I’m going to — I’m going to provide you with the sound. And you may then match it up in your audio analysis booth, and make sure to say the words, “Wait. Stop. Enhance that.”

Okay, ready? [puffs] That was it.

**John:** Yeah, it’s pretty subtle.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s very minor. Now if that was the sound you heard, in fact that was me attempting through the judicious use of an electronic cigarette to stay the F awake.

**John:** All right. That’s totally fair. But now, of course, I’m going to have Stuart sample that out and blow it up really big. And so whenever there’s an awkward pause, by that we’ll all know what’s really secretly going on.

**Craig:** When you say whenever there’s awkward pause you mean every time I finish saying something…

**John:** Yeah, before I get to a “Yeah.” When I’m thinking, like, “What will I say instead of ‘yeah?'” That’s what I’ll say.

**Craig:** Are you starting to hate me? [laughs]

**John:** Sort of. If this were a video podcast everyone would see that you have the electronic cigarette, but it’s in like one of those long cigarette holders, [laughs], so it’s extra fabulous that way.

**Craig:** That’s like, oh my god, Robot FDR.

**John:** Yeah. Or Miss Scarlet from Clue. That’s what I really picture you like.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** Matthew writes about last week’s podcast, “Craig seems to be using the words critic and reviewer interchangeably and I think he’s blurring a useful distinction. To my mind, reviewers write about films the week they come out and are designed to help filmgoers decide whether to see a particular movie. Critics when they’re writing focus more on creative decisions made by filmmakers and the effects they achieve.”

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s fair.

**John:** Craig, do you think that’s a useful distinction?

**Craig:** Yeah. That is fair. I was using them interchangeably and technically that person is correct. There’s a world of film studies, essentially. And so critic in that sense would be analogous to literally critic, which is not a book reviewer. That’s somebody that analyzes literary works, novels, and so forth.

So, yes, that is a fair point to make. I was using them interchangeably. I was talking about reviewers. People who write true film criticism really don’t exhibit any of the flaws that I notice in our reviewing industry.

**John:** Yeah. And I think I was blurring those two things together as well. The problem I would say is that I have hard time pointing to who are really the film critics left these days. Because what we think about as the places where you would find film criticism, at least in the newspapers, that’s really more reviewing. And so there are times you have the people who are also reviewing movies will do in-depth pieces about a movement or a genre or sort of things that are happening in film. And that really feels like criticism as opposed to reviewing a movie that comes out this week.

**Craig:** Yeah. Film criticism kind of had a heyday, I think, the sera-sera. Now if you actually look in real film criticism, it has fallen prey to what much of modern literary criticism has fallen prey to. It’s really steeped in identity politics and sort of — it’s all post-modern. And academia is still swooning from Foucault and Derrida. And one day it will figure out how to pull its head out of that quicksand pit and start writing in a way that’s relevant to people outside of academia, I suppose.

But if there are really good, relevant film critics out there that you find interesting to read, we’d love to hear about them.

**John:** Yeah, please write in.

Heather wrote in and she asked, “My blog was optioned by a cable network.” Congratulations Heather.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** “They bought certain stories they wanted to turn into a movie. I just received what I believe is called a script outline from the head of programming, and it is awful. When we were negotiating, he told me they wanted my voice, my vibe. Maybe he was just blowing smoke. My question is: would it be presumptuous and rude to offer to write a script outline free of charge for consideration? Or do I just accept that the material is now the network’s and cash the check when the project is complete?”

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** Tough call.

**Craig:** Yeah, well, there’s certainly nothing wrong with you trying to write something for them and saying, “Look, wouldn’t this be better?” But they’ve shown you their hand. This is what they want. If they’re giving it to you, maybe they’re giving it to you because they have to give it to you. I don’t know if you have any kind of approval written into your contract. I suspect you don’t. It’s not every day that somebody options or licenses a blog, and you probably didn’t have that much leverage I’m just guessing.

So, it may be that you’re just confronted with the age old lament of the novelist who licenses their book and then sees a terrible movie out of it.

**John:** I think she should go for it, because I think the money involved is probably pretty low. If you’re burning any bridges they’re not very big bridges, not very good bridges probably. So, I wouldn’t worry about them.

If this really was written by the network executive and not, like, they found a writer who did this, it may very well be that this person was trying to put together a pitch document to sort of show what they thought the movie was. And they’re not really a writer. And so maybe you really could step in and help that be the document that really shows what the potential of the movie is. So, I don’t think you’re risking much by trying. If it’s really that bad, step up.

**Craig:** That’s a better answer. I like your answer better. I agree.

**John:** Thanks. But we’ll keep yours just so people can compare and contrast.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, I mean they should. They should see what a not-as-good answer sounds like.

**John:** Good. So, let’s move onto our main topics. This is the WGA election season. So every year we get to pick some new candidates for the Board of Directors. And every two years we also swap out our officers. Correct me when I make mistakes because you know this better than I do.

**Craig:** I shall.

**John:** But this is a cycle in which we’re not electing President and Secretary and Treasurer — that kind of stuff. We’re simply electing people to be on the Board of Directors. And it’s not as — I don’t want to say it’s not as crucial of an election, but it’s not as scary of an election, because this won’t be the people who are heading in to right away a new WGA contract.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So you want people who are going to be good stewards of the Guild, who are going to bring up the other topics that need to be talked about, but you don’t necessarily need your big guns on this one, because this is a building year rather than a fighting year.

**Craig:** Not exactly. I mean, the thing is even thought it’s what they call an “off election year,” the Board, there are 16 board members. And every year 8 of them are up for election. So, half of them are up for election along with the officers and half aren’t. This is one of those aren’t years, like you said, but they serve for two years. And two years from now I think our deal will be up and in advance, about a year in advance of our deal expiring nominating committees form, policy approach, all that stuff is formed.

I wish I could say that there’s any one year where it actually doesn’t matter. Every year actually kind of does matter if you’re looking at it in that context.

**John:** I would agree.

So this year I actually had the privilege of being on the nominating committee to help find these candidates. And so we met three different times and did interviews with all of these candidates, so I actually met I think all of these people who are running. And they’re all terrific.

So, I can talk a little bit about the nominating committee. I had the impression that we had to like, you know, give them our stamp of approval. It really was just a “you’re not a crazy person.” That’s basically our whole job was to make sure that no one who’s coming in the door was crazy, and hopefully get some really good people to run.

And so I took it upon myself to convince some people to come in and try, including Jordan Mechner and Barbara Turner, who are both great, great candidates. And I got to listen to what these people thought were concerns that the Guild to do a better job of addressing. We could help them sort of figure out how they might want to present themselves to WGA when they present in their candidate statement in the packet.

So, I thought we’d talk through just who the candidates are and give some quick impressions, if that sounds good to you.

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

**John:** I don’t want to pronounce her name wrong. It’s Katherine Fugate?

**Craig:** It’s Fugate. [pronounced Fu-jay]

**John:** Is it really Fu-jay?

**Craig:** Yeah. I think she’s, well, she’s from New Orleans and I think it’s some kind of Cajun/Frenchy kind of name.

**John:** Well I’m apologizing for mispronouncing her name. It’s so hard when it’s a name you’ve seen a zillion times written down but you’ve never had to say aloud.

**Craig:** Well you’d never get Fu-jay out of Fugate. Nobody would.

**John:** No one would. But I had one of those unpronounceable names, too, and it didn’t make it easier that everyone pronounced it wrong, too.

**Craig:** That’s true. That is true.

**John:** So Katherine is running again. David Goodman. Kathy Kiernan. David Shore. So these are all people who are currently serving on the board. They were elected in 2010 and they are running again. I have nothing particular to say about them.

**Craig:** Well, I’ve known Katherine for a long, long time. A very lovely, lovely woman. And I guess Pam is going to be angry with me, because I called her lovely. Sorry. She’s neither lovely nor cute. She’s formidable. [laughs] She’s a formidable, strong woman, and a screenwriter, and Katherine is very empathetic towards other writers as opposed to me. I’m, of course, cranky. She’s probably more…I mean, I hesitate to use really left and right; I mean, there’s generally people who are more moderate and want to try and seek a compromise to advance their goals. There are people that are a little more confrontational with the companies. She’s probably more confrontational than I am which is no surprise, most people are.

But she’s good. And she’s been around awhile. And I think sometimes just having served is valuable in and of itself. It means that you have a certain amount of understanding about what works and what doesn’t work. You’ve tried all the goofy crazy ideas. It’s a very common thing when people enter governance for the first time. They’re like, “Ugh, why don’t these idiots just do A, B, and C.” And then you get into the position and you realize, “Oh, because A is illegal, B is crazy, and C has been tried a million times and didn’t work.” There’s very few like, “Oh, why didn’t we think of that idea” when it comes to union governance. So it’s good to have people that have been around and have some institutional wisdom; so she’s one of them.

David Goodman, very nice guy. Family Guy writer, I think. He is really one of the few unreformed Patric Verrone guys left in there. He is all the way like what I consider to be part of a broken, proven-to-fail philosophy. So, I won’t be voting for him, but he’s a nice guy.

And who was the other one?

**John:** Kathy Kiernan and David Shore.

**Craig:** David Shore, I don’t know personally, but I hear great things about him. He is respected by almost everyone. And, I’m sorry, I missed the other name.

**John:** Kathy Kiernan.

**Craig:** Oh, Kathy Kiernan. So, Kathy Kiernan is actually a news writer. A lot of people don’t know that the Writers Guild West represents television and screenwriters, but it actually also represents a small amount of news writers, most of whom I think work for KCBS. And a small amount of news radio writers, I believe KNX. So we’re talking really a very small amount of people. Most news writers are represented by the Writers Guild America East. Most news radio people are represented by the East because that’s just the way it worked out.

Kathy’s very nice. Look, because we represent so few news radio writers, I’m always torn. Well, so much of what we do is about the 95% of the membership that we comprise, and not, I don’t know what it is, maybe like 50 news writers, but maybe fewer news radio writers. But, then again, it’s probably not a bad idea to have somebody like that there who is sort of representing the minority. So I think that’s a good thing.

**John:** That was really what I was looking at as we were interviewing these candidates, and I always have looked at it as I’ve gone through the book and sort of figured out who I was going to be voting for, is to try to get some balance between the different perspectives and what people are going to be able to bring to the table.

One of my big concerns is that feature screenwriters tend to be underrepresented in the Board. And feature screenwriter’s needs are in some ways unique and different than TV writers. It’s just the way, like daytime writer’s needs are unique. And so you want to make sure you have at least somebody on the Board who can bring that perspective, because if you don’t maybe that perspective is going to get overlooked altogether. And so finding the balance there is tricky. But I think we actually have some good candidates across the board for that.

There’s 8 other names here, so I don’t want to sort of go through each one of them because you won’t know a lot of these people.

**Craig:** I won’t.

**John:** I did want to single out Jordan Mechner who is a friend of mine who I asked to run. Jordan Mechner is best known as a video game designer. He did the original Prince of Persia. He did Karateka. I’ve worked with him as a screenwriter on a Fox pilot and we worked on Prince of Persia together. He’s fantastic.

And one of the reasons why I really wanted Jordan to run is that he comes from a background of actually owning intellectual property. And so as WGA members, the WGA represents employees. So we represent people who are hired to adapt things, or hired to create stuff for corporations. Jordan is from a world of creating stuff for himself and owning that intellectual property. And I think the way forward is going to be a balance between those entrepreneurial instincts of creating your own stuff, creating your comic books and graphic novels like he’s also done, and all that stuff that you own yourself that you are completely in control of, and working for other people.

And Jordan sort of balances that, and I think he brings some good perspective in sort of that part of the business.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think, having served on the Board, I will tell you that one of the things that happens pretty quickly is whatever you bring to it that you think qualifies you becomes subsumed a bit by what the tasks are that the union presents to you.

You may have a bunch of things that you think you’re good at or that you want to accomplish. The union says, “Yay, that’s great. But here’s what’s going on right now. And we need you to deal with this.” And so the most valuable trait is intelligence. And Jordan is very, very smart. So, on those grounds alone he’ll have my vote.

**John:** So here’s my advice to you: This next week you’ll be getting your packet if you’re a WGA member. If you’re not a WGA member you’ve probably fast-forwarded through this because this is not very interesting to you. But as you get your packet, I always like to look through and read the candidate’s statements. I kind of score them, because I’m a scorer. I like to rank them sort of one to ten. And then I look at sort of who’s endorsing them, who else I sort of agree with and sort of why they’re endorsing them, and make my decisions on that.

One of the things we talked about last year when we did this — god, that was a year ago, wasn’t it?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We’ve been doing this podcast a year. — Was that you don’t actually have to vote for 8 empty spots. You don’t have to vote for 8 people. So if there’s 6 people you really want to be in and you don’t really care about the other 2, you’re better off looking for 6.

**Craig:** That’s right. So that your sixth place guy doesn’t lose to your seventh place guy.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** That’s called bulleting your votes. You can vote for one person if you want.

**John:** Yeah. Do it. So, enough on that. This is sort of our big meaty topic and this came up a couple of weeks ago. We said, “We should do a podcast about that,” and let’s do a podcast about that, is how to not be fat. Because screenwriters as a career, as a group, as a cohort, tend to be larger members of the Hollywood community.

**Craig:** [laughs] You’ve already blown it by saying fat. So you don’t have to think the euphemisms.

**John:** Yeah, I think we’re fatter. Past euphemisms. But here’s the thing is: I don’t want to say that most screenwriters are fat, because I don’t think that’s really true. Compared to, like, average Midwestern Americans, we’re not fat.

Like, if you took a screenwriter and put him on a plane and he got off in Ohio, he’d be one of the thinner people there.

**Craig:** Well, for some of them, sure. I mean, in general really what I’ve noticed when I’m around other screenwriters is it’s not so much that we’re an obese lot. I mean, this isn’t like going to a Walmart in Mississippi. It’s that we’re out of shape. We’re out of shape. Some of us are very fat. Some of us are just…

There are screenwriters who are skinny-fat, which is one of my favorite new terms. They’re not probably weight-wise overweight; they just have no muscle tone whatsoever. It’s as if they were sculpted from a goo.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And it makes sense, because our jobs are completely sedentary. And more than that, I think, they’re very internal. We prize and are rewarded for what goes on in our brain and not at all for what we do with our bodies. Not even one iota. So it’s only natural that taking care of our bodies would drop into second, or third, or fourth place on our list of things to do in a given day.

**John:** As we dig into this, I do want to stress that I understand how strange it seems to be getting advice on being fit from screenwriters. It’s like asking an actor for financial advice.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** But, we’ve both been there. And you were a heavier person.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And I’ve managed to maintain relatively good health throughout my career, but it hasn’t always been easy and it hasn’t always been obvious what the best choices were. So, and I see people making bad choices. I get frustrated when I see people sort of reaching for a magic bullet. Like they’ll focus on one thing, like, “If I stop eating canned foods that will change everything because there’s like a chemical in cans that’s really bad for you so you shouldn’t eat canned foods.”

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** It’s like, yeah, you also shouldn’t eat chocolate donuts for breakfast. People who sort of over-fixate on one little thing and don’t look at the big picture of how not to get giant.

**Craig:** That’s a very LA phenomenon. Maybe it’s bigger than this. But I have noticed that there is a bizarre and completely misdirected obsession with food. So, I see people who are not in good shape or who are not taking care of themselves, but they become obsessed with trendy nonsense, gluten and so forth.

I mean, there’s a great article: some people legitimately have an issue with gluten. A lot of people just don’t, but they think they do or they say they do. There becomes an obsession with freshness, you know, organic as opposed to inorganic. I guarantee you if all you did all day was eat the “inorganic,” because all foods organic, but “inorganic” fruits and vegetables and lean meats and proteins you would be in better shape than somebody who ate nothing but pure, organic, gluten-free cupcakes, donuts, bread, cake.

**John:** And a similar situation, too, like vegetarianism or veganism. I was a vegetarian for seven years. I’m not a vegetarian now, but I’m much healthier for not being a vegetarian. And it’s because in fixating on that one thing, like, “Oh, I don’t eat meat, so therefore I can eat everything else,” I made horrible choices. I was eating ice cream rather than chicken, and that was never a good choice.

**Craig:** It’s just not a great idea. And you can be a very smart vegetarian, there’s no question about it. But we’re getting pretty smart. A funny thing happened about ten years, I would say about ten years ago. The diet industry had always concentrated on a certain way of approaching things and then along came this Atkins guy. And, boy, was he beaten up.

But it turns out he was right.

**John:** He was largely right.

**Craig:** He wasn’t completely right in the way maybe he was expressing it. And he got a little cuckoo about it. But the general theory there turned out to be right. So, what we know is in general — I’m not talking even about losing weight. I’m just talking about general, okay, you’re fine, you’re in shape, you’re in a good place. — Generally speaking, eating fewer processed carbohydrates, eating fewer simple carbohydrates, and eating more lean protein, and not being fat-phobic in terms of what you ingest — there are good fats, healthy fats — is a better way to eat than what you and I were taught in the ’70s with the food pyramid, which turns out to just be wrong.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But that doesn’t help you lose weight.

**John:** For the last 18 months I’ve been doing basically a slow carb diet. I’m a little reluctant to talk about it because it all started with this book I read called The 4-Hour Body by a guy named Tim Ferriss. And Tim Ferriss, he’s, I don’t know, he’s sort of the Ryan Lochte of book writers. And like Ryan Lochte, it’s like, wow Ryan Lochte, you’re a really good swimmer. Congratulations on being a really good swimmer. But I’m not sure I’d want to hang out with him. That’s the same way I kind of feel about Tim Ferriss is that what he’s saying actually works and makes sense, but that doesn’t mean — I’m not vouching for him as like “here is the go to guru that you should trust with everything in your life.”

But the 4-Hour Body, I’ve been on it for 18 months, and it works really, really well. I lost about ten pounds and it’s very easy to maintain. It takes the basic ideas of like an Atkins or a South Beach, which is largely what you’re describing, like you’re cutting out your simple carbohydrates and going for lean proteins. It does that with — it also cuts out dairy and it allows you to sort of have the longer burning carbs like beans so that you actually can stay full.

And it’s been the easiest thing I’ve ever done diet-wise, largely because of one extra exception it makes, is that you have one cheat day a week where you can just blow it out and you can eat anything you possibly would want to eat. And that’s been its savior, because when I’ve done South Beach or other kind of diety things, you just get so angry and crazy and you look at stuff, like I will never be able to eat a brownie again.

And on this it’s like, well, yeah, I can eat a brownie on Saturday. And, in fact, I can eat two brownies on Saturday, but I just won’t eat it the rest of the week. And it’s been a godsend. It’s been really easy. And you don’t have to count calories. You don’t have to worry about anything because you just say, like, “These are the things I can eat. For six days a week these are the things I eat. On the seventh day I rest and I can eat anything.”

**Craig:** Right. Well it’s important for me to point out that there’s two ways of approaching this depending on what group you’re in. If you are somebody that is trying to be more fit but you’re not obese, then I think there are reasonable approaches that are all essentially the same that are going to be good for you: Increasing your exercise level in some way that doesn’t make you crazy; and shifting gradually away from the simple carb/sugary way of eating to a more Atkins/South Beach/Ferriss kind of way, which is complex carbohydrates, proteins.

I mean, dairy for instance is a great thing to limit because, not so much because of the fat in dairy or the protein in dairy but because of the inevitable sugars that come along with dairy. But, that’s for people who aren’t obese.

For people who are obese I think, in my experience, there is a different approach that is required. And the reason why is we now know that fat makes you fatter. How? Fat cells actually release hormones. And the hormones that fat cells release stimulate your appetite and your hunger. You’re already in a bad place because you are likely eating a kind of sugar-heavy diet. And so your insulin levels are getting goofy and your blood sugar is going down which makes you hungry. That’s going on already. But, on top of that, there is this added level of what the fat that you already have accumulated is doing to your brain.

In order to get to a place where you can have some sort of reasonable diet that works, because here you’re saying, “Okay, I’ll lose ten pounds.” There are people who need to lose 100 pounds. There are people who need to lose 200 pounds. What do you do?

You could do Tim Ferriss for 12 years. It’s not going to do it for you. For those people there are basically two options. There’s surgery. Sorry, there’s two options I see as being reasonable.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** There is surgery. And then there is what they call very low calorie diets, which have been shown to work and, in fact, it’s what I did. And it worked amazingly well. Surgery we all know about. I’m not going to go into it, although I’m not against it. But the very low calorie diet is pretty simple. You’re going to eat something like 850 calories a day, which is not a lot at all. And it is essentially going to comprise nothing more than lean proteins, a very small amount of complex carbohydrate, a very small amount of fruit, and that’s that. And the first week or two is going to be quite miserable. And then your body realizes that it’s got all this fat that it can burn and it burns it amazingly efficiently.

And once your body converts over into this fat-burning mode, because it’s nowhere near the calorie level it needs from food intake, you stop being hungry because you’re essentially eating yourself. And the fat loss is quite rapid. And I will say this: When it comes to losing weight for very heavy people, the only way to really maintain it is to get rid of it completely. Like you’ve got to go all the way. If you’re 300 pounds and you’re 5’11”, you can’t go down to 225 pounds and celebrate. You’re still overweight. The fat is still there playing tricks on your brain.

You’ve got to go down, down to 170, down to 175 or 180, whatever is right for you. And then you can start to…

By the way, at that point then exercise becomes a reality. Don’t tell 300-puond people that they have to go out and exercise. They can’t. You can’t. I mean, what do you weight, 170 pounds?

**John:** Yeah, exactly.

**Craig:** Okay. I’m pretty good at this.

So, if I said to you I need you to go out and exercise but for the next week I need you to strap on 130 pounds, for all of your exercise. Weightlifting, there’s 130 pounds on top of your body. Running, jogging, stretching, yoga, everything — 130 pounds. You wouldn’t last a minute. You can’t say to these people exercise. They can’t. No one can.

I mean, well, some people, like Olympic people. But my point is you’ve got to lose the weight to exercise. So when people say, “Well, you know, this guy needs to do a pushup” — you do a pushup with 130 pounds on top of your back. Good luck.

So, my advice is to think about a very low calorie diet. However, you have to do it under a doctor’s supervision.

**John:** You have to do it under a doctor’s supervision. And you had a doctor supervise when you did this?

**Craig:** Yes. Because it’s a fairly extreme thing to do. And there are some side effects that they know about. They’re certainly not universal. There’s a percentage, there’s an elevated risk of gallstones when you do something like this. And you have to watch your nutrition. You have take vitamins and you have to make sure that you supplement in that regard. And you need somebody taking your blood essentially every couple of weeks to make sure that something isn’t gong incredibly wrong. But, if you are doing this as part of a physician-monitored program, it’s quite extraordinary. What happens to your body on the outside is impressive. What happens on the inside is even more impressive.

Your blood pressure goes down. Your heart rate goes down. Your bad cholesterol goes down. Your good cholesterol goes up. Your triglycerides go down. Your liver enzymes — because a lot of people don’t know that we store fat and glycogen in our livers — your liver enzymes go down.

I mean, you can essentially create the same state in your liver that alcoholics create through overeating. It’s pretty remarkable. And when you look at our country and all the problems we have, health-wise, you can trace almost every single one of them — the chronic, widespread epidemic ones — back to weight.

**John:** You wouldn’t have nearly as many people on CPAP machines if weight was lower.

**Craig:** I mean, you’d have almost no one on CPAP machines. I mean, very few people have congenital throat structural sinus issues that require CPAP machines. Depression. Sleep apnea. Back problems. Joint problems. Anxiety. Sexual dysfunction. I mean, what else? Skin problems. So many of these issues you can track back to just being overweight.

And we, as screenwriters, I think just have to be really aware that our job is sitting and thinking, and that means if you are really overweight it’s time to get extreme about it. And if you’re not really overweight it’s time to exercise.

**John:** Yeah, so let’s talk about exercise because one of the challenges I think as screenwriters is we’re often working alone. If you haven’t exercised before, if you haven’t been to the gym it’s hard to start going to the gym. And that was the problem I really faced when I first moved out to Los Angeles is that I was going to USC and I knew that, okay, I should probably start working out because it’s the kind of thing a person should do when they’re in their early 20’s. But I didn’t sort of know how to do it.

And so fortunately I had friends who did work out. So I first started working out with my friend André Béraud, who worked out at the USC gym. Then I worked out with my friend Tom Hoffman at the YMCA gym on the west side. And that was crucial. I think working out with somebody was hugely helpful to me.

So, I could go to classes and stuff like that, but if you’re actually lifting weights or doing other stuff, having someone there to show up…it’s like having a writing partner. Having someone who you’re responsible for on a social level, showing up and actually doing the work was hugely helpful.

Later on, you know, as I had some money and my schedule got more busy, I had a real trainer. And that’s like kind of a friend you pay. But it was helpful. And because I knew I was paying for those sessions, I would show up and I would do what the trainer said so I would not get fat, or stay in shape.

**Craig:** Yeah, look, there are all sorts of ways to approach exercise. And I’m a very — my attitude is it’s all good. All exercise is good, at any level. Walking up the street for ten minutes is good. I will say that, right now, so I’m doing P90X. And P90X is a fairly intense — it’s a very intense program. I’m early on it. And I almost never get to the end of the session. I just fall apart.

But I know then, okay, that’s good. [laughs] If I’ve gotten to the place where I literally am just gasping…

**John:** You’ve actually done the work.

**Craig:** …and drenched in sweat. And can’t go any further. I’ve done a hell of a job that day. And so I just presume that it’s going to get easier and better, and that’s the key. When we start exercising there’s a tape that runs in our head. “I’m exercising now for the first time because I’m ugly/fat/slow/weak/lazy. I exercise and it hurts, it’s painful. I’m ungainly/awkward/weak/not very good at it/can’t finish it/not like the people on the tape/not like the people next to me in the gym/not like the people on TV.”

Let me feed that loop back into, “I’m no good/I’m lazy/I’m weak/I’m tired,” da, da, da. That’s the part that you’ve got to just sever. Your fine. You’re exercising. Congrats. You’ve already won. Gold star for you.

Yes, of course you’re going to be weak and ungainly and clumsy and in pain for awhile. And then you won’t be. And you will not be able to get to the won’t be until you get through the will be. Just like writing a script. [laughs] You’ve got to look at it that way. “Okay, page one. Big empty script. Oh god, this is gonna suck for awhile.” But you will get to a place where it’s flowing and it’s easy. And exercise leads to more exercise.

**John:** Yeah. And I do feel sometimes people in their diet, they try to take too — either they try to go too far and they try to get on something so crazy that they can’t possibly maintain. I see them doing the same kind of things with exercise. Like they haven’t exercised at all and suddenly they’re like, “I’m going to run ten miles today.” And like, well, that’s not going to work out well for anybody.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** So that is one of the things you can sort of ease your way into. I mean, as far as diet, just start with breakfast. Just don’t eat a terrible breakfast. Don’t eat Eggo Waffles for breakfast. East scrambled eggs and black beans. That’s what I have for breakfast almost every morning. And everyone is like, “God, don’t you get bored of scrambled eggs and black beans?”

Yeah, well kind of. But it’s breakfast. Who cares? You’re going to be eating the same thing for breakfast most days in your life anyway. So rather than cereal you’re eating scrambled eggs and black beans. It’s fine.

If I’m in New York I’ll go to one of the deli places and have them make an egg white omelet with spinach and mushrooms. It’s good. It’s protein. It fills you up. And I don’t get that crazy hunger two hours later. The same thing with exercise. You’re doing the P90X which is awesome. And if you can keep it up for the time that you’re supposed to be doing it, that’s great. But if a person just wants to start like hiking at Runyon Canyon a couple times a week, that’s going to be a much better and more realistic start.

**Craig:** For sure. Yeah. Because I’m already kind of in shape. You know, I’ve been going to a trainer for awhile. I know what it means to work out. I know what it means to do pushups. I know what it means to weight train. But when I first started I was fat and I couldn’t do anything.

And right now where I am, it’s funny, because Todd Phillips did P90X. He’s the one that sort of said, “You should do this.” And he showed me a picture and I was like, “Oh my god,” look, because I’ve known the guy for awhile. And you don’t really see what’s going underneath people’s shirts. And he showed me a picture of what he looked like without his shirt on. I’m like, “Geez, look at that.” It’s amazing actually.

So, I started doing it. And every day I would just send him an email and say, “I can’t believe you did this. I can’t believe you did this for 90 days.” But he did do it for 90 days. And the point is he couldn’t, I mean, when he started he couldn’t believe it either. You just have to — so you’re always, you know, it’s like when we talked about Jiro and sushi. You’re not — oh, god, I can’t believe I don’t remember the name of the guy who just won the Decathlon. He’s the most in shape, fit guy in the world; we’re never going to be that guy. There’s always going to be someone more in shape than you, so relax, and just do what you can do.

**John:** Yeah. Be a better version of who you can be. And I think Todd Phillips is a good example because it’s a guy who doesn’t have to be in great shape. He’s not going to be an athlete. I’m not going to be an athlete. You just want to be in good enough shape so that you’re able to chase your kids around and not be tired walking up a hill.

**Craig:** Eh, he ain’t chasing kids around, but he’s chasing something around. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] You’re always chasing something. I want to live for a really long time.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I don’t want to die. I want to live a super, super long time. I’d love to the singularity but if I don’t make it there I want to at least live to grandkids. And so this is helpful ways to get you closer to that.

**Craig:** Well, I’ll tell you, I don’t even want to live a long time. I want to live a normal time. I just want the quality of my life to be awesome while I’m here. And it’s very difficult to have a good quality of life when you’re fat and tired and grumpy and depressed. So, to me it’s all about quality as opposed to quantity.

**John:** Yeah. And one of the things I will stress about sort of the people who go gung-ho into something so hardcore and then — the danger of going so gung-ho into something is that when it doesn’t work, when it fails, you feel like a failure. And it just sets up that whole cycle again. So, making smaller changes that keep stacking up is going to be a better solution for most people.

What you said before about the medical weight loss, that I can see because you have somebody backing you up. You’re on this program. You’re clearly in or you’re out of this program. But for most people I think if you’re trying to lose 10 pounds or 15 pounds that you’ve stacked on in your 30’s, ramping up and sort of changing your life rather than trying to drop them all at once is going to be a better experience.

**Craig:** Totally. Yeah. Completely.

**John:** The last thing I want to get to is really a screenwriter problem, and also an editor problem, too. We are people who sit a tremendous amount of time in chairs looking at screens. And the old advice used to be you need to get a better chair. And I strongly suspect now the better advice is don’t get a better chair, just stand up. I think we’re going to keep getting data that show that sitting in chairs for long periods of time is terrible no matter what else you do.

And so screenwriting is one of those things were like, yes, sometimes you really do have to buckle down and maybe sit down and actually type. But when you’re not actually typing, stand up.

And so like I’m recording this podcast standing up. If you’re taking phone calls stand up. You can also just lean on the kitchen counter and do stuff or stick your laptop on the counter. Try to not be down in that chair so much because I think it slows your body down and it changes how your body works.

I’ve noticed I’ve slept much better since I’ve started standing up.

**Craig:** Yeah. That is good advice. My posture is awful. I do everything wrong in a chair. I slump. I slouch. I curve. And the only thing I can say is then I get up and I walk around and I stretch. But, you know, I should stand more, it’s true.

**John:** And get a dog. That will also help.

**Craig:** Yeah. I have a dog. She’s lovely.

**John:** Yeah, walking dogs is always good. Because it helps you work through second act problems.

**Craig:** Uh, I still maintain that a shower is the best thing you can do.

**John:** Showers are good too.

So, hey, are you ready for some One Cool Things?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** How about I go first, Craig, because I actually know what mine is?

**Craig:** Uh-huh.

**John:** My One Cool Thing this week is the Jambox by Jawbone. And what this is is a really small little Bluetooth speaker. And it actually comes in two sizes. There’s a really small one that’s about the size of, I don’t know, two candy bars. And you can use it for both a speaker and as a speakerphone. I’ve actually never used the speakerphone function, but I find it to be great as travel speakers. And so if I’m in a hotel room in New York City and I want to listen to music, I can play music off my phone and it plays on the Jambox and it sounds actually good.

I used it this last week because I was meeting with a composer and I needed to play a bunch of songs for him. And it’s always like, “Oh, do you play it off your laptop?” It’s like, “No, this actually sounds much better.” So from my phone I can play the songs I wanted to play him and it worked really well.

For the house we ended up getting a bigger one that can plug in or we can sort of stick on the kitchen counter when we want to. And that’s what we listen to podcasts on a lot. And so as you’re cleaning the kitchen you fire it up, you listen to stuff, it sounds really good, and it’s always there when you need it. So I strongly recommend both of these. They’ve worked really great for us.

They’re rechargeable so you don’t have to keep them plugged in. And they’re terrific.

**Craig:** That sounds good. That will be my Cool Thing for the week, also.

**John:** Awesome. We’ll get to share.

**Craig:** I don’t have one.

**John:** Actually, there are two, there’s a bigger and smaller one, so you can pick which one you want to be your Cool Thing.

**Craig:** Bigger! Bigger.

**John:** Bigger. Always better.

And, Craig, I think we are now safely over 100,000, so I think next week will be the big acoustic set.

**Craig:** Yeah. I got new strings on the way. I’m going to restring my guitar so it sounds nice and bright and pleasant. And I’ve got a little thing so I can actually record the vocals and the guitar on two separate tracks into GarageBand so I can make it all nice and pretty.

**John:** It’s going to be amazing. So, everything we talked about on the podcast today is going to be on johnaugust.com with this podcast title.

Anything more Craig?

**Craig:** Mm. No. You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to eat a sandwich now. It’s made me hungry.

**John:** That’s good. I won’t — bread. I’ll eat bread tomorrow. We’re recording this on a Friday. And on Saturday…

**Craig:** Saturday you go crazy.

**John:**…I will pig out. But today, no bread.

**Craig:** No bread. I love it.

**John:** All right, thanks Craig.

**Craig:** You got it.

« 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 (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.