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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

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.

Scriptnotes, Ep 49: Losing sleep over critics — Transcript

August 14, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/losing-sleep-over-critic).

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

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

**John:** Craig, how is your groin?

**Craig:** [laughs] Why don’t you come over here and tell me?

**John:** Last week on the podcast you were talking about how you had started P90X and how you had pulled your groin doing that. Has it recovered?

**Craig:** Yeah. My groin completely recovered. Now I’m just super tired because I had one of those nights last night where I just couldn’t fall asleep. And, you know that terrible feeling when you know you have to wake up at say, 8, and it’s 3:30, and you’re like, oh god. And now you can’t fall asleep because you’re thinking about how you’re not going to get enough sleep. It was awful.

**John:** Yeah, so stress becomes panic becomes not being able to sleep. Yeah, it’s pretty awful. That often happens to me with travel whereas like I know that I have a meeting in the morning but I’m on a wrong time schedule anyway. And then I’m paranoid that my alarm won’t really go off because it’s my iPhone alarm and will it really ring if I have it set to vibrate? And it’s all those concerns.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, I think traveling is what… — I was in Philadelphia this weekend for a wedding. And I always think, “Oh, it will be great, I’ll just fly east for two days.” And it just messes you up. It’s amazing how thoroughly it messes you up. And I know people do it all the time. Maybe they get used to it. I certainly don’t.

**John:** I was in New York for three days this last week, and I actually should start by apologizing to listeners because we are a day or two late on the podcast because we were both traveling and it was hard to find a time for us to both record this podcast. But I was there for a couple of days and what I’ve learned to do is that the minute I feel tired I just go to bed. And like I don’t try to stay up at all because when I get to New York usually I’m taking an afternoon flight that gets me there at like 10pm. And there’s that instinct like, “Oh, I’m not really that tired, I can do a little bit more work.”

But then it becomes like 2:30 in the morning and I can’t fall asleep. And that’s a bad, dangerous thing. That starts a bad cycle.

**Craig:** Yeah, I remember my plan when I went to Thailand was…because when you get to Thailand you’re awake, but when you land, I mean, you’ve been up for hours and hours and hours. It’s time for you to go to sleep but it’s maybe 11am. So, you just say, “All right, I’m just going to stay up. I’m just going to stay up, and stay up, and stay up, and stay up.”

And I remember walking like a zombie to a Starbucks in Bangkok, getting a coffee in a desperate attempt to stay up. Sort of falling asleep as I carried the coffee to the little area where you put your sugar and stuff in, dropping the coffee all over the floor. [laughs] It was tragic.

And it almost felt like they looked at me like, “Hmm, must have just gotten off a plane, because we see white people in here dropping coffee all the time.”

**John:** Yeah. Not a big deal for them.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** My worst is always flying to Europe for whatever reason. Because I’ll sleep some on the plane, and I think like, “Oh, I slept once on a plane, I’m going to be just fine.” But it gets to be about 5pm, just as it starts to get dusky there where there’s like dinner plans, like, “Oh, we’ve got to rally to get to dinner.” “All I want to do is to be in bed. I’m starting to cry because I just want to be in bed.”

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** And I’m trying to stay up.

**Craig:** You know, that happened to me. I went to Ireland and I remember we had a dinner scheduled, and I literally just got up and walked out. [laughs] Couldn’t handle it. I had to go to bed.

**John:** So this last weekend was my birthday.

**Craig:** Oh, happy birthday.

**John:** Yeah, it was nice. And I got to celebrate my birthday twice in one weekend, because I had a birthday dinner that was Friday night that went into Saturday that was quite late. And then I got to fly back and have a second birthday dinner here. But then I went to bed at about like 9. And there’s something kind of luxurious about going to bed early on your birthday. It’s what I wanted to do most.

**Craig:** Huh.

**John:** What I want to do most right now is some follow-up. So, on the last podcast we talked about the WGA Screenwriters Survey. And one of the things that came up was bake-offs, which is where you bring in a lot of writers to pitch how they would write a project for assignment. And somebody wrote in with a question, and I can’t find the actual email, so I’m going to say that it was Brian, but I’m just making up the name Brian. But his question was basically if bake-offs are the wrong way to pick a writer for an assignment, what’s the right way?

**Craig:** That’s a good question.

**John:** It’s actually a good question. And so bake-offs, there have always been bake-offs, there have always been things that are sort of like bake-off. And the very first job I got, How to Eat Fried Worms, was essentially a bake-off. They invited me and some really funny Simpsons writers to come in and talk about how they would adapt this book.

So we went through a couple rounds of meetings and ultimately I won the bake-off. We didn’t have the term bake-off then, but that’s really basically what it was. Since that time, when I go in for projects, usually fortunately I’m not in a bake-off situation. And I think the better way that you could wish this would happen is, “We have this great property. Who would be a really good writer for it? Let’s ask that really good writer if he or she has a good approach for how to do it.”

And you go to a writer and you say, “Hey, do you want to do this?” And the writer says, “Sure, I want to do this.” And you evaluate and say, “Oh, yeah, that’s the way we went to do it. This is the right writer, the right approach. We trust this person who will go and do it.”

That doesn’t often or always happen, but that’s sort of the fantasy.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s a good way… — I mean, I think that for projects where the studio may not have that much money, so they aren’t necessarily going to the kind of writers, when you say, “Okay, well let’s find a really good writer that fits this project.” “Well that really good writer costs $1 million.” “We don’t have $1 million. We have $150,000.”

Well, you’re not going to go in and pitch on that. So, in those circumstances I’m okay with the notion of what happened with you on How to Eat Fried Worms. I think limiting it to a reasonable amount of writers is a good practice.

Frankly, I don’t even understand how it makes good business practice from their point of view to talk to 20 writers. It just seems exhausting. At some point how can you even tell who’s better, who’s number one as opposed to number two as opposed to number 14?

So, limit it to a reasonable amount of writers so that you don’t have 20 people out there beating their brains in to try and get this gig. Three or four, I suppose, seems like a good number. And as was the case with you, ask them how they would approach the movie. “What is their take?” as we say here in Hollywood. And that should be enough. Don’t have them write things. You know, just don’t create a lot of unused pointless labor so that you can make an over-informed decision that frankly is not very predictive of the quality of the screenplay anyway.

**John:** Yeah, you ran into that paradox of choice problem where the more people’s pitches you hear from the less likely you are to be happy with any one of them, because you’re starting to optimize and your instinct is to take the best of all those things.

You may be one of those people who loves the Cheesecake Factory menu where there’s like thousands of options, but you might actually be happier with the one or two things that are actually really, really good. So, yes, I would agree that sometimes on projects where you know you’re not going to be paying a lot of money for the script, you may be bringing in some newer writers, you may talk to two or three or four people for that.

But really you should be basing the decision on what they’ve already written, not on how fancy the pitch is going to be and how much pre-writing they’re going to do for you, because that’s not the best gauge of it. Ultimately you’re going to be trying to get a script out of this, not a good conversation with the guy who’s clever at pitching in the room.

**Craig:** Right. I think it indicates a general poverty of decision-making ability. You should be able to sort of narrow it down to three or four reasonable candidates, and then based on their discussions with you narrow it down to the person you want to write the script. I mean, having 20 people come in is… Who does that for anything else? You know?

I mean, hiring an architect or an interior decorator or, I don’t know. Who sees 20 people? It’s just crazy.

**John:** It’s crazy. And the other thing I’ll say is that if that one or two or three people that you’ve met with, you’re not happy with any of their approaches, move on. So, “Thank you very much, that’s not what we want to do,” and then you’re looking at the next person. That’s kind of okay.

It’s when you have eight people in parallel trying to pitch you this thing, that’s not good.

**Craig:** No, it’s lame.

**John:** So next we have a question from a guy named Ollie. And this is sort of more a psychological question. “I’m a 26-year-old UK screenwriter/director.” So he’s a writer/director in the UK. “I recently made a horror movie, an indie film we made for about $40,000. It ended up getting a limited theatrical release here in the UK. Yeah, yeah, that’s right. We got great reviews from genre magazines and a few genre bloggers and horror fans, but we got slaughtered in the major press. I could draw up a table with the good and bad comments from each critic and they pretty much cancel each other out. Given our success, now is the time I should be hammering out more screenplays, but when I sit down to write I find it almost impossible. I’m thinking about what The Guardian would say about this line, etc. How do you guys deal/feel with negative press over a film you’ve written? Do you pay attention to the things they say? Also, do you think it’s something I should have to worry about even going into future meetings, knowing the person may have seen some of it?”

Craig, what are your thoughts, because you’ve had movies that have not gotten good reviews?

**Craig:** Oh, I’m so happy that this guy asked this question. Well this isn’t going to endear me with many critics. I don’t care.

I do not care. I don’t write movies for critics. I write movies for audiences. My entire focus is on what the audience thinks of a film. We actually now have a somewhat objective audience-ometer in something called CinemaScore, which works like an exit poll. People leave the theater and there are people from the CinemaScore company that say, “What did you think of the movie? Give it an A+ all the way down to F.” And then they average out all the scores and they report the scores.

And I’m far more interested in that because I’m not writing movies for critics. I have a friend, Alec Berg, who we both know well, and he’s a terrific writer. He wrote on Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm and a lot of movies. And he had a great point. He said, “What if your job was to be a hamburger reviewer?” So every day for dinner you had a hamburger. Every single day. At some point your ability to judge what the general hamburger eating populace wants becomes incredibly distorted.

Movies are not intended… — No one is intended to see every single movie. Reviewers see every single movie. More to the point, they see them with other reviewers which changes the entire dynamic. I don’t dispute that there is some value to reviews for certain kinds of movies, but for other kinds of movies they’re essentially pointless.

The last thing in the world you want to do as any kind of artist is write towards a critic. Write instead with your attention toward your audience. There will always be critics. They are not going away. If everybody that created things became concerned about critics, critics would have nothing to criticize because nothing would get done. They are not your friend. And, frankly, they serve an incredibly questionable purpose in the relationship between the artist and the audience. So, believe me, I understand your pain. I’ve gotten my fair share of bad reviews. I’ve gotten bad reviews that I thought I deserved. I’ve gotten bad reviews I thought I didn’t deserve.

I’ve gotten good reviews I thought I didn’t deserve. If you feel like beating yourself up with those, go ahead and have a masochistic pity party with it. But beyond that, you need to put them in the box they belong in which is not relevant to your job, and your purpose.

**John:** One thing I would stress is that really look at what the function of reviews are. And reviews in general aren’t trying to further the art of movie making. They are really about: should I see this movie that comes out on Friday? And so the reviewer’s first audience is the person who might go to see a movie.

And what the person who is looking at the review really wants to know is, “Is this going to be worth my time and dollars to go see this move?” You are not that person. You are the person who made the movie. And so it’s unlikely that you’re going to find things that are particularly helpful for you in reading those reviews.

So, I wish I could say I was the person who is strong enough to never look through the reviews when one of my movies comes out. I do look at all the reviews. And, you know, I am secretly happy when I know that a movie that I’ve worked on is going to have good reviews. But, I can’t let that sort of drive my decision-making going forward. You know, it comes back to something we talked about on an earlier podcast is you should be writing the movie that you would spend $12 to $13 to go see on opening night.

That should be your whole focus. Not about what The Guardian is going to say about your movie. It’s about what would you say if you had the chance to go see that movie opening night. Think about that movie and don’t think about The Guardian’s review of that movie.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, I always tell, you know, when I have friends and they’re like, “Oh my god, I read this review. I’m so depressed.” And I always say: Have you ever had that experience where you see a movie and you just love it? You go with a friend and you just love it. And you walk out of the theater and you’re like, oh my god, that was great. I mean, it moved me, it touched me, it made me laugh. Whatever it was supposed to do it did it really effectively. And your friend you were seeing it goes, “I hated it; it was stupid.” Don’t you want to punch them in the face?

Well, sometimes that person is a reviewer. And I think now more than ever the mega phone of media has been demystified and de-romanticized to the point where volume is irrelevant, and we all get that. Your friend’s opinion is shared with you and you alone. Somebody else who writes for the The Guardian shares their opinion with the world, and then amusingly, one hundred to two hundred people review the reviewer in the comments section.

And everybody is reviewing everybody because you have to stand out in the cacophony of reviewing and meta reviewing. Snark and exaggeration sort of carry the day. Reviewers I think now more than ever are trying to entertain as opposed to actually review. They tend to engage in insane hyperbole.

I remember the very first movie I wrote, it was a movie for kids. And I guess somewhere in the press materials it referred to the fact that I, and my writing partner, graduated from Princeton, which we had just I think four years before that movie came out. And one reviewer said, “The writers, Craig Mazin and Greg Erb,” and then in parenthesis, “(who attended Princeton University and apparently never got over it).”

**John:** Ugh.

**Craig:** I don’t even know what that means. I mean, I would understand if the movie were some sort of pompous navel-gazing thing, or snobby, and you think, “Oh, these snobby Princeton guys obviously love their Princeton lives so much.”

It was a movie about an idiot. [laughs] It was a clumsy idiot who goes into space. It was for children. It didn’t even make sense. And it was so pointless. And then when you — god, I’m really not doing myself any favors here — but when you meet a lot of these reviewers you go, “Oooh, oh, you’re just lame. [laughs] You’re just a lame person.”

I also remember I was at Comic-Con like in 2000, I guess this was before Comic-Con turned into like mega Comic-Con. It was sort of just big Comic-Con. And there was a panel and Kevin Smith was on the panel. And this guy asked a question. He announced that he was Jeffrey Wells who is an internet film critic. And Kevin Smith heard and he goes, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, you’re Jeffrey Wells? Oh, interesting. You’ve written a lot of really mean stuff about me. But now that I get an eyeful of you, it doesn’t seem that bad.” [laughs]

And the room exploded. And the truth is, that’s kind of what it comes down to. It’s like, “Oh, you’re The Guardian reviewer? Oh, I wouldn’t want to have lunch with you. You’re lame.”

So, a lot of times it’s just like we blow these things up because people write about them and they attack us and they feel entitled to attack us. And it hurts. The pain is absolutely real. But you have to be able to parse that from your approach, or you’re dead. You will not write a second movie and you will certainly not get your revenge.

**John:** So one thing I’ve been considering doing for quite a long time, but as everyone knows I have a lot of irons in the fire, so it’s probably not the best use of my time. But I’ll describe it now because maybe someone else will want to do this: I have a theory, an operating theory, that the screenwriter’s name is mentioned about five times more often in a negative review than in a positive review.

That is to say: if a review is positive the screenwriter’s name generally goes unmentioned; if the review is negative the screenwriter’s name is much more often, much more likely to be mentioned. Now that anecdotally feels true to me, but I think the only way to really know if that’s true would be to do a systematic study of reviews over the last five years and really go through and just figure out, sort of the Rotten Tomatoes, positive versus negative. Go through each and every review and figure out whether the screenwriter’s name is mentioned.

That to me feels like the perfect kind of senior thesis or master’s thesis kind of thing for a statistics major to go through and see whether there really is a pattern there or if I’m just imagining there is this pattern. My hunch is that the screenwriter’s name is almost only mentioned in negative reviews.

**Craig:** I agree with you. And, in fact, I would take it one step further. I would be interested to see, to model the question in this way: When the screenwriter’s name is mentioned, is it mentioned negatively? Because I even see in positive reviews, they will say things like, “Such and such working from a so-so script by blah blah blah manages to somehow make a great movie.” [laughs]

I just feel like we’re only cited in the context of, “ugh, screenplay.”

**John:** Yeah. And so the example that you gave is very classically what you see when the screenwriter’s name is mentioned is that if the story is not working, well, that was the screenwriter’s fault. And somehow the critic has perfect insight into what really happened behind the scenes for why it is that way.

And so if everything works well, well, the director did a great job. If everything is a disaster, well, the screenplay was terrible. And it feeds into my other frustration that we tend to vote on screenwriting awards without ever seeing the script for the screenplay which is…

**Craig:** It’s ridiculous. I think movie critics are facing kind of an end of life, frankly. In the last couple of years it seems to me that if the primary function of the film reviewer as you point out is to advise moviegoers whether or not they ought to see a film, they’ve been replaced by Twitter.

People hear from their friends. And Facebook.

**John:** And they hear in real time. I will say that the one function that critics do perform that I think is actually an important function is to champion things that might otherwise go overlooked.

**Craig:** Correct. Yes.

**John:** And so there are cases where a movie really is fantastic and if it were not for important critics jumping up and down saying, “Everyone go see this movie,” we might not see this movie and that’s a very useful function. But that’s not the majority of the work they do.

**Craig:** Yeah. And even then I have to say I feel like that is going to go away, too, for them. Because there are still so many ways that people can promote things themselves. And, frankly, people respond to their friend’s sort of voluntary passions more than they do picking up the New York Times and reading what the reviewer there has to say about a particular movie.

That eventually even that function will go away. And you can see the commoditization of reviews already occurring, the whole Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic phenomenon has essentially removed any of the individual value of any particular filmmaker and just boil them into a melting pot of averages.

**John:** The brand name of both the publication and the reviewer used to be an important gate-keeping function. That was a way into knowledge about whether that movie was good or bad. And now through aggregation it’s become less significant. And so you don’t really — you see a Rotten Tomatoes score but you don’t really know who those people are who liked it. You don’t know… — Like the person in the paper at Wichita has as much weight in some of those scales as the New York Times.

**Craig:** That’s right. That’s right. I really miss — I mean, I really miss what you and I had when we were growing up with Siskel & Ebert. Because aside from, “Well I really like that reviewer,” people will say. You like them when you agree with them, and when you disagree with them you don’t like them. That’s sort of normal. But I always liked Siskel & Ebert in the sense that they seem like movie fans as opposed to cinema fans or promoting a certain particular kind of film or being culturally snobbish.

I mean, Siskel famously thought that Saturday Night Fever was one of the greatest films ever made. And, by the way, I think he’s right. But what was so wonderful about that show was that they disagreed, passionately, sometimes violently. And that underscored, frankly, one of the important things to remember, and so I’ll say this again to the person writing in: For everyone that squats on your movie there’s somebody that believes in it and loves it.

And maybe you don’t read those, or you discount those, or they just don’t have a job at The Guardian. And maybe working at The Guardian is kind of something that’s going to skew people to like one kind of movie as opposed to another. But, don’t fall into the trap of magnifying the negativity in your mind.

**John:** I would agree.

And let me put that up here as an official offer. If you are, I would say, an undergrad statistics major but more likely a grad student who would be seriously interested in doing something like a research project about reviews, write in at ask@johnaugust.com and talk to me about what you want to do. Because it’s the kind of thing that I think really would be great data to have, because it feels anecdotally true but I don’t know if it’s actually true.

And if it is anecdotally true, sorry, if it’s actually factually true, if there’s data to back up this idea that reviewers really are only mentioning the screenwriter’s name in negative context, or predominately in negative context, that’s worth talking about.

And I think that’s the kind of thing that you could share with reviewers and maybe effect some small change.

**Craig:** I love it.

**John:** Cool. Last question. This is from Ryan and Jessica in Santa Monica. “Dear John and Craig: A feature film we wrote is currently in preproduction. And the producers recently attached an actress with considerable clout in the TV world. The actress is a big fan of work; that’s really exciting to us. But what’s the best way to capitalize on this fact. We were thinking about specking her show or another show on the network she’s on. Any thoughts?”

Well, first off, congratulations. I’m glad that you have a movie in preproduction. I’m glad you have an actress that you like. Do not spec her show. That’s a terrible idea. This is an actress, and I’m not…I didn’t genericize her name. They didn’t tell me who the actress is. But it’s great that she’s on a TV show. It’s great that she’s in your movie. You trying to write something for her TV show is not going to be a happy outcome.

If you want to write something else for her, that’s great. Write her another movie. But if she’s an actress on a TV show who’s doing this movie, she probably wants to do movies. And so your trying to come on board he TV show is not going to be a great outcome and it looks like you’re muscling in on stuff that she already has. It’s just not happy and good.

So, don’t do that.

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree. There’s a phrase that comes to mind: Act like you’ve been there before. You know, you’re a movie writer. You just wrote a movie. She’s in the movie. Act like you’ve been there before. You don’t want to turn around and ask her if you can clean her house or maybe get a job as entry level writers on her staff of her show. And by the way, she doesn’t make the hiring decisions at all on her TV show. I can guarantee that. The showrunner does.

And the showrunner is not going to want to get jammed with people that are beholden to one particular actor on the show. That’s a recipe for disaster. Act like you’ve been there before. You’re confident. You wrote a movie. You like writing movies. Write another movie. If you really love her, write a movie for her.

I would definitely wait and see how well she does in the film you’re talking about, because you may not like her.

**John:** You might not.

**Craig:** You may not like her performance, you know?

**John:** So the only thread of an idea that’s in this question that I would say is maybe worth pursuing: If you are interested in doing television, the fact that you wrote this movie that this TV actress is in is sort of interesting to some TV people. So, as your agents start to setup meetings with TV stuff, as you’re pitching shows people can sort of remember, “Oh, they wrote the movie that that TV actress is in. They feel like they’re TV kind of people.” That may be a little bit helpful.

And so whatever the studio is and the network that that actress has a TV show on, that could be kind of helpful and useful. But specking her specific show is not going to help you at all. If you are trying to staff on things, first off writing specs of existing shows isn’t the big way that people get staffed these days. It tends to be through originals.

So, you wrote a feature script; that’s awesome. Write an original pilot for something that feels like the kind of show you want to do and let that be your sample. But just don’t try to get her involved with this. Let her be the actress in the movie that you wrote and don’t try to make more of it than that.

**Craig:** Do you think it would be okay if they, let’s say, they wanted to sort of do television and movies. And they had an interesting idea for their own television show and they thought she was great for it. That’s fair to bring to her, right?

**John:** But she’s already on a hit TV show.

**Craig:** That’s true. She can’t be on another show.

**John:** She can’t be on another show. I mean, here’s the thing: If that show went away. I don’t know, it’s going to be so dangerous trying to talk about an actress, but let’s say it was Marcia Cross who was on Desperate Housewives. Let’s say it was her. And so after things go really well with the movie, you have a good relationship with Marcia Cross, and you want to pitch a show that she’d be perfect for, that’s maybe something to consider.

But I wouldn’t do that until you’re movie is actually happening because otherwise you’re just, you’re making things more complicate than they should be.

Marcia Cross is awesome by the way. She’s so good. I love her to death. All the way from Melrose Place.

**Craig:** Melrose Place.

**John:** Craig, I think it’s about time for us to do our One Cool Things and we’ll save bigger topics for other weeks. Does that sound good?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But I should leave with one last bit of follow-up. It says, “Hello Mr. August.” Chris writes, “I just wanted to let you know, you and Mr. Mazin know, that thanks to his Cool Thing recommendation I tried and quite enjoyed PB2.”

**Craig:** Ah-ha. That’s my peanut butter powder, yes.

**John:** Yeah, the peanut butter powder. And now he’s not talking about Pottery Barn 2, an offshoot of Pottery Barn. Talking about a powderized Peanut Butter.

**Craig:** I think you’re thinking actually of CB2, Crate & Barrel.

**John:** Oh yeah. CB2. PB2. It’s crazy.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** They’re all kind of related. They’re not quite flat-pack furniture, but sort of like it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It relates to our IKEA conversation. “For now, it’s fine.”

**Craig:** That’s right. That’s right.

**John:** Who’s first with our Cool Things?

**Craig:** You know, you know that my entire approach to this podcast is to do as little as possible, so you have to make the decision. [laughs]

**John:** I will go first.

A couple weeks ago on the podcast I talked about sort of my writing setup and that my ideal writing setup would be somehow to have a waterproof computer so I could just write in the shower. Hearing the suggestion, Nima Yousefi, who works with me and is a fan and listener to the show, who just got a little flush in his cheeks to hear his name on the podcast, for my birthday he sent me this thing called Aqua Pad. And what it is is a pad of waterproof paper with a little suction cup on it that you can stick to your wall of your shower, and a little suction cup thing to hold a pencil. And you can jot down your notes while you’re in the shower.

And it just seems like, well, that’s absurd. But literally that same day I used it because for this project I need to figure out the names for the main characters. And I was like wrestling through with like, “What’s the wife’s name? Is she a Jen? Is she a….oh, she’s a Lisa!” And I’m like in the shower as this is happening. I’m like, “Lisa!” And so I wrote the names for all the five family members on that little pad, ripped it off, and here I am.

So thank you, Nima, for the Aqua Pad. And it’s actually, I mean, here’s the thing: Fortunately I have it stuck on a wall where like a person walking into the bathroom is not going to see it, because it does look kind of crazy. But it’s actually kind of useful. And waterproof paper, for those who don’t know, is kind of an under-appreciated miracle. You see it in film production because script supervisors will often do their…they’ll make a copy of their script on waterproof paper because if they’re outside in the rain or whatever, they can take their notes on the script with that.

And it’s this weirdly plasticized paper that you can only really write on with pencil. Like, you can’t write on it with a pen because pens are water-based. But you can write on it with a pencil, and now you can write on it in the shower.

So I’ll put a link in the show notes at johnaugust.com for this Aqua Pad thing which is probably a few bucks at Amazon.

**Craig:** There’s a whole world of shower products. And I always feel like all of them are ridiculous. I remember years ago I tried getting one of those shower mirrors so you could shave in the shower.

**John:** Those are the worst. They never work.

**Craig:** And there’s shower radios. And there’s shower this, and shower that. And in the end I realized I just like going into the shower with soap.

**John:** Yeah. I like to go to the shower with soap and a song in my heart. So…

**Craig:** Yeah. My Cool Thing is an app, as they often are, but this is one that I use every single day. And this is mostly useful for those of you who live in cities, but not exclusively American cities, because I know we have a lot of international listeners. And it’s an app called Inrix. I-N-R-I-X. Do you use this, John?

**John:** I don’t. I don’t know what it is.

**Craig:** Oh, John, you’ll be downloading it later, as soon as we’re done.

**John:** It does sound like some sort of drug you take for a venereal disease.

**Craig:** It is probably somewhere a drug you take for a venereal disease. But for the iPhone, and this is not going to help you with your venereal disease, it is on the surface a very simple thing. It’s a traffic app. So it’s like a traditional traffic app: It shows you a map and it shows you where the traffic is.

And you might think, well, I already have that. It’s actually in Maps on iPhone for instance, sort of a basic thing. And it will show you red is uh-oh and yellow is sort of sluggish and green is wide open.

Here’s what’s great about Inrix: First, you can put in addresses — your home, the airport, your work, whatever. And based on current traffic information it will give you two alternate routes and it will show you the approximate time you will be arriving.

This alone is worth a lot to me, because it settles me down. So there’s… — The worst thing in the world, especially in LA, is thinking, “Okay, I’ve got two ways I could go. They both look a little dicey. I’m not sure which way is best. I’ll just pick one. Oh god, I think I picked wrong.” [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** And I would have been there by now if I’d gone the other way. That’s all gone with Inrix. They solve it for you. Sometimes, actually, what I love about it is it will — it has no problem — you know sometimes in your car it will be like, okay, avoid highways and you can force it to avoid highways. This thing will on its own decide you should probably get off the highway here because that part is crazy, and then get back on here.

I mean, they’re great.

**John:** So it’s basically serving the function I serve in the car when Mike asks me, “Take a look at Maps and see how bad the traffic is on the 405.”

**Craig:** Yes. However, this gets to the second wonderful part. I don’t know how other apps collect their traffic data. There are traffic reporting agencies in places and they use a system of cameras and sensors and things like that.

But here’s what’s awesome about Inrix: Inrix is also…every time you’re using it, it’s measuring you. So, you’re reporting back to the server. It knows where you are, and it knows how fast you’re going. And it knows what the speed limit is there.

So, it’s actually got an incredibly good system of up-to-date stuff. They aggregate a lot of data: The traditional camera-based data and sensor-based data and weather data and construction data. But they also just see how all their users are moving. And sometimes if you get somewhere and you’re like, “Whoa, this is a little slower than it says,” you click a button and it will start tracking you and update it based on you, which is spectacular.

And I have found by and large Inrix to be far more accurate than the sort of general Google Maps traffic thing. So, between the routing, and it will also update your route as you go. If something happens it will change it. I think it’s awesome.

**John:** That’s terrific.

**Craig:** Okay, and so the only downside is to get all that super awesome functionality you have to pay like a one-time fee of like $25. But, it’s tied to your — it’s a subscription. It’s not tied to the device but to your Apple ID for mine, because I use an iPhone. So it will work from device to device.

**John:** That sounds cool.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Some of that functionality is built into iOS 6 which is supposed to come out in September, but this is something that exists now and works and sometimes that’s worth a lot — the thing that actually exists rather than promise of future things.

I know iOS 6, I don’t think I’m breaking any NDAs here, because I think they talked about this publicly, it does gather data from all iPhones to figure out real-time traffic which is good, is smart.

**Craig:** But does it do the thing where it plans routes for you and then tells you when it thinks you’ll get there?

**John:** I don’t know that it does. It does turn-by-turn navigation now finally which is good. But, that’s great. I like that it exists. I like people using data for good rather than for evil.

**Craig:** Yeah, for once.

**John:** For once. And who knows? Maybe someone will write in who has a statistics background who can use the movie review data for good rather than for evil and see whether reviewers are actually mentioning the screenwriter’s name in positive ways that I’m just missing somehow, because I’m only looking for the bad reviews.

**Craig:** It would also be interesting for this hypothetical grad student to figure out how many movie reviews mention the screenwriter at all.

**John:** Totally. I think the fantasy I would have is that a person basically going through and creating a database that tracks every review: Was the screenwriter mentioned? Was the review positive or negative? Was the mention of the screenwriter positive or negative? And does a bunch of that, and with enough data that you press a button and it spits out your result of which percentage of reviews do which things.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** I should say, and I obviously can’t talk about what specific movie it is, but one thing that people may not know about both the movie review process but also how movies are talked about and how they are covered, is press screenings actually happen sometimes significantly before a movie comes out. And one of the things that they do after they show — reviewers sometimes, but also editors of magazines and other long-lead press, lights come up and they say, “What did you think?”

And they will ask for like two to three sentences for a person, just their quick first impressions. And they’re like, oh, they’re just curious to know. But exactly what they say gets typed up in a memo that circulates between everyone at the studio. And so there’s this ongoing document that’s called the Reaction Memo.

So you always say that it was a surprise that somebody got good reviews or got bad reviews. Not it isn’t, because a lot of that stuff has been discussed for weeks and weeks ahead of time. So, studios tend to have a very good sense of what the critical reception will be for a movie long before it comes out.

**Craig:** Yes. That is correct.

**John:** Bit of trivia.

Craig, go to bed. Have a great night of sleep.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m gonna go to bed. This is going to be great. And next week, I mean, should you say?

**John:** Yeah. Next week I think Craig is going to be breaking out his guitar because our numbers have come back over the 100,000 mark and they seem to be sort of reliably there. So I feel like our Cool Thing may be a song that Craig gets to play us out with.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m going to be playing a song. It’s happening next week.

**John:** It’s gonna be great.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** Craig, enjoy.

**Craig:** Thanks.

**John:** Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 48: Craig dreams of sushi — Transcript

August 2, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/craig-dreams-of-sushi).

**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, how are you?

**Craig:** I’m in pain.

**John:** Oh no, what’s happened?

**Craig:** I started doing P90X.

**John:** Oh no. That’s dangerous. That drug will kill you.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s not something I could put in my little vaporizer pen, John. It’s a workout program and it’s… — I’m on day three. I’m in a lot of pain.

**John:** Yeah. So, I know friends who have done P90X. Essentially everyday you’re doing a workout that is sort of predetermined. And are following along with a video?

**Craig:** Yeah. You have DVDs and the incredibly super-annoying and incredibly fit trainer takes you through so many exercises. It’s a solid hour. You know you’re in trouble when the warm-up has you winded and sweaty. [laughs]

**John:** That’s not a good sign.

**Craig:** Yeah. But, you know, the first time I went through it, I’m like, okay, well, I kept up as best I could. And then I woke up the next day and everything hurt. And so then yesterday I was supposed to do day two. I got in about ten minutes, tweaked my groin, stopped. [laughs] Today, I’m going to do day three, which is not very groin-based, and I’m in even more pain.

So, this is going to be painful for a bit, but I’m going to stick with it.

**John:** I’m sorry to hear that. We could do a podcast about screenwriters exercising, because I do see a lot of screenwriters at the gym. Because I go to the gym at the hours that screenwriters and actors who are not currently on TV shows go to the gym, and so I see a lot of screenwriters. I see Dana Gould at the gym quite often. And so it’s nice to catch up with that.

**Craig:** You know, it’s actually a good idea. We should do a podcast just about general health for screenwriters because…

**John:** I was thinking that, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. As a group we are fat, and dying.

**John:** Mm-hmm. And you used to be heavier person, and you’re not a heavier person, which was a change since I’ve known you.

**Craig:** I like to use the word “fat.”

**John:** Okay. You were a fat person.

**Craig:** I was fat and now I’m not fat.

**John:** Which is a nice thing.

**Craig:** It is. It’s been awhile. It’s been a few years of being non-fat. I like it.

**John:** Yeah. I’ve never been fat but I’ve lost about 15 pounds over the last year and a half and it’s good.

**Craig:** Oh good. Yeah, it’s a good thing.

**John:** Let us get to our actual work of the podcast today. This week I thought we would talk about the WGA Screenwriters Survey, the results of which just came out this past week, and we would do Round 2 of the Three Page Challenge, which was that thing where we asked our listeners to write in with three pages of their script and we would possibly critique it. So, we did Round 1 which turned out pretty well, so we’re going to do Round 2.

**Craig:** Exciting.

**John:** First, some follow up. On the last podcast in my Cool Thing I talked about the Nexus 7, which is the Google Android device that’s roughly a small iPad. And I talked about it, but weirdly I didn’t talk about it for the actual reason I bought it which is to see whether it was actually any good for reading screenplays. So I thought I would do that in follow up right now.

It’s not bad. As a size it’s actually a pretty good size. It’s light enough that it’s easy to sort of hold onto. The screen is big enough that even though a PDF is sort of shrunk down it’s still fairly readable. So for that, I’d say it’s pretty good. Some of it is my unfamiliarity with the Android that I found it a little bit frustrating to get to PDFs on it.

My test for this was I went to my own site, johnaugust.com, and in the library I have scripts for — I have PDFs for a lot of the scripts I’ve written, like Go, and Big Fish, and other things. And so on the iPad you would tap on one of those and it would open up the PDF. And you can read it there or you can open it in iBooks or one of the other apps you have on your device.

On the Nexus 7, which may be true for all Android devices, you tap on it and nothing seems to happen. And it’s like, did I do something? Did I not do something? So I tapped on it again, and this little alert box came up saying, “You’re already downloading this. Do you want to download it again?”

**Craig:** Huh?

**John:** So where I am downloading this too?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So it’s buried under many other layers of things, but you find there’s a little thing that looks like an application but it’s actually called Downloads. You open that up and, like, okay, there’s the Big Fish script I downloaded. You tap on it, it gives you two choices of things to open it up in, one of which is the Kindle app and one of which is the Easy PDF Reader, or like the Built-in PDF Reader something.

It’s okay. It’s fine. I thought I would try some of the other apps for it, the official Adobe app is better; it looks pretty good. The best one I found was like a $2 app. I’m the only person who ever paid for an app on Android apparently, but it’s a $2 app called Easy PDF that was actually pretty good and it had a nice-looking page flip. It was a little bit laggy, which is not ideal. But on the whole I found the size of it was actually pretty good.

And it made me think… — A couple podcasts ago I talked about there was a script that I was sent to read and they sent it to me on a locked iPad. And that was an expensive way to send a script. Obviously I messengered the iPad back. But these things are cheap enough that if you didn’t get them back you kind of maybe wouldn’t be out so much money.

So it might be an interesting way to send around scripts that you didn’t want anyone to copy because I feel like there’s probably a way to lock these things down very, very tight. Considering I couldn’t even figure out how to open something simple, I really wouldn’t have been able to figure out how to copy.

**Craig:** God, it’s amazing how they can’t get the little things right, isn’t it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Well I have a little bit of follow up, too. A sharp-eared lexicographic, brilliant Twitter follower of mine pointed out that I missed use the word “bowdlerize,” which I guess means to sort of euphemistically refer to something that’s a little racy or naughty, when in fact the word I meant to use, or the word I ought to have used was “portmanteau.” And a portmanteau is when you combine two words into one, like cartridge and atomizer becoming cartomizer. So, sorry, it wasn’t bowdlerize, it was a portmanteau.

**John:** How very nice. It’s really interesting that a reader pointed out a word that you used incorrectly because I feel like I pretty much have nothing but gaffes on the show, some of which we edit out. In our very first podcast I used the word “dig-deeping” which will always live with us.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s there forever.

**John:** Yeah, until we edit it out.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. Yeah.

**John:** One more point of follow up, and this is not really…I can’t answer this but I wanted to sort of engage more speculation and discussion on it. We asked why aren’t there more female screenwriters, because in our first batch of the Three Page Challenge 12% of the submissions we got were from women which seemed really, really low. Because this wasn’t indicating that there was a systemic problem of hiring women writers, because these are mostly aspiring writers, so why weren’t more of these aspiring writers women? And that was the question I posited.

And so I’ve been talking to other writers, and especially women writers about that, and some people have written in. So here’s some feedback we got.

The first questions people asked: Well maybe podcast subscribers are disproportionately male? Craig?

**Craig:** Yeah. It doesn’t turn out that that’s the case. I mean, I did a little Google search, and not that much on the web for podcast demographics, but it looks like there was one decent study, pretty recent, 2012, that stated there is a slight male bias to podcast listening — I think they said it was 56% male, 44% women. Not enough to explain the 12% thing that we dealt with.

**John:** And so we don’t know what the demographics are of our podcast, and maybe they really are, maybe only 12% of our listeners really are women, which would help explain why we only got 12% of our submissions from women. But it doesn’t seem like podcasting overall is necessarily so male skewed.

Several female writers pointed out that although the female numbers in screenwriting are low, the female number in directors are incredibly low, just absurdly low. And that doesn’t actually help explain the female screenwriter thing, but it’s another point to consider.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s not our point. That’s somebody else’s argument. That’s for the Directornotes podcast. I mean, I’m particularly curious about this one. Somebody else pointed out that the Nicholl Fellowship or the Nicholl Screenwriting Competition gets something like 20%, 25% rather, of submissions from women. The Writers Guild reports roughly something like 25% to 27% of working writers are women. So, there seems to be a general phenomenon of an imbalance that’s rooted in just interest. But we’re even below that.

**John:** And another listener took issue with the idea of interest. And so this is Faruk Ates, I’ve never actually said his name aloud, but he’s someone I’ve corresponded with before. He writes in to say, “What’s known so far from countless research on women in the workplace overall is that women or any other minority or demographic group are not innately ‘less interested’ in anything. The idea that women are less interested in screenwriting is really just an observation of the results, not a theory of the cause of this problem.”

Which I think is true. You can’t say, “Women are less interested in screenwriting.” That’s not actually addressing the issue. That’s just saying that they don’t want to be screenwriters. Well, then you have to ask, “Well why don’t they want to be screenwriters?”

Some of the speculation was that the kinds of movies that Hollywood is making tend to be sort of things aimed at teenage boys, and maybe that’s a reason why women aren’t aiming for a future in screenwriting because they see the kinds of movies that they would be writing are the kinds of movies for 13 year old boys. They’re seeing a lot Transformers movies and they don’t want to do that.

**Craig:** Yeah, I guess. I mean, that’s one theory. Another theory is that there are men writing The Notebook. And I’m not sure that that holds water.

**John:** I’m not sure it holds water either. So I’m saying, I don’t have any answers here. I’m basically throwing this out. I looked up on the Nicholl Fellowship website and their FAQ — they say that since the beginning of the competition, just over 30% of entries have been submitted by women. So, 30%, which his more than 25%, but it’s still low, it’s only 30%.

And another writer wrote anonymously to tell that at CAA he asked the question and his agent replied that they get 24% of submissions in terms of writers seeking representation come from women. So, again, that’s in that 20% to 30% range which we seem to be hearing a lot.

When I go to speak to screenwriting classes, my recollection of it is that it tends to be much more 50/50. But that may just be reflecting who they took into the program. Maybe they wanted a 50/50 split, so therefore they did that.

**Craig:** That’s right. Their admissions policies may skew to try and get to that 50/50. The only other basis of data I could draw on, and obviously it’s anecdotal, is when I go to a large conference like Austin for instance, there seems to be a lot of women there. I don’t notice any disparity. I look out in the audience, I don’t notice that the crowd is particularly male or particularly female. I certainly think I would notice something as skewed as a 70/30 or 75/25 split.

I mean, I understand what the commenters are saying to you. We’re not suggesting that our theory is correct. That’s the point, really; we we’re just making a guess because I’m not sure what else does explain it. I think sometimes people get very sensitive to the notion that a particular group might not be interested in something because it seemingly precludes bias or injustice.

And, I think, people sometimes go looking for bias and injustice. But there’s nothing wrong, frankly, with women on the whole being less interested in this. Nor does it delegitimize women who are. It’s just one of those things. There are a lot of things that women do that men simply aren’t interested and we don’t seem to have a problem with that.

**John:** The only exception I would take there is that the fact that there are, maybe 24% or 25% of screenwriters are women, does that maybe make it more challenging for a woman entering into the business? Because there are fewer women role models. There are fewer women writers to support each other in those things. Executives are working with fewer women so therefore their head isn’t already set up to think like, “Well we should hire a woman for this project.”

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s true. I mean, there could be a feedback loop where women perhaps have a sort of endemic lower interest level that leads to fewer women in the screenwriting workplace which leads to less supportive women or perhaps marginalization of women because minorities tend to be excluded. It’s just sort of a natural human impulse to kind of clump together and leave the ones that don’t fit in alone.

I guess, that’s possible.

**John:** Yeah. If you’re not seeing any examples of women screenwriters, maybe your head doesn’t go to the fact like, “I should be a screenwriter.” And that’s a possibility.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s true. Because they don’t see… — I mean, the interesting thing is I’ve never, personally I’ve never been somebody that needs to see somebody like me doing a thing to think I could or should or might want to do that. But I know that other people do.

I can’t quite tell what’s going on. I don’t think it’s as simple as “Hollywood is sexist” and they’re essentially responsible for this 25% gap.

**John:** I think it’s more sophisticated than that, too. I agree.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And screenwriting was invented by women. I mean, screenwriting was originally a woman’s thing. And I don’t remember the name of the woman who typed up the first script, but if you look at a What Happens Next, a book I’ll link to in the show notes, the first screenwriters were women. It used to be that that was that job.

**Craig:** Yeah. And women don’t seem to be limited presence — don’t have any limited presence on book stands.

**John:** Nope.

**Craig:** There are a ton of female novelists. I’ve never noticed a lack of them. It’s kind of a strange thing. There’s something about screenwriting that maybe just is not that interesting. I don’t know.

**John:** I have read articles though that talk about the lack of serious women — like if you actually look through all the reviews, the serious book reviews, women are hugely underrepresented in serous book reviews. So there may be some aspect of that, even in novel writing. Again, now I’m talking way outside of my experience and field.

What we can talk more about the Screenwriters Survey which was a survey done by the Writers Guild of active members asking them about recent projects they’ve worked on and then asking in pretty excruciating detail about the process and what things the writers encountered during that process.

And it was very much a survey of naming names and talking about who you submitted things to, what they asked for, and that. You and I both encouraged, on the podcast, we encourage our WGA member listeners to go and fill out the survey online. I participated in helping design the form, so I was really curious to see what the results of this were. And that got announced this last week.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it was pretty much what we were all expecting: Bad news. Pretty bad news. And you go through it — this is available, I think you can find it at the LA Times if you are not in the Writers Guild. It’s on the Writers Guild website if you’re a member.

**John:** We’ll find a link to it and put it in the show notes.

**Craig:** There you go. You know, so it was sort of the big headline. Screenwriters when they asked, “Would you say that the professional status of writers in the entertainment business has gotten much better, somewhat better, somewhat worse, much worse, or stayed about the same,” when you combined “somewhat worse” and “much worse” you end up — whether you’re asking about major studios or smaller studios, you end up with 72%.

**John:** Yeah. That’s a huge number.

**Craig:** That’s terrible.

**John:** And so what I thought was important about this survey is people’s first reaction is like, “Well duh,” because it’s confirming what people have always been talking about. But I think that’s really the point of the survey is that anecdotally we all talked about the fact that things seem to be worse for the writer. This was a way to put some real numbers to it, to say like is that just your experience or is that sort of everybody’s experience? And of the 541 responses, this was sort of the consensus experience.

The things that this was specifically asking about were:

Free rewrites, which is basically you’ve turned in your script and they ask you to do more work without paying you for another step.

Sweepstakes pitching, or bake-offs, which is where they bring in a bunch of writers and have them pitch their ideas on how to adapt a property and then pick the winner, or pick no winners.

Late payment, which is basically just not paying you for when they should be paying you.

Pre-writes, which is when you are asked to write up material before you are really commenced. And pre-writes could be some scene work, or it could be outlines, or it could be treatments or pitches. They’re asking you to do writing work without paying you for writing work.

And idea theft, which is an awful term, but that can sort of come into the discussion of pre-writes or also into these bake-offs where they’re basically asking for a bunch of writers to come in and share their ideas about how they would do stuff and then sort of cherry pick the best ideas and throw it into one project.

**Craig:** Yeah. And the numbers came back… — And by the way, I totally agree with you. It’s absolutely important — crucial — for us to do these kinds of things, because even if we all agree that our individual anecdotal understanding is correct and so if we all agree that our anecdotes are correct it must be correct, the studios will always say, “Show us some numbers; you’re just whining.”

We have to do this. We should do it again. I think the more we can show trends — it’s a very useful tool, so I’m very glad that the Guild did it. And like you, I helped them sort of phrase the questions and come up with the structure.

Just running down the numbers really quickly, free rewrites is basically at disaster level. You’re looking at nearly 90% at smaller studios, major studios 86%. That’s approaching universal. Sweepstakes pitching and bake-offs where you have to compete with god knows how many other writers to get a job, maybe. And maybe somebody gets them, maybe they don’t. Again, getting to near universal levels: Nearly 80% from major studios. At 80%, I think that’s right, yeah, for smaller studios.

**John:** And we should clarify: It doesn’t mean that 80% of studios were asking them to do that. It was that on 80% of the projects that writers were reporting about that had happened.

**Craig:** Yes. Basically, well, actually, not quite. What those numbers are saying is that the writer is saying this either frequently or occasionally happened to me this past year. So, writers are saying that either, I mean, in the case of free rewrites — 70% of writers said frequently at major studios they were asked for free work. Nearly 50% said frequently at major studios they were in bake-offs. Late payments — 40% of writers working for major studios said they were frequently paid late. Pre-writes — 37% at major studios said frequently required to do pre-writes. Another 28% said occasionally. So, we’re looking at 65% reporting pre-writes.

Then we get to this idea theft. That one I don’t get, but these other ones are huge problems.

**John:** Yeah. Another aspect of the report was looking at one-step deals. And one-step deals are a thing that is actually more quantifiable because they can look at contracts and say, “Did you have a one-step deal?”

A one-step deal means that the studio is hiring you to write a script. And they will pay you for one draft. And if they choose to have you do optional work after that point, those are optional, and they can pay you for another step, a rewrite, they can pay you for a polish, they can pay you for work down the road.

One-step deals have become increasingly common. They didn’t used to be common at all. The classic deal was always a draft and a step. So, you would write a draft, they would give you notes, you would do a rewrite. And that has seemingly disappeared and has become much less common. So this has some new statistics about that. And it’s fairly pervasive.

**Craig:** Well, you know, I was actually amazed that it wasn’t worse, because there are a number of studios that as a matter of policy only do one-step deals. What we got out of this was that at major studios 38% of screenwriters worked on projects with one step only. And 43% had two steps. Three or more steps guaranteed, 9%. I think those people just simple didn’t understand their contract because I’ve never heard of such a thing. I don’t know, have you ever gotten more than two guaranteed steps on a deal?

**John:** I don’t know that I have. There were definitely times where I’ve burned through five steps on a deal, but I really think those were optional steps.

**Craig:** Those were optional steps, exactly. I think people were confused. And then 4% said “don’t know,” which is always just dismaying to me that people are just so checked out they have no idea how many steps they were guaranteed. And at smaller studios the numbers were very similar.

**John:** My question though is that if people are confusing the three-step deal, they may have really been confused on the one-step deal as well, where they saw that they have a guaranteed draft and an optional rewrite, and they have may have said, “Oh, that’s not a one-step deal because there were two steps.”

I just worry that, you know, writers are not dumb people…

**Craig:** You’re right. I actually think that these numbers are too low. I think that the actual occurrence of one-step deals is higher than what we’re seeing here, and that’s something that we should — it’s a good idea. We should bring this up to the Guild and make sure that people actually check. And, frankly, the Guild should just be going their contracts and generating those statistics on their own rather than relying on reported numbers, because they do have the contracts for everything.

Yeah, but one-step deals are bad. We’ve talked about them before, why they’re bad. I think Billy Ray in his comments on this report did a fantastic job of summarizing why they’re bad. In short, the process of screenwriting is such that it does require more than one step to actually get the screenplay right. Writers who only have one step tend to write timidly because they’re nervous. Writers who only have one guaranteed step are far more susceptible to doing free work and essentially doing another step just to try and get it so that they don’t get fired, which is the point of the two steps.

And lastly, and most disconcertingly to me, and I think to the studios, writers who only have one guaranteed step are looking for their next job while they’re writing the script. It’s not a good practice.

**John:** Not healthy. Something that just occurred to me: Imagine if directors had the equivalent of a one-step deal. So, essentially, you’ll shoot your movie, you’ll show us a cut, and after that cut we will either give you notes or we will fire you and bring on somebody else to finish it.

**Craig:** Well, the truth is that is what they have. I mean, directors have — they get their contractual cut and then the studio, unless they have final cut — and very few do, and it’s sort of limited to the crème de la crème — they can be fired. In practice they rarely are because it’s very difficult to fire a director off of a movie just for procedural reasons and economic reasons. It’s not that they don’t want to; it’s that most other directors that they would want to be in there cutting are busy making movies.

Directing a movie takes a long time, right? It takes longer than it does to say write a draft of a screenplay. But I’m not sure there is an equivalent for directors other than maybe say, “You can shoot a week, and if we like what we see after that week we’ll keep you as a matter of course, but that’s the deal. We’re not really…”

Which, I guess, frankly, they could be fired at any point. It’s hard to analogize it. I mean, I think that what we do is specific. The fact of the matter is the industry isn’t stupid. It’s not like for 60 years the industry dumbly guaranteed two steps. They did it for a reason. And the fact that the industry has decided to migrate away from two to one suddenly, to save a buck theoretically, kind of flies in the face of the collective institutional wisdom of our business. And I think they should be thinking twice.

**John:** I agree.

So, let’s talk about what actually happens with the results of this screenwriters survey. Because one of the interesting things about this thing, because it was so specific and it was so asking questions about not just the studio but the individual people involved, is the WGA actually has a lot of data about which studios were particularly egregious, which people were particularly egregious, and has chosen not to share that information now at this point, but they can actually track year to year to see what’s changed, and are things consistent — are the studios and places that are consistently bad about these things?

And it will be interesting to see whether that information remains private or if there’s a reason to share that information at a certain point.

**Craig:** I think it’s a smart idea to keep it quiet for now. If I were running the Guild, and this is where a lot of people at the Writers Guild just clutched their hearts —

**John:** [laughs] Oh, they would not be happy.

**Craig:** They would not be happy. But I would agree with this. I think this is something where you go to a studio that has turned up with egregious numbers and you say, “We’re not going to publicize this, because we would like to seek a private resolution outside of the glare of the public eyes, where we’re not dealing with you having to mediate your own public shame and get defensive. We’re just saying, here’s the deal: you’ve got a year to make this better. If you don’t make it better in a year then we are going to go public.”

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And I think that’s smart. It gives them a chance to quietly fix the problem. And if they fail then I think all bets are off. You have nothing to lose. You might as well hit them hard.

**John:** Yeah. We’ll see what happens.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Let’s get onto our Three Pages, because that’s going to be fun, and it’s actually a happy thing because these are all potential and there’s no guaranteed steps on these. There’s just three pages.

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s right. That’s about as happy it will get for the moment. There’s some good news among these pages, I think.

**John:** I think there is, too.

**Craig:** Which one would you like to start with?

**John:** Let’s start with Sarah Nerboso’s script.

**Craig:** Okay, and which one, I only have title pages. I only have a title page for Roundhouse Kicked to Hell.

**John:** Oh, so actually the PDF is labeled Sarah Nerboso.

**Craig:** Oh, well I printed it out. Is this the one with the comic book?

**John:** Comic books. You printed something out?

**Craig:** Yeah, yeah. Because when we’re recording the podcast I don’t want to like switch around on screen. It’s easier for me to just look while we’re recording. I find looking at the wave form on Garage Band is really comforting.

**John:** Oh, yeah, see I never look at that. I find that that’s actually my huge — my biggest source of distraction is looking at that and worrying about it, so I just don’t look at it.

**Craig:** Oh, I love it. It makes me feel like I’m actually talking.

So, this is the one that begins, “A desk covered with comic books,” correct?

**John:** That’s correct. So I wrote up a summary because I’m an organizer like that.

**Craig:** Do it.

**John:** So we start on a bunch of comic books about Awesome Girl, who’s the hero of these comic books, who is always with these different guys. So the titles are like Awesome Girl and the Sad Sack. Awesome Girl: The Gloom Wars. Awesome Girl: Girl of Dreams. Awesome Girl and the Shy Guy. And finally there’s Awesome Girl and the Brooder.

Then at an airport we meet the real life brooder, this guy, and Lia who is the real life Awesome Girl. And she is close to 30. He’s probably in his 20s. He is leaving on a flight. Lia teaches him a penguin dance, a silly penguin dance. He goes through security. The transition after that is a page turn, which feels very specific. We see her doing some sketching. And then as she’s leaving JFK she calls another guy named Laurence. And that’s as much as we get out of the first three pages.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, it was cute. There’s some technical things to talk about right off the bat. The first half of the first page is all visuals of these comic books. And there’s quite bit of detail in the comic books, so I assume that it’s important to us, and it seems like there is interesting character information coming out of that. But it’s quite long. It may not seem long on the page, but if you were to actually sit in the movie theater and watch this camera slowly go across these comic books so that you could read the titles, it would be quite long.

So, in a case like that, if you feel that it is important, you might want to make the choice of saying UNDER CREDITS.

**John:** Absolutely. It felt like a title sequence to me.

**Craig:** Yeah. It felt like a title sequence. If you don’t say UNDER CREDITS, we are going to presume that you want the camera to linger over these things and have us watch them, and it will just be too long.

**John:** Painfully.

**Craig:** Without credits. It’s a funny thing: When credits are rolling we’re not paying attention to the credits, we’re paying attention to what’s underneath the credits, and yet we forgive that for being sort of long. [laughs] It’s just one of those things. So that was my first thought.

**John:** If you see the opening of the movie Hero with Dustin Hoffman, it’s an incredibly slow opening, and like why is this so slow? And it turns out that was originally supposed to… — They built a title sequence that went before it, but then the director had actually shot the things to have credits rolling over it and they didn’t change it. And so it just takes a long time for the movie to actually start because that was supposed to be credits going over it.

**Craig:** That’s exactly what we’re talking about. It’s funny how just the addition of words, names, somehow makes that all palatable. We understand that we’re supposed to be watching something that is meant to fill up time.

When we — so the idea of the scene between Lia and the Brooder is that Lia has apparently — well, I can tell you, because the Brooder just says it. He says, “Thank you.” She says, “For what?” And he says, “For everything. For the penguin dance,” that’s her cute little dance, “for the food fight in that stuffy restaurant. For the three times you pushed me in the fountain. For showing me how to really live, how to be free. It’s been amazing. You’ve been amazing.”

That’s not a particularly fun way to learn about all that sort of thing.

**John:** Yeah. I didn’t believe those words coming out of him. So if he was like reading something, or if this was like a speech kind of thing or a toast, I could believe it. But it didn’t feel like dialogue to me.

**Craig:** No. It’s not something people we would normally say naturally. Frankly, it’s something that somebody would interrupt. And it’s way too — well, when we say “on the nose,” this is what we mean; there’s not subtext to that whatsoever. It’s simply an expository expression of how his life has changed because of her. And then he leaves. And so part of the issue was is he — he doesn’t seem very broody anymore if he’s really saying essentially, “I used to be broody and now I’m not broody.” So, you might just as a technical point point out that, “the real life brooder, who no longer seems very broody,” just so we understand.

Because when I see “The real life Brooder holds the hands of the real life Awesome Girl,” I presume he’s broody, but he’s not anymore.

But, this is a bigger problem. I mean, the scene really is just a reportage of something that happened off camera before the movie started and that’s not very satisfying.

**John:** I think I liked the pages more than you did. To me, it felt like 500 Days of Summer. And Lia sort of felt like the manic pixie dream girl but sort of as the actual protagonist, where she was the center of the movie rather than the guy who fell in love with her.

I definitely wanted to read more. I really do agree with you about the first scene not really working. Some of the other specific problems I had with it — it has INT. AIRPORT, but later on we’re told that it’s JFK. If it’s JFK let it be JFK. And let us know where we are.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I really wondered about, I thought that opening thing was opening titles. But to me that would probably be better off saved a little bit later on. You don’t have to start the movie with the opening titles. You might just start with a scene and then I could see that sequence becoming the title after he’s gotten on the plane or after something else has happened.

Because right now nothing kind of gets to happen in these first three pages because you’ve taken up half a page with just these illustrations.

**Craig:** Right. Right. I actually, I have to say, I agree with. Even the part you like, I like too. I like the concept of this woman who does these comic books and sort of presents herself as Awesome Girl, and I like what it’s setting up. I mean, there’s a promise here that this is: a woman who meets these guys who need rescuing or saving, and she rescues them and saves them and then they move on. And you can see the promise of sadness there, obviously. And, of course, the promise that she’s going to meet somebody that maybe can help her.

So that’s a lot packed in, and I like that that’s packed in. I just think that the scene between Lia and the Brooder is not a good scene because it’s a particularly uncreative way of getting this concept across. We’re going to get it probably more easily than the writer suspects we will get it. So I think some subtext there, smaller things. “Look at you, you’re smiling. You know, when I met you, you never smiled.”

You know what I mean? We can put pieces together. Let us put it together. We’ll get there. But it was a nice concept, at least, so I agree with you on that.

**John:** I’m curious to see if we took out the talking before the penguin dance, and she just teaches him the penguin dance and she makes him do it, and we didn’t really hear of any more of the talking there, it could even be stronger, so.

**Craig:** Yeah. I got the feeling that he had seen the penguin dance before.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But, yes, I agree.

**John:** One more. Our next script, let’s look at Austin Reynolds script which is the one that starts in a classroom.

Summary of this thing for people who are playing at home. — Oh, I should have prefaced this all by saying that links to these sets of three pages will be at johnaugust.com for this podcast, so if you want to look at the pages and read along with us, please read along with us.

This one starts in a classroom where a class is taking a quiz. And this is a high school, young high school, junior high. 13, so junior high-ish. The first question is “After reading Lord of the Flies, please explain in your own words the cause of Piggy’s death.”

We hear student’s voice over for the answers, and also the teacher’s voice over. When we get to Max Anders in the back row, he writes, “Piggy was a fat fuck.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** And see now this podcast won’t be clean because I had to say that. I was debating do I say the word or do I not say the word. But it won’t be clean this week.

**Craig:** It’s a great line. Love that.

**John:** He asks for the hall pass. Out in the hall he crosses paths with the principal who tells him to tuck in his shirt. Max later throws a trash can at the principal’s car, cracking the windshield. At the bottom of page 3 Max is in the back of a police car. He smiles at a pretty girl from his class.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** How you doing over that, Craig?

**Craig:** I thought these pages were really good. I think this is a guy who knows how to write a screenplay. So, good craft here. There’s an interesting technique he’s using… — First of all, the introduction of Max I thought was sort of interesting. Everybody is working really hard on their scripts — on their scripts, on their essays — and then we get to this guy and he hasn’t even flipped it over. And he is, one would presume, just staring at her, and then finally goes down to the essay. “The teacher rolls her eyes and pulls out a magazine.” She’s obviously dealt with this kid many, many times before.

So we’re getting lots of information without talking, which I like. I thought it was interesting to hear what people were writing as they wrote. Maybe a little too much, a little too much dialogue there. You probably want to only do about three lines. Because if you’re in movie theater you’re not going to want to sit on each one of those people and listen to more than 10 seconds of them talking.

A little bit of a misstep here on the teacher. The teacher is reading her magazine and reading about Botox. There’s a typo here. And she’s reading about what Botox is. Everybody knows what Botox is. And, also, that just seemed like a clunky joke that was off tone.

But, interestingly, Max writes one little thing, heads for the door. I like that we don’t see what he wrote yet. This is good screenwriting. He writes something, then he asks to go to the bathroom. He’s a bit sassy about it. He leaves. Then we see what he wrote which is a laugh guaranteed.

Really good scene with the principal. I really liked the way that worked. Here’s this kid who’s obviously not in the bathroom now; he’s just looking out over the balcony, at a car. Has an interesting exchange with his principal. And the principal’s car is set up sort of casually without being too obvious. The next shot is the principal talking with the teacher and, one presumes in the background, a trash can from above lands and cracks through the principal’s windshield. That’s fun. You know, it’s just fun the way that he wrote it. I felt like I was watching a movie and not reading a script.

And then the last shot, he smiles at this girl who was in his class. She does not return the favor. And we can see that that bothers him. We learn a lot about who is, why he’s doing it. It seems like, “Oh, this is like a really cool kid who doesn’t care, and he’s breaking the principal’s car windshield, and in fact he’s a regular kid who’s just into a girl.” All that stuff is really good. I liked it a lot.

**John:** Wow. You liked it so much more than I did.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** So, after these three pages, I would keep reading, but I was nervous, honestly, because the school felt very generic. I felt like I’d seen — it felt like a movie school to me. It didn’t feel like a specific thing. We’re just given, like, they’re in prep school, uniforms. The teacher starts with like really unimportant dialogue. And so it both says on the chalkboard, “Lord of the Flies quiz,” which why would you write that on the chalkboard when she also says something.

I didn’t need any of that information.

**Craig:** Right. That’s true.

**John:** I felt like the teacher doesn’t have a name. It’s okay if the teacher doesn’t have a name if she’s never going to appear again, but I felt she wasn’t specific. The girl that’s referenced later on, she’s not given a specific name, so we don’t know to pay attention to any specific girl in the class. You know, we could have just started with, “The students flipping over their pages, each writes with the fury of god pouring out their hands.”

We don’t need any of the back story setup on here. We don’t need this close-up on an essay question. “After reading Lord of the Flies, please explain in your own words the cause of Piggy’s death.” I didn’t buy a ticket to read. I don’t go to movies to read.

**Craig:** But don’t you need that to setup what he wrote, to set up his answer?

**John:** No. Because all I need to do, if we’re going to do this voice over technique, the first person to say like, “The central theme in Lord of the Flies is a direct correlation to…” And so the next kid says, “Piggy was not given the proper nurturing environment to…” So you’re setting up what that thing is.

I feel like the kid’s answers that we’re hearing voice-overed can setup the joke better than just sticking something on the chalkboard.

**Craig:** Well, I agree with you on the fact that she doesn’t need to write “Lord of the Flies Quiz” on the blackboard. That is unnecessary. And I agree that they are non-specific. I don’t know if that’s part of the tone of this. I mean, if it’s a movie about sort of an alienated kid, it may be that teacher and girl is part of the point.

I don’t agree on your setup — I don’t think the joke works unless you see the essay question, personally. But, yeah, I liked this more. So this guy is my friend and you’re mean to him.

**John:** No. No. And then I got confused with the geography of Max in the hallway and the principal. So he’s on the second floor hallway and somehow he’s able to see down and talk to the principal who is getting out of his car. So I just couldn’t figure out the geography of like how he is able to talk to the principal from where he’s at.

**Craig:** Well, he’s on a balcony.

**John:** Yeah. Okay, a balcony.

**Craig:** He’s on a balcony.

**John:** I don’t see that in a school. I just got confused.

**Craig:** Yeah. I know most schools don’t have balconies. That is true. And also I added in, [laughs] as I was describing the trash can, I added in “In the background.” That’s not here in the script. And clarity — it’s a funny thing when we write these screenplays. These kinds of clarity things may seem procedural or too kind of silly to spell out. In fact, they’re essential to the reader. When people get lost in geography it hurts what the important stuff is. Don’t skimp on that.

**John:** Yeah, if I have to read something twice, I may not read it twice, I may just skipping pages. And that’s death. You really want people to feel like they enjoy reading your scene description and your action. And they’re going to really pay attention. And if something is not clear, it’s not going to make sense.

Also movies, I think the whole slam on screenwriting as being so simplified and so stripped down and pasteurized, but movies happen at 24 frames per second. A person watching a movie doesn’t get to sort of like go back and look at something. They keep going forward.

So everything has to make sense the minute we experience it. And if there’s something meant to be ambiguous, well, make it clear to the reader and to the viewer that it’s okay that it’s ambiguous in this moment. That we’re going to come back to it. But if something is just ambiguous because you didn’t describe it very well, that’s a problem.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s true. I mean, don’t give us an excuse to be confused. I agree. But I did like…

**John:** You liked it a lot more.

**Craig:** I liked the craft. And I thought that there was creativity and spark to this.

John Great. So a thumbs up. A mixed opinion. It would be one of those Siskel & Ebert things, where like the thumb is up and the thumb is down.

**Craig:** That’s fine. I’m glad we had one finally.

**John:** I don’t know if I’m really thumbs down. I’m just nervous about it.

**Craig:** That’s fair.

**John:** Our third and final entry in the Three Page Challenge this week is by Jesse Grce, I’m going to guess. His last name seems to be missing a vowel, but that’s fine. It’s G-R-C-E. I’d say Grce.

This one is called, this one actually has a title page attached, Roundhouse Kick to Hell: An Exorcist Road Trip Movie. So I think we kind of know the genre of it.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. [laughs]

**John:** So here is how we start. Outside a very suburban house at night, we’re looking in through a window. We see a TV and Stephen Colbert’s program is playing on it. And Stephen Colbert is interviewing a priest who insists the antichrist is coming.

Meanwhile, in that same room, a man named Mr. Smith is scrambling to barricade his doors. He’s already bloody. From the TV we learn that the antichrist is supposed to be coming on Friday.

We cut to a super that says “Saturday. Six Days until Friday,” which I thought was funny. The same house, daylight, parked out front we see a 17-year-old boy named Andy who is in his Honda Civic. He’s dressed up for a date. He talks to a bobble headed Chuck Norris on the dash. His 9-year-old little sister Annabelle gets in the car and chastises him for his clothes and gives him advice about this date. On the end we reveal that Andy, that they actually live right across the street from where he is, so he drove across the street for this date, and that’s the end of our three pages.

**Craig:** Yup. So…

**John:** Should I start or do you want to start?

**Craig:** Go ahead.

**John:** I liked it. It was bouncy. But I’m nervous. I’m nervous in some of the same ways as the previous example. I worry that in three pages we’ve already seen him sort of drafting off two already cool things. So, the use of the Stephen Colbert in the intro, I actually kind of believe the Stephen Colbert dialogue. I didn’t necessarily believe Stephen Colbert was interviewing this guy.

But, I know, you’re borrowing cool from somebody else rather than creating your own cool. And the same thing happens on the second page with the Chuck Norris bobble head. Which I’m guessing Chuck Norris is a bigger deal overall because it gets referred to again, but I didn’t really believe this guy talking to a Chuck Norris bobble head.

And so using the Chuck Norris meme felt very — I don’t know — felt very risky. I didn’t feel like I was seeing anything new being done here. So I was nervous about sort of where this was going and whether it was going to really be a ride that I’m going to be happy taking.

**Craig:** Yeah…

**John:** I got confused at the start. As it’s described we’re looking in through a window and we see this TV, but we don’t ever describe like what room we’re actually looking into. I assume it’s a living room, but that’s not really clear. And it became very hard to separate out the action of what the guy inside was doing with what Stephen Colbert was talking about on the TV screen. So that action got kind of confusing.

**Craig:** No question. I don’t think I would even go for bouncy on this. I mean, first of all, on the Colbert thing — I didn’t even think the Colbert dialogue was right. It’s just not a really good idea. I understand why screenwriters will create fake newscasts, fake ESPN stuff, sometimes you’ll see — they’ll do like a fake Leno kind of thing. But Stephen Colbert, the whole point of Stephen Colbert is he writes, he does that. And he’s really good at it. This just feels like Ersatz Stephen Colbert. It’s off. It’s not quite right.

And partly it’s off for precisely the reason your mentioned: Stephen Colbert doesn’t interview people like this. They don’t speak like this when they’re being interviewed, and he doesn’t speak like that when he’s interviewing.

**John:** Because people who go on Stephen Colbert, they’re already in on the joke. And it didn’t seem like the other guy he was talking to, this Father Darius, was in on the joke which is…

**Craig:** Yeah. They’re either in on the joke or they’re so kind of weirdly clueless that they’re just kind of nerdy. That’s the whole point is, “Look how doofy and nerdy this person is so they don’t get it.” I mean, you see that on The Daily Show a lot. It just seemed wrong. It just seemed off.

You’re absolutely right that the geography makes no sense. We’re looking through a window. We’re outside a house looking through a window watching TV. We’re hearing what’s on the TV even though we’re outside, which I don’t get.

And then this guy we’re supposed to follow falls out the front door of the house and then we follow him as he moves from the front door, picks up a bundle of wood and tools, goes over to a basement window — so we’re moving around the outside of the house and yet we’re still watching this TV. It just does not work. We couldn’t be hearing it, either. It just doesn’t seem like a good idea.

If I were doing this, I would probably lose the Colbert idea entirely and have somebody interviewing a guy and maybe taking him seriously. And not trying to be funny about it. And while we’re on this TV inside the house, see somebody moving around, gathering stuff, and then we maybe hear a terrible sound and then we’re outside of the house and this guy falls out. But, you’ve got to think about how to stage that.

The super was “Saturday. Six days until Friday.” If you mean that as a joke I think you need two supers. You need super “Saturday,” and then underneath a second super, “Six Days until Friday.”

**John:** Agreed. That’s funnier.

**Craig:** Because that’s how you would do it. You would do one, fade it out, and then do the other. If you do it all in one line I don’t think anyone is going to laugh. I think they’re just going to think, yeah, we know.

**John:** The obviousness of it I thought was funny. But I agree that two, separating it into two supers will be funnier.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that would make that work. You know, we’ve seen a million times somebody talking to somebody off-screen and then, “Oh, it’s not really a person it’s a dog,” or a Chuck Norris bobble head. If they’re not answering back, we know what’s coming. So this is a trope. I would just avoid it.

The Chuck Norris meme is, at this point, ancient. I think any meme older than three weeks is ancient. This one we’re on year four or five now. It’s just not…

**John:** And as a general point of discussion, a TV show can sometimes take a chance and use a meme because TV shows get made comparatively so quickly, and so it can be something that’s culturally relevant at the time. You’re really in dangerous territory trying to use a currently popular meme in a feature because features are so much longer down the road.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And things will be so out of date by the time you try to do this.

**Craig:** I agree. And then maybe my biggest issue with the pages is the character of Annabelle. She is 9 years old and the kind of gag with her is that she talks like a 25-year-old woman with R-rated language. And, you know, A, I’ve seen this before. I mean, Kick-Ass had a little bit of that vibe. But 9 is too young for that. It starts to push it down into absolutely impossible.

The idea of a 9-year-old dropping F-bombs can be funny, but when the 9-year-old is speaking with the kind of wisdom that adults don’t have, it gets weird. The tone starts to get really bizarre. You’re not sure if you’re watching a real story with real people or if it’s a goof. 9 is too young. I mean, if she were 12 or 13 this could possibly work. She’s so self-possessed and so smart, and speaks in such complete languages. She specified as wearing jeans and an H&M shirt. She just sounds like my 35 year old friends who live in Echo Park.

And I get that that’s the joke, it’s just too pushed I think for anything. So I was not… — I think there are multiple issues here.

**John:** I want to have a quick little discussion about scene headers, because something I noticed in this, and I’ve noticed it in a lot of other pages that we’ve looked at. This one starts with EXT. HOLLY’S HOUSE — NIGHT.

There’s a fairly well accepted convention in screenwriting that if you choose to, you don’t have to actually put the scene header on the very first thing on page one. And you can sometimes get away with not putting the slug line there. And it just sort of helps sort of ease you into it because the first thing I’m seeing is EXT. HOLLY’S HOUSE. Well who’s Holly? What’s this? What’s going on?

You’re allowed to sort of drift in and just sort of setup what the house is like. Set up that you’re in a suburban neighborhood. We settle on a house where we see these things. So if you choose not to put the first scene header, you can get away with that. Second thing I want to talk about is on page 2, INT. HONDA CIVIC — SAME. And this is something that Justin Marks brought up on Twitter. Justin Marks is a screenwriting colleague of ours. “SAME” I think is one of those really unhelpful words to be putting in a scene header.

And people can have different opinions on this. “SAME” is meant to be like, “This is happening the same time as the previous scene.” To me, as opposed to like, “we’ve moved to a different place in time.” I think DAY and NIGHT are awesome choices. And we’re going to assume it’s continuous with the previous scene unless you give us a good reason to assume it’s not continuous with the previous scene. SAME — I end up having to flip back pages to figure out, “Well, are we day or are we night?” I’m not a big fan of SAME.

**Craig:** I’ve never used SAME in my life. I mean, your first point is well taken. You can’t really say EXT. HOLLY’S HOUSE if we haven’t met Holly. That’s just a no-no. In the case of this where we don’t meet Holly in the scene anyway, it would just be EXT. HOUSE — NIGHT And then he describes what the house is like in his action stuff.

I’ve never not started a script with a slug line, but it’s not — I don’t see why it’s the end of the world to exclude it or include it. I just don’t think you can say EXT. HOLLY’S HOUSE if we haven’t met that character.

I’ve never used SAME either. I will use CONTINUOUS, as a matter of habit, but SAME is so weird.

**John:** SAME by itself. So, my suggestion for, if it’s otherwise unclear that this is happening the same day or later that day, what I’ll often do, and if you look through my scripts in the library, in brackets I’ll put LATER THAT DAY or LATER THAT NIGHT, to make it clear to the reader this is happening in the same world and this is what’s changed about the time. But DAY and NIGHT are really, really helpful for readers, and for production, and for everybody else. Let it be DAY or NIGHT.

You can get away with some MORNINGs. You can get away with some EVENINGs if it’s really important to your script, but DAY and NIGHT are your friends. Just like INT. and EXT.

**Craig:** I use MOMENTS LATER all the time. I feel like that’s a good one to sort of say there has been a time lapse, but it’s not a big one. So it’s sort of happening continuously but I’m explaining to you why they’re not in their bedroom anymore; they’re outside of the house. But, yes, I agree with that.

**John:** Well, great, so we have three examples of comedies all, I guess. A bit of a change from the previous. No one died in these.

**Craig:** Yeah. They’re all pretty light, I guess.

**John:** I don’t know if we really had consistent opinions on things to notice about the three of them, other than they were three screenplays.

**Craig:** I think we were consistent on Awesome Girl. I don’t think I liked the last one as much as you did. And I definitely liked the middle one more than you did.

**John:** Yup. But hopefully that was helpful to people who wrote in. Again, thank you to Austin, and Jesse, and Sarah for writing in and sharing their three page samples. That was brave of you. And so I hope this was helpful to you.

We will do this again at some point in the future, but I should say, we have plenty of samples so please don’t feel like you need to send in new three page samples, because we have almost 200 more to choose from. We have a lot.

**Craig:** A lot.

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

**Craig:** I do. I do. I have really Cool Thing. There’s a wonderful documentary that was briefly in movie theaters as documentaries usually are, but is now available on DVD or you can rent it or download it to own on iTunes, and it’s called Jiro Dreams of Sushi. Have you seen this documentary?

**John:** I have not. I’ve heard of it. So tell me about it.

**Craig:** It’s wonderful. It’s a documentary about an 83-year-old sushi chef in Japan. He has a very small restaurant that is actually underground. It appears to be on the first basement level of a large train station in Tokyo. And he is considered the best sushi chef in Japan. He has a 3 Michelin Star award. He’s the only sushi chef in the world that has every gotten a 3 Michelin Star for a restaurant.

And he’s kind of a national treasure in Japan. At one point in the documentary you learn that it takes at least a month to get a reservation to just have lunch there. And your meal will last probably 15 minutes. Aside from being tremendous food porn, they show just how lovingly he makes the sushi, really there are two reasons why I think this is a great documentary for screenwriters to watch.

The first is there’s a wonderful drama in it, a very quiet, subtle bit of drama about Jiro and his son. His son is in his fifties and his son has been working for Jiro his whole life. And you start to learn that the son kind of is in a tough spot. That he will always be there. That this was sort of selected for him. At one point he points out that in Japanese tradition the older son takes the place of the father and that’s what they do. And he sort of expresses forlornly at one point that he had dreams of being a race car driver, you know, in a very childlike way. But he’s going to be here every day.

And then they have Jiro at one point saying, “the important thing for my son is that he does the same thing every day for the rest of his life.”

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** So you get the sense that this guy in a weird way is trapped. But then what the documentary does very smoothly and adeptly is slowly start to reveal that the son is actually spectacularly good at this. And that while everyone who doesn’t really know the ins and outs of the situation will never give him credit. As another sushi chef says, “He’ll have to be twice as good as his father to ever be considered as good as his father.”

In some ways the movie kind of starts to imply he might even be better than his father already. And in the end they save this nice little moment where a food critic reveals that when he went back and looked at — because one of the deals with Michelin Stars is to get 3 stars which is very, very difficult to do, and that is it’s not like there’s 5 starts or 10, that’s the top, 3 stars, I think — you have to be incredibly consistent. So they don’t just show up one night and eat your food and go, “Wow, 3 stars.” They come back, and they come back, and they come back, and they come back.

And he went back and looked at all the times that the Michelin people had come to eat there and Jiro had never once made their sushi. It had always been the son.

**John:** Ah-ha.

**Craig:** And so you start to realize that the son is so important to this. But here’s the real thing about it that I loved and I think is great for screenwriters: Jiro and his son both repeatedly meditate on how their lives have been dedicated to perfecting an art. And they acknowledge that they will never be perfect. And so much of what they talk about is the humility of somebody always trying to be better. How talent is so important, but then everything else is about working incredibly hard day in and day out, not accepting failure, taking your time, being patient, and always, always, always trying to get better no matter what.

They talk about how the apprentices at this restaurant have to — they don’t get to make sushi until they’ve been there for 10 years. [laughs] 10 years. Then they get to make sushi.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** And you start to realize just the level of dedication required to master something. And I just thought, you know, it struck a chord in me because like you I’ve been doing this for a long time and I suspect we feel the same about this: I don’t feel at all, ever, I never feel for a second that I’m even close to the end of my journey. I feel like if I wrote for another 100 years I would still be the same distance away from being the best I could be. And I care so much about trying to get better every day. And I just loved how this man defined his life by that pursuit and the honor of dedicating yourself to your craft.

So, Jiro Dreams of Sushi. Great way to spend an hour and thirty minutes.

**John:** Cool.

My Cool Thing this week is actually a podcast, another podcast, but not about screenwriting. It’s The World in Words which is a PRI podcast. And we just started listening to it so there’s a zillion back episodes, and so it’s not the kind of thing where you need to catch up on this week’s thing. It’s not a news — there’s some news aspects to it but it’s mostly just how languages are working in the world today.

So sometimes it’s word history and word nerdery about how things came to be. But a lot of times it’s about how language is evolving. And so I think it’s something that screenwriters who have to use words on a daily basis, you might find fascinating.

Two of the recent episodes we listened to, one featured a piece on how IKEA chooses the names for its products which was fascinating. Because essentially for classic products they’ll use classic words. And so like all the rugs are named for places in Finland. All of the children’s toys are adjectives. And so there is a logic behind it. And so to us it just seems like those are just gibberish words they made up, but to them there actually is some meaning and there’s a structure to it that they’ve chosen to find.

The one I listened to yesterday was about earworms, which is those songs that get stuck in your head. And that’s always a phenomenon that most people have encountered. Here’s a trick by the way: If you ever get a song stuck in your head, and David Lee, the director taught me this one, is sing Why, Oh Why, Ohio, because that get stuck in your head, but just very briefly and will clear it out. It’s like a palette cleanser.

**Craig:** So you basically pit earworms against each other and have an earworm fight.

**John:** Exactly. And it will clear out the one you want to get rid of. They were talking to a neurologist who studied this and his conjecture, which it’s very hard to prove but it’s an interesting conjecture, is the reason why humans are attuned to getting songs stuck in your head is that for most of human history we haven’t had written language, and so what we’ve had is oral language, and our way of passing down stories and traditions and actually really important information has been to create songs or poems that have rhyme and meter and lent themselves to patterns that could get stuck in your head.

And so letting these patterns become sticky was actually hugely helpful for human development. And so part of the reason why we get Call Me Maybe stuck in our heads is somewhere back in the annals of history, or pre-history because it wasn’t written down, that was the same way that we used to talk about important information that would keep a tribe alive during times of famine.

So, overall I found the podcast to be really, really interesting, and smart, and worth listening to for anybody who’s interested about words and how words are used now.

**Craig:** When they were talking about IKEA did they mention the fact that sometimes these Swedish words end up like “turd jerker.” And so when I bring my kids to IKEA they just laugh at “fart berg” and “dork smack.”

**John:** I had a Jerker Desk for the longest time.

**Craig:** Yeah, you get a Jerker Desk. I mean, are they aware that that’s an issue?

**John:** [laughs] I missed that part, so I actually walked in as the IKEA conversation was happening. So I don’t know if they get into the specifics, like if there’s some trouble shooting to figure out whether certain words are going to make sense across all the languages in which IKEA products are sold.

But, it was really helpful. And in terms of thinking of systems of names, for the products that we’re working on here, “Apps for screenwriting,” we decided to pick names of streets that intersect Fountain. And so Fountain is the plain text markup language that we use for all of our apps. And it’s sort of the open public standard. And then the other apps we’re developing off it, like Highland, or Bronson, are all streets that intersect Fountain in Los Angeles. So that’s our system for how we’re names our apps.

**Craig:** So you’re never going to have an app named Jerker?

**John:** It’s fun to see that IKEA had the same instinct, but theirs had bigger countries to pick from.

**Craig:** Or what about an app named, like Jerker app, or, I think I bought a chair once at IKEA that was called Fartburglar.

**John:** That’s awesome.

**Craig:** Yeah. I got to look back at their catalog.

**John:** It’s got a built-in deodorizer and such.

**Craig:** Yeah, it was pretty cool. [laughs] Have you ever built an IKEA product and gotten all the way through without going, “Oh no!”

**John:** You’re missing something?

**Craig:** No, or I did it wrong and I have to undo a thing.

**John:** Yeah. And the most dangerous of course is the ones that have glue, because like, oh, can I actually break it apart?

**Craig:** I have never glued. I’ve never gotten an IKEA with glue.

**John:** Yeah. I used to build a lot of IKEA furniture. And the most impressive thing I built was this giant shelving unit which was in my house when I used to live of Gardner. And it was so big, and it involved some glue things, so I could never actually take this with me any place. And so Rawson Thurber ended up taking over my house there and for many years I’d come back and visit my giant IKEA thing that I’m sure he had to take out with a sledgehammer when he finally moved out.

**Craig:** Because you glued it. [laughs]

**John:** I glued it. I mean, it was glued. There was no two ways about it. And at the time I built that I had the Volkswagen Jetta, which was really popular at that time because it was a really cheap lease. And the remarkable thing about the Jetta was that if you folded down the backseat the trunk was just huge. And so I had this giant shelving unit flat-packed and actually fit it all in my car. And I used to spend weekends building IKEA stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah, you’re giving me a total ’90s flashback. I can remember driving my Ford Explorer to IKEA and loading it up with stuff. My wife and I were just like, wow, look, we don’t have to spend any money. We get rugs. Soap dispensers. Swedish disposable furniture.

**John:** I’m looking around the room. So, the only stuff I have in this room that’s from IKEA is I have a table that’s behind my desk which is four legs and a flat surface that I got at IKEA and that’s fine for that. That’s fine.

**Craig:** That’s the Teet-Snorter.

**John:** Yes it is. That’s really the motto of IKEA, by the way, is “For Now, It’s Fine.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah, exactly. The motto for IKEA is “One Day You’ll Have Real Furniture.”

**John:** Yes. And so most of the furniture in our house now is real furniture, but like my daughter’s bed is a put together IKEA thing because she’s going to outgrow it. Why buy a fancy bed?

**Craig:** Absolutely. In fact, I remember having this argument with my wife. When it was time for Jack to move out of his crib into a big boy bed. And she was showing me catalog pictures. And I was like, “How about we get an IKEA piece of crap because he’ll be out of that thing in about three years?” And I was right.

**John:** You were right.

**Craig:** Again. 100% right rate.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Okay, I think we’ve officially run out of gas.

**John:** We’ve run out of gas. So, thank you Craig for another fun podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** And I’ll talk to you, soon.

**Craig:** Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 47: What script should you write? — Transcript

July 26, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/what-script-should-you-write).

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

**Craig Mazin:** My name, Craig Mazin.

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

**Craig:** I’m doing fine, John. Enjoying a nice day of not writing. It’s my favorite kind of day.

**John:** Those can be very good days. This last week my Tuesday, for whatever reason, was spectacular and I really considered maybe just calling it a week. And it’s like — I’m just not even going to try to work the rest of the week. I’m not going to try to do anything. I’ll just say that was a really good week and it was only Tuesday. Everything was coming up roses on Tuesday.

**Craig:** I’ve done it. I’ve done it. I’ve started on a Monday morning and thought, “You know what? Don’t feel it.” And that feeling stayed with me all the way through Friday. [laughs]

You know, I sometimes feel a little weird because when I do write I’m very intense and I can write a whole lot all at one time. I can kind of sprint. And then there are times where I just do nothing. And I always feel guilty because sometimes people say, “How do you do all the stuff you do? You have a podcast. And you write…and you…”

And I go, “Well yeah, that’s true. But I must tell you I actually spend enormous quantities of time doing nothing at all.” But I don’t say that because I think that would make them feel even worse. Like not only am I lapping you but I’m sleeping for most of the race.

**John:** Yeah. What was so marvelous about my Tuesday, it wasn’t really a writing Tuesday, but it was all the other parts of screenwriting, which is like the taking the meeting and the doing the stuff and making the phone calls. And so I was over at the Fox lot for some of this, and I always forget that like when you have lunch on the lot you see all the other people there.

And so like I met Seth Grahame-Smith, who weirdly we’d worked together and we talked on the phone but I’d never met him in person, so I met him. I saw my friend Josh. I saw my friend Dana who has a TV show. I got to see her wonderful offices. It was great. So, a very fun, good afternoon spent at the Fox lot.

**Craig:** You know what? I had that experience over at Warner Bros. I was over there the other day, and normally I’ll sit in the office with Todd Phillips and we’ll eat there while we’re working, but on this particular day we decided to go out and we sat on their little dining area and Chris Nolan came by. I met Chris Nolan — how cool is that?

**John:** Oooh!

**Craig:** Let’s see…Chris Nolan. Jay Roach. Baz Luhrmann came by.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, it was so much fun for me. And, you know, they all know Todd. They don’t know me. I’m just sort of sitting there. Then at the very end I’m like, “Hi, how are you?” I get so awestruck.

I was standing in front of Todd’s office and Paul Thomas Anderson came by, which was crazy. I just love meeting people like that. If I ever don’t get star struck by these people, I’m done, as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** Yeah, it’s a different kind of thing. It’s like I’m not star struck in the way of like I want somebody’s autograph. But when you meet somebody in a social situation where they know the other person, it is a little bit unusual. Like Seth Rogan for the first time I met in a cafeteria situation. And it was like, “Oh, that’s Seth Rogan.” And he’s like, “Oh hey. I’m a big fan.”

I’m like, “Wow, you know who I am.” That’s incredibly exciting to me. So that is nice when it happens.

**Craig:** I never believe it when anybody says they even know who I am. I never believe it. I just don’t believe it. I don’t think it’s true. Jay Roach was like, “Oh hey.” He did that. And I’m like, “Nah, I don’t believe it; I don’t think you know who I am.”

But I guess the star struck part of it for me is when I meet people who are operating…who do the craft of filmmaking at a level that is just astounding to me. I’m particularly enamored of people who do things that I don’t even understand. I don’t understand how Paul Thomas Anderson does what he does. I don’t understand how Baz Luhrmann does what he does. I could never do it in a million years. It’s so much fun for me to watch. Chris Nolan.

So when I meet them I feel like I’m meeting wizards. It’s great. I just love it. I love it.

**John:** That’s nice.

So this week I thought we would talk about a couple of listener questions, just random stuff that came into the mailbag. And also talk about really an evergreen question that I often get after I’m on a panel for something, which is somebody comes up to me and asks, “Hey, I’m thinking about these two different things. I’m trying to decide which one to write.” And so I thought we would talk about which movie you should write.

**Craig:** Good idea.

**John:** So, for follow up, I have a couple things to go through. First off, last week was our first Three Page Challenge. And, Craig, how did you feel about the Three Page Challenge?

**Craig:** I enjoyed doing it. I felt a little guilty afterwards.

**John:** How so?

**Craig:** I don’t know. I just feel like, god, we were a little hard on the Beaver, but that’s kind of what people need, I think. So, I mean, I love the exercise. I was a little nervous that maybe I in particular was too harsh.

**John:** I can hear that. I temper that with the realization that everybody sent in those scripts anticipating criticism, so not just like a, “Hey — that was great.” It was, like, we were talking about what could make it better. And hopefully we had some suggestions for making it better. And most people who wrote in with responses, a lot of them on Twitter, and some on the actual blog post itself, seemed to dig the exercise, so I think we should do it again.

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree.

**John:** Not this week, but maybe every couple weeks we’ll do a few more of those. Because it is constructive and it’s very much about the words on the page which is hard to do in a podcast otherwise.

**Craig:** I also think it’s one of the only opportunities people can have to sample what’s coming. You know, if you’re not in the business you have no idea the kind of scrutiny and criticism you’re going to be in for. I’d like to think that you and are particularly good at it as opposed to what they might get at a lower level in Hollywood where ding-a-lings are reading it and giving notes. But this is what’s coming.

So, it’s probably a good thing. And I was very pleased with the feedback. I think it was sort of unanimously positive, so that’s great.

**John:** A few things to clarify. Craig and I — actually it was Stuart who picked which of the three scripts we were going to read. So, Stuart has read everything and Stuart picked three really good ones. And so that was actually a criteria going into it. Like these were three of the best ones that came in, not necessarily the very, very best, but of the sample that we had at that time those were three of the best ones.

I did write to each of the people who wrote in, each of those three guys who submitted their scripts, to let them know that they were going to be on the podcast, so it wasn’t a shock and a surprise. And two of the people wrote back after listening to the podcast and said, “Hey, that was actually really great. And it was scary but it was good.” And they thanked us for doing it.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So good. I’m glad it was helpful for them.

So far we had 204 entries. Of those, 12% were written by women.

**Craig:** 12% were written by women?

**John:** And I don’t know quite how to process that. Is it that there are not more women writers? Is it that women don’t feel like writing into the thing?

**Craig:** No, there’s not…

**John:** I think there’s just not more women writers.

**Craig:** There’s just not more women writers. And this is, you know, I’ll go ahead and just jump on the third rail because I hate tiptoeing up to third rails; I like to hug them and let all the voltage course through my body.

You know, the Writers Guild every year does a study that tell us what we already know, which is that women are underrepresented as professional screen and television writers. Racial minorities are underrepresented. Gay people are underrepresented.

**John:** Are gay people actually underrepresented?

**Craig:** Well, nobody really knows because no one knows how many gay people there are.

**John:** Because there’s not a form to mark on the boxes.

**Craig:** Correct, that’s true. But, I’ll withdraw that. Transgendered people are underrepresented. But the argument has always been: Is this because of racism? Is it because of sexism? Is it because simply fewer of those underrepresented groups are actually going for these jobs?

The truth is, I don’t know the answer when it comes to race at all. I suspect that there’s got to be some element of racism going on. It’s just too stark. And also because I know too many black writers who tell me stories and I go, “God. Yup, that’s blatant.”

But when it comes to gender, and I’ve always said, look, women in very high positions at all these studios. There was a time when the majority of studios were being run by women, or if not run by women, women at very high levels. Women are heavily represented, I would assume equitably represented in the ranks of development executives. It seems to me that they are.

So what’s going on with screenwriters? And then we run this little…it’s not scientific, but here’s just the thing, open to anyone. And I know that we have women who listen to us and men, and only 12% of women send scripts in. — I’m sorry, 12% of scripts are sent in by women. I have to presume it’s because women just are less interested.

Am I wrong?

**John:** I don’t know that you’re wrong. And what’s interesting is I think this contest, this challenge, is really targeted at sort of new, incoming screenwriters. So this isn’t something that’s targeted towards people who may have left the industry for whatever reason. Like, is there a reason why women are coming into the industry and then leaving the industry because there aren’t opportunities there?

I would suspect most of the people who are writing into this challenge are new, young, aspiring screenwriters. And so, if there are fewer women who are new, young aspiring screenwriters that’s going to ripple up through the whole way. If there’s fewer women trying to enter the pool there’s going to be fewer women down the road.

**Craig:** No question. And, look, that’s not to say that there isn’t also sexism going on. I’m sure there is, which only makes it harder once you’re there. But, some of the numbers that you see when we say, “Why aren’t there more female screenwriters?” The kneejerk conclusion is because Hollywood is evil and hates women. And, in fact, part of the issue is women just aren’t as interested. And I don’t know why.

Are they more interested in other kinds of writing? Are they smarter because this is a really stupid thing to do?

**John:** [laughs] Because they recognize it’s a dying field that they should stay away from?

**Craig:** [laughs] Right. Exactly.

**John:** I think it’s worth studying. And I think what you’re pointing out is that we’ve always looked at the demand aspect of it as that women can’t get jobs as screenwriters, and maybe that’s true, but we should also look at is there a limitation somehow on supply of women screenwriters. And is that something that needs to be addressed as well?

**Craig:** Well, if you are one of our many female listeners, and we run this Three Page thing again, you know, come on.

**John:** And when we do this next time we’ll make sure to pick some women writers just to make sure that they are heard as well.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So after the last podcast we had a bit of bad news. Dick Zanuck died. Dick Zanuck, who is a legendary producer, who produced Jaws, Cocoon, Driving Miss Daisy. He produced Big Fish of mine and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. He passed away, which was a surprise.

Dick Zanuck was 77 years old. And often when you have an older person who’s in your life, somewhere there’s like a little mental tick box on the record you keep for that person, like, “could die.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** That sounds horrible and morbid, but I think there’s a reason why it’s shocking when a…

**Craig:** It’s not horrible and morbid; it’s just so you. I just love that you have, like there’s a MySQL column. There’s a thing called “Might Die.”

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** And it’s checked “yes” or “no.” Am I still in the “no” column though?

**John:** There’s some faculty we have in us that sort of when a person is a certain age we recognize the fact that, okay, we should be ready for the fact that this person might not be around forever. And the reason why it is so shocking and surprising when a child dies, or when a younger person dies, and it’s less surprising and shocking when an older person dies. I think that’s a natural instinct.

Zanuck was sort of a weird special case because while he was 77 years old, he was like nowhere near retirement. He was one of the most fit and active people you’re ever going to meet. And a very active producer. He produced all of Tim’s movies.

And on an earlier podcast you and I talked about the different kinds of producers and the different roles that producers play. And Dick Zanuck was a protector. He was the bodyguard. He would protect Tim Burton from the studio, or whichever director of the movie from the studio, but he’d also protect the studio. The studio felt comfortable with him because he would help protect the movie to make sure it didn’t get knocked off track. He was really good that that.

And what was so fascinating about his funeral which was yesterday — we’re recording this on Friday, the funeral was Thursday — was to hear people from all parts of his life reflect on not just what his skills as a producer but sort of his skills as a person. And it was a very Big Fishy kind of funeral in the sense that you had your laughter and your tears. And you had the recognition that this is a man who lived a very, very full life and had the love of his life and the love of his life up the very last moment of his life, Lili Zanuck.

And it, I don’t know, weirdly I hadn’t gotten emotional until I’d gotten to the funeral and suddenly I’m like, “Oh my god, I won’t stop crying.” It was the recognition that, I don’t know — I don’t ever want to die, but if I were to die that would be the way to die is to, like, you have breakfast in the morning, you have lunch with friends, you talk to your kids twice a day — he talks to his kids every day — he has everything just right, and then suddenly gone. There’s not that long dragged out thing. It was like — to go out happy and on top.

**Craig:** I want to die covered in snakes, like most people.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, Zanuck was — you don’t want to use the phrase dying breed when somebody just died, but it’s true, it’s a dying breed of producer. The people who understood how to do what he did and when you described protecting both the director from the studio, and protecting the studio from the studio, and protecting the movie from the director and the studio, that to me is what producing really is. It’s protecting. And it’s just gone. You don’t see it anymore. It’s so hard to find guys who really know how to do that, you know.

They’re out there. I have been lucky to work with a few of them recently. But so many fewer than used to be. And it’s a bummer. It’s a sad thing.

But you’re right. I mean, there is something to be said to kind of go out like that. Personally, I’m going to retire long before I die. That’s my whole thing.

**John:** No. I’m never going to retire. He was actually one of the people who I thought about when I recognized like, oh, do I want to retire at some point? I’m like, no. I’m not going to retire. I don’t want to golf. I don’t want to do that. I want to keep making new stuff. And he kept making new stuff until the very end.

One of the things I tweeted about right when I found out that he passed away, I got an email from my agent saying we’ve heard that Dick Zanuck died but it’s not confirmed yet. And so I was sort of sitting on it for 20 minutes, like do I say anything about that, do I acknowledge it? Or do I wait for some confirmation?

**Craig:** [laughs] Oh my god. You’re News Rooming.

**John:** I was totally News Rooming it.

**Craig:** You were News Rooming.

**John:** And then I was like, “Oh, but I hope it’s not Deadline Hollywood Daily that prints it first.” But then they did say it first. And so like it was confirmation so I could say what I wanted to say, but then it felt like I was responding to her post.

**Craig:** Yeah, god.

**John:** But what I needed to say, and what I appreciated so much about Zanuck was that he recognized the long game of it all. And he recognized that relationships were more important than any one movie. And so when we would have to call me with bad news, he would pick up the phone and call me with bad news. And he would call me to tell me that I was fired, or that they weren’t making a movie, or that stuff had fallen apart, and he was brilliant at being able to that and not making it feel like the world was going to end. And so many people are so afraid to share negative news, and you have to. And he was terrific at that.

So I will very much miss him. But I will also miss the qualities that I thought he brought to that part of the industry.

**Craig:** That was so beautiful that I can’t help but fondly imagine what it’s going to be like when I die and you do that first podcast after I’m gone.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah. The eulogy podcast will be the new trend by that point.

**Craig:** I think actually that podcast will just be like, “Hi, this is John August. This Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. I’m John August. And, anyway, today we’re gonna go on. We have some news. There’s nothing really to follow up on.”

**John:** That was the moment of silence was when you should have spoken.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s like a weird little pause.

**John:** Let’s answer some questions, Craig.

**Craig:** Let’s do it, while I’m still alive.

**John:** Paul from Onalaska, Wisconsin — come on, Onalaska, Wisconsin? That’s a great name.

**Craig:** Onalaska.

**John:** Onalaska. “In a previous podcast you told the story about how Hayden Christensen and his brother were pitching a show to a USA studio exec. That exec turned around and developed a similar show, seemingly based on Christensen’s idea.” Emphasis on seemingly, allegedly. The court case that happened said that they did actually have to proceed and investigate further, so.

“With that in mind, what are your thoughts on pitch festivals or websites like logline.com? It seems very risky putting your ideas out there, especially at pitch festivals for aspiring screenwriters looking for a foot in the door. To me it seems like a bunch of production companies and producer wannabes are getting together to find good ideas without having to hire the creator of the ideas. Will they likely take it, put their own people on it, and develop it as their own? Is it worth it, or do we stay away from these things?”

**Craig:** And, you know, this is one thing where I think everybody involved is silly. They’re not going to steal… — Let me just say this, because I know you and I [laughs] have said this.

**John:** We’ve said it so many times. But say it again.

**Craig:** I’m gonna say it again.

**John:** Or put it on a tee-shirt.

**Craig:** Now the umbrage is coming.

No one wants to steal you idea.

This is, for our podcast, this is the “You don’t have Lupus.” It’s not Lupus, okay? Nobody wants to steal your idea people. This fantasy you have that you’ve come up with the flux capacitor and they’re going to take it from you and stick it into the DeLorean and rip you off…

**John:** Or how about the windshield wiper…

**Craig:** Is not valid. The pitch festivals — listen to me carefully — the pitch festivals are not there to steal your ideas. You know what they are there to steal? Your money. Okay? That’s what it’s about. Yes, it’s a scam and stupid — don’t do it because no movies come out of pitch festivals. The point is, they’re gathering $50 to $100 from each one of you people. That’s the thing.

Get it? It’s like Die Hard. They’re not terrorists. It’s just a bank robbery. Okay? So that’s the deal. John?

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** John? I feel good. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah, your instincts were right but wrong.

**Craig:** I feel really good about that.

**John:** Yeah, you got the umbrage out? You hulked out there?

**Craig:** [yarr] I feel good. I’m calm. I’m calm.

**John:** So, to summarize: pitch festivals — probably a bad idea because they’re a scam that wants to take your money, not because they want to take your idea.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. I mean, this whole concern that — first of all, I’m sure they make you sign a billion waivers anyway. Yeah, of course they’re making you sign away your rights. But they’re not there for your ideas.

I mean, if John and I ran a pitch fest, we could make a lot of money, just to listen to you, right?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And these things are enormous, right? Have you ever — I’ve never gone to like whatever that one is downtown.

**John:** At one point, I think in Austin, I was on a pitch panel festival thing, and I found it painful because people were trying to pitch their ideas and there was a special format they were supposed to do and it was awkward and some of the things were terrible.

So, no, but I’ve never been paid to do this. Blech. No.

**Craig:** Yeah, no. So, anyway, the point is no they’re not trying to rip you off. No, you shouldn’t be doing them anyway. No one is trying to steal your idea. They’re just trying to make money off of you. You do not have Lupus.

**John:** Question number two. Oh, I think I should respond to this one first because you’re just going to go into full umbrage mode.

**Craig:** Oh good.

**John:** Sharice asks, “Me and a couple friends are very interested in shooting a pilot for TV show on any network about our lives and daily activities. Who should we contact? Sent from my iPad.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** So, Sharice, so here is why I’m going to treat your question seriously and sort of not mock you for it, because I think it is great that you are probably a younger person who wrote in with a question and you said, like, “I want to make a TV show and I’m going to go online and figure out who makes TV shows and ask my question.” So, I don’t want to mock you for doing that, because maybe you’re like 16, and baby, that’s awesome.

So, here is what I will say about you wanting to make a TV show with your friends: I think there’s probably never been a better time for you just to make a TV show with your friends. And that’s what YouTube is for, honestly. You should be shooting whatever you want to shoot on whatever cameras you sort of feel like shooting. Write as much as you feel like writing beforehand. And just try to make it together.

Because, if you are this 16-year-old girl who has interesting friends, maybe someone will see it and want to do something more with it. So I don’t want to sort of squash your dreams of that.

Sometimes there are really talented people who get together and it’s like, “Oh, we’re just gonna shoot something,” and it becomes something useful. Like It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Those guys were smart and they wrote a show, and they shot their show, and people liked it.

What I would say, and what Craig would throw a chair at you for, is the idea that, “Oh, I have an idea. And if I have an idea then someone’s going to want to pay me to write and make this show.” That’s not going to happen because you’ve not shown that you actually have the ability to write something, to do something, to make something. So, you’re going to have to do that, and there’s probably never been a better time to do that than now.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, everybody’s experience with their friends is colored by the fact that it’s their friends. It’s, you know, “you had to be there” — you ever hear of that expression?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** My guess is that your friends, like 99.9999% of everybody’s friends, are not interesting enough to anyone else to actually pay money to watch. I mean, if you go to a restaurant and people literally all stop eating and just gather around you and listen and applaud as you and your friends do your stuff, then you’re on to something. But other than that, it’s just funny to you guys, you know.

You can be inspired by it to create characters that are universal that people might relate to, but generally speaking you don’t want to start from a position of narcissism. Very, very difficult to make a show out of yourself and your buddies.

**John:** Yeah. So Go, my first produced script, is very much influenced by people I knew and grew up with. And that said, I wasn’t trying to make a movie about them. I was just taking the very, very most interesting things I could find about them and their lives, and in most cases asking permission to say like, “Can I borrow that thing where you set the hotel room on fire?” And I put those together as a package, but it wasn’t literally about them.

You may find that you actually have a life that’s interesting enough that it’s worth becoming a TV show. You might be Lena Dunham and you just wrote kind of a lame email. Who knows?

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. And even in Go you took characters that were influenced by people that you knew in real life but you put them in a situation that was very compressed and very dramatic.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** You weren’t just sitting around Diner style. I mean, I think movies like Diner have ruined more people than anyone else. I mean, because they seem easy. They’re not. [laughs]. And it kind of helps to be really, really smart and really, really funny when you write them. But ultimately they’re about bigger things. You watch Diner, there’s quite a bit of drama in there as well, so, there you go.

**John:** There you go. Question three is actually related to this. “If someone writes a screenplay that includes characters taking part in illegal activity that’s a comedy, but part of the comedy is that the screenplay is based on true events and the writer is totally open about that, then when the film is released can the writer or their characters,” basically, the writer’s real friends, “get arrested for that illegal activity?”

**Craig:** Oh, wait, hold on. [laughs] First of all, no one’s getting arrested. But can you explain what this guy is talking about?

**John:** “Does the law look at films and can investigations get underway based simply on speculation? I may just a neurotic plagued to paranoia, but it’s a concern for me.”

Well, he answered his own question. You are a neurotic plagued with paranoia. Basically this guy is saying, “I want to write a script about some crazy stuff that happened. It’s kind of based on my friends,” and he’s worried that because everyone will know, or it will be promoted as like sort of based on some real stuff that happened, that the police could come after him for…

**Craig:** Hey listen, listen. Here they come. [police sirens] Here they come, buddy. They’re coming for your script. “Uh, we have a report of a possibly too-true-real-life scene in route.”

Yeah, listen: You can’t use someone’s life freely. They actually own their life. You have to get the rights to their life if you’re going to use their life. However, if you’re picking little incidents, things that would… — At the end of movies they say, “Any resemblance to persons living or dead are intentional,” I think is the language. You should ask for permission if there’s something specific. If you have a friend, however, that exhibits some behavior that you find interesting that other people also exhibit, it’s fair game.

If there’s something real specific though that you’re taking, then you should ask them and get permission. Either way, you’re not arrested; it’s not a crime. It’s a tort.

**John:** His concern isn’t for himself and being sued for having taken somebody’s life rights. His concern is that the people who he is fictionalizing in his story, that would become the basis for them getting in trouble.

So, the examples he brings up…

**Craig:** Oh, I see, like the law will say, “You wrote a character that did a crime; we’re going to come after this guy because of your script?”

**John:** Yeah, examples he has, like being of a foreign nationality and working under the table in the US. Collecting disability checks but working part-time as an independent limo driver.

**Craig:** No. No, it’s fiction. You’re creating fiction. Your script is evidence of nothing in a court of law.

**John:** I agree. So don’t be paranoid.

**Craig:** I mean, neither one of us are lawyers, so if somebody ends up in jail, whoops. But I just don’t see how a lawyer could possibly say, “Look, he wrote a script…”

The only instance where I could see that — now I understand the question, I’m so sorry — but the only way I could possibly see a screenplay being evidentiary is if, for instance, you killed Mike. And a week before you killed Mike you sent a spec out about how this guy kills his husband. And it was the same exact method, and motive, and all the rest. Then they would go, “Um, this is admissible.”

But if somebody reads a script and says, “Well this character reminds me a lot of his friend. And in the movie this character is doing something illegal.” No.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Don’t worry about.

So, let’s get onto our big topic this week which is what script should you write, which is kind of an evergreen question because when I was first starting to work as a screenwriter I was writing spec scripts. And so I could write anything. I could write a comedy. I could write a drama. I could write an alien western. I could do anything I wanted to do. And that freedom was great, but it was also a little terrifying because I wasn’t sure if I was spending my time writing the right thing.

That question continues throughout your whole career, because you’re always choosing, well what is it that I’m going to spend my time working on? It gets more complicated as you become a writer for hire because there could be money involved. There could be personalities involved. There could be reasons why you want to take one project or another project, or why you don’t want to take any of the projects you’re being offered and go off and write that spec script for the thing you want to do.

So, the decision about what you’re going to spend your time doing is going to be a factor in every screenwriter’s life, at every stage of the career. So I thought we’d spend a few minutes talking about that.

**Craig:** Yeah. I see this online a lot, too, where people are juggling three or four different things. I mean, I like the notion of thinking, “Which one of these ideas would actually seem most like a movie? Would people want to see one of these?” Although I still think the primary question should be, “Which one of these do I feel the most interested in writing? Which one of these ideas inspires the most passion?” Ultimately that will lead to the better script.

And I’m confused by people that are like, “I don’t’ know. I like them both the same.” And I feel like, eh, you’re not really a writer.

**John:** So here’s some criteria that I thought of and maybe we can add to this list as we go through in that sort of decision matrix of how to figure out which of these projects you want to write.

First off, people always say “write what you know,” which I think is terrible advice.

**Craig:** Totally.

**John:** From people who don’t know anything.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** To me, the criteria should be write the movie you wish you could see. And by wish you could see, I’m literally talking like write the movie you would pay money to see opening weekend. Don’t waste your time writing a movie that you’re like, “Oh, I’d catch it on cable.” Why are you writing that movie?

If it’s not a movie that you were dying to see you shouldn’t be spending your time writing the movie.

**Craig:** Right. That’s good advice.

**John:** If you’re writing something because you think it will sell, it’s probably the wrong movie to write. And that is just personal experience. The movie that I wrote, I was like, “Oh, I’m going to do this because I think I can totally sell it and I see other movies that are like it that are selling, and I read on Deadline Hollywood that this thing sold.” Don’t. Because it’s unlikely that it’s going to be the movie you really want to make. You’re going to be thinking about the dollar signs every time you sit down at the computer. And trends change. And so by the time you finish that script six months from now, that may not be the kind of movie that’s big or selling right now.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, the process of writing a movie, selling it, getting it into production, having it made, edited, released, marketed, that entire process after you type The End is a very cynical process. It cynicizes everything — that’s not a verb but I’m going to make it up. So if you start that cynical it’s just going to get even worse. Start pure. Let everybody else smear mud all over it because they will.

**John:** Yeah. Another question from me. If you think there’s any chance at all you might be a director or that you might want to direct a movie, or might want to direct the movie that you’re writing, write the smaller thing that you could actually direct yourself. Write the one that was in your wheel house and range ability to direct.

So, if you’re thinking about writing a giant Fast-and-the-Furious-but-with-robots movie, or Sex, Lies, and Videotape, and you want to direct, probably Sex, Lies, and Videotape would be your way to go — you know, characters in a contained setting.

I say this just because while there are rare exceptions, there’s the Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, where some guy just writes a script and somehow makes it, most cases you’re going to need to write something that’s actually of a scale that you could do it yourself if it’s really going to be your first movie.

**Craig:** Yeah, for sure. And in that case I think production experience helps, if you’ve actually spent time on movie sets you can see the dramatic difference between a day of shooting where two people are talking over a table, and a day of shooting where there is a car chase. The amount of screen minutes you can generate in a day is dramatically different. And so if, you know, “What I’d like to do is make a little movie and I have $100,000 cobbled together from various sources to spend,” write with that budget in mind. No question.

**John:** Yeah. Or do Buried. Buried was very much written as a script that the writer could direct. The writer ended up letting another director do it, but it’s a guy in a coffin. I mean, it’s obviously a huge challenge to write that movie, but it’s a very specific — it’s a script that was written to be shot, and there’s a lot to be said for that, if that’s your goal. If your goal is to direct. Or, I think in his case, he was actually an actor as well, so like in his head he might have been acting in that movie. That’s smart.

**Craig:** I have another one to add on. I don’t know if it’s on your list, but the sort of the better version of “write what you know” is “write what you’re supposed to write.” I know the kinds of movies I’m supposed to write, and I write those. And that’s not — it’s not narrow. There’s actually a pretty decent range of kinds of comedies I can do. Like for instance, Identity Theft is, I think, the closest to the sort of movie I ought to be writing more of, and I’d like to be writing more of, but I can also do this kind or that kind. But what I don’t do is I don’t write horror movies. And I don’t write romantic comedies because I don’t understand them.

There was a romantic comedy that very good directors were talking to me about, and it was a really good idea, and they had really good casting ideas, and we had lots of interesting conversations. But in the end I realized I’m actually not capable of writing a romantic comedy. It’s not what I ought to be writing. I don’t have that gear.

You have to accept the kind of writer you are. Forget writing fancier or writing less fancy, just write what you ought to be writing.

**John:** My agent has a list beside his phone, or he did at some point earlier on in my career, of like “These are the genres that John just won’t write.” And because these things would keep coming up and it’s like, no, because that’s not my kind of movie.

And so, prison movies. I like prison movies but I’m just not going to write a prison movie. That’s just not my thing. Futuristic prison movies, which is like a subcategory that was really big for a while, and so I had to keep passing on futuristic prison movies. Jewel heist movies. I don’t care. I don’t like them. I don’t like caper movies. That’s not my thing at all. And kind of war movies. There’s people who are great at writing movies, and so you should go to one of the war movie people to write the war movies because I’m just never going to be that guy.

**Craig:** Yeah. And you can try if you want. it will just come out dead. It’s just not a good idea.

**John:** So write something that intrigues you. And so often I will pick something that is like I’m a little bit nervous about writing it because it’s not exactly what I’m sort of known for, and I think I have a wider range of genres than many other screenwriters do, and so sometimes I’ll pick something that I’m a little bit scared of, but I’m not going to pick something that’s just completely out of left field.

And it’s not for fear of being pigeon-holed. It’s for fear of like I’m not going to care about that.

**Craig:** Yeah. And you want to be… — Look, the nice thing is you want to be able to have some sort of… You want to be in touch with your own voice so you know if you are straying a little bit outside of your wheel house that you’re still bringing your voice to whatever it is.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If you can’t — I can’t bring my voice. I mean, I suppose I could. Well, I think about for instance horror movies. You know, I could take a stab at one of those, but I’d rather watch Kevin Williamson do it. He’s better at being funny horror writer than I ever could be, so what’s the point? Just let him do it. He’s really good at it.

**John:** Yeah. And potentially a controversial note, but I think one you might agree with. All things being equal, write a comedy. So, if you’re choosing between the drama and the comedy, and all the other criteria has sort of balanced themselves out, if you’re a funny person write the comedy.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** Because you will get more enjoyment out of writing the comedy. They’re generally more fun to write. They’re generally more fun to read. It’s easier to keep the ball up in the air in a comedy than it is in a drama. And there’s a lot to kind of be said for that.

This thing I just, a friend of mine just read this last week, which is one of the first originals I’ve written in quite a long time, it’s a comedy. And he said, and he didn’t mean to say it in a bad way, he’s like, “Oh, I didn’t realize you were funny.” And I was like, “Oh, well, thanks.” But I’m not sort of known for doing comedies recently. And so it was new for him to see me writing a comedy and it made him want to write comedy more because I said, like, yeah, you know, it’s actually kind of great. And it’s like stuff is easier. It’s…

**Craig:** If you’re funny.

**John:** If you’re funny. And that’s the thing. And you may not be funny. And, you know, maybe you won’t know until you write something, until you write the first 30 pages.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, if you’re not funny it’s harder. You know, David Zucker has a great saying. “Kids, don’t try this at home.” Comedy looks easier from the outside, and in some ways there are a lot of things that work in your favor as a writer, but it’s very specialized and either you’re going to be able to do it or you’re not going to be able to do it. Your premise is well-put. All things being equal, yeah, of course.

Writing comedy in Hollywood is a little bit like being a left-handed pitcher in the major leagues. There’s fewer of you. And you’re needed more. So it’s a great thing to be. if you’re a left-handed pitcher nobody tries to make you a right-handed pitcher. Ever. It’s just a good skill. It’s a rare skill in Hollywood. So, yeah, jeez, all things being equal, if you love writing comedy and you’re good at it, absolutely.

**John:** And let’s see if we have more bullet points to add as we try to wrap these up. And the reason why this topic is on here at all is I was speaking at the Writers Guild a couple weeks ago and these two guys came up. They were writing partners. And they said — I think they may have been brothers even — “We’re considering these two things.” So I had them describe like the one sentence version of what the two projects were. And I said, “You need to write that one.”

And I could do it because I could tell there’s one they actually cared about and there’s one they were just going to write because they thought it could sell. And if you’re writing something just because you think it can sell it’s not going to be the interesting one.

And here’s the other thing: Just because you’re picking this one to write, that doesn’t mean you never get to write the other one. Write the one that is sort of most appealing to you to write, get it done, and then quickly write the next one.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, the summary would be: Write the movie you wish you could see. And write the movie you would actually pay money, your own dollars to see in the movie theater on Friday. So, if you can’t say that you’d really see that movie, you’re probably writing the wrong movie. It’s probably not the movie for you to be writing.

And I think that’s a good criteria because if the movie you desperately want to see is the four-hour version of Pride and Prejudice done with puppets, then that’s the movie you should probably write because it’s going to be different than every other movie that’s out there right now. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy to make, but I can respect the person who writes that movie because they really want to see that movie.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Write comedy if you’re funny. And write small if it’s something you want to direct yourself. Don’t write super small if it’s something you want someone else to direct.

**Craig:** I agree with all of that.

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

**Craig:** I have a Relatively Cool Thing.

**John:** Uh-oh.

**Craig:** I say “relatively cool” because in fact it’s not cool. But it’s cooler than the alternative. I was sort of hesitating to even talk about it, but I think it’s probably a good thing to talk about.

So, I am a cigar smoker. I love cigars.

**John:** Oh no.

**Craig:** No, oh yes.

**John:** Craig, I want you to be alive for the podcast in 57 years.

**Craig:** I know. Now here’s the thing: Cigars…

**John:** Oh, they’re healthy.

**Craig:** They’re not healthy. [laughs] But on the other hand, as far as I can tell from the various research, if you smoke a cigar without inhaling any of the smoke, which is the way I smoke, and most cigar smokers do, the incidence of cancer and so forth is actually fairly low. It’s pretty close to the baseline. But that said, not a great idea anyway. There’s still carcinogens in the smoke and there’s a slightly elevated risk for lip, tongue, and so-forth cancer.

Again, if you don’t inhale at all. If you inhale even a little bit you’re in big trouble. But, given that, I wanted to sort of wean myself off. But the truth is I love nicotine. Nicotine does wonderful things to my brain. I smoked cigarettes for seven years, many years ago. I quit the week before I got married actually because I thought, can’t do that to my wife, you know. And so I haven’t smoked a cigarette in over 15 years. But what do you do if you like nicotine, which is a spectacular drug — it’s sort of like caffeine but much, much better.

What do you do? So, here’s my sort of Cool Thing for the week to help wean myself off cigars and reduce the number down to maybe one a week. They now have electronic cigarettes. Have you seen these, John?

**John:** I’ve heard of them. I’ve never seen them so I want a full description.

**Craig:** It’s actually a pretty amazing invention. And I’m talking about it mostly because I know there are people out there that smoke regular cigarettes and I want them to stop because that in fact is absolutely 100% for sure super duper bad, as we all know.

So, the idea of the electronic cigarette is: what if we could make a device that would allow you to inhale vapor that had nicotine in it and then just a bunch of inert stuff that doesn’t do anything? And typically the stuff is propylene glycol which is the inert substance that they use in fog machines or in asthma inhalers. Or, vegetable glycerin which is, again, just an inert substance. It does nothing to you.

So, we create this little device. And the only chemical that’s in it is just nicotine, which in and of itself is not carcinogenic at all. So the way it works is there is a battery and there are two kinds of batteries that they use. One is manual and one is automatic — the automatic one is the one that is sort of amazing to me. There’s a little membrane inside of it, and as you inhale the membrane moves forward and closes a circuit that then sends electricity into the next part of this thing which is what they call a cartomizer which…is bowdlerization the word when you combine words together to make a word?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** It’s a bowdlerization of cartridge and atomizer. And all that really is is a cylinder, and inside the cylinder is cotton wadding of some kind, some fibrous wadding, and a wire. So, the battery, so you inhale, the membrane in the battery closes circuit. Electricity goes through the battery, hits the atomizer wire. Wire heats up, heats up the liquid that’s soaked up in the cotton wadding. That essentially vaporizes. You inhale the vapor. You breathe it out. It’s water vapor when you breathe it out.

**John:** So there’s no second-hand smoke?

**Craig:** No second-hand smoke. No smell. No odor. No ash. And also none of the carcinogenic byproducts of combustion, and there’s a whole big bunch of them, because as it turns out the things that kill you in tobacco are not nicotine at all.

**John:** Yeah. The tars, the resins, and everything else.

**Craig:** All of that stuff. Exactly. So then the question is: what about nicotine in and of itself? Is that bad for you? And you know, it’s kind of interesting. Some people sort of say, well, it’s a little bit bad for you the way caffeine is a little bit bad for you. And some people say, in moderation, frankly no, it’s not that bad for you. So certainly if you smoke cigarettes there’s no question that you should stop and smoke one of these things instead. No question.

**John:** Thank you for your description of the actual cigarette, because I didn’t understand how they actually worked. So, do you throw away that thing when you’re done with it?

**Craig:** Well, there’s a couple different kinds. The kind that you might see, gas stations are starting to sell these things now, these sort of disposable ones, and yes, you would throw one of those away.

For people that do this regularly you would actually buy some batteries and some cartridges that you could refill on your own.

**John:** I was thinking about throwing away the battery, it feels horrible. So that’s not a great thing for the world.

**Craig:** True. You don’t want to just chuck batteries. The batteries that you can buy for these things are rechargeable batteries, and you can use them over, and over, and over, and over, and the cartridges. And then you can even buy, there’s like a whole cottage industry — it’s one of the dumbest words I’ve ever heard: vaping. So that’s what they call it, vaping, instead of smoking, which is really annoying.

But, regardless, there’s a whole cottage industry of people that make what they call E-Juice or Electronic Cigarette Juice which comes in various flavors, some of which are to mimic tobacco flavors. Some of which are kooky flavors like chocolate, and cherry, and all this nonsense, which I don’t go near.

But, it’s so much better for you than smoking a real cigarette and I think it’s better for you than smoking a cigar. And, also, you can do it indoors because there’s no smell. You can smoke it anywhere.

**John:** Yeah. I grew up in a smoking household. And so smoking has appalled me my entire life. So, this does sound vastly better. What I wonder, and you know, there’s obviously the possibility that it becomes a gateway to like somebody trying this and then going to real cigarettes. I also wonder if there’s a happy gateway where like someone who smokes goes to this and says, “This just feels really stupid and plasticy now. I’m just going to stop doing it all together,” which could also be great.

**Craig:** That would be great. And they do have various levels of nicotine. I mean, I only use the kind that is the literally the lowest possible amount of nicotine. And there are some indications that very little bit of nicotine actually even makes it into your bloodstream by the time you heat the wire up and do all this stuff. But it is, to me, it should be viewed as a way to get yourself off of this other stuff. Because the truth is we can say to people quit smoking or smoke less, and they don’t. This is sort of like the smoking equivalent of a needle exchange.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah. A reasonable solution to a problem that is going to be there whether you like it or not.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. I mean, we can say that people with free needles are going to go heroin crazy, but the truth is, no, they’re already kind of crazy with the heroin so you might as well keep them from getting AIDS. I mean, bottom line.

So I think that this thing is actually a spectacular invention and I urge anybody that is struggling with cigarettes to give it a shot. The version I use, a very popular one, it’s the Joyetech 510. The 510 model.

**John:** When Apple comes out with theirs it will be so much better than all the other ones.

**Craig:** Oh my god, it will be the best. It will be the best. But until that time I use the 510 with a Boge cartomizer. And I use E-Juice from Johnson. So there you go.

**John:** Good. My One Cool Thing is similar in a way in that it’s nothing I can actually fully recommend to people to use, but maybe to borrow a friend’s to see sort of what it’s like because it’s an intriguing vision of the future.

I bought one of the Nexus 7s, which is the little small Android-powered tablets that Google sells directly from their website. And I bought it because I really wanted to see what that form factor was like, because it’s a 7-inch which is sort of in-between what an iPhone size is and what a full iPad size is. And I wanted to see what that was like. I wanted to see what the most up-to-date version of Android was like, and what it felt like on the tablets. And consistent with a lot of the reviews — I didn’t read the reviews ahead of time, but now that I’ve gone back and read the reviews, I think a lot of them are largely right, is that it’s a pretty good little tablet.

And for $200 there’s actually a very valid case to be made for buying this if you can’t buy an iPad. Like if you were a kid who was using his own money to buy something, and you have $200 and you want a tablet, you can get this tablet and it would actually be pretty good.

I’m not in love with the Android of it all. And there’s stuff that gets to be very frustratingly… — I try to differentiate between stuff that’s just different from how I’m used to it on Apple stuff and stuff that it’s just like, well, that didn’t seem like a very smart decision.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And there’s some things which are interface stuff which is just really kind of random. You can’t figure out where you are at in the applications. But the size of it is actually kind of appealing. And for an e-reader, for a book, it’s actually really good. It’s a nice size. I find the iPad is really heavy to read a book on.

**Craig:** It is.

**John:** This is a much more reasonable size. So, it was interesting. Part of the reason why I bought it is I wanted to see whether we should be converting some of our apps that are on iOS over to Android and whether this is going to become a really viable tablet. I don’t feel the pressing need to be working on a Reader app, a Screenplay Reader app for this now, quite yet, because it doesn’t feel…

**Craig:** What is the app store situation for that? Because I don’t have any Android stuff. Is the app store full?

**John:** The Android app store is — here’s a difference, is that on Android platforms you can install things from multiple places, and so you’re not locked to just the one official app store. There’s Google Play which is the main app store. And installing the apps from there or from Amazon’s app stores are the most places you’d find them.

For developers, it becomes much more complicated because with an iPhone or an iPad there’s only very few number of devices you have to be able to build for. With Android you really have no idea what screen size you’re going to end up on. You have to make so many more allowances for what the actual hardware is, then it becomes much more problematic. And because of that, sometimes the apps aren’t as sort of fit and finished as they are in the iOS thing. But there are official places where you can buy apps and people could theoretically — some developers make money selling apps there.

**Craig:** It used to be when we were young, if you recall, John, that the knock on Apple was that they were restricted by the fact that they controlled the software and hardware together at the same time. And it seems — and they were restricted in part because the PC clone industry was able to essentially outsource a billion little pieces form a billion different people and reduce the price on these things. And Microsoft was sort of the king in terms of the software.

But now you can see how controlling that pipeline completely from soup to nuts has given Apple a tremendous advantage.

**John:** Yes. If you read the articles on how Apple sort of buys the future, because in success they have so much money that they are able to go to factories and say, “Hey, you are working on this new display technology. We will give you $200 billion to build a new factory, but we’re going to ask for the first 18 months of your output. We get to buy all of it.” And that’s how they sort of get the new technology before anyone else can because they have enough money and leverage to be able to do that.

So, controlling that whole thing has been amazing for them.

**Craig:** Yeah. The guy that run that is now running the whole company. Obviously they take supply chain extremely seriously. They’re clearly the best at it. No one comes close.

**John:** So, my bottom line on the Nexus 7, because also my mother-in-law has the Kindle Fire, so I’ve also been able to try that. It’s a much better device than the Kindle Fire for just using, like maps on this thing is terrific. And a couple years ago on the maps application on this all by itself would have been worth the price of admission.

The Kindle Fire has a better catalog just because Amazon has so many more movies, and shows, and books you can get on it. The Google Play thing is okay. But you also have the Amazon Kindle store is an app just on the Nexus 7 and it’s really good.

Part of the reason I also bought this is because I was curious; there’s all this talk about there’s going to be an iPad Mini probably coming down the pike, and I thought that’s going to be a terrible idea. That’s going to be a really bad size for a screen for everything. And I was wrong. And I think it’s a good size for a lot of people, especially if it comes down to price where more people can buy it. I think it can be terrifically successful.

And I definitely recognize that the iOS apps that we’re building right now, we’re going to have to plan for screens that size and I think they’ll be successful.

**Craig:** And this is the Nexus 7?

**John:** The Nexus 7. So I would recommend, like listen: If you’re really curious about where the Android platform is and sort of what the best of it is, I think it’s a good way to spend $200 because you get like the actual most recent device. You don’t have to pay for a contract if you’re buying a phone. You get a chance to play around with it.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** And if this device becomes popular or if the iPad version of this becomes popular, you can definitely see like loading up schools with these, because if it’s a $200 thing you can actually afford to buy them for the whole classroom and use them as books for things. Whereas at $400 or $500 the iPad becomes too expensive.

**Craig:** Right. And do they have a Kindle app?

**John:** They do. There’s a Kindle app on it just like there’s a Kindle app for the iPad. There’s a Kindle app for this and it’s pretty good.

**Craig:** Maybe I’ll buy one for my son. Because, you know, mostly I just want him to read books.

**John:** Yeah. And the frustration that there aren’t as many great games on it will mean that he’ll read books.

**Craig:** Precisely.

**John:** Although I will say my favorite book reader device is still by far the $79 Kindle from Amazon, which is the non-backlit E-ink screen. It has ads on it but it’s a really good reader and it’s so lightweight that I’ll actually stick it in a jacket pocket and carry it around with me.

**Craig:** What about that Barnes & Noble one? Is that dead? The Nook?

**John:** The Nook? This, I think, is going to make a little bit harder case for the Nook. There’s a version of the Nook now that has lighting on it that people like a lot, that has a touch screen that has lighting on it that some people like a lot. So, god bless them, they’re still making stuff.

But I think a lot of nerds were buying the Nook and then rooting it to sort of put it back to a real Android software and they’re using that to develop and stuff. And I feel like this Nexus 7 would replace that instinct.

**Craig:** One last question about the Nexus 7. Can I smoke it?

**John:** You could totally smoke. And you put little batteries in there and the wire hits the membrane, and just inhale. It’s really good.

**Craig:** Even your pretend smoking didn’t sound right.

**John:** Yeah, god, I’m not an actor, but my fantasy is at some point when I become quite old — when I become 80-years old and have lived a good long life — I want be like the Gore Vidal who sort of like enters in and becomes the wise old man in movies. But they can’t have me smoke because I just couldn’t do it. And you can always tell when an actor has no idea how to smoke.

**Craig:** Clearly.

**John:** They hold a cigarette wrong. Everything’s just wrong about it.

**Craig:** They hold it wrong. They inhale sort of like a cigar and puff it out. I will tell you this, I’m on record: Once I cross 85 I’m going out, buying a pack of Marlboro Reds and get going. [laughs] Because I don’t care anymore.

**John:** A better idea might be to buy a pack right now and stick it in a vault, because they won’t be selling them.

**Craig:** They won’t. And I actually do believe, in all seriousness, that the electronic cigarette will kill regular cigarettes. I do.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** I think that — here’s the trick, not to bring it back around to that, but really it comes down to the government. If the government gets stupid in their anti-smoking zeal and bans these things, that will be a tragedy. Interestingly, there have been a number of major medical associations, I think the American Medical Association, perhaps, or the Heart and Lung — one of the larger medical associations came out and supported these things and said these should be legal for sure. This is way better than smoking for people who smoke. Way better.

**John:** Yeah, you convinced me.

**Craig:** So get smoking…

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** …and I may pick up that Nook…I mean, not the Nook, the Nexus 7 just to give it a swing and see what it’s like. And if I hate it I promise to take a video of myself smashing it with a baseball bat.

**John:** Yeah, $200, it’s not mad money. I mean, $200 is real money to be spending on something, so I don’t want people to wantonly say, “Oh, John August recommends it,” because it’s a half-hearted recommendation. But I did find it fascinating, and for people who are curious about it, I was curious and my curiosity was sated.

**Craig:** Excellent. Well that was a good Cool Thing.

**John:** Awesome. All right. Thank you so much, Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** Talk to next week.

**Craig:** Bye.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.