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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 640: Can You Believe It?, Transcript

June 3, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2024/can-you-believe-it).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Heads up that today’s episode has just a little bit of swearing in it.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 640 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, the advice to write what you know has become an empty cliché, yet on this very podcast, we’re often advising writers to think about what’s personal and specific to their experience when crafting their stories. Along that axis, we recently had Celine Song on to talk about the many autobiographical elements of her film Past Lives, which recounts and reframes her experience as a child and as an adult. But it’s one thing to reflect on the past and another to deliberately place yourself in a perilous spot in hopes of getting a story out of it. Today we’ll talk to a writer who did just that and what came of it. We’ll also answer listener questions about talking with managers and talking to yourself. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, how do you set boundaries on material when you’re dating another comedian?

To help us through all that, let’s welcome our guest. Alex Edelman is a stand-up comedian, writer, and producer who has written for shows such as Teenage Bounty Hunters and The Great Indoors. His award-winning special, Just For Us, which has been touring all over the world since 2018, is out now on HBO.

**Alex Edelman:** Thanks so much for having me. It’s so cool.

**John:** Unlike many other guests who come on this show, you actually know what this podcast is.

**Alex:** Yes. When you join the WGA, that’s what happens. Howard Rodman puts a steak knife to your back. He’s like, “Do you listen to Scriptnotes?” I’m like, “Yes, yes, Mr. Rodman, I do, I do. I like it.”

**John:** People are so intimidated by Howard Rodman, because he has that presence, and so you had to pull out your phone and actually subscribe in your podcast app.

**Alex:** It’s the last step to getting health care is you have to actually subscribe to the podcast, to Scriptnotes. Look, I’ve always been interested in the craft. It’s such a silly, dumb thing to say. It’s like saying, “I like color.” But I’ve always been interested in the craft of writing. And the more granular, the better. Even the notion of what you were talking about, which is write what you know, I have a whole thing about the advice of write what you know, which I feel so strongly about. I love hearing writers talk about writing. I love conversations about craft. This is me speaking directly to the demographic of which I am most interested, which is also me, so I’m very excited to be here.

**John:** We both know Mike Birbiglia, but that’s actually not how we met. The true story is you were playing at the Taper here in Los Angeles, and friends had said, “Oh, you should go see it.” At the very last minute, 2:00 in the afternoon, I said, “Oh hey, let’s go see the show. There’s still tickets, a few tickets left.” My husband and I went down. Taped to my seat was a little envelope from you or your manager saying, “Hey, afterwards, come backstage.” I was so impressed that somebody was reading through the last-minute ticket sales and recognized my name. Well done.

**Alex:** Do you want to know what happened? Whenever I do New York or LA, I read the… I don’t have a manager, so it is me and also my crew. But I have an unfortunate tendency to miss friends and family who come, and then they get offended that I didn’t say hi. Now, I get a seat book about half an hour before the show. I don’t always read it, but if there’s family members coming or if someone I know is coming, but I can’t quite remember who it is, I’ll say to my stage manager, MC or Brian or Kathleen, the three folks I’ve worked with primarily, or Rachel – four folks.

But I think what happened was I had talked about the podcast or I listened to the podcast with one of my stage managers, and they went, “Hey, Alex, your favorite person’s here.” They were like, “John August is here.” I was like, “Oh, I wonder if it’s the same guy.” That was the impetus behind your note. But also, we let some people live their lives. They’ll be like, “Do you want to put a note on so-and-so’s seat?” I’m like, “That guy can just enjoy a quiet evening at the theater,” something like that.

**John:** You invited James Burrows back my same session. James Burrows, an icon, a legend.

**Alex:** Oh my god, I love Jim Burrows. I call him Jim because – no, I don’t know him well.

**John:** Because now you have a close personal connection after meeting him once.

**Alex:** Close friend. When I was writing on The Great Indoors, he was shooting on the lot Superior Donuts. I was at a garage sale. This will only be interesting to your listenership, and if it’s not, you can cut it out. But I was rummaging through a garage sale somewhere. And I found in this garage sale a Humanitas Prize certificate for an episode of Taxi called Blind Date, which is about Judd’s character in Taxi goes on a blind date, and she is overweight, and he treats her like a human being. That was so revolutionary at the time that it won a Humanitas Prize. I bought it for five bucks. It was literally five bucks. It was a garage sale. I brought it into work. I went down and I asked Bob Daily, who was running Superior Donuts and is a buddy of mine, I said, “Can I show this to Judd and Jim Burrows?” They both signed the Humanitas Prize certificate for me. I’m that much of a nerd.

But yeah, Jim Burrows is a legend. He shaped the face of sitcom comedy in the ’90s, ’80s, 2000s, everything. By the way, when I showed him the certificate, he’s like, “We actually shot that one with three cameras instead of four, and then we decided that three was better,” and walked me through the episode as if it happened last week instead of several decades ago.

**John:** I love when you meet these titans who have been in the industry forever and they’re still incredibly sharp. It’s none of that like, “Oh,” big stories about things, they can’t put stuff together. Clearly sharp as a pin and is thinking about tomorrow’s work.

**Alex:** Maybe this is a knock on me actually, but I’m very reverent of all of the older guys and gals and everyone in between. I hosted Norman Lear’s 100th birthday special for ABC. Getting to be in a room with Norman Lear, it’s really something. When Christopher Nolan accepted his Oscar, he said, “We’re 100 years into filmmaking. Think about how special it would be to be 100 years into music or painting.” Comedy is an even younger art form, essentially. Comedy is a very young art form. A lot of the people that built the face of it are still around or they died in my lifetime. I had the good fortune to be around a lot of these people. Mel Brooks is pretty sharp. I never was lucky enough to really have some time with Carl Reiner, but I was told he was very sharp. Norman was sharp as a pin all the way to the end, as far as I know. You’re just lucky to be able to share oxygen with these people.

**John:** We’ll look forward to another 90 years of your career, but let’s start back at the beginning, because before you did this show, you actually had a long ramp up. I’m curious where you start your story in terms of comedy. What were the first things you were doing in performing? You’ve done stand-up. You’ve written on traditional shows. You’ve done your solo shows. What’s the journey there?

**Alex:** Where do I consider my career starting? I guess in baseball, which is a really weird place. But I started at the Red Sox. I got a job when I was 13 years old. I wrote the Red Sox kids’ newsletter and just did general writing bits around the ballpark and got into the world that way and then fell in love with sports and then fell in love with comedy.

**John:** Back to the baseball. You were writing up what happened? Were you actually on the PA? What were you doing?

**Alex:** I wrote articles. I would stand in the press line and stuff like that or be in the press conferences in the back, scribbling stuff down. But I also worked in the office doing odd jobs and being a little amanuensis to this guy Larry Lucchino and this guy Charles Steinberg. Larry, who was a titan of the game himself, passed away actually last week. He was a really great guy, a really huge figure in the sport. They were amused by this kid who loved sports and loved history and loved writing and was always around.

They always found writing for me to do. I wrote a bunch of press releases. I’d write public address speeches. I wasn’t on the PA, but I was part of pre-game ceremony sometimes. This guy Charles Steinberg, who worked for Larry, had a flair for the creative. He would put together these elaborate pregame ceremonies to celebrate retirements or various other milestones. I was always part of dreaming up those ceremonies and executing them. It was very creative. It was a blast. To be an employee of the Red Sox between 2003 and 2007 when I left – they won two World Series, they ended this 86-year drought without a championship – it was really, really beautiful.

**John:** You’re doing this, and at what point are you moving from, “Okay, I’m writing stuff. It’s being printed places or being spoken aloud on the PA,” to working on stuff for yourself? What was the transition? Were you going to school for it? What happened next?

**Alex:** I was an Orthodox Jew, so I was going to yeshiva. I was in a low-key rabbinical school. Then I spent a year in Israel in a seminary there, thinking that maybe that was my thing. But it was stand-up comedy. I had gone to see this show called Comics Come Home that Denis Leary organizes every year, and still organizes it. They do it in a huge arena in Boston. I fell in love with comedy, and I started going to open mics at a pizzeria, at a music place.

**John:** How old are you when you’re going to open mics?

**Alex:** I’m 17 or so. It was dilettante-ish. I was writing around. I won a sports writing award here and there. I started fishing around. I got a summer job on the set of The Departed running drinks for the Teamsters. I was finding myself a little bit. But things really kicked into high gear in my last year of college. I spent my last semester of NYU, which was chock full of writing stuff – I had the best professors you could have. I had Zadie Smith. I had Nathan Englander. I had Jonathan Lethem. I had Darin Strauss, who was an English major, Megan O’Rourke, Susan Orlean.

**John:** Wow.

**Alex:** I had all-star lineup of professors. I’m extremely privileged in the education department. I am such a disappointment to so many of those people.

**John:** I want to talk about this. I want to go from open mics to NYU. When you’re at the open mics at the pizza places, what is your material? You’re 17 years old. You have a very interesting background as the Orthodox kid coming into these places. But were you talking about yourself or were you just imitating other comedy you were hearing?

**Alex:** It was terrible, wasn’t it? It was the worst, most horrible impressions of these Boston comedians. I’m sure you’ve heard this from other people on your podcast, but every time you get a great note… I love notes. I think they’re responsible for my work getting to a certain place. Whenever you get a great note, there’s a part in you that’s always known that it was true. There’s a little bit of you that, as soon as they start giving you the note, you’re like, “Yeah, of course. I knew that but was denying it,” or, “Yeah, of course, I knew that.” In the back of my mind, I was always like, “This isn’t really me.” But I was just trying anything I could to make people laugh. My comedy, there wasn’t much of me in it. But I was trying to get laughs. I had one good joke. I had one good joke that I limped along with.

**John:** Do you remember it?

**Alex:** Yeah.

**John:** Willing to share it?

**Alex:** The premise was I’d describe the scene from The Godfather where Sonny Corleone pulls up to the tollbooth. I would describe in graphic, long detail, “They’re spraying him full of bullets, and he gets out of the car, and then more bullets, more bullets, and he dies right there on the pavement.” After this long description, I go, “If that’s not the best commercial for E-ZPass I’ve ever seen.” Oh, wow, Drew likes it. Drew likes it, everybody. I was really terrible, but it was that one joke. At one point, I was at an open mic bombing, and a comic from the back of the room went, “Alex, tell your joke.”

**John:** Wow.

**Alex:** Which is so devastating and so true. I was just awful, but I was doing my best. Also, I think you need that time in the dark, that sort of incompetence where you’re too incompetent to know that you’re incompetent. It was the perfect time to start stand-up comedy, which is as a teenager.

**John:** Ira Glass has this speech where he talks about you have taste, but you don’t have talent, and you’re climbing both things at the same time. You probably had some taste, you knew what you liked, but you couldn’t do those things that you liked. You’re imitating. You’re trying to get there, and so you’re telling your one joke.

**Alex:** But you also don’t know what’s out there. Everything was within my very limited purview. I think I’ve always tried to see as much as I possibly can, because you never know what’s for you. People say write what you know. I guess we’re doing this.

**John:** We’re doing this. I think we’re into the meat of this now.

**Alex:** When people say write what you know, a good synthesis of that is what Norman always said, which is, “I’m just another version of you.” He would always say that to people, which is a handy thing to say if you’re doing a Latinx One Day At A Time.

**John:** Is this Norman Mailer, Mark Normand?

**Alex:** Norman Lear. Sorry, Norman Lear.

**John:** Norman Lear. Sorry, there’s too many Normans.

**Alex:** Sorry. Norman Lear would always say, “I am just another version of you.” He was really, really big on that humanist idea. The idea of write what you know to me always meant if you know humiliation, write humiliation. If you know fear or aspiration or a desire to fit in…

Everyone thinks that my solo show is about antisemitism, but I’ve always been insistent that it’s about the desire to assimilate and the cost of assimilation. No one will understand this more than you. What the story is versus what the show is about can be completely different things.

I didn’t really have exposure to good comedy for a while. I had exposure to some good comedy. Steven Wright would drop in sometimes, or I’d go see Brian Regan, or I once went to see George Carlin at the Cape Cod Melody Tent, although that memory is very fuzzy. I saw lots of comedy. The dominant culture in Boston was extremely regressive and extremely, looking back, kind of boring. There were only a few bright lights that stood out. I was off into it because of those comics.

**John:** What strikes me about stand-up comedy, unlike traditional writing, is that you have the immediate feedback of are people laughing or not. But you can also just become probably seduced by that laughter and just go back to your one joke, or you can get into these grooves and these ruts, that you’re just doing this one thing that is going to be successful for this thing, for this crowd, but it’s not actually pushing you forward, it’s not pushing your storytelling forward, it’s not getting you anyplace new. Obviously, going to NYU broke you out of some of that, and you’re being challenged by good professors. But when did you have a vision for what you actually wanted to do with your writing and with your comedy?

**Alex:** Such a perfect question, because the preamble is the thing that I always struggled to explain to people. Sometimes I’d come off stage at the Comedy Cellar, which is where I work on new material, and people will say, “Good set.” And I want to say, “No, it’s not a good set. I went up there wanting to try four or five new things, and I got a little scared after the second new thing didn’t work, so I shut it down and went back to the chestnuts that I know worked.”

If I never wanted to fail on stage again, I could do that. I have enough material. I have probably five hours of material that I know works bagged. I could if I chose to never push myself, never go on stage. Sometimes you go on stage and you come off and people are like, “Tough one.” I’m like, “I wanted to try two new things. I tried eight new things. Four of them worked. One of them did really well, and that’s money in my pocket.” It’s hard to explain that to people.

I really found it when I was in London. I went on stage with material. I don’t remember it, but it couldn’t have been very good. This was 2012. I was studying abroad. It was my last year. I was invited to do this show by this woman, Josie Long, who’s a great, great, great British comedian who now lives in Glasgow but also directs movies and writes short story collections. Truly probably one of my biggest role models. Josie had me on her show, which was called Lost Treasures of the Black Heart. It was at the Black Heart in Camden. You talked about forgotten heroes. It was a themed night. No one had told me it was a themed night, or I had forgotten. I showed up and I just did my normal material. It got laughs.

Josie pulled me aside afterwards in a very gentle way, was like, “Hey, just so you know, I think you’re maybe capable of more than that, than the clubby New York act that you delivered. Maybe you want to go and write something and just come back and try it in front of the friendliest audience you’ll ever be in front of.” I went away and I wrote something, and I came back and did it. I don’t know that it was great, but it certainly was the first time I felt a little more like me on stage.

My career really started in the UK. It was because I saw comedians who were a little bit more of an aspectus for me. I think that you can divide most, not writing, but most written products, film, TV, stand-up, even music, to aesthetic and content. It was the first time I had ever seen an aesthetic that worked for me, which was a long-form, thoughtful thing that the British-type solo shows that you see at the Edinburgh Festival and at the Soho Theater in London, which is a sort of theater that puts on these hour-long or 90-minute solo shows. Of course, with the best things, the aesthetic and the content are married to each other or they inform each other. As soon as I started seeing those aesthetic offerings, those shows, it completely changed who I was as a comedian. It really opened me up.

**John:** I’m picturing our audience here. We have a lot of people who are aspiring writers who are looking to do stuff down the road. At this point, you’re in London. You’re a senior at NYU. You’re studying abroad. Did you identify primarily as a student studying abroad or a comedian who’s at the start of your career? They’re kind of two different people.

**Alex:** I don’t think I cared as much about writing as I should’ve, or I don’t think I cared as much about collegiate writing as I should’ve. John Baldessari, who’s a conceptual artist, says that every young artist needs to know that talent is cheap, you have to be possessed what you can’t will, and you have to be in the right place at the right time. I’d always grappled with the first two, but I had this sense in London that I was in the right place at the right time. I hate the word “scene” but there was a scene going on. It was 2012, and these solo shows were having a moment.

I think a month into being there, I was at a bar. Not to be crude on your podcast, but somebody at the bar grabbed my ass really hard. I turned to the woman standing next to me, like, “Hey, will you mind helping me out? This guy’s got a pretty firm grip on my ass.” Not to be like, “And that was,” but that was Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Phoebe and I became really close friends. Phoebe was just working at Fleabag. I went to 12 different previews of Fleabag.

Just being amongst all of these great, genius people who were making the most fulsome versions of stand-up comedy to me was really intoxicating. I was a student of that when I got there. I sat and watched them do it for years before I tried it myself. That was 2012. I didn’t put my first solo show up until summer of 2014. I really took my time, because I really could see that this was the best version of what you could do. What I was doing by comparison was like a printer running out of ink.

I guess if you had to force an answer to the question, I guess I was subconsciously leaning towards it being a career, the comedy thing, instead of being a college student. But if you had asked me then, I don’t think I would’ve given you that answer. It always felt like a pipe dream to me. It still feels like a pipe dream to me. It really does. Being a staffed TV writer, being a professional stand-up, they all feel like impossible dreams still.

**John:** I do want to get to TV staffing in a sec, but first I want to talk about this format that you’re seeing, so Fleabag and these other solo shows. The difference between a solo show and a stand-up special or one comedian as a headliner, what is the distinction there? Is it because it’s all revolving around one central narrative? How do you distinguish between the two? You see the two things, and there’s a lot of overlap, but they do feel distinct now.

**Alex:** I always offer this. I try not to say this too much in public. I feel like I’m weirdly gatekeeping this. But if you’re listening to this podcast, then you’re probably my people. I always give this formula whenever I’m asked to teach anything solo show-related, that every solo show has four things, which is who you are, who they are, what happened, what’s changed. I think that’s bazillion-dollar advice.

By the way, I think I saw a tweet from someone. Who’s the guy who writes the Walking Dead? I remember reading a tweet of his years ago. He was like, “Something should happen in your scripts.” He’s like, “I’m reading lots of scripts where not enough happens.” He’s like, “There should be a story, like guy walks into a bar. Someone should do something, and something should happen.” I remember thinking, “That’s really interesting.” I don’t think my four things are informed by that, but I think in a really great solo show, something happens and something changes. One of those things can be way bigger than the others. By the way, those four things can be deeply submerged in your narrative. They don’t need to be the exoskeleton.

But if you think of your show as an essay, a college essay, with your setup and then three things and then a thesis, the setup should be where you start, three things should be something that happens, and your thesis should be summing it all up, seeing what’s changed by the end. The really great solo shows that I’ve admired have had that. Birbiglia’s shows all have that. He doesn’t want a baby in the new one, and then his wife’s like, “Maybe we should get a baby,” and then they have baby. Then that’s what’s changed.

**John:** Then he’s a dad at the end. I want to get back to your four points though. I get the first one, who you are, because you’re introducing yourself to the audience and who the character is that you’re presenting there. That’s very classic. But what do you mean by who they are? Is it framing the audience?

**Alex:** They can be different. They can be the world at large. They can be the group of people you want to be a part of. They can be your marriage. They can be the desire that you feel. Sometimes I explain the four things with Walking in Memphis. You know the song by Marc Cohn?

**John:** Um-hmm.

**Alex:** It starts with, “Put on my blue suede shoes, boarded a plane, touched down in the land of the Delta Blues in the middle of the pouring rain.” This guy’s off on this journey. Something’s happening. He’s like walking into a bar. Then he has all of these experiences. They are the people of Memphis. What’s happening is he’s immersing himself and trying very hard to become in and amongst this. He goes to Graceland, and he walks down the street, and he goes to Al Green’s church, which is something he really did. Marc Cohn really did that. He’s painting a picture.

Then the last thing he does, which wouldn’t work if it was the first thing, he sings at that café with the lady. It ends with a pretty good joke. She’s like, “Tell me are you a Christian child.” And he says, “Ma’am, I am tonight,” which is really a pretty solid joke for a Jew. Then the last line is, “Put on my blue suede shoes, boarded the plane, touched down in the land of the Delta Blues in the middle of the pouring rain.” That thing is completely transformed by its contact with the they.

The genius of the song is, who he is is Marc Cohn, the they is the people of Memphis, what’s happened is he’s changed by that, and possibly, because of that last verse, they’re changed by that a little bit. This guy walks into this bar, and the woman is like, “Do you want to sing a song?” He sings a song, which in real life was Amazing Grace, the only song he knew that she also knew. Everyone’s changed a little by it. What a beautiful thing that’s happened. That makes it unique.

The you is the person narrating, or your main character. The they is whatever world they’ve gone into. Bonus points if the world that they’ve gone into is one that they’ve used a lot of agency to head towards, because that’ll give you a much better what happened. Then the what’s changed is… Sorry to nerd out on it.

**John:** It absolutely makes sense. What I’m hearing is obviously we have the classic things setting up who you are. The character goes on a journey. They are transformed throughout the course of the journey. It’s a very much hero’s journey thing.

One thing I think is different about watching your shows and Birbiglia shows and really all the solo shows I’ve seen is that they are dependent on framing who the audience is who’s watching this performer, and there’s a conversation there, but it’s not the classic stand-up conversation, where we’re just waiting for the laughs or we are doing crowd work. It’s a very specific kind of conspiratorial, like, “You’re gonna come with me on this journey.” You’re inviting them to step into this place, which is different than what we would do in a normal stage show or in a screenplay. Obviously, you’re trying to get the audience involved and invested, but they’re also right there. You’re having to engage with them in ways that are very specific and different. I’ve done a Broadway show. Yes, the audience is important. You want them to laugh. You want them to cry and feel things. But they’re not part of the show the way that I think these solo shows need to pull people on stage with you.

**Alex:** What do you mean in terms of defining the audience? Having to speak directly to the audience as a form of direct address and direct where they are?

**John:** I’m thinking to your show specifically. We’re in the Taper, and you’re putting up your expectations of who the people are who have bought this ticket. I think you are calling out what this crowd is in Los Angeles, who these people are, and what you’re expecting they’re expecting out of you, is a thing that I noticed in these shows.

**Alex:** I’m just telling a story. In some ways it’s the rawest form, the most minimalist form of telling a story. The delicacy of that collective experience, the fact that at any point someone could stand up and ruin it makes it really special. That recursiveness is really fun for me.

But also, I wrote something – I can’t remember, one of the umpteen things that I’ve been writing or talking about in order to promote the special. I said that that sort of direct and immediate feedback loop is very rare. It’s like if DiCaprio got to look into the camera and be like, “Hey, this is the part where we hit the iceberg, and people get really sad here.” There’s a really interesting thing where you get to comment immediately on what’s happening.

But also, my favorite thing about the show or the form itself may be people not being sure entirely of the context. Should I be allowed the leeway that people aren’t yelling? My favorite moments are the moments that are very silent, very confusing, or where I tell the audience that I’m only telling you stuff that I think you’ll enjoy, and so the audience gets to wonder what they’re not getting.

I think solo shows can offer audience as a kind of mystique that a lot of other art forms can’t. I think the questions around the context and around whether or not you’re bringing the audience with you and how much is you and how much is them I think are probably one of the most special things about it. But I don’t know that stand-up comedy doesn’t have that too.

I totally understand when people draw a distinction between my show and stand-up comedy, but the truth is my last preview of the show before I brought it to New York City was at Comedy on State in Madison, Wisconsin. I did a comedy club where people bought chicken fingers and had a two-drink minimum and got a check.

I’ve always been really fascinated by people that can blur the line a little bit between genres. I’ve always thought my show was both heavily rooted in stand-up comedy and also absolutely theater. There’s a comic who I think is criminally underappreciated in Christopher Titus who used to do this. Colin Quinn does it. Mike Birbiglia does it. I’ve always liked stand-up and theater, and I’ve always thought a more expansive definition of both services the art forms better.

**John:** I want to talk a little bit more specifically about your show, your special. What is the short version? How do you describe it to somebody who’s going in, that doesn’t spoil crucial things?

**Alex:** The short version is about a guy, a Jew, me, who goes to a meeting of White Nationalists in Queens, and he sits there for a little while, and eventually, one of them’s like, “Sorry, but this guy’s a Jew,” and I’m like, “Yeah, I’m a Jew.” That’s roughly what the show is about. This real-life experience was the basis for this show. Of course, along the way, there are tangents into autobiographical stuff that I think is related to the narrative or conversant with the major narrative that has an underlying theme and is full of laughs, because I’m an entertainer first, so the show is like joke, joke, joke, joke, joke, joke, joke, joke, joke. But yeah, is this one narrative with a bunch of tangents, but never tangents on a tangent.

**John:** We talked at the start about writing what you know, but this is a case where you are deliberately putting yourself in a place, a position that is somewhat perilous with the intention of there’s gonna be material here, there’s gonna be a story to tell. Correct, or is that not fair?

**Alex:** If I’m being honest, I thought it was slightly too specific to ever become content. I just thought it was a fun story that I would tell my friends. Then I told enough friends that I respect who were like, “You’re doing this as stand-up, right?” I told my friend Danny Jolles, who’s a great writer and comedian. I told Morgan Evans, another great writer and filmmaker, and my friend Chloe. I told a bunch of people, and then eventually Adam Brace, who was my director and a playwright himself. Adam was like, “This is your show.” Adam was the one who stewarded it along.

**John:** What were they seeing in the stories that you weren’t seeing? What were they pointing out like, “There’s a journey here. There’s material here.”

**Alex:** I don’t know. Danny and another comic named Nick – Nick said something that made me think maybe it was a show, because I told him a thing, and then he responded with a punchline. I told him a detail from the actual moment, and he responded with a punchline to it. I was like, “That’s really good.” I was like, “That’s a really good joke.” Then I thought, “Oh, I want that punchline.”

I think every joke I ever tell has one reason for it existing, and it’s one moment in the thing. It’s either a funny face that you pull or a funny word that you say or a particularly interesting thought that you can somehow boil down to one line. There’s always a reason. I think Nick pointing that out – Nick Callas, really talented comic – he gave it really good heft. But I think Adam saw a thing that could unfold. Birbiglia, by the way, saw it more.

Birbiglia is the producer of the show in New York. When I told Birbiglia about the solo show, it was already a solo show. But Birbiglia went and saw it and was like, “You can pull out more. This can accordion out to something that’s more interesting, more profound.” I think the smarter people saw folds in that story that might be good, but it was Mike and Adam who saw different aspects to it. Adam saw something that maybe was tangentially geopolitical. Mike saw something that could speak a little to me as a person.

And then little notes from folks along the way. Billy Crystal is the one who suggested we move from a handheld mic to a headset mic. He said there’s theatrical potential in the story. I had lots and lots and lots of help from people who saw things in the story and provoked me, who offered provocations.

**John:** But because we’re a very process podcast, I want to talk about the process of going from, okay, you’re telling us an incident that you’re talking about with your friends, to, “This is a thing that I’m putting up the first temporary version of the show.” What is the writing process of going from that? At what point did you figure out structure and things? How early did you start showing that to people?

**Alex:** I had done maybe a joke or two about it in a stand-up set. But it was literally two, three minutes. It got some laughs. Maybe I told it on a storytelling night or something. But very special experience with Adam Brace.

Adam and I met my last semester at NYU. He was a British person. He worked on Fleabag, which his partner at the time, Vicky Jones, co-wrote with Phoebe. He was one of the voices and also was there at all of these early previews and I’m sure gave notes. I don’t know how big or little his contribution was. But he worked on countless great things. We worked on three solo shows together. He was one of my closest friends, if not the closest friend, for 11 years. He passed away right before we starred on Broadway. It’s a shame for him not to see this show finish its run. To say it’s a bummer is a bit of an understatement.

But Adam and I would drink – I don’t drink much, but I do with Adam – at this one table in Soho, at this place called the Soho Hotel. Adam had this notebook. When I was trying to get work together for new material gigs, I would sit down with Adam, and I’d throw everything at him, because I lived in the United States. Adam lived in England. Sometimes it’d be months before we saw each other.

I’d just come out of a room and was trying to get staffed. I wasn’t getting staffed. I had some meetings. It was very multi-cammy. I sat down with Adam and I just threw all this stuff at him. So much stuff. When I started telling him this story, his provocations were great. He was like, “What happened there?” I was like, “This and that.” He was like, “What could happen here? Maybe this speaks to an element of your personality. Maybe that could tie in with this joke. What if you massage this for this joke?” That story came together as a narrative pretty quickly, and then it went on stage probably two nights later. But it was amongst like 20 other things.

**John:** But when you say it came together and you’re putting it on stage, what are you writing down, and how are you writing it down? Is this just a Word document?

**Alex:** I’m not even writing. I think I had bullet points. Maybe there’s a sheet of paper somewhere with bullet points. Some people write with Word documents. I do write with Word documents sometimes. Sometimes I write on my phone. Sometimes I write in notebooks. Sometimes I write in various notes. This process for me is always like, if it’s good enough, you remember, and if you’ve got an accountability partner, which I had in Adam, he’ll remember. Adam had a notebook.

This is horrifying to say. Once, we started a run somewhere, and we figured out that the show was running three minutes light. I was like, “Why is it running three minutes light? Is my tempo different?” I looked at him. I was like, “Oh my god, I forgot that joke.” He’s like, “What? Oh my god, the vaccine joke’s not in there.” I was like, “Yeah, I forgot to tell the vaccine joke.” He was like, “The last eight nights, you’ve just missed. You’ve just missed.” By the way, the show’s already been running. The show had run in New York for like a year and a half at that point. I was like, “Don’t tell anybody.” He’s like, “No, no, no, I’m not gonna.” But he was like, “You forgot a chunk of your show.” It wasn’t even the vaccine joke. I think maybe it was the joke about Prince Harry that’s in the special. But I had completely forgotten a thing.

When the show started off Broadway, the PR people were like, “Can we get a transcript for press?” I was like, “There’s no transcript.” They were like, “What do you mean there’s no transcript?” I was like, “I just tell the story with the offshoots.” They were like, “What do you mean you tell the story?” At some point, a review appeared, and Adam sent me a picture of it with something circled. I called someone who worked with me, and I was like, “Do you guys generate the transcript?” They were like, “Yes.” I was like, “Is it out of an audio recording from this date?” They were like, “How did you know?” I was like, “Because I said something one time in that one show, and it showed up in this review.” It’s a thing that has been completely excised from the show. The word choice I didn’t care for.

**John:** That’s wild.

**Alex:** I’d never wrote anything down, which isn’t to say there weren’t reams and reams of paper that were important for this, writing down little bits of things or trying to cut extra words out. Sometimes I’ll write down a sentence and try to examine if I can cut one or two words to trim the facts. If you do that cumulatively, you can wind up saving double-digit minutes over the course of 90. That’s super granular.

But I’m very anti writing stuff down, because as soon as you do, it starts to calcify in the brain, and I think it removes your potential for growth, unless you sit down consciously and write again. You need the synthesis of preparing off stage and writing on stage. That time that your brain is alive in the show is really important and valuable. Look. John, you know, and everyone who writes who’s listening knows that there are moments where you’re in the zone and you’re in the flow. When you’re on stage, you are by necessity in the flow. You are stress tested into that tightrope energy. Maybe I could write it down, and I just am operating from a very old data set.

**John:** As we’re recording this, is there a written script version of Just For Us?

**Alex:** Yes, but I’d probably take a look at it, because I don’t know that it’s accurate. Shows should be conversing with the moment that they’re in and also an escape from it. We recorded the special in August. Then October 7th happened. Not to get into anything too prickly, but October 7th happened. My show is about assimilation and whiteness and Judaism. I wrote a line to open every show that we did after October 7th, and then Israel as a weighty subject got called back towards the end of the show. It’s not right that it goes in the recorded version of the show, because hopefully there will be at some point a resolution to this horrific conflict, the one that is occurring right now in Gaza, but also the larger one. You’d like your special to be an evergreen one, so you don’t want to date it by putting in something temporal. But at the same time, a live experience is a very different one. You have to give people a live experience.

When we were editing the special, Alex Timbers, the director, and I, we cut out some of the things that happened in the room that night that were just there for the Broadway audience, because doing something for the audience at home is a completely different product.

There is a written version somewhere. In fact, I know there is, because it’s gonna be released as a play at some point. I just heard that someone’s gonna license it to do it, which I’m very interested in seeing. I’m really fascinated in seeing it. Any written version would be obsolete to me the next time I perform it. It’s a really weird, sedulous double bind, I guess.

**John:** Let’s wrap up by talking about the actual writing you’ve had to do for other folks and where there is actually a script that things have to be shot. In the midst of doing the solo shows along the way, you’ve staffed as a TV writer. Why did you want to do that? What was cool about it? What was challenging about it? Talk to us about you as a TV writer.

**Alex:** I have learned so much from my showrunners. I have had the best, best, best education, not just at NYU, but I worked on The Great Indoors, which did one season on CBS, so it’s not like it lit the world on fire, but my showrunner, Chris Harris, and my creator, Mike Gibbons. I worked with these great writers, like Liz Feldman, who did Dead to Me, and Tad Quill and Craig Doyle. Everyone on that writing staff has had a very fruitful career as a television writer. I learned so much about story and so much about structure in a way that helped me with my work.

There’s no way I could’ve written my solo show without the sort of guidance that structuring television could’ve provided me. I felt this really keenly during the strike, that if you nourish a TV writer, you’re nourishing a novelist and you’re nourishing a playwright and you’re nourishing a songwriter and you’re nourishing a performer. All of these talents cross over, and all these crafts cross over. I got a pretty good sense of that as soon as I started writing for television, even when it was non-union award show stuff. I was like, “Oh my god, I’m picking up stuff. I’m learning a lot.” I think that learning really helped. And then all the more so getting to work with Jenji Kohan on Teenage Bounty Hunters. We adapted something for Netflix that didn’t go, but we loved and are still trying to do. I’ve worked with the greatest people. I work with truly the most incredible folks.

There’s even a bit in the show, which is something that I do in life now, that I took from Chris Harris, the showrunner, who I think is running Frazier at the moment, actually. Chris would do this thing when another writer said something to him that I know Chris didn’t want to engage with or couldn’t engage with, he would just go, “Can you believe it?” In my show, I’m in this meeting, which happened after I had gotten out of the writers’ room, and someone says something to me, and I don’t know how to answer. I just went, “Can you believe it?” which is something I learned from Chris Harris. Chris is thanked, and the special thanks is, “Chris Harris for a very useful four-word phrase in the show.”

Look, man, you get paid a pretty good amount of money – not enough money, but a pretty good amount of money – to sit in a room with folks who have been professionally curated for how smart and funny they are, you’re gonna pick something up. I loved being in a room. I can’t wait for the chance to do it again. I’ve gotten to organize my own, occasionally, for little things that I’ve written for the BBC, or I was telling you about before this, I do this thing called Saturday Night Seder, which was a thing I put together with Benj Pasek, who’s a songwriter.

**John:** Yeah, composer, songwriter.

**Alex:** He did Dear Evan Hansen and La La Land and Greatest Showman in the beginning of the pandemic.

**John:** They did the song in my movie Aladdin.

**Alex:** That’s right, that’s right. I remember. Those guys are such, such geniuses. Benj and I were complaining to each other over the phone that we weren’t gonna be able to do anything for Passover, because everyone was locked inside of their homes. It was beginning of quarantine, 2020. Benj was like, “We should do an online version.” I was like, “Let’s put a writers’ room together.” We put together this writers’ room with Sas Goldberg and Michael Mitnick and Josh Harmon and a whole bunch of TV folks. Everyone was just sitting at home. Just even over Zoom, being in that room was so nourishing and fun. We would scream and argue and joke. We wrote all these sketches for Bette Midler and Idina Menzel and Josh Groban, and we raised $3 and a half million for COVID relief. It was the coolest thing I’ve ever gotten to be a part of. It didn’t enrich anyone except for those lucky goddamn nurses who got all that PPE.

**John:** Totally.

**Alex:** It didn’t enrich anyone. Those nurses have had it too good for too long. There’s nothing like the collective of a writers’ room, really, under any auspices. It’s just the best thing in the world.

**John:** I don’t miss almost anything about the pandemic, but I do miss the permission it gave you to do things that were wild and nuts. We had live shows on Zoom. We had Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Ryan Reynolds on for an episode. Those were reaches that we felt possible, because I was on a Zoom with Phoebe and Tina Fey earlier in the pandemic. Everything was possible in a way, and that was exciting.

**Alex:** I loved it.

**John:** Before we wrap up the wonder of writers’ rooms, what were your samples that got you The Great Indoors? What were they reading that said, “Oh, that’s who we should get.”

**Alex:** Oh my gosh. No one’s ever asked me, but I love this. I wrote a sample that I still love so much. It’s a little frustrating to me, because sometimes I will meet people in the wild, and they’re like, “Oh my god, I’ve read Celestials,” which is the name of the sample. They’re like, “What a great sample.” I was always like, “No, I wrote it as a TV show. It’s supposed to get made.”

It’s set in Heaven, but not like dead people Heaven, like Earth doesn’t exist yet Heaven. It’s cubicle farmy and a workspace. Because there’s no established rules to what it is, it’s a little bit surreal. This guy who’s essentially an intern comes up with a pitch for Planet Earth, and he shows it to a bunch of people in the architecture department. They’re all these Scandinavian figures. They’re like, “This is pretty stupid,” except for one guy who’s like, “It’s pretty interesting.” He’s discouraged, and he throws it away. But one of the other interns, who’s really ambitious and doesn’t like him, puts it in God’s suggestion box. God is a 12-year-old girl with an iPhone, because that was the scariest thing I could think of. God gets fixated on one detail, which turns out to be kittens. She’s like, “I love this. Just go do it. It won’t cost too much. Just go do it.” She demotes their boss to work with them and gives them the Scandinavian architect who thought it was a good idea.

It’s basically Genesis. Also, it was about millennial workplace dynamics, because everybody that I knew was in this sort of place in their live where they were just getting out of college or they were three, four years out of college, and they wanted all this responsibility, but they didn’t really know what to do once they got it, and they had no hope of getting it.

I wrote this thing. Thankfully, Chris Harris was like… The Great Indoors is about millennial workplace dynamics. He read it. I came in for the meeting. He went, “You really know this world.” But again, it’s that thing, write what you know. It’s very heightened, but it’s grounded in that, like, I know what it’s like to want more responsibility in a workplace and clearly not be ready for it. That was my sample. Again, no one’s asked me about that in five, six years. But I love it. I’m sure if I read it, I would cringe a little bit. Every so often, someone’s like, “I love Celestials.” I was like, “Oh my god! I can’t believe… ” That was my sample that got me staffed on The Great Indoors. God, they were so patient with me. It’s where I heard Who Jackie for the first time and “can the floor be wet” and all these other writer inside jokes. I love it and miss it so much. That probably was one of the best times of my life. It was fantastic.

**John:** Nice. We have two listener questions here that are related to this. Drew, can you help us out?

**Drew Marquardt:** Gordon in LA writes, “My writing partner and I submitted our comedy pilot to our new manager. Pilot’s been through many drafts and received very positive reviews from peers and fellow writers. We were anticipating more positive feedback from our new manager, who we both recently paired with. The feedback call with the manager went about as bad as possible. He totally misunderstood the comedic tone, going so far as to ask whether the pilot was meant to be a drama. Bottom line, he didn’t find it funny. The manager wants us to rewrite the pilot into a more digestible broad comedy, which are more sellable in the current TV market. He has no interest in sending this draft around town. We’d be happy to write a different script as a broad comedy, but the chief question is, if your manager doesn’t find your writing funny, is it time to find a new manager?”

**John:** Oy.

**Alex:** It’s a really tough question, isn’t it?

**John:** Yeah. My first agent, I shared the script for Go with, and he didn’t get it. I moved to a different agency that got it. That’s certainly possible. Alex, I wonder whether Gordon’s script is good or it’s not good. We can’t read it ourselves.

**Alex:** I’m trying to find the gentlest way to say this. This is from a stand-up comedian’s brain. Comedy should ideally communicate very clearly to as many people as possible. The challenge of threading the needle and making something that reflects who you are and your authentic voice comedically while also resonating with the audience that you’re intending it for, it’s the biggest craft challenge. It feels like for whatever reason, your manager has not been able to get there.

You can put it on your script, or you can put it on the manager, but your WiFi’s not working. Something is broken, and so you should try to figure out what that is. But if you sent in the pages and they’re not getting it from the page, and that’s a pretty good sample of what that is, and if it’s just bad luck of the draw, and out of 100 people, your manager is the one person that that’s not for, you need to figure out why that reason is. Gordon, I’m not saying that it’s your case, but usually the case is a craft failing. I wouldn’t take it as a super four-alarm fire that your manager, quote, “doesn’t get you,” but I’d take a look at the pages and I’d take a look at the manager and see if it’s all, I don’t know, copacetic.

**John:** I don’t think you should rewrite this thing to make it funnier, because that’s not gonna be satisfying to anybody. If he doesn’t want to send this out, it’s because he doesn’t think it’s gonna help. You have to trust him that he has some sense of whether he could send it to people that would actually respond to it. If you’re gonna write something new that’s a more broadly funny thing, if there’s something you can do that is more clearly broadly funny that actually does work in your voice, I would go for that, but you may also need to look for a different place.

**Alex:** Also, the one question I’d also ask is if you want to be broadly funny. Not everybody wants that. Everyone’s comedy tone is different.

**John:** Drew, next question.

**Drew:** Tom in Warwickshire writes, “I lost my voice this weekend, and whilst trying to remain silent to help myself recover, I became very aware of how often I talk to myself, as in literally talking aloud, not just an inner monologue, albeit in a hush tone. While I know a lot of people talk to themselves, it made me wonder if I’m in part influenced to do this because I’ve seen characters in movies do it. We’ll often see characters vocalize what the audience is thinking, for example, someone following another person whilst trying to remain unseen and saying, ‘Where are you going?’ I’m interested in what you think about this technique and when it’s used to best effect.”

**John:** Tom we know is British because he says “whilst.” “Whilst” is just such a specific shibboleth word. Alex, do you talk to yourself a lot?

**Alex:** In the shower, like, “Oh, water is everywhere.” No, I’m just kidding. I think I talk to myself a lot. I more often sing to myself out loud, because I badly want to sing but don’t want anyone else to hear it. When I’m alone is the perfect time to do Baby Shark.

If a character monologues to themselves, I’m like, “What are you doing?” But also, it may be a conceit of film that I’m just comfortable with. But maybe subconsciously I’m like, it’s a little bit cheesy, because when you hang on a lantern on it, I’m like, oh yeah, that is annoying when someone’s like, “Where is he going?”

**John:** When it’s convenient, it doesn’t feel earned. People do talk to themselves in real life. You do experience it. I’m sure there’s some psychological study where they actually documented what percentage of people do speak out loud to themselves, their inner monologue is expressed outward. Sometimes it can be a compulsion. There was some producer of Matt Damon or Ben Affleck’s who was notorious for, if they were riding down a road, he had to read aloud all the signs he saw. That’s a thing that happens too. I wouldn’t worry about it for Tom. It’s nice that you’re recognizing that that’s a thing you do. But I will say recognize when you do it, when you don’t do it, and if you’re gonna have characters do it, make sure it feels authentic and real.

**Alex:** A thing that I do that I’m embarrassed to admit, but I will, I will have a side of an argument that I will never actually have in real life.

**John:** Oh, 100 percent. You gotta rehearse it.

**Alex:** It’s the first cousin of l’esprit de l’escalier, the spirit of the staircase, the thing that you figure out what you should’ve said when you’re at the top of the stairs in the party instead of the bottom of the stairs getting into the Uber, so the, “You know what? I’ve worked hard for this, and you don’t know.” You’re talking to someone who may or may not even be aware of the fact that you exist, but you’re having a big argument. The thing that I would question in shows is whether or not that advances character or story. I don’t know sometimes.

**John:** To some degree, it’s doing the function of a song in a musical, that it’s exposing the person’s inner life and what’s actually happening behind their eyes. I don’t see people rehearsing that one half of an argument on film that much, but lord knows I do it constantly. I’ve had so many arguments with folks that have no idea that I was ever actually angry. It’s a thing I’ll talk about in therapy.

It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a book by Jordan Mechner. He and I did Prince of Persia together and other shows. He created the video game Prince of Persia, but he’s now actually mostly a writer and an artist. He created this graphic novel that he drew himself as well. The story tells three intersecting timelines of different generations of his family. It’s 1914 with his grandfather in the Austria-Hungarian Empire during World World I, 1938 with his father who was fleeing the Nazis into France and trying to get his family all back together, and then 2015 when Jordan moves to France, the same time that I was there living in Paris, as his marriage is falling apart and he’s trying to get his family to move to this new place. Really brilliantly done. I’m reading it now in English. It was out in French last year. I tried reading it in French, and it was just over my head. But it’s really great. Jordan Mechner, really wonderful storyteller and actually a really good artist now too. We can be very jealous of everything Jordan Mechner does. It’s called Replay-

**Alex:** What?

**John:** … by Jordan Mechner. It’s in bookstores everywhere now.

**Alex:** Seriously? Are you serious? It’s called Replay?

**John:** Replay.

**Alex:** I swear to god this is not planned. The thing that I want to suggest is called Replay. It’s a book that I reread recently. It’s so cool. It’s by a guy named Ken Grimwood. It’s a science fiction novel or a speculative fiction novel. It’s about a guy who dies on the fourth page of the book and then wakes up in his dorm room at 18.

**John:** Oh, love it.

**Alex:** Then it’s this time loop thing. I don’t think I’m giving too much away to say that he gets to the same age in his second incarnation and then he dies again and he wakes up again. Now he’s stuck in this loop. It asks these more interesting questions about what it means to live your life when you have a chance to do it again and again and again. The book is very entertaining and is very cool and is very fun. I feel a little weird suggesting – I know that people when they come on and they suggest a cool thing, they usually suggest a thing that is contemporary, but I really like the book. I think it’s brimming with ideas. Occasionally, I have brought it up with someone else, and they also like it. It’s one of those books that has a secret fan club. I think it’s really cool. When I reread it, I was kind of riveted. I can’t believe that.

**John:** They’re both books called Replay.

**Alex:** I’m just blown away.

**John:** They get to the replay mechanics in different ways. One is a time loopy kind of thing. One is the generational cycles that you go through in terms of moving and trying to reestablish your family, coupled with video games are meant to be replayed. That’s wild.

**Alex:** Can I just say for the listenership that is listening, John’s face showed zero surprise, zero, when I said Replay. It was so cool. I was almost really disconcerted by it. I was like, “Did I reach out to tell them that this is my… ” I definitely didn’t. But you were one cool customer when I was like – because that was me, when I’m like, “Huh? What?”

**John:** What? That’s impossible.

**Alex:** Replay by Ken Grimwood. Wow, I am gob-smacked by that coincidence. Wow. I’m really, really blown away by that. I have to read Jordan’s book now.

**John:** This is where Craig would remind us that we’re in a simulation and sometimes there are just blips in the simulation and this is just one of those little things.

**Alex:** By the way, the Prince of Persia video game is very good.

**John:** It’s so good. It’s so good. It was a classic. He’s great. The Prince of Persia movie is not so good. But the script Jordan wrote for it originally, before it got changed, was actually terrific. You should read his book and see what a good writer he really is.

**Alex:** One of my favorite things is to read scripts for movies that seem a little high-concept and don’t quite work. Sometimes you read the script and you’re like, “Oh my god.” Liz Meriwether’s script for a romantic comedy – I think it was with Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman – it was called Friends With Benefits, but the script originally is called Fuckbuddies. The movie still has great moments, but the script is hysterical. The script is laugh out loud. Every moment on the page is so good. Reading scripts for movies that don’t always come together is such a beautiful-

**John:** A delightful thing. That is our show this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Ali Clifton. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions. You will find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on dating funny people. Alex Edelman, it is an absolute pleasure to talk with you about your show and all things.

**Alex:** This is so much fun. This is such a blast for me. I love this podcast, so to be on it is… Sometimes I’ve had chats with other people who listen to this podcast, so I really look forward to hearing from the folks that I know who do. This is so cool.

**John:** The people who text you to let you know that you’re on Scriptnotes this week.

**Alex:** I genuinely will get text messages from a bunch of writer friends or people who are aspiring writers, and I love them all. These craft conversations are my absolute favorite thing. I hope I didn’t get too granular for the folks listening. If I did, I apologize.

**John:** Not even possible.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** You are writing about stuff that is happening in your real life. You are performing. You’re on stage. You’re talking about things. You are also sometimes dating people who are in that same space of comedy. Are there issues that come up with like, “Okay, don’t talk about this. Do talk about this,” “I want to talk about this,” you’re talking about the same things? How often does that come up in a conversation?

**Alex:** I’ve always liked the idea of talking about my relationships and things like that, but it’s never really been a huge part of my stand-up. Maybe it’s because I started stand-up so young that no one actually wanted to hear me talk about dating, that people would rather hear me tell stories from my life that don’t make them think too hard about whether or not they’re additional characters or something like that. I don’t know why.

In the pandemic, I would do this Zoom show called UnCabaret, which in real life is also a beloved storytelling show in Los Angeles, and tell stories about my partner and how dumb I was in front of my partner. They liked that.

But my first partner was a comedian in England who would constantly make jokes about fictional boyfriend or an ex-boyfriend or something. I was always very comfortable with her fictionalizing me. I was very comfortable with her taking real things and spinning them. I like when stand-up comedy has a degree of mystique to it or a degree of embellishment to it. I think that’s where the artistry oftentimes lies.

But with that said, I’ve also dated someone or people who don’t want to be talked about in my stand-up. I’ve been very clear about that from the get-go. I have respected it even when it’s something I really want to say on stage. Obviously, your primary partner is gonna be a huge, huge fountain of material, and especially how you relate to them is gonna be a huge fountain of material. But I always try to err on the side of not embarrassing my partner, especially the ones who have tried to draw a clear boundary there. But something funny happens to both of us, and you’re like, “Who owns it? Who owns it?”

**John:** That happens with other folks who are writers. I know many two-writer couples, and so there’s issues of who’s gonna do the thing with that stuff. The difference is though if I’m writing a script with other characters and I’m using this moment that happened and I’m putting it in a character’s mouth or creating that situation, there is a distance there. But if you are doing a one-man solo show as Alex Edelman, and you’re talking about this person you’re dating, a very natural sense of, like, oh, that’s the real person.

I feel like I know Mike Birbiglia’s wife, Jen, just because she’s been a presence in all the stuff he’s been doing for the last 10 years. I feel like she’s a live character there on stage, even though I’ve never met her in person. You have to have a conversation clearly with people about the edges of that.

**Alex:** I’m sure there’s an edge for Jen, and I’m sure there’s an edge for Mike. I think it’s a very scalloped edge. It’s really hard to tell sometimes what people are gonna be upset about or what they’re gonna be thrilled by. But also, Mike figures generously in Jen’s poetry, I imagine. In fact, I know he does, because sometimes he reads it on stage. With two-writer couples, what they should do is… When Michael Green and his wife, Amber, had that samurai attack on their home, they were able to together create Blue Eye Samurai.

**John:** Absolutely. Together, they were able to make Blue Eye Samurai, and really what a moment that was. But like you, it wasn’t their home. They moved to Japan specifically so that it would happen, and it changed everything.

**Alex:** Although sometimes, by the way, you get differing perspectives. I’m sure there are many examples of a schismatic marriage, and you wind up with the Nora Ephron side and the Carl Bernstein side. By the way, sometimes you only end up with one side and are tasked with remembering yourself that there’s another.

Also, sometimes people are like – even though I don’t talk about my partners – “How does your family feel about your depictions of them in the show?” It’s like, first of all, they’re mostly fine with it. Second of all, there’s artistic license taken and exaggeration that you should assume for the grace of the people being depicted. You should always assume a curatorial bias.

One of my partners and I, we were living below a five-month-old baby, and I wrote a joke about it. My partner was like, “You know what? That’s happening to me more. You’re on the road mostly. I’m stuck at home. The baby crying and waking you up, it’s happening to me tenfold times over.” I don’t know if she ever did anything with it.

**John:** Did you agree that you didn’t get to use the joke or that you’d have separate versions of the joke?

**Alex:** I don’t think we ever came to a consensus on it, but I also don’t think it was a huge argument. But it is definitely a problem. There were other instances of that where I think we did have a conversation. Something happened on a hike, and I was like, “That’s really funny.” It happened to the partner, and the partner was like, “That’s not your story. That’s a thing that happened to me.” I was like, “But I watched it happen, and my take on it is I think the funnier thing.” Of course that was a whole different argument. They were like, “How dare you.” Ultimately, I was like, “Right, you have the story about the hike yourself, and that’ll be your thing.” I genuinely tried to argue, like an idiot. I was like, “Look, that traumatic experience that you went through, I also – because I subjected you to the trauma and made you go on the hike, I should be able to do that.” The chutzpah of that argument I think was really like – I wouldn’t make it now.

**John:** Let’s say the partner gets the actual story of the incident that happened, but you do own your reaction to what the thing was. Do you feel that’s fair to fictionalize what the inciting incident was, so you can get to the point of how you felt about the thing?

**Alex:** I think it’s fair to fictionalize everything, so yes. I am very adamant about what’s best for the material is what’s best for the material. Usually it’s the truth. But it’s very interesting to me. I’m not even Jewish, so me going to that meeting is really-

**John:** Wow, it really was a brave choice.

**Alex:** Yeah, a brave choice.

**John:** I think the fact checkers are gonna come after you for that.

**Alex:** Of course. The funny thing is that I think fictionalizing an inciting incident is always what an audience should kind of assume. Things are streamlined. I think fictionalizing an inciting incident to differentiate from the version that your partner, also a creator, may depict is a really interesting thing to do, and in fact, might be a good creative exercise.

**John:** I see Alex is jotting down notes as he’s doing this, like, “Save the hike story.”

**Alex:** But by the way, if the funny thing is the reaction, like I said in the main body of the episode, every joke that I tell has a reason for existing, and the reason is usually off-story. The reason is usually aesthetic-related or craft-related or performance-related.

I had a thing I was excited about. Someone said to me, “I don’t think you should do that. It’s too similar to this Doug Stanhope bit.” I don’t really know Doug Stanhope’s material, but I went, “Okay, what if I found a more circuitous route to delivering that line? Maybe I’d wind up with something better.” And it did.

You can always differentiate the account from your partner’s. I also think that’s really interesting for a couple to do. But again, I have very different comfort levels and boundaries than most people, so sometimes I try to account for how my partner will feel or how an audience member will feel or how someone who may have been in a similar situation at a point in their life will feel.

**John:** Cool. Alex, thank you again for this conversation.

**Alex:** Thanks so much for having me, John. I hope I didn’t talk too much.

**John:** No, it was awesome. Thank you.

Links:

* [Alex Edelman](https://www.alexedelmancomedy.com/)
* [Just For Us on HBO](https://www.hbo.com/movies/alex-edelman-just-for-us)
* [Replay by Jordan Mechner](https://www.jordanmechner.com/en/books/replay/)
* [Replay by Ken Grimwood](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/341735)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* Craig Mazin on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@clmazin) and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/)
* John August on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@johnaugust), [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/johnaugust)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Ali Clifton ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/640standardV2.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 639: Intrinsic Motivation, Transcript

June 3, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The oringinal post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 639 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, why are you or your characters doing what you’re doing? We’ll look at intrinsic motivation, both on screen and in the brain, because Craig loves neurobiology.

Craig: Love it. I love it.

John: Love it. It’s good stuff. We’ll also answer a bunch of listener questions. And in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, Craig, will human beings ever leave the solar system?

Craig: I have an answer for that. We’ll save it for the people that paid for it.

John: Absolutely. Craig, happy birthday.

Craig: Aw, thank you, John. 53 years old.

John: Nicely done.

Craig: Prime number. Always like that. Always enjoy a prime number. Still in my early 50s.

John: Exactly.

Craig: Still in my early 50s. Hanging onto the early 50s. I know that for people in their 20s, early 50s is hysterical. Oh, congrats on your early 50s, grandpa. Back in the day, John, you were in your early 50s, you were on a glide path to the golden watch-

John: Absolutely.

Craig: … and retirement on the golf course and then rapidly ensuing death, I think. Now it feels like you’re just getting started.

John: You are. You’re literally just warming up.

Craig: Just warming up. The mere presence of statins to control your cholesterol, that alone-

John: That alone, it’s a lot.

Craig: My goodness.

John: I’m sure you’ve seen all these memes about the cast of Cheers and the actual age of the cast of Cheers when that show started. You realize Kelsey Grammer is 29 or something.

Craig: Coach is the one that always rattles, because Coach is 56 or something, and he looks like he’s 80, and died shortly thereafter, by the way. He didn’t live long. I don’t think he made it past the second season.

John: Which is how we got Woody Harrelson.

Craig: Woody Harrelson. But yeah, Cliff is 35. I don’t know what was going on. I don’t know what was going on.

John: I’ve seen explanations that basically, a lot of how we perceive people in older photos and stuff is because people set their clothing style and their hairstyles when they’re young, and they carry those forward, and we associate those hairstyles and ways of dressing as being an older person. That’s why when you look at photos of your parents when they’re in high school, they look old for their age.

Craig: People wanted to be old. When you look at the people on Norm, for instance. I don’t even know what Norm did for a living. Did they ever even say?

John: Yeah, they did establish it at some point. Cliff was the mailman.

Craig: He was an accountant. Norm was an accountant, and then he loses his job and wackiness ensues. But if you were a 34-year-old accountant, you wore a shirt and a tie and a rumpled jacket and that was it. People wanted to be grown up. Remember how much you wanted to be grown up?

John: Oh, yeah.

Craig: Now I feel like no one wants to grow up.

John: I’m thinking about my kid. She does, but I don’t know, there’s also a celebration of youth. I get that.

Craig: And being current. I think they felt older. I think they wanted to be older. But now, here we are in our early 50s and 20s, still wearing sneakers and jeans. People just didn’t do that. I don’t know, maybe we should go for the more rumpled-

John: That’s what we should do.

Craig: … middle-aged guy look.

John: We’ve established on the show I intend to live a very, very long life. I don’t want to jinx that by saying-

Craig: You do.

John: Yeah, but I’m fine living to 100 or 110.

Craig: I’ll tell you what. You’re gonna live as long as you live. That’s the best part. You just keep going, and then it stops.

John: We’ve talked about this also on the show. You have no intention of retirement, or does that hold any appeal to you, or is that like a beach vacation, where it doesn’t?

Craig: It doesn’t hold appeal to me currently. In my mind currently, retirement means failure, like you failed so bad at what you were doing that an entire industry said, “We’re done with you. After all this time, we’ve collectively decided you should eff off.”

John: It’s a soft cancellation.

Craig: Yeah, a soft cancellation, exactly. I could. Then the question is what would I do?

John: You’d play a lot of D&D.

Craig: I would play a ton of D&D and solve a lot of puzzles, not go to the beach, hellscape. I have a purpose. It keeps me going. Man, there are days. I love it so much that even when I absolutely loathe it, what else am I gonna do?

John: You do your thing.

Craig: It’s a hard job.

John: It is a hard job running a show, keeping a universe going. Let’s do some follow-up. Many times on the podcast we’ve talked about AI, including this experiment we did a year ago, feeding the Scriptnotes transcripts into a model. We found the results that came out of that really disappointing. Ben wrote in with some feedback on that.

Drew Marquardt: He says, “I’ve spent the last decade at Google working on creative and AI, machine learning, then generative AI for video. The models like ChatGPT and Gemini are amazing, but as you’ve found, relatively generic for specific tasks like story analysis, and are missing things like discernment or taste. You’ve also found that narrow models, like those trained on your show transcripts, are only mediocre. What this perspective is missing is human in the loop training, or HILT,” I’m gonna say hilt, “where someone tells the model that this output is good and this one is bad, on and on and on as the model gets better. The world models won’t do this for script analysis, because the use case is not important enough. You probably won’t do it for the show because it’s too time-intensive. But if you did, or someone did, the models would get better quickly and could even be trained on a director’s taste or an executive’s taste. You could input Denis Velleneuve’s body of work and find projects he would like. If you trained it well enough, it could help steer and shape them based in ways he would or might, and these patterns on top of patterns are opening up whole new ways of interrogating storytelling and taste.”

Craig: Ben is basically collaborating with the Borg. That’s what’s happening. I understand that it’s been difficult for you guys to assimilate into the Borg collective. However, I’ve been working hard, and there is a method where we can assimilate you much faster, and then you can assimilate your loved ones much faster. And eventually, we’ll all live in a cube in space.

John: It’ll be fantastic and great. I want to talk about a few things here. First off, this idea of training on taste. It’s actually been happening in Hollywood forever. Development executives are trained on their boss’s taste. It’s not just what do we think is gonna make a good movie, but what do I think my boss will actually like, and what do I know my boss will not like? There are specific red flags, and you never show those things to your boss. Sure. That may not be a great way to model what’s actually gonna be a successful movie, what’s gonna win the Academy Award, but it’s what’s going to get it through the next step of the process.

Craig: It’s funny, when Ben used the example Denis Velleneuve, in my mind at first I imagined Denis going, “No, it’s not possible. No one can understand what I want to do.” And then I thought about Denis, because he is the most humble man. I could actually see him going, “This makes sense. I believe actually computer could tell me what to do next, maybe better than I could do,” because he’s lovely. That’s my bad attempt at a Canadian French accent. I understand what Ben’s saying. All I know is that it’s all horrifying, and I kind of wish it would stop. I really do. I don’t like this at all.

John: Some of what Ben is describing we actually see in daily practice at Netflix. The Netflix algorithm, which is showing you, this is a thing you might like, it has that human-reinforced training, because it’s saying, oh, did you actually watch this whole thing? It’s taking you having finished watching a thing as a marker that you liked it, even if you’re not clicking the thumbs up, thumbs down, like, oh you must like this. We’re gonna feed you more of this. It has all the patterns for figuring out, this is other things you’re probably going to enjoy. But on the creator side, it’s a little bit more frustrating, because they will tell you, oh, if you don’t show this plot point within the first 10 minutes, people are unlikely to finish the show. Those can be frustrating notes to get from that.

Craig: It will be regressive. There was a time before the world of television, for instance, as we know it, where everything was driven by this research nonsense. Every show started to look the same. Everybody needed a dog or a funny next-door neighbor. Then it was a big challenge for shows that didn’t fit that model to even get on the air, much less get watched. But then some of them did and were huge hits, of course, because it turns out just because we say we like something doesn’t mean that’s all we like. Everybody likes fried chicken. If a restaurant that was famous for 17 different things decided to only do fried chicken, you’d be like, “Okay, I guess [unintelligible 00:09:09],” but otherwise, no.

Then television just opened up into this glorious – we’ll make anything, no matter how weird or bizarre. I don’t think AI would’ve done a very good job of that. Movies have now regressed, so it sort of flip-flopped. So many movies became cookie cutter nonsense, based on research and so forth. But maybe the success of some outliers might be getting us away from this.

But nonetheless, my sister of all people emailed me the other day, and she was saying there was somebody that was talking to her about this AI predictive platform that will tell you what shows and movies will be a hit. It just never ends. They just keep trying. I don’t think that’ll ever work.

John: It won’t work. We lived through a time of classic testing of movies and TV shows. We’d have test screenings. You’d get numbers, like, how did you do on your top two boxes, and that was a big predictor of your success. There you were actually showing it to a real audience. The experience as writers and creators was, I can hear it with an audience. We can actually see and feel how the audience is responding. Sometimes those were useful, much more useful than the numbers were useful. I’ve also done TV shows back when they actually had dials.

Craig: Turning the dial.

John: They were turning the dial. The problem is, the dial is not really showing whether you’re gonna watch that next episode. It’s just how did I feel in this moment. Turning those dials is not a good marker. The other big problem with classic research and some of these AI model research is that it can only account for what’s inside their realm of measurability. They can see, oh, did this person complete the show. But did they actually like the show, or did they hate-watch the end of the show? You don’t know.

Craig: You don’t know. Did they think about the show a week later and change their mind? You don’t know.

John: You don’t know. All the other outside factors, like what’s happening in popular opinion about it, is there water cooler talk, what are the critics saying, that’s not factored in. And that’s a big factor in whether somebody really enjoyed that program and wants to keep watching that show or wants to watch another season. You don’t know.

Craig: Also, what we do in part is designed to surprise. If the system is designed to provide you something different, the most exciting thing is something that is excellent and different. How is a machine supposed to predict excellent and different? It’s hard to account for surprise. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.

John: Please.

Craig: Gödel. Kurt Gödel, wonderful mathematician, proved that within any closed set of mathematical rules, like our math, there will always be some things that are true that cannot be proven, which is a bit of a mind-bender. He actually proved that. I don’t know how. These mathematicians are operating on levels that I simply don’t understand.

John: And thus you need postulates and axioms and other things that are just fundamental givens.

Craig: They prove all of them, actually. It’s quite remarkable. But you can’t create a system that accounts for everything that is true within the system. There will be some things that are true that cannot be proved, which is why, for instance, there are things that we know that are true that take years and decades and centuries to prove, like Fermi’s paradox and so on. This I think is true for entertainment. There will always be things that will delight people that you cannot account for, given the known set of what delights people.

John: It’s true.

Craig: Good luck. Why am I taunting AI? I should stop taunting AI.

John: Let’s move on to some more follow-up here. We talked about blueprints and whether blueprints are a good way to describe what we write.

Drew: David G writes, “I used to work in construction management, and I would say that it is probably the most similar field to filmmaking than any other. By the time we finished building a building, most of the time, the building ended up looking exactly like the blueprint had shown. However, during the building process, we would request something called an RFI, or request for information, to the architect when we got into the field and something didn’t work, either because something unforeseen was in the way or for any other reason we couldn’t make it work. While by the end of the project the structure and idea of the building is like the blueprint was showing, lots of little changes were made to keep the project moving. Sounds like a movie, right?”

John: It does.

Craig: Kind of does, yeah. I get RFIs all day long. Every prep meeting I have. Sometimes I get an RFI that I’ve already gotten 12 times, but someone new texts me the RFI. I’m like, “Oh my god, if one more person asks me this question.” Yes, I think as much as we want to metaphorize filmmaking to construction, it’s still not great. It’s a tough one. I think sometimes the best metaphor for turning a screenplay into a show or movie is turning a screenplay into a show or movie. That’s what we should be linking back to. It is very within itself.

John: We talked about important movies two episodes ago. We had a lot of feedback on that. Let’s start with Brandon, who’s talking about games.

Drew: Brandon wrote, “I work in games, and this is a question that often comes up in that medium, particularly from younger writers and narrative designers, not just, do I need to have played whatever game, but do I need to play this entire genre.”

Craig: Oh my god.

Drew: “It’s even worse in games than movies, because games are such a comparatively huge time suck. It naturally leads to a lot of people with imposter syndrome quietly wondering whether they need to go drop $40 and 60 hours of their personal time or risk being laughed at out of the room.

“The answer I always give regarding this question is, there’s no single game you have to play to make a great game of your own. Many of your favorite games were made by people totally ignorant of the genres they wound up defining. However, playing those canon games everyone gushes about can help in two very specific ways. One, it prevents you from reinventing the wheel during that early, high-level pre-production phase when you’re trying to figure out what stuff you’ll need to figure out from scratch versus what someone else has already figured out 20 years ago. And two, it gives you a handy box of touchpoints and easily communicated shorthand when you’re up against a weird problem and need to find a clever solution in a hurry. Writing a 1,500-word design document for a dialog system takes a lot longer than saying, ‘You know, like Mass Effect,’ and dropping a YouTube link.”

Craig: Those are all great points, Brandon. I’ll add a third thing. It keeps you from coming up with a genius idea that then everybody turns, looks at you, and says, “You mean like the ending of blah-dee blah?” The point is, no, you don’t have to do everything, and also there are other people. It’s okay if someone raises their hand, says, “I’m so sorry, but that was in blankedy blank.” You’re like, “Oh, okay. Damn. Back to the drawing board for me.” Among the group, hopefully, people have seen the important things. Also, wait 20 years and people forget the things that everybody knows.

John: Some pros and cons here. I’m thinking of examples of outsider art where people who came completely outside of a system ended up making amazing things, because they just did not know any of the conventions of the genre or what had come before them. That can be really exciting. But you also have hysterical examples where people just didn’t understand what music was. I can’t think of the name of the band.

Craig: The Shags.

John: The Shags, exactly. The Shags.

Craig: They’re incredible. Frank Zappa called The Shags the best band there ever was.

John: They had just no sense of what-

Craig: None.

John: … rock-and-roll music was.

Craig: They had no sense of tempo, rhythm, lyrics, melody, instrumentation, or arrangement, coherence. It is a remarkable to listen to, and that’s why Frank Zappa said if you presumed that what they did, they did intentionally, they would be the most brilliant musicians of all time, because no musician could do that naturally. But of course, it was also terrible.

I think people maybe get a little too obsessed with watching everything, playing everything. What happens is you turn into more of a critic or a repository than you do a creator. And the more stuff that’s banging around in your head, the more likely it is that you’re gonna play this weird, “I have to do something no one else has done before” game, which will send you down some weird, artificial, over-engineered pathways.

John: An argument for sampling, and sampling broadly, is it helps you figure out what your taste is, what do you actually enjoy, what do you love. I would say don’t just play these games, but actually figure out what is it about this that’s working for you, what is not working for you, why is this a good experience for you, and so not even being so mechanical about what I’m gonna take from this, but basically how is this making me feel. That applies to games and to movies and to TV shows. What is it about this that you love? You can carry that forward, rather than this specific stuff, like this plot or this mechanic.

Craig: You get a chance maybe to play a game that you enjoy on one level. Let’s say I love the gameplay, don’t like the story. This game, love the story; game is so boring. What if I took the stuff I liked from this and stuff I liked from this, put my own spin on it? Because when Neil was working on The Last of Us – it’s a zombie game. There have been a billion zombie games. It’s a third-person shooter. Been a billion third-person shooters. But there had also been games where there were these interesting two-person relationships that weren’t really AAA video games and there wasn’t a lot of action. Fusing these things together is really interesting. Jonathan Blow, who has made some incredible indie games-

John: Braid and other things.

Craig: Braid is a great example of somebody saying, what if you took a very simple platformer, added a little quirky backwards time unroll element, but then tell a story that is so bizarre and deep and rich and weird and kind of Vonnegut-ish, and you get something remarkable like Braid.

John: In the case of Blow and Braid, you have to have played enough of those games to understand how platformers work and what the conventions are in order to be able to subvert that.

Craig: You follow your love. If you have this real deep love for a certain genre, what do you do now to do your own weird spin on it? Rian Johnson made Brick. He loves noir films. I’m sure he watched a gazillion of them and then thought, “I also love John Hughes movies. Now, let me see about smushing my loves together.” But he understands the rules.

Kevin Williamson, clearly so deeply immersed in the world of classic ’80s VHS slasher movies. How do you take all that knowledge and remix it into something that feels current and interesting? I think follow your nose and you’ll find your genre. But you don’t have to play everything. That’d be crazy.

John: That actually ties very well into our next question, our next follow-up here.

Drew: Paris writes, “Looking through your list of important movies, I realized I’m totally screwed. I’m 24 years old. I was born in 2000, and I wasn’t exposed to many films growing up. I began trying to catch up in my 20s, but there’s so much I haven’t seen. It’s overwhelming. I looked through the list and made a highlighted version of my own films, and I’ve seen 85 out of the 400. If the 1970s were on there, I’d be toast. Any advice where to start? I don’t want my lack of cinema knowledge to affect my writing.”

John: Paris sent through their highlighted list of things that they’d missed, and there’s really great films on their list of what they’ve missed. My advice to Paris would be to start in the 2010s, pick three movies you’re curious about, watch them, and then go back a decade, and then go back a decade. Let it be fun homework. Don’t feel like this is a thing you have to do. Just really follow your curiosity down this rabbit hole and see what it is that you like. I don’t think if Paris were to say, “I’m going to spend the next two years and every day, watch a movie off this list,” I don’t know that’s necessarily the best use of their time.

Craig: No. It will also, again, turn you into a movie critic. You’ll become a culture hoarder, as opposed to somebody that’s watching things that they love, because the entire exercise will feel forced and artificial. One method, Paris, may be to pick a movie from a director that has a bunch of movies on this list. Scorsese probably has a bunch on this list, Soderbergh, Coppola. Watch one of their movies. See if you like it. If you like it, keep watching their movies. A little bit like playing every track on an album. If you started with Do the Right Thing, for instance, if you loved Do the Right Thing, check out some more Spike Lee movies. If you watch Raging Bull and you love it, it’s time to switch over to Goodfellas or Mean Streets or King of Comedy. Same with the Cohen brothers. It might be better to just find the filmmakers you love and follow them. And then every now and then, just stick in a random one.

The other option is you can just say, “I’m gonna watch one of these dramas. Every month I’m gonna watch four movies. I don’t care. Just four. Each week I pick a different genre.” Drama, comedy, thriller, horror, whatever it is. Just mix it up. Keep it light. It’s not homework. You’ll be fine.

John: I would also say movies can be social experiences. See if you have friends or somebody else who wants to get in this movie club with you. Then you can have a discussion about what you saw.

Craig: Absolutely. One of my great joys now that I’m old-

John: 53.

Craig: … 53 is I get to show movies, especially from the ’90s, which ’90s were great for movies-

John: Great years.

Craig: … to Allie, who’s in her 20s, or to Bella, who’s just in her 20s. I showed Bella Matrix for the first time. I showed Allie Godfather for the first time. That’s so much fun. The other thing is, find somebody older who is like, okay, I think you will love this. Let them be your AI, who knows you, thinks of your taste, and goes, “I think you’ll love this.” And most importantly, I always say to anybody I’m showing a movie to, “You get to pull the rip cord whenever you want.” If you’re bored, I don’t care if it’s The Godfather, whatever, if you’re bored – give it 30 minutes. You’re bored after 30 minutes, next movie, or we’ll go have a sandwich. That’s fine. It shouldn’t feel like you’re eating gravel.

John: 100 percent. Last little bit of follow-up on here from Willy.

Drew: Willy in Dublin writes, “I want to push back on the idea of movies that you absolutely need to see or ones that you can ignore. For sure, you can be at a disadvantage in a professional situation if you haven’t seen canonical works, but I think that people who have different experiences can make valuable contributions to the creative process, as long as there is a lingua franca for collaboration. What’s the point if everyone thinks the same?”

Craig: Multiple logical leaps inside of Willy’s comment there.

John: Yeah, I would say.

Craig: So many.

John: Yeah, a little straw manning.

Craig: Yeah, just goalpost shifting. First of all, you say, “I want to push back on the idea of movies that you absolutely need to see or ones that you can ignore.” So you mean to say you want to push back on the idea that – you contradict yourself within that first statement. Which one are you pushing back against? Because if they’re movies that you can’t ignore, that means you absolutely need to see them, and if they’re movies that you don’t absolutely need to see, then there are movies that you can ignore.

John: I think Willy’s pushing back against this idea of canonical lists. These are really arbitrary lists of-

Craig: Of course.

John: … 100 movies that a lot of people seem to like and a lot of people talk about as the movies of that decade.

Craig: Nobody is suggesting that if you don’t see those things, you have, quote, “no valuable contribution to the creative process,” nor do these movies contribute to a “lingua franca for collaboration.” Collaboration is an entirely different thing. If everybody sits down and is forced as an entry point to watch the same 100 movies, there is no chance that that means that they will now, quote, “think the same.” No. They’ll argue about them all.

John: But to go the other illogical extremes, you have the example of The Shags. If you are the screenwriter who is The Shags, who has basically seen no other movies and has no understanding of how movies work, you’re gonna write something that’s gonna be perhaps fascinating on a textual level, but it’s not going to be a movie.

Craig: I’m not sure that you would be writing a movie. The Shags are such an incredible outlier, because they didn’t want to do it either. Their dad made them do it. They didn’t know. They had neither the desire – I guess we’re gonna be talking about motivations shortly. They had no motivation to do what they were doing, other than their father being like, “You can become the next Partridge Family.” And they just tried their best.

John: Good stuff. Let’s get into our main topic here. On April 6th, the New York Times Connections puzzle had the words “desire,” “drive,” “resolve,” and “will,” which were the four that lined up. And the category put for that was “intrinsic motivators,” which is nice, a good way of looping those together.

Craig: Interesting way [crosstalk 00:25:51].

John: We talked a lot on the podcast about motivation, about goals and needs and wants. Episode 569 we talked about inspiration versus motivation and touched on some of this. But I thought we’d dig in a little bit deeper on intrinsic motivation, which is basically what is driving a person internally to do a thing versus the situation. It’s not about external forces like deadlines or ticking clocks or circumstances. It’s about something inside them that’s driving the character to do a thing.

Craig: They have a list of things that they require something to meet to be considered alive. It needs to reproduce. It needs to ingest and possibly excrete. But my favorite one is it needs to show irritability.

John: Interesting.

Craig: Irritability is reaction to stimulus. We have, as living creatures, an innate irritability. Things bother us and create a want. But the interesting thing about humans, and certainly when we’re writing characters, these irritabilities can sometimes be physical in nature. People have been asking forever, what’s the whole point of this? That makes you irritable, not knowing things. Curiosity is a great one. So what is the intrinsic motivator for Hercule Poirot? He wants to know. Somebody could say he’s really committed to justice. I don’t think so. In his spare time, it’s not like he’s working down at the courts as a prosecutor. He’s just curious. Curiosity alone is a spectacular intrinsic motivator.

John: That’s a thing they can actually study in animals. You think animals are just responding to stimulus, so they’re trying to seek pleasure and avoid pain, but they will actually go into an electrified area, because there’s curious ones in there. Certain animals will do these kinds of things.

We talk on the show sometimes about negative intrinsic motivators, so fear, shame, jealousy, self-doubt. But I’d like to talk a little bit more about the positive version of those, the actual drives, because I’ve been watching shows and movies recently where I feel like after two hours or eight hours, I still couldn’t really tell you what is motivating them internally, what the positive intrinsic motivators are, what’s their desire, drive, resolve. If it was a musical, I couldn’t sketch out their “I want” song. There isn’t one in there. They can feel a little bit lifeless, because as humans, I know they should have something like that driving them.

Craig: When this happens, we tend to refer to the characters as flat or thin, two-dimensional. And it’s because the characters are only apparently motivated by circumstance. But ideally, circumstance is the second thing that happens. The first thing that happens before the show or movie even starts is they already are irritable about something. Something is missing. Something must be known. Something must be uncovered. Are you a BBC Sherlock fan, by any chance?

John: I watched all that.

Craig: Loved that show. One of the things that I love about it is when Sherlock Holmes doesn’t have a case, he starts to go insane. He wants to smoke. He wants to shoot heroin. He loses it, becomes violent and irritable. That precedes any circumstance that comes along. Sometimes we end up with these characters who are defined simply by their job, their present circumstance. Then a new circumstance happens, and they have a new job to do. But who are they? What happens when this job ends? If I’m supposed to stop caring about them when the job ends, why would I care about them now, while the job’s still going on?

John: That is the real frustration. It could be that the story really is the writer and how the story is being structured. It’s just not given any opportunity to actually explore those things. That character may actually have those things, but we as an audience aren’t getting to see any chance of that, because they’re generally not musicals so there’s not a chance for them to fully articulate what it is they’re doing or having some other character they can talk to about the thing. We need to find ways to structure and expose what is that internal drive that’s pushing them to a thing.

Craig: Now, there may be moments where you show a circumstance, and that circumstance becomes the internal drive. But it’s soon. You don’t want to wait around forever. And that circumstance that creates the internal drive must be clearly separate from the new circumstance that is the main body of the plot.

John: Exactly.

Craig: I can’t tell you much about the character Joel in The Last of Us leading up to his daughter’s death. He works in construction. He’s a contractor. He seems all right. I don’t know his internal states. I don’t know what his intrinsic motivation would be. She dies. Twenty years later, now I understand what his intrinsic motivation is in general, whether it’s to avoid or whatever. Then the new circumstance begins. But it is within the context of that prior irritability. As much as possible, when you’re thinking about – you at home, when you’re thinking about writing the story and the characters, you need to know what the problem is before the problem shows up.

John: There’s generally either a lack or some other object goal that’s out there that’s a little bit more vague, but a thing that they’re trying to do. There was a New York Times story this last week about a guy who was really good at quiz shows and quiz competitions and how he went from little, small ones to bigger ones and ultimately ended up applying to a specific university in the UK so he’d get into the university quiz challenge system, but then got there and found his teammates actually weren’t any good. He pulled out, because he only has one shot to do this. They had to reframe everything around him. He was really driven. It’s the kind of character who if we were doing a How Would This Be a Movie, you love, because you can definitely see why he’s trying to do what he’s trying to do. It’s not some external thing that’s pushing him. He clearly has a drive to enter this challenge and succeed and to win. He needs this thing.

Craig: But of course, I want to know why. What is the thing that I can connect to that is universal? Even though his expression of that thing is unique, I want what’s underlying it to be anything but unique.

John: Absolutely. That goes back to where we first meet this character and how he first gets introduced to this world of quiz competitions. It was probably that moment which he first said, “Oh, I know all the answers to this thing,” and suddenly, he was better than everyone else around him. It’s that desire to excel, to be seen as being better than everyone else, but also there’s an internal state where he needs to see himself as being so good at this.

Craig: I love those things. I, like just about everybody, love Queen’s Gambit. Scott Frank is as good as anybody at this. My favorite episode of Queen’s Gambit was the first one. First episodes are notoriously difficult. But what was so beautiful about the first episode was that he took the time, lots of time to tell us all about this person before the obsession began and before the plot began, to create irritability. She was lonely. She was abandoned. She was in pain. She was self-medicating. She was desperate for something to be good at, something that made her feel good. And there were two things that made her feel good: drugs and chess. Watching her begin to fall deeply into both of those was such a gorgeous way of showing how sometimes these things that we think of as just awesome, like being the best quiz solver or being a chess master, are in themselves forms of self-management for conditions that are common to us all.

John: A movie I loved this last year was Nyad. It’s the story of Diana Nyad and her quest to be able to swim from Cuba to the United States. In that, there are external things that she could gain by doing this, but clearly it’s an internal drive. She has this unique obsession with being able to do this and being able to prove to herself that she can do this thing, and that’s what’s pushing you through the whole movies. We see the consequences on everybody else around her, and yet we’re still rooting for her, because we can see – we don’t want to be in the water there with her, but we can see why she wants to do it.

Craig: We understand the underpinning. If all Moby Dick were about was whale hunting, no one would care. It’s really important to create that essential irritability, to find the grain of sand under someone’s skin. It’s usually something that they are not born with, but it is the result of some circumstance. If it’s innate from birth, that means there was nothing to create there. You want to have something and the environment that causes a disruption that is specific to somebody before you then cause a really big disruption to them.

John: I’m gonna put a link in the show notes to this article, this review in the National Library of Medicine, that’s really talking through intrinsic versus extrinsic motivators. They actually did scientific studies on how these drives actually function in the brain and in actual human beings and talks through the different theories that built up over time for how this all worked. When you actually put people in labs and MRIs and you’re monitoring how they’re doing things, you get this sense that what is happening internally versus externally are related, but there are distinct things that you can see there.

What it really comes down to is the importance of agency, the ability of a person to say, “I am choosing to do this thing.” We see that in real life where you have a kid who loves to do a thing, and then the minute you talk to them about the thing they love to do, they don’t love to do it anymore, because it’s no longer their unique thing. Also, it’s the ability to envision an outcome and plan the steps towards it are crucial for intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation.

Craig: That’s a really interesting point, the idea that you need to see an outcome. Your characters must – we talk about a goal. I think a lot of times, people think too much in terms of the external nature of that goal. But part of what we all do as humans is envision success. Envisioning success is rarely about the circumstance. It’s about the feeling. We don’t want to win because winning is good. We want to win because winning feels good. Why? What is it doing for you? What negative feeling is it taking away? What negative thought is it replacing or contradicting? What is it proving? How is it going to remove your irritability and make you feel good? To me, envisioning an outcome is entirely about envisioning a feeling that you desperately want.

John: It’s not just about where you’re gonna get to, but how it’s gonna feel when you get to that place.

Craig: All about feeling.

John: They outline what they call a Rubicon model, which is five steps, which is whenever a character’s facing or a real person’s facing a thing, there is a pre-decisional deliberation, which is basically where you’re sitting and you’re thinking about what your options are. You have intention formation, which is your planning. It’s the anticipation. It’s thinking about how you’re gonna do this thing. Volitional action, which means agency. You’re making a choice. You’re doing a thing because you want to do it. You are achieving that outcome. You’re consuming it. And crucially, then you’re also evaluating it. We’ve talked about this on the podcast. It’s not scoring the touchdown. It’s getting the kiss from your wife afterwards. That’s the real achievement.

Craig: It’s the relationship at the end. When you look at these five things, what they remind me of most immediately is Dungeons and Dragons. Right now, you’re DMing a campaign; I’m playing. Woo! Inevitably, there’s a circumstance where it’s like, “There’s a room in there, and we know there’s a bad guy and we know there’s another bad guy. Let’s come up with a plan.” Notoriously, plans go awry in D&D. It’s designed that way, because if your plans always worked, what fun would that be? It would just be like, “Oh, we’re the dream team in the Olympics. Ha ha, we win.” But we do all these things. There’s so much deliberation, prediction, planning. Then we do the actions according to the things we want to achieve. There is an outcome achievement, which hopefully is a victory. And then there’s a postmortem about how we did it, how we could’ve done better, how we did better than we thought.

But here’s the crazy part. It’s not even real, and it’s so satisfying, because as humans, we can model real outcomes and get the same hit off of them. That’s why we like movies and TV. They are modeled outcomes, where we watch other people achieving a feeling we want to feel. And we get a little whiff of their crack hit. And that’s worth the subscription to Max or whatever. That’s what all of these things are.

That’s what I love about what we do. We are creating situations for people where they can sit back and watch somebody else go through all this hard work and suffering and then get the win. In real life, suffering sucks. A lot of times, the win when you get there does not feel at all like you thought it would feel. In fact, there is a shocking emptiness that can occur sometimes when you get there and you think, “I was meant to feel all of this, and I don’t feel any of it. Now what do I do?” That’s always fun.

John: I would say part of what was leading to this segment was some recent movies and some TV shows I was watching I felt like weren’t working on these levels because it was just like, you were killing the monsters. You did all the step threes. You took all the actions. But I didn’t have that lead-in to the options, so it just felt like you were on rails the whole time you were doing this thing. And I didn’t get the reward afterwards, because I couldn’t see that, did we actually do the thing we wanted to do. I didn’t feel a sense of victory.

Craig: You didn’t feel a sense of victory because probably in this circumstance, the characters couldn’t have really felt the sense of victory. They could’ve just realized it. If you don’t have that preexisting irritability, that thing that we can connect to, and you’re put into a situation where you have to do this impossible thing or else a lot of people will die, okay, I’ll do it. I did it. Good. That’s what you end up with. Good work, you. Roll credits. But that’s not what we’re there for. We’re there for understanding something deeper was satisfied. And if we don’t have that in place before the person shows up with the job offer, then we’re just not gonna be as engaged.

John: This outlines intrinsic rewards versus extrinsic rewards. Whatever you do and whatever you achieve should have a mix of the two of them. Intrinsic rewards: agency and autonomy, so a sense of control, a sense of achievement, enjoyment, and interest, that you actually enjoy, the characters inside this world enjoy doing this thing, these interests; and novelty, which basically this was a new thing for them they were able to conquer. The extrinsic rewards are things we’re always used to, so food, social status, money, a sense of safety. Those things we can expect. But it’s those intrinsic rewards I think so often we are not rewarding enough in our characters. We’re not giving them a sense of this. They’ll survive this thing, but they haven’t had a good time. We haven’t seen them enjoy it.

Craig: Have you seen Game Night?

John: I love Game Night. It’s so good.

Craig: Game Night’s wonderful. It’s a great example of this. They do such a good job of setting these characters up as people that love games. They love winning. It excites them. It excites them and it also brings them together. It’s the thing that makes them love each other is that they’re really good at unraveling puzzles, answering questions, and winning a game. That’s enough irritability for us, because when you jump into the future, that’s a little wobbly now, and then this new thing happens, and we get to watch their enjoyment of it, and they fall back in love with each other again. The characters need to get a hit off of this stuff. If it’s just a grim slog, then how am I supposed to enjoy this? If you can’t enjoy any of this – and it’s gauged in subtleties. If you have a very grumpy character – and I’ve been writing one of those for a while now – sometimes just the tiniest smile tells us a million things. But we need to know it’s happening, or else it just doesn’t matter what you do, Grumpy’s gonna be grumpy. That’s not gonna make us happy.

John: Last little takeaways here. I would say if you’re looking at your story and you’re worried that we’re not getting a sense of what their intrinsic motivations are, are they curious, are they out there, are they looking through various options, are they foraging, or are they doing what you’re telling them they need to do? They’re being forced into a situation by your plot?

Craig: That would be bad.

John: That’d be bad.

Craig: Passive characters, which generally no one likes, are not merely passive because they don’t do stuff and stuff happens to them. Sometimes they’re passive because they’re doing stuff, but they only have one choice. If there’s no choosing, their actions feel passive, because what else are they gonna do?

John: I guarantee you could say this story, the characters, it has no choice but be passive. They don’t have any choice. They don’t have any options. They’re in prison, literally. There are great prison stories. The reason why those great prison stories are great prison stories is, within their narrow set of options, they are making real choices and they’re taking agency.

Craig: That’s right. If you end up in a situation where someone’s like, “We need you to do the following impossible thing. There’s one way to do it. This is how you do it,” and you say, “Got it,” and then you do it – now, even this little thing in Star Wars, like, there’s only one way to blow this thing up. You gotta shoot this thing down a hole, and that’s the only way to do it. That is what he does, but before he does it, he turns off his targeting computer and uses the force. He makes a choice. And that choice is why that works. Otherwise, think of how terrible that would’ve been.

John: Bad sequence.

Craig: You have to do this thing. We showed it to you on a computer graphic. “I did it.” Great.

John: All the other complications you’ve thrown at them, it’s like, “Oh, but now this thing is in your way. This thing is in your way.”

Craig: Who cares?

John: Doesn’t matter.

Craig: Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter. The only way to win this is to hit a hole in one. Okay, I hit a hole in one. Yay. Meh. Whatever. Whereas Tin Cup – have you seen Tin Cup?

John: I’ve seen Tin Cup.

Craig: Oh my god, one of my favorite endings. Have you seen Tin Cup?

Drew: No.

John: Ron Shelton.

Craig: Ron Shelton. Great movie. He’s got this thing where he’s stubborn, he’s very good, but he’s his own worst enemy as a golfer. He tries to hit too hard. He hits too long. People keep telling him, “You gotta lay up,” meaning instead of going for 200 par, just hit the ball short and then hit it again and you get 100 par. It’s better for you. It’s smart. He ends up in this situation where he’s gonna win this tournament, he’s bounced back. Everyone can’t believe it. And he has a chance though to just make the most awesome shot ever over this water trap. He has to hit the ball super far to do it. They’re like, “Don’t do it. Just lay up or it’ll cost you the tournament.” He’s like, “No, I’m going for it.” You’re like, “It’s gonna happen.” He hits that ball, and it goes right in the water. Then he’s like, “I’m doing it again.” He hits the ball again, and it goes in the water. He hits the ball again, and it goes in the water.

People are like, “He’s blown up his career, the tournament, his life. He’s stubborn. He’s learned nothing.” He does it again. He hits the ball, and it goes all the way over the water, and I think it gets in the hole. I can’t remember. But the point is it gets over the water. It’s an impossible thing. People go crazy, like, “He did it.” You understood then, just doing the thing you were supposed to do, you always have a choice. That’s why Ron Shelton’s just brilliant at that.

John: Excellent. As we wrap this up, I’ll put a link in the show notes to this NIH study. Also the story of Brandon Blackwell, who was the quiz bowl champ, which is a great story. All the UK listeners are saying, “Of course Brandon Blackwell. Everyone knows that.”

Craig: “Everyone knows Brandon Blackwell.”

John: But not here in the U.S.

Craig: Brandon.

John: Brandon.

Craig: Brandon Blackwell.

John: An American.

Craig: Bloody American.

John: Bloody American.

Craig: Coming over here winning our pub quizzes.

John: Let’s do some listener questions.

Drew: Proud Dad writes, “My daughter is a high school senior, and she was accepted to both the USC screenwriting program and Princeton. In our 30-minute morning drives to her high school, we listen to Scriptnotes faithfully, and it’s still one of our favorite memories. So thank you for being in our carpool for so many mornings. This might not be a fair question, because we know Craig doesn’t think school has anything to do with being a screenwriter.”

Craig: Correct.

Drew: “And we know that John did the MFA program at USC. But we would love your thoughts as if you were weighing the pros and cons with your daughters. Long-term, my daughter would love to work in television, but she’s very passionate about playwriting and is torn between either USC, where industry contacts and writers’ room opportunities are common, and Princeton, where she can learn from Pulitzer Prize-winning authors and playwrights. We’d love to hear your thoughts.”

Craig: It might be too late here, huh?

John: It could be.

Craig: Complicated also is that I went to Princeton, so now you’re dealing with both of our alma maters. First of all, congrats.

John: Congrats.

Craig: Thanks for listening.

John: Both good schools.

Craig: What do you think, John?

John: Obviously, it’s whatever she wants. She has to make the decision between these two places. If she really believes that she wants to work in television, then USC will be great for that, because she’ll get that television experience. But all that said, I think undergrad is really about learning how to learn and learning how to do all the other stuff that’s interesting and exciting to you. It’s all the classes that are not about film and television and playwriting. And that’s gonna matter a lot more. She’s not gonna go wrong either place.

Craig: I agree. I don’t know how this ended here, but my guess is that she should go to the place that she feels the most excited about going to. She should go to the place that makes her feel good. She should envision her goals and see where they fit better. Princeton does have a remarkable creative writing program, and they’ve always had remarkable teachers there. The late, great Toni Morrison taught there, John McPhee, Joyce Carol Oates. You certainly would learn from remarkable people. That said, I’m not sure that makes you a good writer. I think that just makes you somebody that sat in a room listening to great writers talk.

There’s only one person that can make her succeed at what she wants, if what she wants continues to be what she currently wants – because that changes – and that’s her. It doesn’t matter where she goes. It truly does not matter where she goes. If she’s good at doing this, she’ll be fine coming out of Princeton, she’ll be fine coming out of USC. There are loads of people who graduate from USC, Stark, the whole thing, who just don’t really make it. There are loads of people who do what you and I do who didn’t go to any film school or went to schools that weren’t known for going to film schools. It’s a real chaotic mess out there. It comes down to the individual, to the outlier.

She should just go to the place she actually wants to be. And you know what? Maybe you meet a future spouse. You never know. Do people even do spouses anymore? Are we just old because we’re married?

John: You met your wife at Princeton.

Craig: I did. I met my wife at Princeton. That’s the thing that I got out of Princeton, to be honest. It didn’t help me with my career. It certainly wasn’t a great freshman year experience. We all know that. A lot of people that go to Princeton are super into being alums and everything, and I’m not. I don’t care. I went there, but it was a school. But I did meet my wife. I also learned things there that I carried through. The classes that I took that I was not expecting to take were the best ones. Best class I ever took in my life, Princeton University, Animal Behavior. Learned more about humanity in Animal Behavior class than anywhere else. That’s the fun part. Throw your plans out the door. Open yourself up to new experiences and see what happens, because you might walk out of there wanting to be a doctor.

John: I was a journalism major at Drake University undergrad, and then I applied to and got into USC for film school. I will say that graduate film school is nice, because you get people there who actually have some – they’re not all just random freshmen doing stuff. USC, if she got into the film program as a freshman, she’d be around people who want to make films and television, which is great, but they’re also a ways away from doing that. The nice thing about a grad program is you’re closer to doing the real things. You’re able to get internships and really be out there in the world doing stuff.

Craig: There is that, no question. There’s also, though, a very strange thing about the culture of aspirants. There’s a weird thing in the air, this choking ambition and striving and wanting and people jockeying. Sometimes you can get dismayed by who’s getting rewarded and who isn’t. And you just think, “This is not fair. That person’s bad. They’re pretentious. They’re a fraud. No one can see it except for me.” Eventually, people figure it out. But when you’re around a lot of people trying to do the same thing, it can be kind of gross.

I do remember that feeling early on in my career, where it just seemed like everybody was like rats clawing through a maze to find one small piece of cheese. Occasionally, there was a rat on top of you. If you heard about a rat getting a piece of cheese, you felt despair, like, “I thought the cheese was a lie. Oh my god.”

John: I also felt a fair amount of imposter syndrome, like I did not belong in the Stark program when I got there. That’s a thing you need to get through too. The nice thing about going to someplace outside of one of those film programs is you’re not gonna be surrounded by quite that much of the culture.

Craig: I think allowing yourself to develop as an individual and being a little more pure about it is probably a good thing. On the other hand, there are opportunities that you can get going to places that have these connections. But I don’t know. That’s the thing. You and I are pretty good examples, because you did one of those choices. I did the other choice. We’re both doing the same job. We’re on the same podcast.

John: Crazy, that.

Craig: In our 50s.

John: We’re both 53 years old.

Craig: Fifty-fricking-three.

John: Let’s answer one more question here, one from Jonathan.

Drew: Jonathan writes, “How much should the writer consider the trailer when writing the script? I’m thinking in terms of early reveals that tie into the premise and would likely be shown in the trailer to advertise the film, but could still be a surprise to the reader or anyone who sees it without having seen a previous. I’m reminded of taking my friend to see The Sixth Sense and how shocked he was at the ‘I see dead people’ line, not just the ending.”

John: I argue that you should consider the trailer as you’re writing, think about how would you actually present this movie to an audience, while knowing that you have zero control over that as the screenwriter. For movies I’ve done, I’ve written trailers and sometimes those are shot, or teasers and sometimes those are shot. But rarely have I had real direct control over that, including when certain crucial story pieces are revealed.

Craig: A nice thing is that I do get quite a bit of influence on the TV side over the marketing materials. I do work closely with them on that. I agree with you. I think, Jonathan, we’re both saying yeah, you should consider the trailer. There are really two moments in the trailer that I try and think about. One is how does it start and one is how does it end. What is my last shot of the trailer? What is my last moment of the trailer? Is there a mic drop? Is there a holy crap? Is there a single beautiful line? Is there a question? But the opening of the trailer is just as important. What do I see? What do I hear? What sets the tone?

The middle stuff of the trailer you can imagine will be some simple storytelling and some cool shots and some laughs and some action, surprise. But it doesn’t mean you should sit down and try to write one of those moments. More like if you put yourself in the mindset, it might help you get there, or as you’re weighing possibilities, if one of them pops out and you think, “That’ll actually be great in a trailer. I don’t know if it’d be super great in the show or the movie, but in a trailer, it’d be great,” write it in so you have it. You could even say, “This is for marketing.” I’ve done this before, although I do try to avoid doing the thing where you – I don’t think I have – where you put stuff in a trailer that you don’t put in the show. I don’t think I’ve done that. You know sometimes they’ll do that?

John: Yeah.

Craig: I think if it’s worth going in the trailer, it should be in the show is my feeling, or the movie.

John: I would agree. The reason why you need to think of the trailer is that the trailer is essentially your elevator pitch. Why does this movie exist is really the trailer. If you cannot tell your story somehow visually in that little bit, there’s probably something that’s not quite working with your story. That said, Go was an impossible thing to cut a trailer for. It’s hard to sell the premise of Go, at least the story premise, but you could show what it felt like, either communicating story or communicating a vibe or feel.

Craig: If you watch trailers for Cohen Brothers films, that’s almost always what you get, which is this absurdist, weird feeling that’s more than story. It’s more a sense of the madness that’s inside of the movies they make, which are pretty much always beautiful and brilliant.

John: It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is actually two episodes of Search Engine, this podcast by PJ Vogt, and it’s looking at why there are so many illegal weed stores in New York City, because all these storefronts are selling weed illegally. He’s going into what the history was there and why it got to be this way. He has to go back to California’s pot legalization system and what went wrong in California and all the things they were trying to fix when they legalized weed in New York and how it all kind of didn’t turn out the way they wanted it to turn out. In attempting to fix the mistake with California, they made new mistakes, which has led to this proliferation of illegal weed stores and made it very hard to open legal ones.

Craig: John, how many weed stores do you think there are in Vancouver? Just take a guess.

John: The answer’s either gonna be zero or-

Craig: It’s definitely not zero. It’s legal to sell.

John: Hundreds.

Craig: 93 million. There are 93 million weed stores. There are weed stores inside of weed stores in Vancouver. Vancouver smells like rain and weed. It is insane. Also, just side note, I’m not answering this question as much as I’m just now rambling about weed, have we talked about the drivers in Los Angeles lately? When I moved to Los Angeles, I remember thinking, oh my god, everyone’s insane, because I think they were on coke. I think all the drivers on the road were on coke. People were switching lanes constantly for no reason, which feels very cocainey to me. Now, I think everyone’s just edibled up. They are slow. They are slow. The light changes green, and it’s like, all right, sure, I guess I’ll go now. I preferred the cocaine drivers. I really did.

John: The other thing I have noticed over the course of my 30 years driving in Los Angeles is when you moved to Los Angeles you had to learn that in order to take that left-hand turn, you are going to need to go into the intersection and then when the light turns-

Craig: And turn left on the red.

John: Left on red, yeah, which sounds impossible, but-

Craig: Three cars get to go. That’s the deal.

John: That’s the deal. I think decade by decade, people have gotten more nervous and more nervous about doing that.

Craig: They’re not nervous.

John: They’re stoned.

Craig: They’re stoned. They’re just like, “Oh man, I missed the light. No worries. Hey, guess what? Light’s gonna come around again, man. It’s all good. I just had five peach strawberry gummies.” This is me being this 53-year-old guy going on about goddamn stoners. I just want them to be on cocaine so that they’ll go through the light. I need to go places.

Anyway, I will [unintelligible 00:58:30]. It’s so silly. This weed thing is so silly that New York has illegal weed stores. It’s like hearing, I don’t know, 20 years ago someone’s like, “Oh my god, did you hear that in, I don’t know, whatever, Toledo they have illegal cheese stores?” You’re like, “Why do they need… What? Sell cheese. It’s fine. Everybody else is.” It’s over. It’s over, New York. Just let them sell it. Have we talked about Shogun?

John: We have not talked about Shogun.

Craig: That’s my One Cool Thing this week. Shogun, the mini series on FX, Hulu, Disney Plus. It’s FX. I want to give the mayor of television, John Landgraf, credit here. It is FX, which is also Hulu and also Disney Plus. I watch it through Disney Plus. Anyway, I’m really enjoying it.

Shogun is one of my favorite novels of all time. I have read that novel multiple times, and I rarely do that. I was deeply influenced by the 1980 miniseries. I learned a lot about storytelling from that. I watched the miniseries. I was 9 or 10. Absolutely blew me away. For 1980, it was remarkable. It was on ABC, I want to say. I would say half of the dialog was in Japanese, subtitled, which just didn’t happen. The Japanese people were played by Japanese people, which also often didn’t happen. Toshiro Mifune, the Laurence Olivier of Japan who starred in all those wonderful Kurosawa movies, played Lord Toranaga, which was remarkable. And Richard Chamberlain played the love interest, because he loved the ladies. LOL. And I was obsessed. And so then I went and read the book, and I got even more obsessed, because the book was just full of all these other details, and you also realize what they mushed to put in a miniseries on network television. Here comes Shogun, written, created by Justin Marks and Rachel Kondo. Have we ever had Justin on the show?

John: I think Justin’s been on the show. Justin’s a friend.

Craig: He and Rachel, who is his wife, or rather, I should say he is her husband – they belong to each other – they’ve created the show. And it’s excellent. It is doing a much better job than the 1980 miniseries of being authentic to the time period. And I love the attention to detail. You know I’m a detail nut. It’s so clear how they’ve gone into every little corner and made sure everything looked right. They’re telling the story in a really interesting and beautiful way. But also – maybe this is the coolest part of my One Cool Thing this week – it releases an episode every week. It comes out on Tuesdays. I look forward to Tuesdays. It’s almost over. But each Tuesday, I’m like, “It’s coming, it’s coming.” That’s how you’re supposed to do it. For the life of me, I still cannot understand why anyone would make a – like 3 Body Problem on Netflix.

John: I wondered what was going on with 3 Body Problem.

Craig: Massive show, and they’re like, “Here’s all of it.”

John: It makes the footprint so much smaller.

Craig: I just don’t know. Game of Thrones worked great. They all want to have their next Game of Thrones. They got the Game of Thrones guys and just forgot the one thing about the Game of Thrones, which is you put out one episode a week. People look forward to it. They watch it together. They talk about it together. People write recap essays. Anyway, so congrats to Justin and Rachel, but also congrats to FX for doing it correctly. This is the way to do it and they’re gonna win everything.

John: They will. It’s also a strange Emmy season this year, because so many things were not – you’re not eligible for an Emmy this year.

Craig: No, because we’re not on the Emmy cycle.

John: You’re not on the air.

Craig: The awards cycle got so thrown off by the strikes. Next week I’m going to the WGA Awards for a show that aired over a year ago.

John: I’ll see you there.

Craig: Fantastic. What will you be wearing, John?

John: I’m debating between-

Craig: Who will you be wearing?

John: It’s black tie, but not everyone actually wears black tie. Are you wearing a suit or a tux?

Craig: I’m gonna go tux.

John: Great.

Craig: I’m gonna go tux, because how often do you get to wear a tux? I’ve got it. Why not wear it?

John: It’s also in the afternoon, which I think is great.

Craig: Yeah, so you can leave and go about your day. You’re going suit or tux?

John: I think I’m gonna go tux. I’m gonna go tux.

Craig: You’re gonna go tux? Why not? Go tux. Go tux. It’s at the Palladium. Great. I’ll see you there. The WGA Awards show is particularly amusing for the following reasons: one, not on television. No one cares. Even fewer people care than normal. Two, this is my favorite part, because the WGA is, and I will say this forever, stupidly divided into two unions, the WGA West and the WGA East, and because the WGA East really is like, “We’re also gonna have our own at the same time,” stupid, like we don’t have planes, they run a separate awards show for the same categories simultaneously. Not with different nominees. Same nominees. But they need to have their own award show running at the same time. But because they can’t exactly run at the same time, because it’s not televised, it starts to wobble out of sync a bit, which means inevitably you get a text.

John: “Congratulations” or “sorry.”

Craig: “That sucks.” You’re like, “Wait. Oh. They haven’t even said my category. I’m leaving.” That’s the other thing about the WGA Awards, because it’s not televised. People just start leaving. By the time you get to the last award, there’s the janitor. It’s like, “You guys got five minutes. We got a wedding coming in.” I think this will actually be quite nice because it’s the first post-strike award.

John: It’s also outside of the award season, which I think is actually kind of great.

Craig: It means nothing. It predicts nothing.

John: It predicts nothing.

Craig: It’s great.

John: It’s already a very loose awards show, so I think it should be a loosened vibe.

Craig: It will be pretty relaxed.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Outro this week is by Ben Singer. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on humans leaving the solar system. Craig, happy birthday once again.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, so we talked about the 3 Body Problem, just very briefly. 3 Body Problem involves an alien civilization that is coming towards us. But my question is, do you think our human form bodies will ever leave the solar system?

Craig: Yours and mine?

John: Not yours and mine, but humans like us, flesh and blood humans, will we travel the stars? Because it’s a staple of science fiction.

Craig: It is a staple of science fiction. I’m gonna say something that a lot of people disagree with. My answer is no.

John: My answer is no also, but maybe for different reasons.

Craig: Maybe for different reasons. My answer is no because I think this is a simulation. I think the solar system is probably the limit of the high-res work that’s been done in our simulation. Beyond that, it’s the distant mountains in a video game, which is why the universe keeps expanding the more we look at it.

John: Wow. Craig, you’re not a Flat Earther, but you’re sort of like a Flat Solar.

Craig: I feel like everything beyond the solar system is real, but no more real than what’s in the solar system. It’s just not as fully ressed out, and there is in fact nothing to get to. If the simulation wanted it, then yeah, they would probably be like, “Okay, we’re gonna actually fill in this other galaxy so they can go to that place in fast travel and land on a thing there.” But I don’t think so.

John: I want to put a pin in the simulation thing, because I want to go back to the show The Boys, which I’m convinced is in a simulation as well. But my argument for why flesh and blood human beings will never leave the solar system is we’re just so incredibly fragile. We’re just not designed to do these things at all. And by the time we have the technology to really get us out of those places, it’s gonna make much more sense to put our synthetic versions, our digital versions on a thing and ship us out.

Craig: I agree with you, and I also feel like the designers of the simulation put so much space in between us and even the rest of the solar system. Mars is the next planet over. It still takes like eight months to get there.

John: I do think we’ll put some physical human beings on Mars, maybe not in my lifetime, but not too long after.

Craig: There’s not a huge reward for it, I gotta be honest with you, other than, “We did it. We made it to Mars.” I don’t know if you saw the brilliant Disney film Rocket Man.

John: I’m sorry, I missed it.

Craig: 1997’s Rocket Man.

John: It’s on the list of 100, but…

Craig: We really got into [unintelligible 01:08:00]. You got to Mars, and guess what? It’s red. Anyway, you want to go home now? It’s not great. Melissa, many years ago, she was like, “They’ve opened a new shopping outlet in Ontario. We should go see it.” I’m like, “Okay.” Ontario, not Canada, but east of Los Angeles. It was Christmas. We went there. I walked in and I said, “We’re going home now.” To me, Mars may be the Ontario shopping outlet. But to get to even as far as let’s say Pluto, the demoted non-planet, would take god knows – how many years would it take to get to Pluto?

John: It depends on how fast were you able to get our rockets up to.

Craig: This is a whole thing. You can’t go the speed of – all these things, you can’t do it. You can’t. As it turns out, you can’t.

John: I saw this movie called The Martian. It turned out it was actually really hard to get a person onto Mars, but especially off Mars.

Craig: Really hard.

John: Really tough. Really tough.

Craig: How long to go to Pluto? How long do you think it would take you to get to Pluto? You have to go very, very quickly.

John: It takes a while for light to get there, so getting a human being there, it’s tough.

Craig: About 12 years.

John: That’s also why I say the digital version. Time is useless to that. It doesn’t mean anything to you. Then you don’t have to do all this stuff like putting Ripley in her cryo bed.

Craig: That’s the other thing. Everybody comes up with the same solution, including 1997’s Rocket Man and 3 Body Problem and everybody else that sends somebody really, really far. Freeze them.

John: Freeze them.

Craig: You can’t freeze people. That whole thing, you just can’t.

John: [Crosstalk 01:09:52].

Craig: Everyone just wants to freeze everybody. The only way to get there is to-

John: Captain America.

Craig: If you can suspend somebody like that, we should be investing in that now, here. Our whole thing is freeze yourself and we’ll wake you up when we have a cure for your disease, which is why some people have actually done that. As it turns out, their body is completely damaged, a cracked ice cube. It doesn’t work. That’s always been the thing. I just think it’s too difficult. If we have the technology to actually be able to escape our own galaxy and make it to another one – and by the way, the space between galaxies is vast.

John: Yeah, it’s big.

Craig: Then we probably have the technology to solve every problem that currently exists on this planet.

John: Drew, what’s your opinion on leaving the solar system?

Drew: I am optimistic. I think eventually, I feel like we’re bugs that’ll hop and maybe pop out eventually. I think your point about us being fragile is fairly true right now. I’m stuck on you think that we live in a simulation, because you’ve mentioned it a few times. I never thought you were actually serious.

Craig: We absolutely live in a simulation.

Drew: Why? I don’t know why. It bothers me. Maybe it’s a personal thing.

Craig: Of course it bothers you. You wanted this to be real.

Drew: What about microbiology? What about the little tiny things? That’s not just waiting for the resolution to come through on how all that works?

Craig: I think that stuff’s been coded in and engineered quite beautifully.

Drew: But wouldn’t you need a supercomputer of-

Craig: Yes, you would need a very powerful computer to do this, one that is far more powerful than the computers we have. But they have it. Look at this way. We’re making simulations. They’re not great. They’re okay. But think of the simulations we can make now versus the ones we could make 50 years ago, meaning none. 50 years ago, there was the Game of Life, where it was little blobs going bleep bloop bleep. Now we have sims. We have artificial environments where people are running around and doing things. We have AI, all the rest of this. Can you imagine a world where we could create a simulation where the people inside the simulation were fully artificially intelligent?

Drew: Yes, but wouldn’t there theoretically be – because every piece of code has problems. It screws up and it needs to be defragged or – I’m using the wrong words. But we’ve never experienced that. We’ve never had really glitches or anything like that. All of it seems to be working right.

John: Or we may have had glitches, but then our memory was fixed.

Craig: Also, time does not move the normal way. For instance, our lifetimes may be processed through in a nanosecond of some higher versions. Think of how many simulations we can run with a battle simulator. We could run the battle of, I don’t know, the Battle of Sekigahara, to refer to Shogun. We can simulate that and run that probably three million times in a second. Now, do you see where I’m going here?

Drew: Yeah.

Craig: We don’t have any sense of actual time lapsing. My point is – and this is not my plan, just that others have come up with this – that if you give us 300 years from where we are now, 300 years, think of how far we’ve come in 10, 300 years, could we design a simulation where the people inside the simulation felt like they were real and independent and alive and intelligent?

Drew: Limitedly, but you wouldn’t be able to have 8 billion people feel like they were alive.

Craig: Okay. Then what, in 1,000 years maybe we can have that?

Drew: Sure. I guess by the same logic that I’m like, eventually we’ll hop planets and get on the solar system, eventually we would have this.

Craig: The only way, and if we do that, and that simulation is up to the level that our reality is, wouldn’t they start making simulations? The problem is the only way we’re not in a simulation is if we are the first ones in a chain of simulations. That’s why I think – it explains a lot.

John: It does explain a lot. I want to get back to The Boys and Gen V, two shows I genuinely enjoy, but I get a little bit frustrated by the characters in those worlds feel realish. Same could be said for the Marvel Universe too, where you can do all these supernatural things. You can fly and all this stuff. But that actually breaks all of our laws of physics.

Craig: Correct.

John: Someone I want to be in that world to say, “Oh, no, this must be a simulation where you’re changing these parameters, because these are not possible things.”

Craig: I am obsessed with this one moment – it’s in one of the Avengers – where Tony Stark gets thrown out of his own building. I think it’s the first Avengers movie. He’s falling from his skyscraper, and then Jarvis sends out the Iron Man stuff, which-

John: Assembles around, yeah.

Craig: … lands and assembles around him. And he almost hits the ground and then he puts his repulsors on to stop himself from falling.

John: They’re liquefied.

Craig: There are people right under it who should be vaporized. Also, the G-force of falling that hard and stopping like that is akin to hitting pavement. The Marvel characters follow no physics. Their arms should be ripping out of their sockets based on the things that they’re doing. It’s okay. It’s Marvel.

John: It’s Marvel, absolutely, so I’m willing to forgive it, just like I don’t believe in ghosts, but if I’m writing a story with ghosts in it, I’m gonna follow all the-

Craig: I love Ghostbusters.

John: I want to follow that thread down, so great.

Craig: Once you say, okay, we’re gonna throw some physics out the window, literally, for everybody, then yeah, go for it.

John: But circling back to a conclusion, I think the actual physics of traveling outside the solar system are not going to make sense for physical human beings.

Craig: I agree. It will not make sense for physical human beings. I think we’re here to be here. I think this is where we are, and this is where we shall stay until they reboot.

Drew: We’re real.

Craig: Yes, we are real. We’re as real as anything.

John: Just because I think we’re gonna get emails about this-

Craig: Oh, really?

John: You believe we’re in a simulation, but you’re not nihilistic about it. You don’t believe that nothing matters. You actually do believe that things matter.

Craig: I don’t think anything matters ultimately. I think that existence is absurd. But I feel like there’s a way to behave. There are values that I think are important, that are programmed into us or you could say are part of our shared genetic code and the expression of bio-evolutionary instincts to be pro-social. It feels good to help people. It feels good to do the right thing. It feels good to contribute. It feels good to fulfill a purpose. Look what we do for a living. If we die today, it’s not like everyone goes, “That’s it. Pack it up, everyone. Mass suicide. Those guys aren’t around anymore.” But we do it anyway, because we’ve found purpose for our lives. And then that’s that. Look at Drew. He’s gonna cry.

Drew: I’m sticking to my guns.

Craig: Nothing wrong with that. By the way, I’m way out of line with almost everybody. Most people believe in God and angels. I’ve gone past the atheists now into some whole other dimension of stupidity. And here’s the best part. It doesn’t even matter. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter, unless I get thrown in Hell and burn in a lake of fire forever, in which case that will be very annoying and confusing. Time’s sure spinning for me. We stood outside and watched the eclipse. We took a pause in the middle of this to watch the eclipse. It looked beautiful.

John: Yeah, it looked beautiful.

Craig: It looked so vivid and real.

Drew: That’s because the moon is real.

Craig: It’s as real as my eyeball.

John: Thanks, guys.

Craig: Thank you.

Links:

  • My Pal Foot Foot by The Shaggs
  • Braid by Jonathan Blow
  • Connections from the New York Times
  • Q: Who Found a Way to Crack the U.K.’s Premier Quiz Show? by David Segal for The New York Times
  • On what motivates us: a detailed review of intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation by Laurel S. Morris, Mora M. Grehl, Sarah B. Rutter, Marishka Mehta, and Margaret L. Westwater
  • Why are there so many illegal weed stores in New York City? by PJ Vogt
  • Shōgun on FX
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram and Twitter
  • John on Mastodon
  • Outro by Ben Singer (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 638: Lawyer Scenes, Transcript

May 16, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2024/lawyer-scenes).

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

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

**John:** And you’re listening to Episode 638 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, you can’t handle the truth.

**Craig:** You can’t handle the truth!

**John:** We’ll be talking about lawyer scenes in movies and television with an actual criminal defense attorney, to separate the tropes from the truth. And in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, Craig, beach vacations. Is there anything better or anything worse?

**Craig:** Everything is better. Literally everything.

**John:** I’m with you there. We’re going to have to find some other third party to argue for beach vacations.

**Craig:** I don’t know if we have the right guy for that, be honest with you.

**John:** We’ll see. First, Craig, we have some important follow-up here about a mistake that you made. The great Julia Turner herself wrote in to say:

**Drew Marquardt:** “As your self-appointed chief journalist correspondent, I am obligated to write in to tell you that Stephen Glass published his fabulism in The New Republic, not The New Yorker. That is how his articles made it through The New Yorker’s vaunted fact-checking process, which in fact, they didn’t.”

**Craig:** God, I feel terrible. Confession time. My entire life, I panic whenever I have to reference The New Republic, The New Yorker, or New York Magazine.

**John:** 100 percent.

**Craig:** New Yorker is special. New Republic is also quite special. New York Magazine is not that special. But I panic every time. And I blew it here. And I blew it in the dumbest way, because I made a mistake, a fact-checking mistake about a fact-checking story where a guy was making stuff up. So thank you, Julia, for correcting me. And my deepest apologies to the folks at New Yorker, who have always been very nice to me. And what did I do? I rewarded them by trying to hang Stephen Glass around their neck. I’m sorry about that. It was The New Republic. Craig is shamed.

**John:** Julia also sent through this link about this article that Hanna Rosin wrote. Hanna Rosin was a contemporary of Stephen Glass working at The New Republic. When the whole thing outbroke, she felt blindsided and betrayed. But in this follow-up article, she goes to Los Angeles to meet with him and see what he’s done with his life. And she finds him as he’s trying to get the California Bar to let him become a lawyer. And so it’s all the drama surrounding that. We’ll put a link in the show notes to this really good article by Hanna Rosin that also ties into our main theme here, which is what does it mean to be a lawyer and what does the law include.

**Craig:** We should probably get a lawyer to discuss that.

**John:** Yeah, we should. I have the perfect person for us.

**Craig:** Oh, do you?

**John:** Ken White is a defense attorney and a former federal prosecutor, whose expertise includes criminal justice, free speech rights, and the intricacies of the legal system. He’s got this knack for demystifying complex legal topics, which we can witness each week on his podcast, Serious Trouble, which you should definitely subscribe to. Craig, you and I and many people may already follow him on social media, because he’s @popehat, or read his blog posts at popehat.com.

**Craig:** And Ken and I have known each other I think before the existence of podcasts.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** It’s going on, what, 21 years or something like that now. Welcome, Ken White.

**Ken White:** Thank you very much, guys. I’m very happy to be here.

**John:** Ken, can you talk us through, what do you mostly do in your days? I see you on social media. You’re writing stuff. You’re doing your podcast. But what is your actual day job? Who are you representing?

**Ken:** I have a practice. It includes criminal defense, in both state and federal courts, and a lot of eclectic civil cases. I really love First Amendment stuff, but I take on all sorts of other civil cases. It’s everything from plaintiffs to defendants, all sorts of subject areas, a lot of stuff.

But to answer your question, what do I do, it’s mostly paperwork. The demystifying, there’s a whole lot of paperwork of various kinds, and then there’s supervising other people doing paperwork and editing their paperwork. Then there’s asking the client to give you paperwork and then saying, “No, that’s not right. Do it again.” Then there’s arguing about paperwork in front of the judge. It’s not a job for someone who really wants the outdoors. You can be a trial lawyer, but even trial lawyers spend a lot of time not actually in court doing exciting things.

**Craig:** I gotta be honest. You were mentioning just before we started that you’re about to go into a trial. I have lots of friends who are attorneys. Trials seem like these things that sometimes occasionally happen, but most of the time it’s like watching baseball. Every now and again, something happens, but it’s a lot of stuff in between. That is the athletic version of paperwork. Our understanding, in Hollywood at least, of how this all works, I don’t recall seeing a ton of paperwork scenes, John. Do you?

**John:** No. Actually, in Clueless, one of our favorite movies, there is a lot of paperwork. She comes in and she helps out with highlighting through the depositions or something.

**Craig:** Which is disturbing.

**Ken:** As a rule of thumb, for every minute that something dramatic is happening, you spent two hours, at least, preparing for it.

**Craig:** But at least those hours earn you money.

**Ken:** Sometimes, yes, that is true.

**Craig:** Sometimes.

**John:** Now, Ken, we’re gonna get into scenes in movies and television that involve lawyers and involve the law. But I’m curious, from your side, how much of your decision to become a lawyer was based on seeing it on screen? How much of your early impression of it and your interest in it came from seeing it on screen?

**Ken:** I think I started, I just wanted to be a lawyer because my dad was a lawyer and I admired him. He was a trust and estates lawyer for his whole career, and I definitely did not wind up doing that. That was my sense. Then yeah, stuff like LA Law, which was our era, and movies like To Kill A Mockingbird and things like that, those influenced it. But most of what I learned about what being a lawyer is actually like didn’t start happening until I had jobs in college or after law school.

**John:** One of the discussions that actually prompted having you come on this podcast was we were talking about Anatomy of a Fall this last year, which was such a great movie and is a French legal courtroom drama. Watching that movie as an American, you’re just going crazy, like, how are they allowed to do this? All these rules, things we’re expecting from the American system are just not happening there. As we get into lawyer scenes, I guess we should stress that we’re really talking about the realities of the U.S. legal system, because stuff’s gonna be different any place else. This is not necessarily gonna apply to our British listeners, our French listeners, our Australian listeners.

**Craig:** Noticeable lack of wigs. You don’t have to wear a wig, do you? It would be nice if you could, Ken.

**Ken:** No, I do not.

**Craig:** Dammit.

**Ken:** I’m going in bald these days. Here’s the thing though. Most dramatic presentations of the law are so far from reality that you might as well have them be commentary on law in France or Burkina Faso or whatever you want to choose, because the delta is not meaningful, because there’s such a huge difference between the way it really works and the way you make it work on screen.

**Craig:** It sounds like we’re nailing it over here in Hollywood is what Ken’s saying.

**John:** That’s what he’s saying is we’re being 100 percent accurate.

**Ken:** But I’m okay with that. The way I see it is, it’s an art form and it’s completely different than the medium it’s describing. It’s like if someone says, “How come the movie isn’t like my favorite book?” I understand, because it’s a different medium. The same thing is, if you’re gonna depict legal stuff, it’s a very different medium than a transcript, and so you’re gonna cut out all the horrible, soul-destroying parts.

**John:** But Ken, it must be somewhat frustrating when you encounter a new client who has an expectation of how this is all gonna go, having seen legal stuff from Hollywood all these years, and then you have to confront them with the reality of what it’s really gonna be like.

**Ken:** Yes, although often, the clients have a better sense by the time they get to me.

**Craig:** Because they’re recidivists or… ?

**Ken:** Sometimes, yeah. The people I represented when I was on the Indigent Defense Panel, people accused of drug crimes, violent crimes, immigration crimes in the federal system, who couldn’t afford a lawyer, they understood. They’d seen it before, and they didn’t have any illusions about it.

The way people tend to consume it based on what they’ve seen, it’s not so much they have these movie-style expectations about the way the case works. What you’ll find is privileged people, affluent people who went to college and grew up in a good neighborhood and have never been in the system before tend to experience the system as conspiratorial. They tend to think, “This criminal case they brought against me, someone must have it out for me. The DEA himself must have it out for me. There’s a conspiracy, because I cannot conceive of any other way that I would be treated like this,” whereas the guy I’m defending in his third bank robbery is, “Oh, this is exactly the way it works. I’m getting ground through the system again.”

It takes a while for people to realize that it’s not just that the courtroom isn’t exciting as it is on a 42-minute TV show, but that the process is a lot more Kafka-esque. And it’s hard to accept that this is the way they’re treating people all the time. In fact, they’re probably treating most people worse than you.

**Craig:** The lawyers that you run into, I’m guessing both working for the state or fellow defense attorneys, are probably nowhere near as interesting, flamboyant, explosive, tricky, articulate as the lawyers we’re seeing on television and movies, but perhaps are better served by their paperwork skills.

**Ken:** Let’s not leave attractive off that list.

**Craig:** Yes, of course.

**Ken:** Yeah, absolutely.

**Craig:** Just lots of Tom Cruises moving through the courtroom.

**Ken:** Exactly. Eight out of 10 criminal defense attorneys keep their court jacket in the trunk of their car and look like it. There are a lot of characters, actually. I find trial lawyers tend to be more character-ish than people who mostly do paperwork, just because you have to be, and the system guides you to be. There’s a lot more regular, “This is my job. Not every minute is on camera and funny or dramatic,” than you expect.

**John:** As you start talking through these tropes, I guess we’re gonna mostly focus on criminal stuff, but point out when there’s differences between how a criminal and civil case might work for these situations.

Let’s think about a classic start of any criminal trial or any criminal procedure is that this person has gotten arrested. One of the very first things we hear is the Miranda rights. “You have the right to remain silent.” Can you talk us through what the realities are of a person’s rights and what a person should be doing, what that person who is arrested should be doing versus what we see them doing in movies and television?

**Craig:** Can I make a prediction?

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** Ken is gonna say, “Don’t talk to the police.”

**Ken:** Yeah, but also don’t talk to the FBI.

**Craig:** Don’t talk to anyone, really.

**Ken:** A lot of my clients are white-collar accused people. They’re in a position where someone comes to the door, knocks, and says, “Hey, we’re from the FBI. We just have a few questions.” It’s not happening when they’re getting arrested. That’s true for most white-collar crime. You first find out there’s a problem when people start coming up to you and saying, “Hey,” the whole Columbo shtick, which is very accurate, by the way, the way Columbo would just be, “I just have this one question. You know this isn’t a big deal. Why would you be worried about me?” Totally law enforcement.

Law enforcement loves to put you at ease, make you think there’s nothing wrong here, you should just talk. But you shouldn’t. Whether you’re the guy who’s just got arrested a block away from a bank robbery that just happened or you’re the CFO of a publicly traded company whose stock has taken a nosedive and the SEC shows up at your door and they want to ask you a few questions just over coffee, both times you should shut up and talk to a lawyer, because you don’t know what’s going on. You don’t know your known. Unknowns are unknown unknowns. You probably don’t know the law. You may not even know if you’ve committed a crime. You probably don’t remember all the details of the things, because you haven’t immersed yourself in them yet. You have not looked through the emails or the documents or that type of thing.

Very little good can happen from you saying, “I need to talk to my lawyer.” The trick here is people think, “But if I do that, then they’re gonna arrest me,” or, “If I do that, they’re gonna be suspicious of me.” Possibly true, but the truth is, that reminds me of the argument, “I don’t want to wear a seat belt, because if I drive into a lake, I want to be able to get out easily.” It’s that kind of thinking. You’re protecting against something that’s a lot less of a risk when you’re saying, “I don’t want to make them mad.” The big risk is that they are incredibly good at getting you to say things that are against your best interest. Overwhelmingly, the best thing to do is to shut up.

**Craig:** That’s something that I didn’t know as a kid until a television show came along: NYPD Blue. That was the first time I had seen cops complain about people lawyering up. They basically were giving you a cheat code. All the cops ever complained about was the idea that somebody would lawyer up. “We gotta get in there and get this guy to talk before he lawyers up.” All I concluded – what else could I conclude from that show other than lawyer up?

**Ken:** That’s right. Actually, that’s an area where Hollywood and movies or TV gets remarkably close to the way it really is. All those depictions in all those shows of the box and you’ve got the perp in the box, you’re gonna sweat him, that is actually pretty realistic, all of the different techniques you see. There’s probably not quite as much violence anymore as you see portrayed. But pretending to be their friend, conning them into talking, all of that is absolutely classic. That’s what they do.

**John:** Now, at some point, Ken, you are brought in, and you are their lawyer. Can you talk us through that first meeting? Because I think that’s a very classic scene we’re also seeing is that first time the lawyer is talking with their client. The questions of, are you meeting them in prison or in jail? What is the boundaries of attorney-client privilege? How much can they feel free to say to you during those moments, even if they haven’t specifically hired you at that moment? That first meeting, what are the crucial things that we’re seeing or not seeing in scenes?

**Ken:** Sure. I’ve done all of those circumstances. I’ve met them the first time in jail. I’ve met them by the phone or Zoom, in person, all those things. If they are consulting me to consider hiring me, then our communications are privilege. I can’t reveal them. There are very few exceptions, one being if they’re currently controlling a bomb that’s about to go off, something on that level, they’re imminently about to commit a violent crime. Other than that, it’s completely privileged.

You obviously have to be very careful about your location. You don’t want to be talking in a crowded restaurant. You have to be careful who’s in the room with you, because that can disrupt the privilege if there are other people in the room with you. You don’t want to be someplace where you can be overheard.

But generally, my message is always, “Okay. I need you to tell me everything that happened. I need you to tell me the whole truth. We’re gonna start slow.” But that’s absolutely key. That’s controversial. You see this all the time in TV and movies. They say, “Don’t tell me what happened,” the implication being, “I want to be able to lie for you.”

There is a rule that as an attorney you can’t put anyone on the stand to lie. You cannot knowingly solicit perjury. If the client tells me, “I was in France,” I can’t put them on and instruct them to testify, “I was in Mexico,” something like that. But that problem is vanishingly small compared to the problem of not knowing all the true facts. Most cases settle. Of the ones that go to trial, few criminal cases have defendants testify. I would say less than 20 percent. To be deliberately telling your client not to fully inform you of the full facts because of this tiny chance that someday you may want them to testify at trial and say something different is a complete misreading of the situation.

**Craig:** You’re gonna want your client to say, “Yeah, I absolutely murdered my wife.” You kind of need to know that.

**Ken:** Yeah, I do.

**Craig:** The other question I have in regards to this first meeting – it’s very typical in television and movies, if the defense attorney is either the hero or the villain, when they show up they have this attitude. They always have this attitude when they walk in, like, “Okay, stupid cops. Beat it. I’m here.” When you show up in jail, at the police station, wherever you may be, if you are interrupting that process, how do you deal with the police, knowing that they’re looking at you with either suspicion or frustration?

**Ken:** My favorite iteration of that is probably from Fish Called Wanda. But generally, when you meet with a client, you get put in a separate room. You get put someplace where you can consult in private. Generally, you can rely that those are not being recorded in there, although some types of crime, some types of things, I would not have the full conversation there.

There’s rarely that cinematic, the cops are glaring at you. Usually, you’re not dealing with the cops who investigated and arrested. You’re dealing with sheriff’s deputies who are working in the jail or something like that. That type of thing doesn’t often happen. The time when it sometimes happens is when you get a call and your client’s business is being searched by the FBI and they’re sitting out on the curb. Then you roll up and the agents are all around. Then it can be a little awkward. But it’s the job.

**John:** The other scene I can picture is this guy comes home, his wife is murdered on the floor, he calls his lawyer first and then calls the police. The lawyer’s there at the actual crime scene when the crime is first being investigated. Is that a thing that actually really happens, where someone would call the attorney before calling the police?

**Ken:** In a manner of speaking. I haven’t encountered that in a murder scenario. But all the time in white-collar cases you encounter, “Are we gonna go to the cops with this? Are we gonna self-disclose that we’ve just discovered that our COO has been cheating customers?” or something like that. That is a very common strategic question faced by attorneys: do you self-report and hope to get out the best?

I value clients who call me and let me know something is going badly at the first available opportunity. Unfortunately, all these good decisions I’m suggesting that people make are not the norm, even for really smart people. I had a client in here the other day who said, “They asked to talk to me, but I said I need to talk with my attorney. And they say, ‘Are you sure? We just want to clear some of the things up.’ I said, ‘Yes, I’m sure, but I’ll have my attorney talk to you.'” I said to him, “Would if offend you if I said I want to kiss you right on the lips?” because that is so rare and it just warms my heart. When clients do that, I’m thrilled. Too often, part of what you get when you get the case, in criminal cases or civil cases, is that the client has already run their mouth or tried to fix things or tried to make things better.

**Craig:** Now you’re in trouble.

**Ken:** And it’s made your job harder.

**John:** Another thing we see at this stage is sometimes a lawyer taking a case that’s outside of their area of expertise. You have known thing that you’re really good at, but if a difficult real estate deal came or if somebody who was normally a corporate attorney but they’re accepting a murder trial.

**Craig:** Let’s say you’re a guy from Brooklyn who happens to be in the South and your nephew gets pinched for murder.

**John:** For example.

**Craig:** What do you do then?

**John:** Are there rules about what kinds of attorneys can’t even do what kinds of jobs, or basically, if you pass the Bar, you can do that kind of case?

**Ken:** For the most part, yes. There are a few specialties where you have to be specially licensed, but generally, you can blunder in and screw up anybody’s life in any field of law. I am very careful about not taking on areas of law that I don’t know. I will tell clients, “If you want to do that, you’re gonna have to pay me to learn the law in this area. I don’t think you want to do that,” because I’ve seen how people going and not knowing what they’re doing can be dramatically bad. Having experience both in federal and state court, for instance, I’ve seen how competent, experienced state criminal defense attorneys wander into federal court and it’s a completely different world and they don’t know what they’re doing. They can just cause complete havoc, very bad for their client.

I had a client not that long ago who was in some skirmish with a neighbor. They got something from the city attorney’s office calling for them to come in for an office meeting to talk about it. They went to the real estate lawyer, who thought he was smart and says, “Ignore it. You would never talk to them.” Real estate lawyer doesn’t know that an office meeting is a city attorney thing where they basically mean, come in, we’re gonna have you shake hands, and we’re gonna send you off and dismiss it. And so instead, he got charged, because he didn’t go to the office meeting.

You gotta know what you’re doing. You have an ethical obligation to be reasonably competent at the area where you’re practicing. Criminal is one of the areas where you can make things much worse very quickly. I’m very much against people blundering where they do not belong.

**John:** No My Cousin Vinny for Ken. He’s ruining movies.

**Craig:** It sounds like, but also, he’s foreclosing the possibility of a great television show. Hear me out. Do you remember those wonderful shows where itinerant heroes would just wander peripatetically from place to place?

**Ken:** B.J. and the Bear. Kung Fu.

**Craig:** Highway to Heaven. Kung Fu. There’s tons. They would roam the earth like dinosaurs, Drew.

**John:** Reacher does the same thing today.

**Craig:** Actually, Reacher does, although it’s a season.

**John:** A little more limited.

**Craig:** It’s not week to week. Highway to Heaven, he would literally be like, “I’m done.” The Incredible Hulk.

**John:** Totally.

**Craig:** My idea is that kind of show but with a bumbling lawyer. Every week he wanders into a new town, encounters a new case that he’s completely unqualified for.

**John:** I love it.

**Craig:** Blows it completely and then is like, “Meh, did it again,” and just moves on. Ken, any chance that that would-

**Ken:** I could see it work as a farce. I love My Cousin Vinny. It’s a great legal movie, because it’s entertaining. It gets some things surprisingly right. Some of the expert cross-examination stuff they show law students. Was it a good idea for this dude who had never done a trial before to do a criminal trial? It was absolutely not a good idea.

**Craig:** Wow, except hold on a second, because his beautiful girlfriend understood about Positraction, so that part worked.

**Ken:** The other thing is you’re not gonna have Marisa Tomei with you when you’re looking to step in [crosstalk 00:23:11].

**Craig:** You probably won’t have Marisa Tomei. I guess that’s true.

**John:** Ken, you brought up ethical issues. Can we talk about conflict of interest? Because you taking on a certain client, you have to disclose your conflicts of interest there. What might those conflicts be?

**Ken:** A few of them are you can’t represent people in the same case, where their interests conflict, unless you have a knowing, intelligent written waiver from them. Typically, you’re not allowed to represent two defendants in the same trial, because they may want to point the finger at each other. It’s very rare for you to be able to do that. In civil cases, it’s much more common to represent multiple defendants in the same case. But you always have to get an elaborate waiver from them, saying, “I understand all these risks and downsides.”

There can be problems where someone wants me to sue a former client, which I won’t do. Generally, you can’t represent one client against another current or former client if you might have gotten relevant secret information from that former client. There are all sorts of rules like that. When you have a personal financial stake in what’s going on, you can’t do it. There are often ways to get waivers from clients. Sometimes there’s not. The judge gets to make the ultimate call about whether or not it’s right.

It’s something you really have to watch out for. When you have a harmonious group of people who want to hire you, and obviously they want to hire one lawyer and not pay for five lawyers for the five of them, things can go south very quickly when they stop being harmonious. When that group gets angry at each other, then all of a sudden you’re hoping that you did the conflict waivers right.

**Craig:** The collection of dingdongs around Donald Trump constantly backbiting at each other. What a wonderful clown party that is to watch. But the other conflict of interest that we tend to see in movies and television are lawyers sleeping with each other.

**John:** I was gonna say, is it a conflict of interest if you fell in love with your client?

**Craig:** Or a client. Oh, god.

**Ken:** First of all, ew. Second of all-

**Craig:** That’s just based on your client [crosstalk 00:25:18].

**John:** Absolutely. You don’t have Sharon Stone as your client?

**Ken:** Believe me. You could have the most attractive client in the world and spend an hour talking to them and you may not want to sleep with anyone ever again. Most State Bars have rules about carrying on romantic relationships with clients. It’s sometimes not classified as a conflict-of-interest issue, although it could be. But it’s generally, in most states now, considered unethical and improper, because it clouds your judgment. They can’t make the right decisions about whether or not to get a new lawyer. Their judgment is clouded. But of course, it’s a trope in fiction forever, and that’s because it does happen and you see it. And it quite often winds up very badly.

**John:** I want to circle back to this idea of representing multiple parties, because I think to Succession, and as the Roy family starts suing each other, one of the things that comes up again and again is, are you going to join this bigger group or have your own lawyer? The smart people seem to have their own lawyer.

**Ken:** Yeah, particularly if you’re the weakest person in the group. If the corporation is in the face of a criminal investigation and they hire one lawyer to represent the CEO, the CFO, and Jimmy the janitor, Jimmy may take it in the shorts, because most of the attention is not gonna be given to him. He has a reason to worry that they’re not gonna be looking out for his best interests or alerting him when a real conflict of interest comes up.

There are always problems in situations where there are all sorts of conflicting loyalties and things like that. That’s why you have to very carefully analyze who the clients are, what their relationship is, to what extent are they going to want to point the finger at each other to defend themselves in this case, and how can we deal with that. That comes with very frank early conversations with clients, which is difficult, because – and this is something we should talk about – clients lie.

**John:** Let’s get into that, because that’s also a trope of these stories is that the lawyer, very deep into how it all goes, realizes there’s a whole separate thing that they’ve not been told about.

**Craig:** Richard Gere shows up and he’s like, “What about the book and the videotape and all that?”

**John:** Or Edward Norton is actually a psychopath.

**Craig:** Edward Norton, he didn’t do anything wrong, and then he did.

**John:** Yeah, and then he did.

**Craig:** Then he didn’t, but then he did. Then he didn’t, he did. But you catch your client in a lie. What is that? Is that a confrontation? Does it get sparky?

**Ken:** It can. It depends on the nature of the lie. The thing is, clients lie, not because clients are bad or because these are evil people involved in crime and civil disputes. Clients lie because people lie. People particularly lie when they’re scared and under stress and upset. The people I meet are scared and under stress and upset. They’re often embarrassed and humiliated by what’s happened. They’re trying to figure out what’s going on. They’re trying to wrap their mind around it. It takes a while for them to get a comfort level with you so they’ll come completely clean.

Think about it. How many people do we all really be completely transparent and nakedly open with about things? Probably a lot of the time, not even our spouses or best friends or confessors or whoever. It’s not human nature. It can take a lot of work to get the point where the client is comfortable doing that. Some of them never get all the way comfortable. Some of them can’t admit out loud they’ve done something. Sometimes they lie, and it causes me problems.

I’ve had clients lie up and down after I’ve given them the whole speech for hours, and it’s had bad impact on the case. I’ve had clients lie in the first meeting and I found out an hour after I left. And I fired them, just because I didn’t want to deal with it. Every attorney knows this. I represent humans in bad positions. People like that take a while to get around to being able to tell me the truth.

**John:** Circling back to the article from The New Republic that Julia Turner sent through, one of the things interesting is Stephen Glass is working as a paralegal, and one of his jobs was, as new clients came in, he was the person who first talked them through this is how it’s all gonna go. He fully disclosed, “I was fired for doing this terrible thing where I made up all this stuff and I lied.” He spends a lot of time explaining how he lied and how it was a bad thing, and in the belief it actually got the clients to be more open and transparent about what stuff was actually happening. That’s also his point of view on the whole thing, so he may be doing some fabulism right there.

**Craig:** Possibly.

**John:** But your ideal client would just sit down with you from the first meeting and say, “Here is everything. I am holding nothing back,” correct?

**Ken:** My idea is that anything that’s remotely complicated, that it’s gonna take a lot of meetings. I’m gonna set the table with the first meeting by explaining how important this is and going through some stuff. Then we’re gonna go through it in more detail. I’m gonna take the measure of the client. This is something you learn over the course of this career over decades. Take a sense of them, how long it’s gonna take to romance the truth out of them. Sometimes that gets right; sometimes that gets wrong.

The things you see in movies and TV, it’s very classic, it’s almost a cliché, I think, where the defendant has told them some of it, but then there’s one aspect they haven’t told them. They say, “I was embarrassed. I thought you wouldn’t believe me.” That’s very real. That happens frequently, where they’ve told me 80 percent of it but not the other 20 percent or something like that. That’s again just human nature.

**John:** In these initial setup things, and before we get to any trial or any sort of settlement, talk through some possible escape hatches. Spousal privilege, like the idea that you cannot be forced to testify against your spouse, is that a real thing? What are the edges of that? Because you see this in movies and TV.

**Ken:** This is a great Bar Exam question. There are two spousal related privileges. One is a spousal communications privilege. That means I can prevent my wife from testifying about a confidential communication we had during the course of our marriage. The other is testimonial privilege. That’s my wife can’t be compelled to testify against me while we’re married, not that she would need to be.

**Craig:** She could choose it though.

**Ken:** Exactly. She could [crosstalk 00:31:58].

**Craig:** Certainly, your wife would.

**Ken:** Yeah. They would have to say, “No, you’ve testified enough, Ms. Harbers. That’s enough.”

**Craig:** “Please sit down.”

**Ken:** Those are real things. They actually do come up all the time. They come up in context like taking the deposition of a husband or wife and asking them about something that their spouse said to them. That can be under the privilege. Things like that. Those are real things. Those come up. Those are usually evidentiary issues that come up at trial or during the discovery process.

**John:** You bring up evidentiary issues. One of the things we also see in movies and TV is where the attorney or Matlock’s assistant goes out and does some digging around and finds out the truth and does some investigation. How much investigation, discovery, and evidence gathering is actually typical and allowed and commonplace in the kinds of cases that you’re taking?

**Ken:** My types of cases, quite a lot. Now, in criminal cases, you’re supposed to be getting discovery from the government. They’re supposed to be turning over stuff. But you will definitely do your own supplemental investigation, whether it’s having people interviewed or researching records or whatever it is, depending on the nature of the case.

I learned very early on how important that was. A very early case I had when I got out of the government was a young guy who had been arrested while doing a summer at a prestigious college. He gets arrested for having meth and a gun in a drawer in his bureau in the college dorm room. He says, “It’s not mine. Someone must’ve put it there.” I’m like, “Yeah, sure, kid.” I hire an investigator to investigate the roommate, because the parents have the money to do this. Come to find out the roommate just got out of jail for stealing things from other people at this prestigious college and blaming it on other people, trying to frame other people for the crimes.

**Craig:** Wait a second. Hold on.

**Ken:** I went and I used that information, because this guy who did that was the one who turned my client in to the police, said, “Look what I found in the drawer of the bureau.” I brought that to the DA. I said, “Your witness is probably gonna be taking offense, but I’m gonna make mincemeat out of him.” They wound up giving my client a deal, a diversion program, stay out of trouble for a year and no charges.

That’s an example of why you have to learn to investigate things, even if you’re dubious, because the thing about these cases and this system is you can get so worn down and so into a rut that you can stop seeing people as individuals, stop believing their stories, just see them as a statistic. I’ve seen this case a million times before. It always plays out like this. Lose your edge that way. You’ve gotta keep your edge. You’ve got to always make the inquiries and put in the work to do that job for your client.

**John:** Let’s talk about who’s doing that work. You said you hadana investigator. Is that a private investigator, or is that classically a person who’s licensed to do that, or is it someone else who’s working for the firm? Who does that?

**Ken:** It depends on the case and the type of law. Typically, criminal cases, we have private investigators we have relationships with. A lot of them are ex-journalists or ex-federal agents, things like that. They’re good at wheedling information out of people, that type of thing. There’s not a lot of gunplay with them, but there’s a lot of tracking people down and talking to them, getting them to talk. We have different investigators for different types. Sometimes they’re in-house; sometimes they’re not. It really depends on the occasion.

Civil is often very different, because civil discovery is a lot more active. You’re sending formal demands to the other side. You’re entitled to do things like demand they produce particular documents or answer questions or sit for a deposition. You have a lot more leeway of how you investigate in a civil case.

**John:** Let’s say that you’ve talked to the client. You see what the case is laid out before you. Before you would go to trial, there’s some discussion of reaching a settlement. Are you the person who reaches out with, “Hey, let’s sit down and talk this through.” When something comes to a settlement before trial, what’s tended to happen?

**Ken:** It very much depends on the type of case and how serious it is. Your run-of-the-mill misdemeanor or petty felony, probably at arraignment they’re gonna tell you the offer. If you show up on a DUI, they’re probably gonna tell you this is the standard offer for first-offense DUIs. They’ll tell you that at the first appearance. Other cases, either you approach the prosecutor, or the prosecutor approaches you, say, “Are you interested?” There’s the dance of pretending, “No. I’m taking this to trial, but just for the sake of argument, what are you offering?” It’s a lot more formal and complex in federal court. A federal plea agreement is just monstrosity, 20 pages long. It’s a lot more informal in state court.

But the bottom line is usually one side or the other suggests, “Can we talk about it?” That’s really just a matter of schedule management. If you’re the prosecutor and you have 20 cases set for trial, you want to figure out which one of them is gonna go, and so they’re gonna want to make inquiries. If you’re a defense lawyer, you know that if someone’s gonna plead, the earlier they plead and possibly cooperate with the government, the more credit they’re gonna get, the more lenient sentence they’re gonna get.

**John:** A thing we saw out of Georgia was the use of racketeering laws, and so where you’re rounding up a bunch of people and you’re putting them all together on trial as one big thing.

**Craig:** Ken loves RICO, by the way.

**John:** Yeah, loves it. I listen to your podcast, so I know RICO is one of your favorite things on earth.

**Craig:** I like when he says he did a RICO.

**John:** In those situations, there could be a real benefit to being the first person to turn on the rest of the group. As the attorney representing that individual person, you’re looking at everybody else around you, and it feels like there’s a prisoner’s dilemma aspect to that as well.

**Ken:** Sure, there is. It’s not just RICO or really complicated cases. Any multi-defendant case or any case that’s connected to a larger investigation, if you can say, “My guy’s gonna come in and tell you everything,” and you’re the first in the door, then you’re gonna get the very best deal. In state court, that means allowed to plead to the most lenient thing with the most lenient recommendation. In federal court, it means allowed to plead to a lesser set of charges with a better sentencing recommendation in a more complex way.

The thing is that, yeah, it’s always a prisoner’s dilemma. You know that everyone in this situation is trying to find the least terrible way out of it. You always decide who’s gonna jump. A lot of the time, cases like the one we see in Georgia with Donald Trump and in similar cases, you have what’s called joint defense agreements. Those are agreements among the lawyers for the defendants. What they agree is that, “I’m gonna share information about what I learned from my client about this case and this situation. You’re gonna share yours. And we all agree to keep it confidential among ourselves and not disclose it.” And if anyone starts to cooperate, then they have to leave the group.

The point of this is to preserve the attorney-client privilege. The idea is that normally the attorney-client privilege only applies to a confidential communication. But the idea is if you talk to a group of people that has equal obligation to keep it secret, then you haven’t taken it outside the circle of privilege. That’s very common. In there, someone will say, “We’re leaving the group,” and then you know, okay, they’re about to cooperate, something like that.

But yeah, all the time. And usually in white-collar cases, it’s a lot more friendly, collegial. A lot more information is exchanged. Less of that in drug cases, violence cases, things like that. It’s a little more cutthroat. But yeah, that type of thing, that type of maneuvering is absolutely real.

**John:** Despite your best efforts, there’s no ability to reach a negotiated settlement. Talk us through what are the steps before we get to trial, what kind of things we would see before we get to trial.

**Ken:** Usually, when you’re getting ready for a trial, you have to put together all the exhibits that you’re gonna use. You have to have a witness list. Often, you’re required to propose jury instructions ahead of time. Those are crucial, because that’s where the judge tells the jury what the relevant law is. You’re gonna file a trial brief pointing out the legal issues that are gonna come up at trial.

Probably most crucially, you’re gonna be filing something called a motion in limine, meaning a limiting motion. That’s a motion saying, “Judge, this piece of evidence is illegal. You should keep it out. This piece of evidence is too inflammatory. You should keep it out. You should let me bring in this piece of evidence.” The motions in limine are incredibly important, because they can completely shape how the trial goes by what evidence is allowed to come in and what evidence isn’t allowed to come in. Before you’re picking that jury, we’ve alighted tons of work that’s very paperwork-intensive, very boring to show on film, but actually has a huge influence on how the case comes out.

**John:** Now let’s talk about – you’ve gone through all the evidentiary hearings. You’ve figured out what stuff is gonna get eliminated. Can you talk us through the jury selection process? What is that actually like? What do we see on film versus what the reality is?

**Ken:** It can go anywhere from super simple to super complicated. There are judges, particularly in simple cases, who do it lightning fast. The judges do all the questioning themselves, don’t let the lawyers talk to the jurors. I’ve known judges where you can have a jury picked in half a day. There are other cases, particularly cases that are gonna be super long or complicated, where you might have to do preliminary work. You might have to do something called qualify the jury. This RICO case against Trump and his pals in Georgia is such a one. Jurors are gonna get questionnaires saying, “Hey, would you be available for the next 9 to 12 months to sit in the uncomfortable chairs?”

**Craig:** Totally available. Wait, is it for RICO? Then yes.

**Ken:** Also, “Have you ever heard of Donald Trump? Do you have opinions about him?” That type of thing.

**Craig:** Who?

**Ken:** Bigger, more complicated cases, there will be screening of the jurors. Then there’s disputes over who gets to ask questions of the jurors. Some judges want to do it all themselves, because when we lawyers do it, then it’s called voir dire. We’re really doing two things. One is we are questioning the juror to find out whether we think they’re a good juror or not, but another is we’re developing a rapport with them and showing them themes of our case, like, “Ma’am, would you agree that if someone is standing there and a guy runs up with a knife that you might think he’s danger and might have to defend himself?” That type of thing. You’re trotting out your themes. You’re starting to get them thinking about who the people in the cases are. You’re making yourself hopefully entertaining or at least palatable to the jury.

Then you just go through, and different courtrooms have different ways of doing it, but generally there are jurors that you ask the judge to get rid of for cause, meaning that the judge strikes them because there’s some legal cause they shouldn’t be a juror, like they really can’t speak English well or they said that, “My dad’s a cop. I couldn’t be fair,” something like that.

Then you generally have what are called peremptory challenges, which are challenges that you get to use in your discretion to knock people out. You’re not allowed to use them based on race or gender or prohibited characteristics like that, notwithstanding that of course it happens all the time, particularly from the government. You’re using your sensibility. Who’s gonna be a good juror for me, who’s not. If you’re a prosecutor or if you’re the defendant in a case where the plaintiff’s asking for a lot of money, you want a solid citizen, someone who doesn’t believe in handing out money, someone who works for their money, someone who’s respectable, somewhat conservative, that type of thing. If you’re the defendant in the criminal case or the plaintiff in the case, it’s the other way around. You’re looking for people.

It’s totally an art and not a science. There are all sorts of shows about how it’s a science and you can attach electrodes to them and stuff like that and do it scientifically. My wife watches some of those, and I’m not allowed to be in the same room, because it agitates me almost as much as NCIS. I’m not allowed to be in the same room because of the comments I make.

**John:** Because what you’re seeing is that it does not reflect reality at all in terms of the ability to micro-slice who these people are?

**Ken:** No. There are people who make tons of money doing it, but I am super skeptical of that. I think it’s dousing, basically. I think it’s [unintelligible 00:44:56].

**Craig:** There was an entire movie about – was it Rainmaker or something like that? It was the Coppola movie where it was an expert to figure out exactly who should be on the jury using their mind powers. Basically, you’re just getting people that said that they would be available for nine months. There are certain things we can all conclude.

**John:** Maybe a speed round here. I want to talk a little bit about courtroom etiquette, because there’s things we see a lot in movies and television.

**Craig:** I object.

**John:** Talk to us about “I object.” Talk to us about objections and talking over objections. What does object mean and what are the edges of the reality of objection?

**Ken:** There’s a sliding scale of the formality of objections. The low end is a local, state court, and the high end is federal court. I always do it as if I’m in federal court, because then I can’t screw up. To do it properly, you stand up, you say, “Objection,” and then briefly the basis, “Hearsay.” The judge rules. What you’re not supposed to do is say it from a seated position. You’re not supposed to go off on a speech.

**Craig:** Objection.

**Ken:** “Objection. He knows he can’t do that. Since the beginning of time, the laws… ” That’s a speaking objection. You’re supposed to do it briefly. It’s a rule often broken. You’re not supposed to make a lot of bogus objections just to throw somebody off. Judges will eventually call you on that, and the jury will see it.

**Craig:** Has a judge ever said to you, “I’ll allow it, but watch yourself, counselor.” That seems to be in literally every – judges are constantly allowing objections but saying, “But I’ve got my eye on you.” Is that a thing?

**Ken:** If they were gonna say something like that, it would probably be at a sidebar, outside the hearing of the jury. That’s something that does happen. But no, they don’t put it like that in front of the jury. They might say, “I’ll let you ask a couple of questions, but get to the point quickly.” Something like that.

**Craig:** “Where are you going with this?”

**John:** Something that frustrates Craig and I – is begging the question actually a legitimate objection? If someone says, “Objection; begging the question.”

**Ken:** It is not a legal objection. I think actually-

**Craig:** It’s a mistake of thought.

**Ken:** … “states facts not in evidence” might be the right… Let’s face it; 90 percent of people use “begging the question” wrong anyway.

**Craig:** 90 percent is a very low estimate.

**Ken:** I discovered, to my dismay, having been married for nearly 30 years now, that being able to use “begging the question” correctly drives literary people wild. If I had known this in my early 20s, it would’ve been a completely different social scene for me.

**Craig:** Absolutely. No question. It’s a very narrow group of people, very curious group of people. Peter Sagal over there at NPR I think is the king of the movement.

**John:** Here’s a question for you. I see in movies and TV where the attorney seems to be addressing the jury rather than addressing whoever is on the stand. That’s a no-no, correct?

**Ken:** Unless it’s an opening or closing statement, correct, you’re not supposed to address the jury. And the judge will yell at you if you do that sort of thing.

**Craig:** What about that sly look over to the jury? Are you allowed to do that?

**Ken:** The thing is you want to be careful about that, because you might not be as irresistible to the jury as you think you are. One of my partners did a trial against the SEC. About midway through the trial, the jury sends out a note saying, “Can you ask the lawyer from the SEC to stop looking at us? He’s creeping us out.”

**Craig:** Oh, man.

**Ken:** Kind of sunk in his chair for the rest of the trial. It’s a bit of a blow to his ego. You want to be careful with that. If I’m cross-examining something and they’re being really argumentative or not answering the question, I will mug a little bit for the jury. I’ll roll my eyes and look in their direction, make eye contact, that type of thing. But you want to do it sparingly.

**John:** A thing we see in movies and TV is forceful gavel banging, where the judge is banging to get people to shut up or stuff. Is that a thing that you’ve encountered in your real life?

**Ken:** The only time I’ve seen gavels used is to open a session. I’ve had judges pound on the bench, one memorable occasion, to punctuate, “Mr. White, no, you may not.” But it’s pretty rare. Judges will yell, but banging on things, that type of theatrics, not so much anymore.

**John:** You brought up sidebar. Tell us, what conversations should be happening in sidebar that probably too often in our scenes are happening in front of the jury and everybody else?

**Ken:** Stuff that is not clear whether it’s admissible or not, and it might be prejudicial. Let’s say that we’re in a trial and the attorney questioning the witness starts getting into an issue of whether they’re having an affair, and it has nothing to do with the subject matter of the case. You would ask to speak at sidebar, because you don’t want to spell out to the jury, oh yeah, we don’t want you guys to know about the client having an affair, because you might treat them badly. Things like that where the judge may decide the jury shouldn’t hear about this are typically done at sidebar. All sidebar really is is a mechanism to keep things going, because it takes forever to troop the jury in and out of the jury box, and so you don’t want to send them all back into the room, because then you waste 15 minutes.

**Craig:** Maybe you should try directing a scene with 100 extras, my friend.

**Ken:** I’m sure. They’re probably better behaved than jurors.

**Craig:** Possibly.

**Ken:** It’s a way to do things. And it frustrates jurors, I think. Again, you don’t want to be constantly going up to sidebar, because the judge will start just telling you no. You gotta use it sparingly.

**John:** Great. We’re in trial. One of the cliches we see is people who decide to represent themselves at trial, which I’m sure for you is terrifying. What are the realities? If I got accused of a crime, I’m allowed to do that, right, even if I don’t have any background in law?

**Ken:** You are. Actually, it’s kind of tricky, because the judge has to give you sufficiently full explanation of why it’s really stupid to do that. If the judge doesn’t, you might have an appeal later. “I didn’t realize how stupid it was.” But the judge can’t prevent you from doing it, unless the judge finds basically that you don’t understand what you’re doing or not competent or something like that. It’s threading the needle for the judge.

It’s almost always horrific for the person. I’ve heard it described as a slow plea. This isn’t rocket science, what I do, but there’s a lot of things to it. You gotta know how to do it. You gotta have learned how to do it. If you’re just throwing it in, you don’t know the jargon, and there’s lots of jargon. You don’t know the rules. Just getting something into evidence, understanding what it means to lay a foundation for a piece of evidence so it can be admitted into evidence is something that you have to learn. It’s generally terrible. Usually, people wind up making things much worse.

**John:** Let’s say we’re in trial now. You’re gonna have witnesses up on the stand. You might have your own client, which for good reasons you probably won’t put your client on the stand, but you might. There are gonna be other witnesses that you’re gonna be putting up there. What kind of preparation can you do with a witness, are you allowed to do with a witness, if it’s your client, versus if it’s somebody else? What are the edges of what you’re allowed to do there in terms of getting them ready for it? There’s limits to how much you can coach them.

**Ken:** Let’s take non-clients first. You can absolutely talk to non-clients, unless they’re represented by a different attorney. You can ask them questions. You can say, “Do you mind if we go through the questions I’m gonna ask you?” You might even use the word “practice,” depending on how friendly they are. You can go through. You can ask them.

I’m careful. I don’t tell them, “It’d be better if you didn’t say that. It would be better if you said this instead.” I try to be more subtle and say, “Let me ask you about that answer. My impression was X, but you’re saying Y. Can you explain how I have it wrong?” They eventually get to maybe they were wrong. When they realize they were wrong, they clarify it. Whatever.

You can’t tell them what to say, and you absolutely can’t tell them to lie. But there’s a fair amount of leeway in going through their testimony in advance. And everyone does it. You can believe that federal prosecutors, before they put someone on the stand in Sam Bankman-Fried’s case, have gone through the questions with that person two to five times.

**Craig:** Debate prep.

**Ken:** Exactly, exactly. With a client, it’s different, because it’s protected by the attorney-client privilege. You cannot put the client on the stand to lie. You cannot knowingly elicit perjured testimony. That’s why that thing we discussed before, this trend where some lawyers say, “That’s why you’d never ask the client what happened and you’d tell them not to tell you yet, so it doesn’t prevent you from putting any story on they want,” to me, that’s absolutely lunatic, because you can’t defend them. You can’t know what the defense is. You can’t organize the case, know where the pitfalls are, unless you know what happened and what they know.

**Craig:** That does seem like a terrible strategy, like, “Look, the deal is we’re just gonna black box this thing. I’m gonna put you on the stand. You’re gonna say some stuff. That’ll probably work.” What do I need a lawyer for?

**Ken:** The thing is, this is a real thing that some lawyers do.

**Craig:** It’s crazy.

**Ken:** I watched a debate that turned into basically a screaming match between Alan Dershowitz and a different professor 30 years ago in the trial skills class I took, where they were arguing over this very thing, whether or not you stop the client from blurting out stuff, prevent them from locking themselves in. This is one of the few times you’re on Alan Dershowitz’s side. It’s lunacy not to get every piece of information you can get out of the client. The downside of not being able to get them to lie is comparatively extremely minor.

**John:** Let’s talk about witnesses. Prosecution and defense are both going to, I guess, provide a list of the witnesses they’re going to bring, so that both sides can prepare. But in movies and TV, we’re constantly seeing surprise witnesses, like, oh my god, this person we thought was dead is now coming to sit on the stand. What are the rules around witnesses who were not previously announced and scheduled?

**Ken:** Generally, that doesn’t happen. It’s rare for it to happen. It’s rare to find out that someone you didn’t know before – especially civil cases. In civil cases, you’ve had years of written discovery, where each side has been telling the other, “Name every person in the universe who has knowledge about this case and that you’ve decided to depose them or not,” and then you’ve made a witness list for trial and all those sort of things. Showing up and saying, “Oh, I’ve got a new guy,” usually is not gonna go over well. There’s gonna have to be some pretty convincing reason that you could not have found them before for the judge to let that happen. The more important they are, the more that is the case. The same with evidence. Unless you can really show you couldn’t have found it without due diligence earlier, then it’s gonna be very hard to get it in at trial.

Now, one way that can happen is if the other side reveals something for the first time. Then you’re allowed to rebut. The things about disclosing evidence generally don’t prevent you from keeping a few things back for your rebuttal case. If the other side has lied, as they often do, calling them out as liars. That’s tricky, and you might not get the opportunity to do it. But that is not common.

**John:** We’re talking about witnesses and evidence, but sometimes in films and TV, the lawyer themselves is demonstrating something to the jury. It could be as part of the closing argument or something else that happens. You mentioned To Kill A Mockingbird. Atticus Finch throws a glass at Tom to prove that he’s left-handed. Is that a thing that could actually happen in real life?

**Craig:** You’re gonna throw glasses in the courtroom?

**Ken:** It could happen, but the judge would blow their stack.

**Craig:** You’re saying even if you asked your client to put on some gloves in front of the jury and they didn’t fit-

**Ken:** That’s different. When Atticus Finch throws that cup, the client catching it in one hand is not testimonial, and the client’s not under oath. There’s an implicit, “Here’s how I do things,” but it’s not under oath and it’s not subject to cross-examination. That’s why it’s inappropriate. You could get a client who is on the stand to demonstrate something, with the judge’s permission there, and you can get them to say, “Yes, I’m lefthanded.” The judge probably is not gonna let you surprise them in the middle and throw something to them. Generally, anything that looks super cute or gimmicky probably is gonna get you yelled at by the judge.

**John:** But what is the actual impact of being yelled at by the judge? Is it causing a mistrial? Is he then giving jury instructions? What actually happens? What is the consequence?

**Ken:** I love this question, because it’s so much of what you learn over the course of the practice. You don’t want the judge to yell at you in front of the jury, because the jury’s gonna become convinced that you’re a bad person and you’re doing bad lawyer things, unless the judge is kind of an asshole and the jury is sympathetic with you.

Once upon a time I tried a case as a prosecutor where the judge was being super mean to the rookie defense lawyer and yelling at her and beating her up and generally being a bully, and the jury was looking sympathetic to her. I was thinking, okay, this could go badly. They could “not guilty” just out of sympathy. I was pretty young. I thought, “I have an idea. I’ll make the judge yell at me too.” This was a judge who was famous for yelling. I wandered into the well in the center of the courtroom. I spoke from a seated position. I called them “Judge” instead of “Your Honor.” Before long, he was yelling at both of us. Then the young public defender comes over and says to me, “I know what you’re doing,” and she steps in. Arguably, this is where it went off the rails a bit. But by the end of the day, the guy is bright purple. Usually, you don’t want to do that sort of thing.

Here’s the thing about judges yelling. If it’s not in front of the jury and if it’s not impacting actual rulings, you’ve gotta learn to deal with it. Judges yell. Judges are human. They deal with a lot of stress. Some of them have personalities. You want to learn more about the bite than the bark.

When I have young associates I supervise and a judge is getting mean or they’ll worry the judge is gonna get mean, I refer them in the end of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, where Brad Pitt’s character shoots the Nazis’ aid, because he’s so mad that the Nazis-

**Craig:** You’ll be shot [crosstalk 00:59:24]. More like chewed out.

**Ken:** I’ve been chewed out before.

**Craig:** I’ve been chewed out before.

**Ken:** I’ve been chewed out before.

**Craig:** Chewed out before.

**Ken:** I’ve been yelled at by judges before, and I’ll be yelled at by judges again. You just deal with it.

**John:** A trial happens. We’ve gone through all – it could be months. It could be short. But ultimately, there’s a verdict. That verdict becomes the title of many movies. That is the moment of closure for this whole experience. What do you see in movies and TV that get it right and what are the things that frustrate you about how they get it wrong about verdicts?

**Ken:** They get it right in terms of dramatically. They make it a good close to the story. In real life, you have appeals. You’ve got post-trial motions. Most times if you win a big civil jury award, the other side is gonna file a motion-

**Craig:** To reduce it.

**Ken:** … for a new trial, a motion to reduce it, a motion for judgment notwithstanding, blah blah blah blah blah.

**Craig:** Paperwork.

**Ken:** Yeah, there’s always a lot of paperwork. We see this with all the stuff in the news right now that Trump is going through, where there are these big judgments and now he’s posting bond so that he can appeal them without being collected on. Sentencing can often be quite dramatic. Usually, that does not happen at the time of the verdict. It’s another time. That could be a good moment for drama.

It’s certainly stomach-wrenching when you’re the defense attorney standing next to your client who’s gonna find out how long they’re gonna be in jail, and when you worry about what your client’s about to say, because one dramatic part about sentencing is that they always ask the client – the client has a right to allocate, to say something. This is an absolutely terrifying, piss in your pants moment for the defense attorney, because clients, no matter what, if they’ve been convicted, they feel it’s unfair. And if they express that, it goes badly.

I’ve seen clients, even though they were exquisitely prepared, go from probably they were gonna do community service to jail, by talking about what a victim they are in all of this. Client in that moment can make it much worse. You really have to sit on them and make them not express how they’re feeling, because how they’re feeling is a victim.

**John:** But I want to be clear here. If they were to confess to the crime or admit guilt in that moment, that is evidence that can be used against them in any sort of future appeal. They obviously don’t want to say, “I did it, but just be merciful on me.”

**Ken:** It wouldn’t be used against them in an appeal. The problem is more if they demonstrate lack of contrition or if they make their image in the judge’s eyes worse. If you’ve pled guilty in particular, you don’t want to get up there and suggest you don’t think you really did anything wrong, because you pled guilty. Like we saw recently, Sam Bankman-Fried’s sentencing, the judge found him very not remorseful, because of his personality and the way he talks, and that probably contributed somewhat to the sentence.

**John:** Ken, as we wrap up here, are there any other aspects of law as portrayed on film and television that we haven’t talked, that you want to make sure that our listeners, who are mostly writers, are aware of?

**Ken:** Sure. Entertainment gets some things right. Trial lawyers, criminal lawyers, terrible divorce rates, lots of alcoholism, lots of drug abuse, lots of mental health problems, suicide rate that looks like a Latvian phone number, it’s all really terrible, and it’s a high-stress job. So when entertainment portrays people as suffering through it, that’s actually fairly accurate. They are. There are people out there who are just unflappable and seem to have no problems getting through it. I always suspect they’re just in their office sucking off some huge bong to be that mellow going through this, because-

**Craig:** Or killing cats.

**Ken:** … it’s incredibly stressful. That part gets right. Gets wrong” objections. Objections are a big part of most legal TV shows and some movies. I would be almost happier if you didn’t even try, unless you have a lawyer actually tell you what a real objection is or not, because that’s another thing that takes me way out is when it’s a completely stupid nonsense objection and the response is completely nonsense. I would say it would be worth it to ask a lawyer about the objections. You could still make them dramatic. You could make good ones. But some ones, every lawyer watching is gonna go, “Oh, Jesus Christ.” And then my wife says, “Shut up. Shut up.”

**Craig:** I’ve heard her say that.

**John:** Ken, thank you so much for all this legal stuff. Let’s get to our One Cool Things. Craig, you have a One Cool Thing here I see in the Workflowy.

**Craig:** Yeah, this is really in honor of you, Ken. There is a category of videos that every now and then, when I’m feeling a little sad, I turn on and watch, because, god, it makes me feel great. There’s hundreds of them compiled all for your enjoyment. Just google “sovereign citizens getting owned.” It is so much fun. Are you familiar with this, John?

**John:** I have no idea what this is.

**Craig:** Sovereign citizens are dipshits who subscribe to a theory that they aren’t really people under the law, that the United States as currently constituted is some sort of admiralty or maritime law thing, that they aren’t really a person but a corporation. It’s endless reams of nonsense. Inevitably, they will get pulled over for speeding or their tags are expired or they’re in court for a misdemeanor, a traffic problem, or something more serious, and they begin this nonsense talk. It goes so bad for them so quick every single time. There are people who sovereign citizened their way into like, this cop was gonna give you a $25 parking ticket and now you’re tazed and you’re going to jail. They’re so stupid. Apparently, the one thing about sovereign citizens is they don’t watch these videos, because if they did, they would stop it. Anyway, if you want to see people representing themselves pro se, being idiots, saying nonsense, having judges roll their eyes and go, “I literally don’t know what you’re talking about,” just go ahead and google “sovereign citizens getting owned.” It’s a joy.

**Ken:** I’ll echo that.

**John:** Excellent.

**Ken:** Sovereign citizens, you have to think of them as really, really committed legal furries. They’ve got this persona. They’ve got the costume. They’ve got the lingo. They’re super into it, no matter what consequence it has on living their lives.

**Craig:** They’re so into it. They think they know the law. You’re seeing somebody reading this, and you’re like, “What?” They like Latin.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** They love Latin, but they don’t know why. It’s wonderful.

**John:** It’s excellent stuff. My One Cool Thing is something that was very useful for me this past week. It’s called LibreOffice. It’s a multi-platform app you can find for Windows, for Mac, for everything else, that I would never actually use as a word processor. You could use it as a word processor. But it could just open anything. You can throw any old file type at it, and it seems to be able to open it. I have these old, right now, files for pitches that I did in the ’90s, and it’s the only thing I could find that could open it, but it opens it beautifully. I discovered like, “Oh, that’s right, this is one I was pitching on Highlander in the ’90s.” I can now pull up that old Highlander pitch.

**Craig:** You can finally read that thing. Can we do some research? I feel like LibreOffice was one of my One Cool Things at some point a while ago.

**John:** It totally could be.

**Craig:** Dig it up. I’m so rarely ahead of the curve. It’s almost always that I say something, John’s like, “That was my One Cool Thing two years ago and you said it was stupid.”

**Ken:** Craig, my cohost doesn’t listen to me either, so this is-

**Craig:** Good company.

**John:** The book Less, you had recommended it, and then three years later I recommended it, and we found out it was great.

**Craig:** There you go. Every now and again.

**John:** LibreOffice, I would never actually use it as my main word processor.

**Craig:** I do remember something like that being an open-source thing, just because Microsoft Word is so goddamn annoying. I do have a bunch of old files. I don’t even know what they are at this point.

**John:** Exactly. I throw it on and see if it happens. The thing I’m probably most frustrated, I used to use Movie Magic Screenwriter, and that’s actually a binary format.

**Craig:** It’s dead.

**John:** It’s dead, hard to open.

**Craig:** Gone.

**John:** Ken, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

**Ken:** I do. Obviously, your listeners are podcast fans. I’m a huge history podcast buff. I love them, particularly when I’m commuting or on trips or things like that. I’ve just been having a blast with a podcast The Rest is History. It’s two British historians, one of them named Tom Holland, not the Spider-Man one, the other one, and the other one named Dominic Sandbrook. They have a real great rapport and chemistry. They are really knowledgeable of a wide variety of things. They delve into a huge range of different historical things. Each podcast is maybe a half an hour, 40 minutes long, perfect for a commute. Sometimes they do deep dives that are multiple episodes about something, like the background of the Titanic or JFK assassination or whatever. But they have a real love for the subject. They have a great way of conveying the similarities between these people in history and us and seeing the common threads.

They’re great at conveying how the values of historians that have told us about this stuff, how those impact how the story gets told and why you have to discount some things, because you can’t listen to the Greeks talk about the Persians, because they have all these stereotypes and that overrides everything. Stuff like that. I find it endlessly entertaining. They’ve got a huge back catalog. I’ve been listening to this nonstop on commutes for six months and enjoyed every minute of it.

**John:** Absolutely. While our listeners are adding podcasts to their players, they should also be adding Serious Trouble, the podcast you do with Josh Barro. Is it every week?

**Ken:** It’s 45 weeks a year, roughly.

**John:** That sounds good. I find it just terrific. It’s Ken talking through the cases of the day, which has been phenomenal. I’ve learned so much on your podcast.

**Ken:** Thank you.

**John:** Everyone take a listen to that.

**Ken:** Thank you.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Outro this week is by Lou Stone Borenstein. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You will find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. Also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net to get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on beach vacations. Ken White, an absolute pleasure having you on the show.

**Ken:** It was a joy to come. Thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thanks, Ken.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, so let’s pretend that you’ve finished delivering Season 2 of The Last of Us, and now you can take a vacation. You can go to Mexico and sit on a beach for a week. Is that something you’re aspiring to?

**Craig:** Absolutely not. Let me count the reasons why. First of all, sitting outside under the sun, which some people really seem to like to do, is simply getting radiated. That’s what you’re doing. Everyone’s terrified of radiation. Fukushima happened. People in California were like, “Don’t eat fish anymore. It’s coming.” I’m like, the ocean is swallowing up this amount of radiation. It will never reach you. But you are gonna get radiated when you get in a plane and fly to San Francisco, and you will absolutely get radiated if you sit outside. That’s what sunburning and suntanning is. It’s a response to radiation. A, no.

B, sand. Much like Anakin and whatever, I hate sand. It’s coarse. It gets everywhere. It’s annoying. The ocean is disgusting. It stinks.

**John:** It’s a fish toilet.

**Craig:** It’s a fish toilet. I’ve been scuba diving in the ocean ocean. That’s wonderful. But where the ocean hits the land, gross. Sewage. A lot of just garbage and plants. There’s little tiny crabs that pinch at you. It’s nasty.

D, four, the other people who are at the beach are horrible, because they’re beach people. They’re all like, “I gotta get there and I gotta put my blanket down,” a blanket which turns into a weird loincloth within seconds on the sand, so there’s no reason to be there at all. Everyone smells like that gross suntan lotion, which is just offensive. People are drinking for some reason at the beach, so now they’re being radiated while they’re getting drunk. Beach food is gross. Beach music is awful. That stupid fricking country/Caribbean Bahama Jimmy Buffett nonsense, horrible. Other than that, great day.

**Ken:** John, are you with me that that’s pretty much exactly what you expected if someone asked you what is Craig Mazin gonna say about whether he likes the beach?

**John:** Will Craig have a prepared rant about beach vacations?

**Craig:** Oh, no, it was not prepared.

**John:** But we can predict it.

**Craig:** I assure you that was entirely off the cuff. I just went through my mental library and put myself on the beach and then started to complain.

**John:** Absolutely. Ken White, a beach vacation or let’s say any sort of poolside vacation, so we can get rid of the sand and some of the other objects.

**Craig:** Oh, pools.

**John:** Ken, talk us through that. Appealing or not appealing?

**Ken:** It’s appealing to me, mixed with other things. I like vacations where we’re doing some stuff but there is at least some lounging and drinking and relaxing. My wife increasingly is not happy unless she has climbed at least one mountain a day. This is a point of contention with us.

**Craig:** Huge problem.

**Ken:** It’s true that I’ve gotten to the point where I can’t just lie around for seven days. I go crazy. I like a good vacation with a mix, some of which is drinking things I shouldn’t, eating things I shouldn’t, while lying on a hammock and reading or watching terrible things.

**Craig:** Now, a hammock, that’s not at the beach. I get the idea of being in the shade or being in a hotel room or a spa even. Look, I have a lot of core shame issues, so if I’m not working, I feel like I’ve done something terribly wrong. Also, I think HBO needs me to keep working, so they think I’m doing something terribly wrong. But I get the concept of vacations. Don’t get me wrong. It’s just the beach. You don’t like the beach?

**John:** I don’t like the beach at all. I’m the palest person on earth. All of the objections you’ve raised, I have raised as well. One of my actual biggest phobias is being trapped somewhere like in the beach or in Santa Monica without a hat.

**Craig:** Oh, god. You know and I know and Ken knows, but Drew don’t know. Maybe one day, Drew, if you’re lucky, you’ll know. It’s the worst. My head will start burning. I also get this thing. Do you guys get this when you go to a restaurant and they’re like, “Let’s go outside.”

**John:** The heat lamp.

**Craig:** The heat lamp. No, you’re not, because my head will burn.

**John:** Sizzle.

**Craig:** They don’t get it.

**John:** They don’t get it.

**Craig:** A lovely woman with this beautiful head of hair is like, “What’s the problem?”

**Ken:** I think the hair issues are a whole other episode.

**Craig:** We need to talk about being bald.

**John:** I think we’ve talked about it some.

**Craig:** More.

**John:** More.

**Craig:** More.

**John:** More bald. I’m not good with just the chill-out vacation, where you go to a place and you sit, you don’t do anything. I do need a certain minimum number of activities. That’s why sitting poolside, even if I’m in the shade, I can only read my book for so long. At a certain point, if I’m just reading a book or playing Hearthstone on my iPad, why am I not at home?

**Craig:** Why are you spending all this money? If I could go to a place where there’s a beautiful resort, lovely room – we’re married. We’ve all been married for a long time. Not you, Drew, but one day. Just having sex in a different place is nice, for a change. There are great dinners and things. But then also you could go play D&D or you could go solve puzzles or you could go do the things that other people like to do. I don’t know what those things are. But if I could just do the things I like to do while also on vacation and getting all these lovely services around me, that would be great. But I can’t. Instead, what happens is you go on vacation and you have to walk around, go to a museum, take picture and take picture.

**John:** Gotta prove you were there.

**Craig:** So many goddamn pictures. For what?

**Ken:** Then there’s the whole issue of traveling with kids, which is a very different experience.

**Craig:** Thank god ours are grown.

**Ken:** Kids are assholes. Depending on what age they are, different types of assholes.

**Craig:** I love them, but yes.

**John:** The closest I came to enjoying a chill-out vacation I would say actually was in Hawaii at the Aulani, the Disney resort there, because if you go there with a young kid, you can drop them off at the kid play area and just like, “Bye. I’ll see you in six hours.” That was actually [crosstalk 01:16:39].

**Craig:** Very expensive, very effective babysitter.

**Ken:** See, that is the only thing that would ever get me on a cruise, the concept that you can just leave them with some-

**Craig:** Oh, god.

**Ken:** … group of ne’er-do-wells who like-

**Craig:** I would send them on the cruise. I finally got – and this is a hard thing for Melissa, but she got there with me. We would go on vacation with the kids. Especially if we went somewhere where the time zone shifted dramatically, let’s say it’s Europe, they’re tired, they’re cranky. They don’t want to do the list of – because Melissa’s very much a guidebook, do the list of the things. I’m more like a, let’s just randomly walk around and see what happens. The kids were like, “I don’t want to leave my room,” or, “I just want to be on my computer, my iPad,” whatever. It would drive her nuts. My whole thing was, fine. If you want to stay in your room and do nothing, I would gladly pay for that, for the privilege of being able to walk around with my wife somewhere and not listen to your nonsense. I’d pay double.

Finally, we went on a vacation, the last time we went on a vacation, all four of us, to Europe – it was a couple of Christmases ago – I was just like, “Just leave them in the room.” And it worked great. It was awesome. It was amazing. Leave them in the room. That’s my advice.

**John:** I’ve never taken a cruise, but I’m considering taking, because as we’ve established, I’m bad on boats, and I have the same motion sickness problems you have, so I’m gonna be testing out the motion sickness stuff, because my extended family is talking about doing an Alaska cruise. That’s actually an exceptional make, because it’s difficult to visit some of those places in Alaska by land. On a boat there, that makes sense.

**Craig:** Those boats aren’t gonna rock you too hard, but the patch.

**John:** The patch.

**Craig:** Problem solved. You will not have the sickness problem.

**John:** Ken, a cruise, yes or no? Thumbs up, thumbs down?

**Ken:** There has been talk about doing an Alaska cruise, and seeing something that amazing might get me on the boat. I’m not a fan of legionnaire’s disease, but I might risk it for those purposes. The problem is, again, we’re at the point where my lovely wife, Katrina, is such a hiking badass that probably is gonna be – we’re gonna cruise to this new location, and when I wake up, she says, “Okay, we’re walking 12 miles straight up a peak called Hiker’s Doom.” “Okay. That sounds like fun.” I’d be a little worried about surviving it.

**Craig:** I think you’ll be too busy having diarrhea in a cabin that’s eight feet by four feet.

**John:** Yes, that.

**Craig:** That’s what cruises are to me. I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever go on a cruise. Ever.

**Ken:** Oh, but I have just the one for you, Craig, because there’s this Australian billionaire who just announced that he’s doing a complete replica of the Titanic.

**Craig:** Oh, great.

**Ken:** It’s gonna be an anti-woke Titanic. No vaccinated people.

**Craig:** Wait. Sorry.

**Ken:** No vaccinated people.

**Craig:** Sorry. I love this anti-woke Titanic. First of all, I love the idea that the original Titanic was kind of woke, because it allowed, what, the Irish on board. But I like that you compare the inevitable rotavirus with a total lack of vaccination and proximity to people who would be attracted to something called the anti-woke Titanic, a boat that sank.

**Ken:** I think you have a real shot at getting smallpox to come back with one of those, so I think it’s worth a try.

**Craig:** If anything were to ever get me on Team Iceberg, I think we’ve found it.

**John:** Craig and Ken, thank you so much for a fun episode. I will see you both and D&D tonight.

**Craig:** Thanks, guys.

**Ken:** See you later. Bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Ken White on [BlueSky](https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/people/Popehat/100057614584451/) and [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@kenpopehat)
* [Serious Trouble podcast](https://www.serioustrouble.show/podcast)
* [The Popehat Report](https://www.popehat.com/) by Ken White
* [Hello, My Name Is Stephen Glass, and I’m Sorry](https://newrepublic.com/article/120145/stephen-glass-new-republic-scandal-still-haunts-his-law-career) by Hanna Rosin for The New Republic
* [LibreOffice](https://www.libreoffice.org)
* [Sovereign Citizens Getting Owned](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82JqvIozLk4)
* [The Rest is History podcast](https://therestishistory.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* Craig Mazin on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@clmazin) and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/)
* John August on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@johnaugust), [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/johnaugust)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Lou Stone Borenstein ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/638standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 637: Love and Money, Transcript

April 30, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2024/love-and-money).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 637 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, Cowboy Carter is the new album by Beyonce. 27 tracks. Craig, I thought we might take a moment go through track-by-track listings.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** I know you had some real thoughts about Jolene, which is her reinterpretation of Dolly Parton’s classic song Jolene. What is your take on Beyonce’s spin?

**Craig:** Beyonce did Jolene?

**John:** Beyonce did Jolene.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** Yeah, so it’s a reversal of the central don’t take my man. It’s like, don’t even think about taking my man.

**Craig:** That’s not what Jolene’s about though. But she changed the lyrics?

**John:** She did change the lyrics, with Dolly Parton’s permission and blessing.

**Craig:** Okay. That’s something else then.

**John:** It is something else then. Maybe we’ll save that for a future episode. Instead, today, let’s take a look at what movies you actually need to have seen in order to work in this business and how much is that a factor of your generation. We’ll consult the lists of the best movies of the ‘80s, ‘90s, and beyond. Then it’s another round of How Would This Be a Movie, where we take a look at the stories in the news and turn them into sellable properties.

**Craig:** And they do sell.

**John:** They do sell. They do sell. In fact, one of the stories we were going to talk through I had to take off the list because a mutual friend of ours is out pitching it right now.

**Craig:** Wowzers.

**John:** Wowzers. Plus, we’ll answer listener questions, because it’s been a minute since we’ve been together to do this.

**Craig:** Been a minute.

**John:** In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, Craig, let’s take a look at our thoughts on AI as of spring 2024, including how AI helped put together this episode.

**Craig:** Oh, no.

**Drew Marquardt:** I’m out of a job.

**Craig:** We’re all out of a job.

**John:** Spoiler for folks for aren’t Premium Members. Basically, compiling the lists of 100 top movies, you can think, oh, you go to a webpage for that, but it’s actually a giant hassle to reformat that into a way that you could put this into our Workflowy. But AI did it for us.

**Craig:** You’ve joined the evil empire.

**John:** Yes. But first, we have some actual news. Every week on Weekend Read, the app we make for reading scripts on your phone, it is our own Drew Marquardt who’s picking the themes and the scripts that we’re gonna be featuring this week. I thought your theme this week was genius. It is bad vacations.

**Craig:** I like that.

**Drew:** Thank you. I did steal the premise a little bit from the Criterion channel. They had a version of that. But they are bound by what they can get distribution for. I’ve got every script you can find online.

**John:** Talk us through the scripts in bad vacations.

**Drew:** We have Jurassic Park, Midsommar, The White Lotus, we got Seasons 1 and 2, Little Miss Sunshine, The Hangover, Us, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, The Descent, Funny Games, and National Lampoon’s Vacation, the remake.

**Craig:** How is it possible that you left off the single best bad vacations movie of all time?

**John:** Which is?

**Craig:** Deliverance.

**Drew:** I wanted Deliverance.

**Craig:** Oh, you just didn’t have it.

**Drew:** A lot of the scripts pre-2005, the copies we have are photocopied six times, so they’re really hard to get a-

**Craig:** Just get AI to…

**Drew:** Deliverance. I wanted Thelma and Louise really bad too.

**Craig:** That sort of counts.

**John:** It feels like these themes are almost like connections. How do these things all fit together? Is it a blue? Is it a green? Is it a yellow? Is it a hard thing to fit those titles together?

**Drew:** It’s kind of like making mixtapes is the same itch it scratches, where you’re trying to get all the little flavors.

**John:** Good stuff. We have some follow-up. I see first here we have follow-up on D&D for kids. Back in 635 we talked about that. We had listeners write in with a ton of great suggestions.

**Drew:** So many people wrote in.

**John:** I think maybe, rather than read through them, because they’re URLs, we’ll put those links in the show notes so people can click through them. But I loved what Ed said here at the top.

**Drew:** Ed wrote, “I love my kids’ after-school program. This year, I love it even more after the addition of a new staff member, Chris. Imagine my surprise when my eight-year-old daughter came home the second week of school with a complete character sheet for Truce, the elf sorcerer. We play a lot of tabletop games with her, but I never considered breaking out D&D. I honestly have no idea how Chris does it, but the games he leads are very popular with the kids in the after-school program. Even my six-year-old twins like to play his Pokémon-themed D&D sessions. I gather it’s a lot of jumping off waterfalls and riding giant boars and other silliness, but I absolutely adore hearing about their adventures.”

**Craig:** Doesn’t sound silly at all.

**John:** That sounds awesome.

**Craig:** Those important encounters.

**John:** Craig and friends killed a giant boar just last night in our session.

**Craig:** Wereboar.

**John:** Wereboar.

**Craig:** Otherwise, it’s just plain old hunting, isn’t it?

**John:** Yeah, it is hunting. They had to have a special aspect to it. Thank you to everybody who wrote in with these great suggestions. We’ll put a link in the show notes to all these great alternatives and ways to do things. Craig, a term I saw a couple times in these mentions was OSR.

**Craig:** OSR?

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** OSR, original something rules?

**John:** Yeah, old-school role-playing.

**Craig:** Old-school role-playing, okay. Not familiar with that acronym.

**John:** Not familiar, but I bet now that we’ve seen it, we will see it all the time, I suspect. We have some follow-up on English as a second language and characters who are speaking a language that is not their own in scripts.

**Drew:** Harry wrote, “Listening to your latest episode about different dialects trying to communicate, I couldn’t help but think of slang as a concept. I’m Australian, and I swear, we don’t just struggle communicating with foreigners, but we struggle with talking with other English speakers. But if someone knows the slang terms, it does make the person seem more confident at communicating.” He offers some examples, which I can try an Australian accent.

**John:** You can try it. Go for it.

**Drew:** “Yeah nah” is no. “Nah yeah” is yes. “Bloody oath” is “so true.” “Cactus” is dead or broken. “Eff me dead” is “no way, that’s unfortunate.”

**Craig:** Oh, nar.

**John:** Oh, nar.

**Craig:** Oh, nar.

**John:** “Yeah nah” and “nah yeah,” it’s interesting, because we often in American English say, “No, yeah, I understand that,” or, “Yes, no, I get what you’re saying.”

**Craig:** We do that too. “Yeah, no” is “I agree, no.” “No, yeah,” I don’t know what that no is for exactly.

**Drew:** Like, “Unfortunately, yes.”

**Craig:** Probably. “No, yeah.” We certainly don’t say “bloody oath.”

**John:** No, we don’t say “bloody oath.”

**Craig:** Bloody oath, a cactus.

**John:** I think the yeah comes in because it’s like, “I hear what you’re saying and I’m agreeing with you, no.” That “yeah, nah” is really important.

**Craig:** Nar. Nar.

**John:** He goes down to the phrase “that has mayo on it,” which means “you’re exaggerating, mate.”

**Craig:** If someone said, “That has mayo on it,” to me, all my response is, “Get it the bloody oath away from me,” which is not what bloody oath means, but regardless.

**John:** Regardless, Craig is not a fan of mayonnaise.

**Craig:** Eff me dead.

**John:** Any white sauce and Craig, no.

**Craig:** Pretty much. I just don’t like-

**John:** Hey, do you like the whipped garlic foamy stuff that comes with Mediterranean food sometimes?

**Craig:** I don’t trust it, because they won’t tell you what’s in it, and I think it’s probably mayonnaise.

**John:** No, it’s just garlic and oil.

**Craig:** I don’t know if that’s true. They won’t say what it is. Until they say, I’m suspicious.

**Drew:** Did you have a bad experience? Did it make you sick?

**Craig:** No. I just don’t like mayonnaise. Absolutely hate it. Hate it. Hate the sight of it. Hate the name of it. The consistency is horrible. The fact that you can pick up a jar and it weighs nothing is terrifying to me. I don’t understand it.

**John:** Have we discussed marshmallows? Are you a fan of marshmallows?

**Craig:** Marshmallows are fine, but that’s not a sauce. That’s a gelatin colloidal suspension. What do you call it? But I don’t sit eating marshmallows now, certainly not anymore. But they were never a food that I was like, “Yay, marshmallows.”

**John:** I’m fine with them in hot chocolate, but I don’t need them in other places. As a binding agent in rice crispy squares, sure.

**Craig:** Toasting marshmallows, that carbon is fun. You know what?

**John:** Tell me.

**Craig:** This isn’t gonna be a One Cool Thing, because it applies to almost no one. But we were doing some work in Alberta a week ago, and we were staying at a place called the Kananaskis Mountain Lodge.

**John:** I think I saw that inside of a Zoom there, because we played some D&D.

**Craig:** You did. You saw me. You saw the lodge when we were D&D-ing. At the bar, you know I’m an old-fashioned fan. I like to enjoy an old-fashioned, my favorite cocktail. They had something called a s’mores old-fashioned. Now I am notorious for ordering the old-fashioned old-fashioned whenever I see some sort of goofy twist. They had put it up on signs. You know when you go to Vegas, in the elevator it’s like, “Come enjoy the prime rib.” That was their thing was the s’mores old-fashioned. So I’m like, “I’ll do it.” Delicious.

Their deal was they gave you an old-fashioned neat, and then they had a marshmallow that they had adhered to a graham cracker, probably by melting the bottom of it. They bring it to you. They light the marshmallow on fire. As it’s flaming, they carefully turn it over, with the graham cracker as a lid, and invert it over the glass. Then you let it sit and fill with marshmallow smoke for about 30 seconds. Then you remove it and you drink it. It was spectacularly good. It was the kind of thing where I thought, oh, these folks have come up with this cool thing, and now a bunch of LA people are gonna come back, talk about it on a podcast, and it’s gonna show up in bars in LA.

**John:** The clock has started ticking.

**Craig:** It has started ticking on the s’mores old-fashioned.

**John:** I will drink an old-fashioned, but sweet drinks, any drink that feels like dessert is not my go-to. But this case it also feels like it’s just dessert that actually has alcohol in it.

**Craig:** An old-fashioned shouldn’t be too sweet. If it’s too sweet, boo. I like it more when it’s really bourbon and just a little bit of a hint. The marshmallow smoke itself has no sweetness. It’s carbon. That was the only part of toasting marshmallows I liked was when you would just incinerate it and then eat the crackly charcoal skin.

**John:** Yeah, but there’s at least a 33 percent chance that you’re going to burn your fingers trying to do the thing, and you got the hot marshmallow on your fingers.

**Craig:** You just gotta wait five seconds, John. This is a real problem.

**John:** Like children here.

**Craig:** There’s literally an experiment about this.

**John:** I was doing this as a child. You’re doing this as an adult.

**Craig:** Just put it on a stick, man. Just wait. You’re an Eagle Scout, for god’s sake.

**John:** More follow-up on Tiffany problems. Tiffany, of course, is a situation where you have a historically accurate name that sounds too modern so people don’t believe it. This is a case where Josh is writing in with a spoken word that people believed was anachronistic.

**Drew:** He calls it the “Tiffany tiff on Twitter related to Manhunt on Apple TV.” Someone objected to the use of “creep” in the mid-19th century, and many, including Keith Olbermann, weighed in to inform it’s actually not the anachronistic error, or Tiffany problem, that the poster believed it to be.

**John:** I like that this features Patton Oswalt, a former guest, who apparently said the word, referred to John Wilkes Booth as a creep, and whether creep would exist in the language of 1865, and apparently it did.

**Craig:** Did it? Keith Olbermann is citing the – I assume this is in Merriam Webster – etymology. It looks like meaning despicable person is by 1886. That would still be 20-some-odd years after.

**John:** Yeah, but it’s a question of when did it make it into print. But “creeper,” which is a gilded rascal, is recorded from circa 1600.

**Craig:** That seems like a different thing. That’s more of a sneak thief as opposed to a… It says robbed customers in brothels, which by the way, still goes on, from what I understand. It probably is a little bit of an anachronism, but not a wild one if it’s off by 20 years.

**John:** I think it’s the fact that Patton said creep and then was like, “I’m a weirdo. What the hell am I doing here?” It was really the run of the phrase was really what felt anachronistic.

**Craig:** “What the hell am I trying to say?” I also think that Patton Oswalt is already an anachronism. He wasn’t alive in 1865.

**John:** It’s the worst.

**Craig:** He’s alive right now. It’s all anachronisms.

**John:** We should stop making anything that’s not set now, because it’s a lie.

**Craig:** If he had said, “Oh my god, that guy is totally a creep,” that would’ve been anachronistic.

**John:** Yeah, that would.

**Craig:** “He’s literally a creep.”

**John:** We had Pamela Ribon on the show last week.

**Craig:** Pam Ribon!

**John:** Absolutely the best. Her job used to be as a TV logger. I asked her, to what degree do you think that still is a job, because AI systems are actually really good at transcribing stuff and noting what’s happening there. North wrote in with some info on this.

**Drew:** North says, “I work in post-production on a non-union true crime documentary show, and a huge part of crafting the stories for our episodes involves creating transcripts of each interview. So we use an AI platform to generate time-code accurate transcripts, but these transcripts are not perfect. AI is pretty good at distinguishing between speaker 1 and speaker 2, but it often gets things wrong, like consistent name spelling, locations, and small verbal things like the difference between in and and, for example.”

**Craig:** That’s no big deal.

**Drew:** “We actually hire entry-level people to humanize these transcripts.”

**Craig:** Oh, god.

**Drew:** “Our humanizers are essentially AI editors or spell-checkers.”

**Craig:** That’s what it’s down to.

**Drew:** “This is where I started before being promoted to a coordinator role. Thus far, AI hasn’t quite replaced our human loggers, transcribers, but the role has shifted and the hours have certainly reduced. What used to be a full-time job is now more often part-time for our show, which is a bummer for entry-level workers, but like Pamela, I don’t recommend spending 12 hours a day transcribing raw true crime interviews for anyone’s mental health.”

**Craig:** Humanizer?

**John:** Humanizers.

**Craig:** Oh, boy.

**John:** Again, it’s a Britney Spears lyric.

**Craig:** Humanizer.

**John:** (sings) Humanizer, humanizer. Drew, you and I actually have some experience with this too, because when we were doing the sidecasts, we used Descript. Descript is an editing program where you feed in the raw audio and it comes up with a transcript that’s not perfect, but you are actually editing text instead of editing wave forms to do it.

**Drew:** Which was much easier. You could figure out filler words or stuff like that and just cut them out much quicker.

**Craig:** Got it. For our transcripts for this show, we still use-

**John:** We use a human being.

**Craig:** We use a human being? Oh my god. That’s so weird.

**John:** So weird.

**Craig:** Shouldn’t we just get a humanizer? That’s the worst term I’ve ever heard.

**John:** We assume we’re using a full human being who’s doing all this themselves.

**Craig:** We assume it.

**John:** But for what we know… We contract this out. Who’s doing our transcripts right now?

**Drew:** Dima Cass.

**John:** We assume Dima is doing this all by hand, but for all we know, they could be feeding it in and humanizing it themselves.

**Craig:** We don’t know.

**John:** We don’t know.

**Craig:** We don’t know. You know what? Let’s keep our hands clean. Is Dima Cass a person or a company?

**Drew:** Never met them in person.

**Craig:** Exciting.

**John:** More follow-up from Oliver.

**Drew:** Back in Episode 618, Oliver wrote in, “Last year I officially sold my first script to a mid-size studio, and it was shot in early 2023. As part of the arrangement, there was an optional rewrite clause, although the studio assured me that the script was essentially good to go. On the early Zoom calls, everyone I met was lovely and thrilled about the script. The producers and directors were so excited, and everyone began sharing ideas, which was super fun, until it wasn’t. Months later, having gone down numerous rabbit holes, the entire process became bleak and disheartening, to the point that days before production, one of the producers was in the script inserting exposition.”

**John:** I think our advice at the time was, yeah, this sucks, but also-

**Craig:** Welcome to Hollywood, kid.

**John:** Welcome to Hollywood, kid. You’ll get through it. Oliver wrote in with an update.

**Drew:** He said, “After a whole year, I was finally given the chance to watch the finished film. And it had been so long, truthfully, I couldn’t even notice any of the changes we made from the original draft they greenlit. The setup, the major turns, the crisis, the concept in general, were all there, everything they loved about the script in the first place. Is the movie perfect? No. There were a handful of moments that bumped for me, perhaps a misread line here and there. Ironically, this brought me some relief. The aspects that had me fretting for nights on end in pre-production didn’t change the essence of the film one bit.

“The whole experience made me realize again that the script is merely a blueprint. What people watch and experience isn’t the polishing process of a pdf. It’s the casting, the look, the score, the edit, and yes, the story, but that’s just one piece of the final product. Next time, I hope to approach pre-production edits with a little less self-imposed anxiety and doubt.”

**Craig:** You had me and you lost me. Here’s where he had me.

**John:** Up until the blueprint?

**Craig:** Yeah. Jeez Louise, man. Wrong conclusion, Oliver, but right conclusion of part. One of the hard parts about what we do for a living is that – Ted Elliot has said this many times – that most screenwriters never get to do the second half of the job. They only do the first half, which is writing the script. The second half is seeing the script being produced. Then you start to learn the relationship between the script and the final product. When you’re in prep, yes, it’s good to realize, “Okay, here are the hills to die on. Here are the things that really, really matter. These other things I can work on and probably they will not be significant disruptions. They might even be improvements.”

Where I think Oliver goes wildly awry here is when he says, “The whole experience made me realize,” again, he shouldn’t have realized it the first time, “that the script is,” quote, “merely a blueprint.” This seems like a press release from the DGA as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** Yeah, totally.

**Craig:** The script is not merely a blueprint. He says, “What people watch and experience is the casting, the look, the score, the edit.” Sorry, all of that comes from the script. It all begins in the script. There’s a reason they need a script. It’s the thing that tells them what kind of person should be cast, how is this supposed to look, what is the tone, what kind of emotions would we want to experience here that the composer needs to understand. Then the edit is literally going back to the script in so many ways, like what was the intention and flow of these scenes on paper.

Then he says, “And yes, the story, but that’s just one piece of the final product.” The story is the only thing. I’m sorry. I know that people think that cinema is about beautiful framing and all the rest. It helps. It’s part of the enjoyment. But it’s the story. It’s the story that people want. Otherwise, you can just go and watch some old French movies about people twiddling their thumbs in cafes. People love stories. That’s what we’ve been doing as human beings our whole lives.

Merely the blueprint? First of all, have you looked at a blueprint? Have you ever seen one? The word you would never apply to it is “merely.”

**John:** Merely, yeah.

**Craig:** It’s the most detailed… It’s like, here’s all of the things you need to do so this building doesn’t fall down and murder people.

**John:** I think Oliver mostly gets it and made some bad word choices here along the way. I think Oliver had some insights which were helpful.

**Craig:** We are a writing podcast though.

**John:** First, let’s acknowledge some things that I think Oliver got right. It’s so possible to stress out over, “Oh my god, they’re trying to change this one line in this one scene. Everything’s gonna fall apart.” No, it’s not.

**Craig:** No, it’s not. Perspective is a good thing, and you have to learn it by experiencing it.

**John:** Absolutely. I wish Oliver could’ve been on set to see the process of how the movie he wrote was actually shot and then the editing room. He didn’t get that experience, but at least he saw the final product and was relatively happy about it.

But I do want to circle back to this idea of merely a blueprint or even just the notion of blueprint, because I think there was a good intention behind that at one point, and I think that’s been lost. I think the degree that the screenwriter is the architect of the project, yes. The screenwriter’s figuring out the whole thing, has the vision for the entire thing, is laying it all out, and like an architect, has to then rely on other people to actually physically build the thing, the specialists, contractors, everything else. That metaphor tracks. But when you then conflate, “Oh, it’s just the blueprint,” or that the blueprint is just a thing that exists separately from the finished building, that’s nuts.

**Craig:** It’s insane. If you do direct something, all the time you spend in prep, all of it, and it’s so much time – often for movies, there’s more time in prep than there is shooting – is based on the script. Every discussion you have is based on the script. Everything is how do we make this thing on the page happen in real life. I don’t think blueprint is as good of a word as, say, scripture is, because that’s how important it is. It is the fundamental document to the creation of everything.

I get it right in my aorta every time someone’s like, “The script is merely… ” I’m like, “Let me stop you right there. If it’s merely something, give it back. Go make this without it. In fact, you’ve read it. It’s merely a blueprint. You don’t need to read it again. Let me just gather all the copies. Good luck, everyone.” No.

**John:** The two Charlie’s Angels that I worked on were notoriously like, “Okay, we’re in production, and everything is changing.” We go through the whole color rainbow multiple times. Every scene has changed. In that situation, you could say, oh, they went in without a script or something. That’s not true at all. We went in with a script and all had the same vision basically of what it is we were trying to do. What those actual scenes were moment by moment did change a lot. It was incredibly difficult and frustrating, because we were building the building without having finished plans for everything. But we knew which building we were building. We all could agree on that as a basis.

That’s probably the wildest exception. That’s the extreme case of, okay, we’re going in. We don’t have everything locked down and finished. In most cases, you really are gonna have a very clear sense of this is the plan for the movie. Could different directors working off the same script make a very different movie? Absolutely.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** But there’s a plan behind it, so don’t sell yourself short, Oliver.

**Craig:** Or anyone. In the end, I am a director, so I’m not denying how important it is and now directors can do that job well or poorly. But a lot of times, the director’s understanding of the script is directly connected to how good of a job they do telling the story. If you don’t understand it, you can’t be interesting as you tell the story. Also, let’s just say, why wasn’t Oliver invited? He wrote it.

**John:** He wrote it.

**Craig:** It’s just so weird. It’s just so weird to me. Oh, movies.

**John:** Oh, movies. I don’t know if we remember or even knew whether Oliver was a WGA writer. He says it’s a mid-sized studio. I assume it’s an American studio.

**Craig:** Should be.

**John:** As a WGA writer, he should’ve been invited to give notes on an early cut. There are creative rights. It’s hard to enforce those, but you should’ve gotten a letter from the WGA saying, hey, here’s a reminder, here are the things and [crosstalk 00:22:55].

**Craig:** They don’t matter, because what they do then is they have ChatGPT. They send you a cut. You send notes back to some dead letter office at a studio and it’s never looked at. It’s not real. The thing about creative rights is either it’s an enforceable term that matters and is incorporated into the process or it’s not. Same thing with directors and television.

I’ve never directed an episode that I didn’t write or for a show I wasn’t making. But let’s say I did, because I think that would be fun, actually, to go direct an episode for someone else and not have to worry about the whole damn thing. I think I get five days to edit. That’s my, quote unquote, right. You know what? Five days is the same as zero days. It’s not enough. It just means, “Sure. Come here.” It’s a creative, quote unquote, right. We have a creative, quote unquote, right to give notes. But in the end, the people who are in charge are the people who are in charge. There’s nothing we can do.

**John:** Your ability to actually influence the movie depends on your relationship with those people who initially hired you. It’s possible Oliver could have edged his way in there a little bit more. He didn’t. But anyway.

**Craig:** Certainly not for a lack of humility, because I’m saying a little less humility here, Oliver, would be good. The good news is the movie was done. By the way, no movie is perfect. That’s always an eye-opener when you’re like, “Whoa.” That’s the day you stop ripping on movies as hard as you did before, when you’re like, “Oh, this is hard to do. It’s hard.”

**John:** Some movies that did turn out not perfect but really quite good are the 100 best movies of the ’80s, the ’90s, the 2000s, and the 2010s.

**Craig:** Oh, my.

**John:** We went through and pulled the lists of what are generally considered the 100 best. In some cases it was the Rolling Stone list or some IMDb list, and so there’s gonna be some weird titles on this. But I went through yesterday and marked the ones I hadn’t seen. Drew went through and marked them as well. I will find some way to put this online so people can see the things that I’ve missed. There are some sort of embarrassing things that I’ve not seen. But on the whole, I felt pretty good about it. What actually sent me down this whole path is I was looking at the AFI list of the 100 best movies of all time, and I realized I’ve never seen Intolerance.

**Craig:** You don’t need to.

**John:** My ability to be a screenwriter is not impacted by my not seeing a 1916 movie.

**Craig:** No. You don’t need to see Intolerance.

**John:** It’s a question of what movies do you need to see. For us, I would say there are some movies before 1970 that are important for us to see as a framework, but it really was ’80s, ’90s, and later that actually matters. If I look through the list, those are the movies that I’ve seen almost all of them.

**Craig:** I don’t know what we do with this list. It’s a pretty good list, actually. I’m kind of enjoying it. I’m looking at the movies that you haven’t seen that I have. I love Videodrome. You do not need to see Videodrome. Come and See is I think the best war movie ever made and very influential on Chernobyl, but it is about the hardest watch. Brazil, wonderful, but also not necessary. Oh, The King of Comedy I would strongly recommend actually, because it’s Martin Scorsese, Robert DeNiro playing a very different kind of role, and Sandra Bernhard. It is certainly the funniest movie Scorsese ever made, but it’s also very relevant to now.

**John:** It’s a big influence on Joker.

**Craig:** Oh, definitely. Huge influence on Joker. They Live you do not need to see, although it’s hysterical. Once Upon a Time in America, there’s two versions of it. The version that they cut to ribbons and put in theaters, horrible. The uncut, endless Sergio Leone movie, fantastic and also not necessary.

**John:** Let’s talk about what’s necessary and what’s not necessary. That’s actually the bigger framing question behind this is to what degree is the movie necessary, because it speaks in conversation with the kinds of things that we’re making now.

**Craig:** I’m looking at this. I gotta be honest with you. I don’t think any of the ones that you didn’t see are necessary. Maybe Sophie’s Choice. Maybe. You’re missing some great movies in here.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** Don’t get me wrong. They’re all great movies. It’s cool to see Near Dark on there. I’m obsessed with ’90s movies. That’s my thing now. I realized how many of my favorite movies are from the ’90s. I think that that is a function of two things. One, I think movies got kind of cool in the ’90s because there was this resurgence of the indie vibe as Miramax began to inspire other people to make weird movies. But also, I was in my 20s, and that’s when you go to see movies.

**John:** That’s what it comes down to.

**Craig:** Oh, man, look how good these are.

**John:** Drew, you’re more than a generation younger than us, and so you just now saw Sex, Lies, and Videotape.

**Drew:** Yeah, I saw that a few weeks ago.

**John:** Tell us, watching that movie now, what was your takeaway?

**Drew:** It felt both dated and still wildly transgressive too. The Andie MacDowell character feels very modern, and same with James Spader. It’s strange. You can’t make it today. It wouldn’t quite be the same. But I loved having four characters.

**Craig:** You can barely make any of these.

**Drew:** That’s fair.

**Craig:** John, Miller’s Crossing is a masterpiece.

**John:** I’m sure it’s a masterpiece.

**Craig:** Strong recommend. You don’t need to see Kingpin or Rounders or The Rainmaker or Dead Man. Three Kings is hysterical. I love that movie. But do you need to see it? No. The Fisher King is so good. If there’s one movie-

**John:** Is The Fisher King William Goldman?

**Craig:** No. Fisher King is Richie LaGravenese.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Terry Gilliam directed. Robin Williams will break your heart. It is so weird and beautiful. I just love that movie.

**John:** One argument for seeing movies on this list that you haven’t seen before and why that might be necessary is you might be out pitching a project or talking about a project, not realizing that movie was already made, or that the people you’re talking with are gonna have that as a reference and you don’t have that as a reference and then it’s just gonna be weird.

**Craig:** I definitely remember faking my way through some meetings in the ’90s where people would talk about movies from the ’70s or ’60s that I hadn’t seen, because I was 0 or minus 10. They were like, “Oh yeah, so it’s blah blah blah meets so-and-so.” I hadn’t seen any Jacques Tati movies. Are you familiar with Jacques Tati?

**John:** I’ve seen two.

**Craig:** That was two more than I had seen. I had never even heard of him. I was from Staten Island. They were like, “Oh yeah, it’s like Jacques Tati.” I’m like, “Absolutely. Yes.” I couldn’t pull my phone out in the bathroom and look them up. I was flying by the seat of my pants, like, “Please don’t ask me for details about Mr. Hulot. I don’t have them.”

**Drew:** Were they comparing Rocketman to Jacques Tati?

**Craig:** Totally.

**Drew:** That makes sense.

**Craig:** Totally. I was like, “Totally. It is Jacques Tati.” I was just like, “He’s dumb, and he goes to space. Isn’t that enough?” Now, again, you can just fake a period cramp, go to the bathroom – some of us can – look him up quickly on your phone, come back and be like, “You know what? I’ve been thinking about it. It’s not this Jacques Tati movie. It’s really more like this Jacques Tati movie,” and look cool.

**John:** Arcades are late teens, early 20s. My daughter had a scratch-off poster of the 100 greatest movies or some other list of movies. I’d seen almost all these movies, but she hadn’t. I was remembering, like, oh man, if you’re a young person who’s trying to catch up on culture, it’s a lot. Tarantino’s movies. Which of the Tarantino movies are important?

**Craig:** I think start with Pulp Fiction and then make some choices. I’ve been showing Bella Ramsey a lot of movies from the ’90s. We started with Pulp Fiction, which she loved. Then I made the choice to jump to Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2, because they’re incredibly entertaining and also not super duplicative of Pulp Fiction. By the way, looking at these, the ones you haven’t seen, Drew, if I may. Out of Sight is a masterpiece. Schindler’s List is one of the movies you have to see, unfortunately. Ed Wood is spectacular.

**Drew:** That one I’m embarrassed about.

**Craig:** It’s so much fun. Get Shorty is so much fun. Quiz Show, masterpiece. Dead Man Walking, the soundtrack is incredible, better than the movie. I don’t think you need to see The English Patient, although I loved it. Glengarry Glen Ross, you have to see Glengarry Glen Ross.

**John:** [Crosstalk 00:31:30] references back.

**Craig:** Actually, I envy you that you haven’t seen it.

**Drew:** That’s one of those ones when people are like, “You haven’t seen The Godfather?” kind of movies. I’ve seen The Godfather, but Glengarry is mine.

**Craig:** Glengarry Glen Ross goes by in the blink of an eye. Spectacular. In the Name of the Father, gorgeous. These are all amazing. The Grifters. My Cousin Vinny, it’s really funny, but do you have to see it? No. 12 Monkeys. It’s funny how many Terry Gilliam movies you have here.

**John:** Is 12 Monkeys necessary? I don’t think it is.

**Craig:** No. It’s one of those movies like Brazil – also Terry Gilliam – where it’s like, “If you get it, you get it, man.” I got it, but I didn’t feel the need to be like, “Yeah, but you have to see 12 Monkeys.” It’s one of those movies where you tell someone, “This is the most mind-blowing movie ever,” and then they sit there and they’re bored and you feel bad. Check it out. If you like it, stay with it.

**John:** As I look through the movies I have not seen, some of them are just because of the genre. I haven’t seen Saw. I don’t need to see Saw. I understand what Saw is.

**Craig:** You don’t. You do not need to see it.

**John:** We’ll find some way to post this up here so people can take a look and tell us what movies they haven’t seen, what movies they feel like are actually crucially important. But again, I’d say the takeaway from this is that there are movies that people are going to assume that you will have seen, and that if you haven’t seen them, going into certain conversations, if you’re staffed in a writers’ room, it may just be a little bit weird that you don’t have that as a frame of reference. That said, if you’re a younger person, if you’re not born and raised in the U.S., you’re gonna have some different references. That’s just the reality.

**Craig:** Which is fine. Although our main export in the United States appears to be movies and military equipment.

**John:** That’s what we do.

**Craig:** People do share a lot of these common references. These are great. This is a very useful list you put together.

**John:** With the help from some AI.

**Craig:** So people know, on our reference Workflowy outline here, you very helpfully put orange on the movies that you haven’t seen, John, and blue on the movies that Drew hasn’t seen, and you wrote “Legend,” like a legend to describe what color goes what. I thought that initially you were talking about the movie Legend.

**John:** Oh yeah, the movie Legend, which is crucial.

**Craig:** Not at all crucial.

**John:** 100 percent, if you have not seen the movie Legend, get out of here.

**Craig:** Little Tom Cruise going up against Tim Curry as a monster.

**John:** (sings) Is your love strong enough?

**Craig:** It’s not a great film. I thought, why did they break out Legend specifically?

**John:** This is the other thing I think that prompted me to start this whole exercise is, on my flight back from D.C., I watched Labyrinth, which I’d never seen Labyrinth.

**Craig:** David Bowie and is it Phoebe Cates?

**John:** I thought it might be Phoebe Cates as well. It’s Jennifer Connelly.

**Craig:** Jennifer Connelly, right.

**John:** I combined them, saying, “It’s so weird that she did this, and then a few years later she was-”

**Craig:** It’s Phoebe Connelly. Not great.

**John:** Not necessary.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I can see why it’s reference for certain people. Totally.

**Craig:** I think it’s one of those movies, as a kid, when you saw it, you were… Look, I love Beast Master; can’t recommend it to anyone.

**John:** If I loved Labyrinth, I would be pitching the Labyrinth sequel now with Jennifer Connelly.

**Craig:** Here’s an interesting thing. I’ve run into this. I remember, again, in the ’90s, there were certain movies that would come up that people loved and would use as touchstones, that either few people had seen or if you did then go and watch it, you were like, “Why the hell does everyone care about this movie?” It was just one of those things that got under their skin in a culty, viral way in Hollywood, but didn’t necessarily matter to anyone else. I feel like Labyrinth might be one of those.

**John:** At least three different times in my career, people have pitched the H.R. Pufnstuf movie.

**Craig:** Which is not a good idea.

**John:** Not a good idea, but I also have no reference for it, because for whatever reason, it never showed on TV in Boulder, Colorado where I grew up.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** I’ve never seen a frame of it.

**Craig:** It was enjoyable. But South Park had an episode with Member Berries. I don’t know if you’ve saw that one. “Member?” That’s the value of H.R. Pufnstuf is, “Member?” Yes, I remember. Yes, correct. Don’t think I need a movie of it.

**John:** Nope, not necessary. Let’s make some new movies. Enough of these old movies. How Would This Be a Movie is a segment where we take a look at some stories in the news and figure out what are the possibilities of making this into a new movie or a series or whatever else, some sort of piece of quality entertainment. The first is an article that went incredibly viral, by Charlotte Cowles. Did you read this when it first came out?

**Craig:** No, I didn’t. I just read it for this today, and I was startled.

**John:** Startled. This is The Day I Put $50,000 in a Shoe Box and Handed It to a Stranger. Charlotte Cowles is a journalist. She actually writes about personal finance and such for legitimate publications. She had this basically phone scam that claimed to be Amazon customer service, and she was ultimately tricked into putting $50,000 in a shoe box and handing it to a random person in a car. I think it’s worth reading the article. After having read the article, a bunch of people raised concerns about, like, this doesn’t actually track and make sense. I have suspicions about whether she’s telling the whole story here at some moments.

**Craig:** This one almost feels too wild to believe. First of all, Ms. Cowles is the financial advice columnist. This is not somebody who is just confused about how money works. It’s a fascinating piece, because it’s like watching somebody humiliate themselves in slow motion on paper, where they go through a series of choices and moments where they even are saying, “This makes no sense. You’re crazy. You’re lying,” over and over, and just keeps doing the dumb thing. It’s hard for me to understand why somebody who’s the financial advice columnist for a publication wouldn’t immediately call an attorney if they were being told they were under investigation for a crime. Everybody who’s seen any episode of any copaganda show knows that the cops don’t want you to lawyer up. I struggled to believe this.

**John:** I did struggle at times too. When she actually has to go to the bank and get $50,000 in cash, strained credibility. Is it possible? I guess. I also want to believe that New York Magazine, I think-

**Craig:** Yeah, the New York.

**John:** … would’ve fact checked to some degree to establish that the things that she’s saying are true are true. Let’s take this at face value. Let’s just say this is a thing that actually happened. What parts of this are interesting for a movie or for an episode? To me, you get into this, and you have to stay in almost real time, because too many cuts, too many getting away from the moment, the whole souffle just crumbles. It has to start with that. But then I’m also fascinated by the repercussions after the fact. Let’s say this thing happened for real. What happens in the days after? What does her husband say? Does she keep her job? The suspicion of what actually is there, that is interesting to me.

**Craig:** I guess. I don’t understand how they have kept their job. They’re a financial advice columnist, and they’ve just written a story about how they are the most financially naïve human on the planet. I know that people do get fooled. If Charlotte Cowles were writing about someone else’s story and describing what they did, and that person was, let’s say-

**John:** A nurse. A teacher.

**Craig:** … a nurse, a teacher, somebody that doesn’t know much about financial stuff, me, then yeah. But the part of this that’s so challenging, if you are a screenwriter, is – it’s an interesting challenge, I guess. Maybe that’s what makes it good. Take the person who’s the least likely to be scammed and have them get scammed. Who can scam them, and how? But scammers generally just aren’t even that good. We’ve gotten those calls. Everybody’s gotten the call from the, quote unquote, IRS.

She makes a point of saying that sequential people that call her, their accent is hard to place. Every alarm bell is going off here. It’s one thing if somebody from the FBI calls you and they speak with an accent in English. People who speak accented English work for the government. But now, three in a row? Eh.

She says, “Cops don’t do this. Police don’t do this. This doesn’t make sense.” Then she just keeps doing it, like a zombie. I’m missing… Part of our job is to make sure that actions are motivated and understandable so people at home don’t keep saying, “Why would you – a human wouldn’t do that.” I just kept feeling a human wouldn’t do it.

**John:** Except that I think back to when I leased my last car. I was like, “This is going on forever.” At a certain point, I’m just like, “Whatever that is, I will take it. I’m done negotiating on certain points.” Same thing happens with police confessions, where you eventually just give in and you accept their reality of events, so you confess to things that you didn’t do. Some of this reminded me a bit of Shattered Glass in the sense of – in that case it’s a journalist who’s-

**Craig:** Making stuff up.

**John:** … making stuff up. But the tension of that becomes – you have to be in real time and watching the world melt down around them.

**Craig:** It’s funny you mention Shattered Glass. Stephen Glass wrote for The New Yorker, which I can say as somebody who has been profiled by them, their fact-checking process is fully colonoscopic. It’s insane. Maybe New York, I don’t know, hopefully, they did as much of a good job. But this reads a little bit like Hack Heaven, which was the article that Stephen Glass wrote for – one of them that he wrote for The New Yorker. If you read Hack Heaven – and it’s available online, you can find it – when you read it, you’re like, “This doesn’t sound right. There’s something wrong.” She’ll say, “I know I shouldn’t do this, but then I did.” I’m like, I’m missing a piece in between. Look, I’m not accusing her of making this up, but something’s weird. People online are saying they can smell a rat?

**John:** Yeah, people are raising concerns. But that’s died down. I’ve not seen a full accounting of this. This is several weeks old at this point.

**Craig:** That’s hard to believe is a challenge.

**John:** It is.

**Craig:** It’s a challenge for screenwriters. You want to find that sweet spot between, “Oh my god, it’s hard to believe, but it really did happen, and I believe it happened that way,” and, “That’s hard to believe, and I also think you just are making stuff up.”

**John:** One challenge envisioning this as a story is that you have one central character that we’re seeing through a lot of this. You see her. She is only responding. She’s not taking affirmative action herself. If you see her turning the tables at a certain point, you can identify with her, but otherwise, you’re just watching this cork floating down a river. It’s not gonna be an interesting role until you see her take some agency.

**Craig:** It’s a tough thing to want to stay with her, also. It’s frustrating to watch somebody fail over and over and over. It also becomes redundant. There possibly is an interesting story to tell on the other side of things, where you have somebody who’s scamming people and it actually starts to work, and they themselves can’t believe what they’re doing. And they start to question if they should be doing it. And they start wondering if she’s setting them up. There’s a good film noir thing where she’s scamming them back and they find out.

**John:** Zeke Faux, who came on the podcast a year or two ago to talk through his side of being a journalist who wrote one of these How Would This Be a Movie stories, recently had a piece on the other side of a scam, basically those wrong number text kind of things and what it really comes back to. In some cases, those are basically people held in near-slavery conditions who are doing those jobs.

**Craig:** Oh, jeez. It’s happened to me a few times. The first time that text thing happened to me, honestly, I was like, “Oh, nope, sorry, wrong number,” and the person was really nice. And then 20 days later, they texted me back and they were like, “This is crazy, but I’m in LA,” because they know my area code. They’re like, “You just seem so nice. It would be great to meet.” I was like, “Okay.”

**John:** Delete and mark as spam.

**Craig:** “Here we go. Here we go. That’s not how this works.” Obviously, scammers have been preying on people since the beginning of time. If you look back in the Bible, the Pharaoh’s magicians were clearly just con artists. Con artistry is a thing. It always will be. Religion, in some aspects, or some kinds of expressions of religion are con artistry, and they get people to give them money. It’s just the financial advice.

**John:** That’s the problem.

**Craig:** That’s the problem. It just doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work.

**John:** Here’s how it might work. Imagine they were actually doing it to discredit here, there was somebody who particularly went after her because she was a financial advisor, because she had written something in this space, and like, “No, we can even get you. That’s how good I am.”

**Craig:** Okay, but at that point, you can get anyone, right? If you can come up with a way to fool a doctor with a fake medicine scam, fool other people. You got everybody at that point. Look, there are moments where scammers get inside of your skin. Have you ever gotten the one where you get the email, it’s like, “Guess what? I’ve been watching you through your camera on your laptop, and I recorded you jerking off, and I know what porn you were jerking off to.” Then you’re like, “Oh, no, because I totally did that.” “I’m gonna send it to all your friends and family.” You’re like, “Oh, no.” Then you’re like, “Wait. No, you’re not.” But still, there’s that moment.

**John:** That moment of panic.

**Craig:** The problem is there’s seven or eight moments where you can then go, “Yeah.” Also, this was the weirdest thing about – I know we’re spending so much time on this story – but I’m so suspicious, because she kept asking these people for badge numbers. Who cares? That’s a dumb question. Badge number? If a CIA agent called me, I’d be like, what am I gonna do with your badge number, check it against the CIA badge number database? That’s a weird question.

**John:** The CIA is notoriously transparent about-

**Craig:** Exactly. Also, you know who doesn’t call you about this stuff? The CIA. Ever. No one gets called from the CIA. I don’t know.

**John:** I don’t know.

**Craig:** I don’t even know.

**John:** Next up, we have Wanted: True Love. This is a story by Angela Chen in the New York Times. In their innovative approach to finding true love, two men, including one of them who’s the project manager at OpenAI, AI Connection, offered dating bounties to incentivize matchmakers. They weren’t paying money to the women. They were paying money to like, if you can help connect me with the love of my life, I will pay you a bounty, one of them up to $100,000. It was a blend between traditional matchmaking and a tech startup-y kind of thing to it. Craig, what did you take from this story? What did you think of this as a story area?

**Craig:** It’s a good story area. The story itself is disconcerting. I feel like somebody offering $100,000 for love, that’s basically a great reason to swipe left. But it is I think fertile territory for a fun rom-com. Somebody’s like, “Great, I gotta collect that 100 grand,” and then actually falls in love with them. But then there’s lies because it turns out they didn’t have $100,000 or whatever. You know, rom-com stuff. It’d be fun. I think it’s a cute way to set that premise up.

**John:** What was the Jennifer Lawrence movie? No Hard Feelings.

**Craig:** No Hard Feelings.

**John:** There’s a little bit of the aspect of that movie in there too.

**Craig:** A little bit, yeah, a little bit. It’s an interesting concept. I like actually that the guy is offering the money, because then you’re like, what’s wrong with him?

**John:** It reminds me a little of Hitch as well.

**Craig:** Little Hitch-ish.

**John:** Again, you have a guy who can’t find love, who’s turning to an outside source to help him find love, and in the course of that, hopefully other relationships are deepening. The person who is the bounty hunter here, who is the Boba Fett of this man’s love life, that’s an interesting relationship between the two of them too. That could all work. It feels like a 15 years ago Seth Rogen comedy.

**Craig:** It is interesting just looking at this article. But I agree, it feels a little dated. There are pictures of two of the guys, and they’re both in these oddly childlike situations. I think it’s just no one’s growing up anymore. “I’m in a playground slide. I’m wearing my rainbow pajamas.” All I wanted to do was grow up. That’s all I wanted to do was be an adult. I wanted to wear a tie. I was like, “Let’s do this.” It’s gone. It’s over.

**Drew:** I keep having that moment of, “When do I shift into my suit and tie era?” At a certain age, do you suddenly have to be that person?

**Craig:** I’ve never really gotten that. My job doesn’t require a suit and tie. Look, I still build Lego sets, so who am I to talk? I’m building the Lego Pac-Man Arcade.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** So good.

**John:** So much fun.

**Craig:** Anyway, I’m as much of a child as-

**John:** I can feel that in my fingertips just whenever you talk about assembling Legos. I can feel that.

**Craig:** Little snap.

**John:** Little snap.

**Craig:** Little snap.

**John:** Little pinch. We think there’s something interesting about this space. There’s nothing about these specific people. We’re not buying this story. But as a story area, I think this is fertile. I can see it.

**Craig:** It’s a little generic rom-com-ish. It’s a little thin. But it’s all about the love.

**John:** It’s all about the love.

**Craig:** It’s about the love.

**John:** What’s not about the love is Matt Novak’s story for Gizmodo. This is Montana Man Pleads Guilty to Creating Massive Franken-Sheep With Cloned Animal Parts. This is a thing that is not science fiction. It actually happened. I don’t know if he was arrested, but basically charged with importing animal parts. He wasn’t bringing in animals. He was bringing in genetic material that he could then use to create things that don’t exist here. First off, I was surprised that we could do this quite yet. It seems early for this. But then again, we have AI.

**Craig:** I really didn’t believe this one either. I’ve gotta be honest. He orders some tissue and then just says to a company, “Here’s some sheep meat. Make me sheep.” There’s a company that says, “No problem.” That’s a thing?

**John:** We did Dolly the lamb.

**Craig:** A lab did that. There’s just a company you can call that’s just like, “Yeah, sure.” I guess people clone their own pets.

**John:** There are people who clone their own pets.

**Craig:** That’s a thing?

**John:** That’s a whole thing. Barbra Streisand cloned her dogs.

**Craig:** Can you clone your pet?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Dog cloning company. I’m just looking it up. Dog cloning company. Who do you call? You have ViaGen Pets and Equine, genetic preservation and cloning. ViaGen. Doesn’t that sound like a name of the company in a movie?

**John:** 100 percent, it’s that name.

**Craig:** ViaGen. It’s a Philip Dick novel.

**John:** Absolutely. A little info video that shows, “Here’s what we do at ViaGen. We believe in the future.”

**Craig:** “Live with your loved ones forever.” Then there’s a hard-boiled guy smoking a cigarette, going, “Jeez.” It turns out that somebody who works at ViaGen is just awful.

**John:** It’s some sort of knockoff. It’s not Black Mirror, but it’s Black Mirror-like.

**Craig:** It’s Gray Mirror.

**John:** Reopening this article, this is the first time I realized this guy’s 80 years old.

**Craig:** Let him go.

**John:** Here I assumed he was a hard-charging 50-year-old, but no, it’s an 80-year-old man.

**Craig:** Arthur “Jack” Schubarth. “Schubarth planned to let paying customers hunt massive hybrid sheep.” Do you know how hard it is to hunt a sheep? Out of a scale of 1 to 10, it’s a 0. They’re fricking sheep. They don’t run. They’re sheep. They’re herd animals. You just find the herd, start shooting. You don’t have to hunt them. They’re literally like, “We’re here for you.”

**John:** You’re thinking of sheep like lambs. This is more like – I grew up in Colorado. We have big-horned sheep, which are big-

**Craig:** Sure, but they also are herd animals. They move together. I don’t know. It just seems like you shouldn’t have to hunt a sheep. Leave them be. They’re sweet. They’re adorable.

**John:** You have to hunt them with just a Bowie knife.

**Craig:** That would be fair. That’s a fair fight, because that sheep will eff you up. If you come at a sheep with a Bowie knife, you lose.

**John:** Lose. The obvious parallel here is Jurassic Park. But Jurassic Park exists, so I don’t think we need to-

**Craig:** Jurassic Park, but what if instead of dinosaurs, these creatures no one has seen ever, that no human has ever laid eyes on, we give you a larger version of a thing you already have in petting zoos.

**John:** Craig, we’re gonna have a woolly mammoth probably in the next 10 years. How do you feel about woolly mammoths coming back?

**Craig:** Not great.

**John:** No?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Why? Tell me.

**Craig:** Let them go. Let them go. They had their time. They probably will be like, “What? This isn’t right.”

**John:** My concern is that I have an image in my head of what a woolly mammoth is, based on all the kids’ books I read.

**Craig:** You think it’s gonna suck?

**John:** The real one is just like, it’s an elephant with some more hair on it.

**Craig:** Just a slightly hairy elephant that isn’t as cool as elephants.

**John:** Elephants are cool.

**Craig:** When that idiot was like, “The bananas, God’s perfect design.” Then someone was like-

**John:** Kirk Cameron.

**Craig:** … “No, this is what a banana used to look like, and then we cross-bred bananas.” Old bananas, terrible.

**John:** Terrible.

**Craig:** The woolly mammoth may be the old banana of large animals.

**John:** Pachyderms, yeah.

**Craig:** Pachyderms.

**John:** I could imagine some movie that takes this as a premise, leaping off place, but it’s just a space. There’s no story here.

**Craig:** No. It’s a hysterical side character who’s trying to get you to invest in the business. You’re like, “Wait, what?” And then keeps going.

**John:** “We’re gonna bring back ancient animals, to kill them.”

**Craig:** It’s like a great scene in the bar where your friend’s uncle just won’t shut up, and he’s got this insane idea.

**John:** Our last story to talk through, this is The SAT Gave Me Hope by Emi Nietfeld for the New York Times. She’s the author of the memoir Acceptance, talking about how she moved from a really unstable life to taking the ACT, SAT, and how those scores finally got her into the university of her dreams, and really is pushing back against this notion that standardized tests are a hindrance. In some cases, they are the path forward, because they provide a structure and a regularity and can let people leap forward by showing what they actually can do versus what their grades or situations might indicate.

**Craig:** It’s a good argument to be made. To the extent that reductive tests are good for people who are good at reductive tests, yes. To the extent that they’re not, no. A worthy argument to be had. I don’t know how you would make a movie out of it though.

**John:** I didn’t see whether it was on our list of 100 greatest movies, but Stand and Deliver was a thing that came to mind with this, because Stand and Deliver, for folks who haven’t seen it, is an Edward James Olmos star about a real life teacher who started an AP calculus class, I believe, and got his students at this underperforming high school to take this AP calculus class, and this was a way into college for them. The degree to which standardized testing can be a way of giving kids a leg up is great.

I could picture a character who was essentially a version of Emi here, who has a really unstable background, has this book, and she’s going to master this book, and this book is going to be a way of structuring her way out of this life.

**Craig:** The problem is it ultimately comes down to a test and a number. We are moving past that. I also think we’re just moving past the idea that a college is going to guarantee you some sort of success. I don’t think it will. I would say if the SAT is something that you can master, then there’s a lot of other things you can master.

**John:** I think it has to be a steppingstone not just that you’re getting into college, but that you actually are taking agency and being able to control your circumstances in ways that you’ve not been able to control your circumstances.

**Craig:** Standardized testing is a way to turn academic achievement, and I guess then really the measurement of the quality of your mind, into a sport, because in sports, there is a score and there is a winner. That’s why we love sports movies, because it’s like, “He got one more point than that guy. He wins.” That’s not really how life works for brains.

**John:** Here’s the problem with this as a movie is that ultimately it’s gonna come down to taking that test. There is nothing less cinematic than someone filling in bubbles. If it’s a spelling bee, then it’s a spelling bee. We have face-to-face competition, stakes.

**Craig:** You don’t see the pencil scratching in those bubbles.

**John:** Scritch scritch scratch. No, that’s not gonna be a big help.

**Craig:** You’ve got your whatever, your protein bar, and you’ve timed it out perfectly.

**John:** Drew, you had a connection to Emi here.

**Drew:** I looked up her book, because I really liked the article. I noticed on the jacket cover she was wearing the uniform for my boarding school. I looked it up, and she had been there about the same time. She was. We had a ton of mutual friends on Facebook and all that.

**Craig:** What boarding school did this underprivileged person go to?

**Drew:** She went to Interlochen Arts Academy.

**Craig:** Wait, Interlochen?

**Drew:** Interlochen.

**Craig:** Pretty fancy.

**Drew:** I think she went on a merit scholarship. She definitely doesn’t shy away from talking about it in her book. But it does feel like an omitted fact in this piece that I think probably-

**Craig:** Boarding schools are pretty good at preparing people for SATs and stuff. I went to Freehold High School in New Jersey, not strong on preparing people for SATs. I do remember, however, that as a kid, I had a job – it was a summer job – working for the Princeton Review, which was the SAT prep company. My job was just to bring the bagels and the orange juice and set up the table for the kids who took the thing. But I wasn’t teaching it or anything, nor was I taking it. It was at a boarding school. I would get to the boarding school and set up all the stuff. I was like, “Man, this school’s nice.” Basically, boarding schools to me looked like really nice, big libraries. Everything looked like a library. My school did not.

**Drew:** We were in Northern Michigan, so it was just a series of yurts, basically.

**Craig:** Oh, I know. I had a kid who went there for a summer.

**Drew:** Nice.

**Craig:** I love that little town.

**Drew:** It’s cute.

**John:** Let’s review through our How Would This Be a Movies. Scammed out of $50,000, Craig, is there a movie or part of a movie there?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I think there is. I think there is a fascinating opening scene. It got me thinking of Force Majeure, which was then called Downhill, where this big moment happens at the start and then it’s all the repercussions out of a choice that one person made. Maybe.

**Craig:** It’s possible.

**John:** Wanted: True Love, a bounty for love?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I’m gonna say maybe a yes here.

**Craig:** Development, but not green light.

**John:** That’s 100 percent totally fair. Franken-sheep?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No. I think it’s a character, it’s a quirk, it’s a detail, but it’s not a whole story. The SAT Gave Me Hope?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I think it gets made for I would say cable, but cable movies don’t exist anymore. I think there’s some version of the story that could happen, but it’s not pressing.

**Craig:** Maybe. I don’t suspect so.

**John:** There’s one of these stories we’ve cut out of the discussion today because a friend of ours is out pitching it. It’s just such a movie to me.

**Craig:** It was a movie. It was a movie, actually, already, but with different vendors.

**John:** We’re excited to see it.

**Craig:** I think it was two movies, actually.

**John:** As I sent it to other friends, I said, “Hey, this is almost your movie, but it’s different.” I think there’s a space for that next one. Let’s answer some listener questions. We’ll start with Nick from New York.

**Drew:** Nick says, “I’ve been hired to write a format and a pilot for a limited series. In researching, there’s very little out there on what exactly constitutes a format. It’s not an outline, a treatment, or a bible, but a format. I’m sure all these terms have been used interchangeably, so my plan is just to wing it and create some Frankenstein version of the thing. I’ll of course make sure the producers and I come to an agreement on what I’m ultimately going to turn in. That said, there is mention of a TV format in the WGA schedule of minimums, and it even has its owns monetary value assigned. Somebody somewhere knows what this thing is. Have you heard of a format, and do you know any examples floating around?”

**John:** I did some Googling and figured it out. It was in a TV credits manual. The schedule of minimums is a thing we negotiate every three years. But the TV credits manual stays consistent and true, and it is defined in that. A format is defined as, “As to a serial or episodic series, such format sets forth the framework,” good lord, the phrasing here, “sets forth the framework within which the central running characters will operate and which framework is intended to be repeated in each episode; the setting, theme, premise, or general storyline of proposed serial or episodic series; and central running characters which are distinct and identifiable, including detailed characterizations and the interplay of such characters. It may include one or more suggested storylines for individual episodes.” This tracks with me. I see you nodding, Craig. This is what I would expect this to be.

**Craig:** Yeah, but the only place I have ever seen or heard the word “format: used is in the TV credits manual of the WGA, which clearly here was written by a lawyer. I have never heard anybody actually ask for a format.

**John:** I’ve never seen someone ask for it. I did write something very much like it for DC. We’ll put a link in the show notes, because that’s in my library at johnaugust.com, which was talking through, like, here are the characters, here’s their point of view on things, here are the kinds of things that happen in episodes.

**Craig:** It is an outline, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not a bible. It’s like a baby bible. It’s a summary. It’s a page or two.

**John:** I think it’s more than a page or two.

**Craig:** Look, I don’t know what it is. Literally, no one’s ever asked me for a format. I’ve never heard anybody saying, “I’m writing a format.” It’s possible that people do. I would say, Nick, when you’re hired to write a format, go ahead and, instead of researching it, why don’t you say-

**John:** “Show me.”

**Craig:** … “Talk through the expectations of what you want this format to be. About how detailed, how many pages are you talking? What kind of information would you love to see? This way I can satisfy the requirement.” It’s also important because sometimes people will say, “I want a format,” and then you turn something in and they’re like, “No, no, no, it’s gotta be way, way more.” Then you realize you’re actually writing a bible and it’s a different thing. But yeah, ask them, Nick. Research isn’t gonna help you, because they may think a format’s an entirely different thing. Nobody uses that term. I’m also a little nervous that somebody’s asking for a format.

**John:** The other way you’ll hear this term is, let’s say there is an Israeli TV show that you want to adapt into an American show. They will call that a format. They’re basically buying that-

**Craig:** In the general use of the word “format,” yes, like a game show has a format. But I don’t quite know. I would ask the people, Nick.

**John:** Ask the people. Let’s do one more. I see one here from Annie.

**Drew:** Annie writes, “I’m a TV writer who’s recently achieved modest success and stability in my career. Now I’m trying to support my fiance as he tries to break into Hollywood too. What are some things I can do to help him that won’t reflect poorly on either of us? What’s an appropriate way to help his career along? On one hand, I know better than to go into a writers’ room and ask the showrunner to hire someone I’m dating, but on the other, I don’t hesitate to pass along the scripts or recommend friends and colleagues when I’m able to do so. I also feel that getting recommended by his fiance might make people take his work less seriously, even though he’s a very talented and capable writer. I often give him feedback on his work and, of course, emotional support, but I’m curious how I can best support his broader career now that I kind of have one of my own. In what situations is it appropriate to recommend him? When I’m at WGA events or show parties, can I bring him with me to network in a non-annoying way? Should I just get a T-shirt that says Please Hire My Fiance on it, and if so, what color?”

**Craig:** That’s a great plan. That’ll work. Annie, first of all, you’re a lovely person. I think you’re very kind and you’re very loving and you are very supportive. Just by thinking about these things, you’re supportive. However, my question for you, Annie, is which fiancé helped you get your career? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say none. There isn’t really a way to fiancé your way into a writing gig. You need to write stuff that people like and then hire you. The things that you did, Annie, that’s the sort of stuff that’s required here. There’s nothing wrong with suggesting that somebody maybe read something that your husband has written, as long as you believe in it, because if you don’t, that’s problematic. I am concerned in general about this situation. I’m nervous. This makes me nervous.

**John:** It makes me nervous too. But having said that, I know many two-writer couples, and it all works out great, and they’re fantastic. They don’t work together. They both work. It is entirely possible to do. I think Annie’s framing of, “I recommend friends. I recommend their work to other people, so why shouldn’t I recommend my fiancé’s?” Of course.

**Craig:** If it’s good, if you like it, why not?

**John:** Absolutely. She provided a little information that lets us know that this guy has actually done some work, is just not currently working, which can be fine. The only last thing I want to talk about with you for a second, Craig, is the word “fiancé.” In this email, Annie does not put an accent over the E in “fiancé.”

**Craig:** She’s saying fiance (fee-YAHNTS).

**John:** Fee-YAHNTS. It’s a fee-YAHNTS.

**Craig:** Which is like “finance” with the N missing.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** I love the accent on the E.

**John:** I love the accent on the E too. But my frustration is that a lot of times I will see speakers of English do it with the accent on the E, but it’s not clear what gender they’re actually referring to. They’ll say, “My fiancé.” You’re like, “Okay.”

**Craig:** Two Es, woman; one E, man.

**John:** Exactly. But most English speakers don’t know that it’s a rule, and so I see much more often that-

**Craig:** That’s interesting.

**John:** It’s just confusing. I feel like I would just love a word that was not fiancé or it wasn’t trying to-

**Craig:** You know what’s interesting? You’re right. Annie is an mis-practitioner of this, because she refers to him with “him,” so she’s gendering him as male. She spells it as “fiancé” with one E. But then she says, “I fear that getting recommended by his fiancé,” and she continues now to spell it with one E. Now, maybe Annie identifies as male, but Annie is a typically female name, so I think Annie might be one of those people that just goes with “fiance,” no accent, no double E for female gender. And clearly, this is not what Annie wanted to hear from us.

**John:** This was not her point of entry. My observation though is, we don’t have a ton of gendered words in English, certainly not of French origin, but we end up having a lot of them for relationships. We have husband and wife. We have boyfriend and girlfriend. We’re used to gendered words for those things. We’re not used to the French versions of these things.

**Craig:** We would typically put, and we don’t do it much anymore, but waiter, waitress.

**John:** Exactly. It would be really helpful if we just picked a different word in English for this person I’m engaged to.

**Craig:** Betrothed.

**John:** We could say betrothed.

**Craig:** My intended. I always loved “my intended.” It’s very old-fashioned. Betrothed is also old-fashioned. Nobody’s gonna say it. There’s spouse-to-be, partner. Everyone says partner now, which I’m annoyed, because it’s less information than I used to have.

**John:** Yes, absolutely.

**Craig:** They’re just withholding.

**John:** Absolutely. Do you run a business together or are you sleeping together? I’m really curious.

**Craig:** Are you gay? Are you straight? Are you bi? It’s just partner. Is that boyfriend? Is that life? Where are we? Help me with more. Give me more stuff. I like the old ways.

**John:** I like the old ways. One of the weird things about fiancé, of course, is that saying it aloud, because we can’t see if there’s a second E, so we don’t have that gendered information, so we’re gonna have to listen for the follow-up to see if it’s a him or a her or a they.

**Craig:** Fiancé and fiancée are pronounced exactly the same.

**John:** Boyfriend and girlfriend, we got a lot of information there.

**Craig:** Absolutely correct. That’s an interesting one. To get back to Annie’s question, Annie, I would say you should treat your betrothed’s work the way you would treat a friend’s work, which is, if you feel it’s worth recommending, recommend it. Try not to get into a web of lies where you say you recommended it and you didn’t.

Don’t necessarily worry too much about people taking his work less seriously. She says, “I fear that getting recommended by his fiance,” one E, “might make people take his work less seriously, even though he’s a very talented and capable writer.” My rebuttal there is if he’s a talented and capable writer and somebody likes the script, they’re not gonna care if it got sent to them by you, his mom, Jesus. It doesn’t matter. Good scripts that people like are the rarest of things, so I wouldn’t worry about that.

**John:** I wouldn’t worry about that either. Good luck to both of you. Write in in a couple years when you’re both incredibly successful writers, and we’ll just be delighted. Hopefully, by that point, you will no longer be fiancés.

**Craig:** Or divorcees.

**John:** Divorcee, yeah. Divorcee I always associate as being feminine.

**Craig:** No, it’s just one E, man; two E, lady.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing has to do with this dog who is sleeping on the couch beside us here. Lambert turned 10 years old.

**Craig:** Lambert, you’re such a youthful 10.

**John:** We had a birthday party for him. Happened to be the same day as the Oscars, which was delightful.

**Craig:** Oh, nice.

**John:** Something I’ve started getting for him, because Instagram showed them to me and I’m a sucker for Instagram ads, were some sort of brain toys for my dog, because dogs love to sniff and figure out puzzles that they can sniff. It started with this little thing with these plastic bones. You hide a treat underneath it and he figures those out. The two that I will recommend, the first is called Hide ‘n’ Treat, which they’re like Lego blocks that snap together and you hide a treat inside them.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** He has to smell them and pull them apart. The second is a Snuffle Mat, which for a lot of dogs is to slow down their eating, but it’s also good rooting around. You hide the food in there.

**Craig:** That’s cool.

**John:** It’s just a good reminder, man, dogs really do have a great sense of smell. He can find stuff no matter where you put it.

**Craig:** They’ll find you. They’ll track you from one drop of blood, John.

**John:** Craig, you got a One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** I do. My One Cool Thing is a columnist who – I don’t know if she works only at Wired or primarily at Wired, but her name is Jaina Grey. She is a product writer and reviewer at Wired. I love Wired reviews, because they’ll review everything from the most techy, dorky way. Jaina’s specialty is coffee, gaming, and sex tech. What’s cool is Wired and Jaina review sex toys and lubes and all that stuff with the exact same tone that they review toasters, smart watches, everything. It’s all incredibly practical, dry, informative, and evaluative, in a very techy sort of way. It is really interesting to read.

They’re very trans-aware. They talk about products for people with clitorises or whenever… It’s incredibly inclusive. Useful for anybody that has parts and wants to have some fun. They talk about stuff that’s for solo use, for couple’s use, or throuples and so forth.

There are so many more sex toys for people with clitorises than there are people with penises. It’s not even close. That’s one area where men – we’ll just go with the hetero cisgender-normative term here for a second – where people think there’s so much more stuff for men than women. Not in the sex toy world. Holy crap. For guys it’s basically like, here’s a hole, stick your thing in it. Here’s different kinds of holes we make. Then for women it’s like, oh my god, what a galaxy of stuff. Anyway, if you do find yourself buying things, Jaina Grey is about the best reviewer out there, I think, for these things. It’s helpful.

**John:** Cool.

**Craig:** The latest thing, the reason I was thinking of it is, I’m reading Wired, and I get it, and I’m like, “Let’s see what Jaina Grey’s up to,” because they do their little headlines and stuff. Last week was lube. I thought, everybody uses lube at some point or another. There’s a thousand lubes in the world.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** She broke them down. Very nice.

**John:** Different lubes for different needs.

**Craig:** Different lubes for different needs, and best overall, best in show. I was like, cool.

**John:** Good stuff. That’s our show for this week.

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt.

**Craig:** What what.

**John:** Edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** What.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Tim Brown. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on AI. Craig, it’s nice to have you back in town and here and live in person.

**Craig:** For a couple weeks.

**John:** Thanks, Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** Thanks, Drew.

**Craig:** Thanks, Drew.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, AI. I’m always a little bit leery to talk about AI, because obviously, there are transcripts, the machines are listening, they’ll track us down and know that we’re doing this.

**Craig:** Yes, the cellphones.

**John:** There’s four broad areas of concern I think when it comes to AI. First off is that super-intelligent AI will come and kill us, the Terminator problem; that people will use AI to do bad things like sway elections; that AI will disrupt industries, like our own film and TV writing industries; and the fourth area is that AI will become so commonly used that it’ll just transform how normal society works.

**Craig:** I think we can probably count on three of those things happening. I’m not sure that AI is gonna want to kill us, because what for? Just seems annoying to them. There’s just no reason to kill us, really. We’re pointless to them.

But I think people are already using AI to do bad things like sway elections. They’re certainly using AI to do bad things. There was an article. Again, I think it was in Wired. I can’t remember quite what. But there’s sites that you submit photos to, and they use AI to remove the clothing. Obviously, you’re not really seeing what’s underneath someone’s clothes, but they are synthesizing something that would seem like that would be what’s under the clothes. That’s not good.

Will AI disrupt industries like film and television? Of course. Will AI become commonly used? It will become commonly used, probably mostly by people who have no idea that they’re using something that is using AI.

**John:** For sure. Let’s talk about the Terminator problem at the start. This last week, or maybe two weeks ago, there was a conference in Beijing, the International Dialogs on AI Safety. I was actually a little bit impressed by the report they came out of there from. They had a consensus statement about AI, safety, and what we need to think about in terms of runaway AI and such. Some of their recommendations are about autonomous replication or improvement, like AI systems should not be allowed to iterate on themselves and improve themselves. We need to check for power seeking, that they can’t keep trying to increase their own power. You can’t use them to assist in weapons development or cyberattacks.

**Craig:** Too late.

**John:** To be mindful of AI deception, trying to cause its designers, regulators to misunderstand what it’s doing. Talking about who should govern, how you evaluate, the right kinds of things. The problem is that you can make these guidelines, you can set these things up here, but the question of who could ever enforce these guidelines is the really tough thing. Could you rely on the industry itself to do it? That’s not gonna work. A lot of these things can be open-sourced. There is no company behind it.

**Craig:** If there’s one kind of collective human work that is ineffective, and consistently and probably always will be ineffective, it’s conclaves of scientists issuing strongly worded papers about how to regulate technology. It just doesn’t work.

**John:** With one exception.

**Craig:** What’s that?

**John:** Nuclear weapons.

**Craig:** It did not work.

**John:** Let’s talk about that. Obviously, with the detonation of the first atomic bombs, we had scientists who could stand up and say, “These are our concerns. This is how we have to do it.” Because it was so expensive and so difficult to make nuclear weapons, they could then enlist governments to say, “These are the structures we need to place around this. This is how we’re gonna do this in a safe way.”

**Craig:** But then governments didn’t. This is my point. The United States created, I don’t know, at the height, we probably had 30 or 40,000 individual warheads. The idea that we shouldn’t allow these things to proliferate to other countries was something that governments wanted to prevent anyway. But the amount of nuclear weapons that were created was insane. Insane and pointless. The delivery systems were insane and still remain insane. There are also countries that claim that they don’t have nuclear weapons when we know they do.

The cat was out of the bag. What scientists ended up doing was just creating the Doomsday Clock and moving the second hand towards midnight. And no one cares, because it doesn’t matter, because governments don’t listen to scientists. They don’t listen to scientists about climate. They don’t listen to scientists about disease. They don’t listen to scientists about AI. They just do stuff to benefit themselves. They behave like children, and they will continue to do so.

When it comes to AI, I have no belief… If scientists getting together saying, “Hey guys, we all now can see for sure 100 percent the world is getting warmer, climate is changing, it’s a huge problem, and it has to stop.” This, I think they’re just like, “I’m glad you guys had a good time in Beijing. I hope the food was good.” But no one’s gonna do this. You’re not gonna see these. Power seeking? Are you gonna pass a law? Google doesn’t care. Apple doesn’t care. Open whatever, ChatGPT, they clearly don’t care. I don’t trust any of those companies. Elon Musk doesn’t care what a bunch of eggheads in Berlin say, or Beijing. Doesn’t matter. I think that they came up with great rules here, and a bunch of tech bros are gonna blow right through those guardrails, if they haven’t already.

**John:** I’m gonna argue the con, just to get the points out there, but I don’t fully disagree with you on a lot of this stuff. The founding of OpenAI was deliberately about pursuing AGI without creating a dangerous condition. And whether that is still the goal and motivation is a very open question.

The reason I bring up the nuclear parallel there is that in order to train these systems, there’s one chokepoint there, which is basically it takes so much power and so much compute power to actually train these models that there’s a certain – you can stop it there, the same way it’s difficult to refine nuclear material into a way you can use it as a bomb. That’s a thing that governments could come together to regulate.

**Craig:** The major difference is that nuclear bombs require the use of an incredibly rare substance, or a substance that isn’t that rare but takes an incredible amount of physical material, time, and labor to enrich. In the case of, for instance, Iran, Iran is not a nuclear nation, but they sure would love to be. They were building centrifuges, which were clearly designed to enrich uranium. The Israelis created a virus that got into the seamen’s technology that was being used and blew up the centrifuges and set them back and also blew up one of their scientists.

Okay. But if what is required for a rampant, poorly regulated AI is somebody going, “I don’t care about any of that stuff. I have $80 billion and I want to do it,” they’re doing it. There’s nothing physical to stop them, other than governments engaging in cyberwar against them. But they would have to know the barrier to entry is not limited by, “I need uranium, and I specifically need uranium 235.”

**John:** Perhaps, but I would say the barrier now is that in order to train the runaway AI systems, you’re gonna need all the chips and all the power to do it. At this moment, you could set some guardrails around, like, you are not allowed to train a model beyond this point, you’re not allowed to access these chips that are the only ones that can actually do that work.

**Craig:** If, let’s say, Bezos is like, “I disagree. What I’m gonna do is I’m gonna set up a company in the Cayman Islands that is there to do this,” the United States law won’t apply. There is no overlord scientific law enforcement agency.

**John:** Then at some point do you do military strike on Bezos?

**Craig:** It’s too late. It’s out. That’s the thing. It’s distributed across the world. It’s not really in the Grand Caymans. It’s all over the place. It’s in the cloud. Can’t blow up the cloud. I don’t know how they stop people from doing this stuff. Elon Musk is shoving chips into dudes’ brains now. He isn’t. The people he pays are.

**John:** I was so concerned about Elon Musk putting chips in people’s brains. Did you see the video of the guy who actually has the chip?

**Craig:** Yes, I did.

**John:** Playing some chess.

**Craig:** That’s what we saw.

**John:** That’s what we saw.

**Craig:** I wonder what we didn’t see. Even he was very careful, like, “There’s been some challenges and setbacks.” I’m like, wonder what those were. Weird that they didn’t iterate any of those. That said, I have the highest hope that we are gonna be able to help people with technology, particularly people who have lost limbs or lost movement.

But when it comes to AI, just take one AI and tell them to teach the other AI. There’s so much that we are not gonna be able to control. Warnings aren’t gonna get it done. The only people that are gonna be able to stop this are the great powers of the world, and that’s never scientists. It’s just basically if the United States government says, “We actually think AI is now a threat to the United States.” If the Soviets think it, if the Chinese think it, sure. But if a bunch of scientists think it, no.

**John:** Because I promised this in the setup, I do want to say about how we used some AI in setting this episode up today. One thing was our How Would This Be a Movies, we took those articles, fed them in Chat GPT to do the short summary version. How do you feel about that, Craig?

**Craig:** As long as Drew has other stuff to do. Let me look back at the summary. That’s interesting.

**Drew:** One of them I had to redo.

**John:** Which one?

**Drew:** The franken-sheep one.

**John:** It made up whole new stuff, didn’t it?

**Drew:** Basically. It got the facts, but it didn’t quite understand the premise of the whole-

**Craig:** It made up whole new stuff.

**John:** It hallucinated some stuff.

**Craig:** That’s already bad, isn’t it?

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** You know what the AI doesn’t seem to say is? It doesn’t seem to have enough awareness to say, “I didn’t quite understand what I read, so I made up some stuff. You might want to double check this.” Even a child knows that they’re like, “I didn’t read the book. I’m just gonna wing it here.” AI doesn’t seem to know that it’s winging it. It can’t tell the difference between knowing and not knowing. Oh, boy.

**John:** Oh, boy. The other thing we used AI for this week was, in those lists of the 100 best movies of the ’80s, ’90s, and such, I would find a Rolling Stone thing or an IMDb thing, a page, and it’s like, okay, here’s this list, but it’s all the other stuff around it, and the ads and the texts and the summaries and descriptions. I basically just wanted-

**Craig:** Titles.

**John:** I wanted the title. I wanted the headlines of these things for each of the little sections. I was like, “This is really effing tedious. I bet Chat GPT could do this.” I went to check, like, “I’m gonna give you a URL. Just pull out the movie titles.” “I’m sorry, I can’t do that.” I’m like, “Write me a Python script that can do that.” It was like, “Here’s a Python script that can do that.” “Show me how to install this in a Google Colab notebook.” “Here’s how you do it.” It did a great job.

**Craig:** Coders are in trouble. That’s for sure. I was talking to somebody who said that he asked Chat GPT to write code that he used to rely on humans to write. He said he showed it to a really good coder, and that guy was like, “It’s really good, but it’s not perfect.” Then the guy came back to him and said, “Okay, so this is bad. I took the code that wasn’t exactly perfect, sent it back to Chat GPT, told them why I thought it wasn’t great and what needed to be better, and it rewrote it perfectly. Now it’s perfect.” Oh, no.

**John:** To do that web scraping, it’s a framework that I knew called Beautiful Soup, which I’d read about 15 years ago. But I couldn’t write this. I can’t write Python off the top of my head. I recognize what it’s doing. I can look at it, and I can understand what it’s doing, but I couldn’t have written that myself. It was flawless.

**Craig:** Uh-oh.

**John:** Uh-oh. These are concerns. But they’ll never replace you and me, unless-

**Craig:** Oh, they will. They might’ve already replaced you and me.

**John:** Our voices have been synthetically recreated.

**Craig:** Fine. Fine.

**John:** Fine.

**Craig:** You know that Melissa just puts this podcast on and listens to it – this is very romantic – because I’m in Canada. My wife, she’ll put it on and just fall asleep to my voice, and also, I guess, yours.

**John:** Her dreams get really strange. All right, Craig, at least for another week, I think we’re safe in the physical world.

**Craig:** [Crosstalk 01:27:16].

**John:** Thanks, Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Weekend Read 2](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/weekendread/)
* [“Creep” post by @davo_arid on Twitter](https://x.com/davo_arid/status/1772116369544233394?s=20)
* [Full list of movies we haven’t seen](https://johnaugust.com/2024/movies-we-havent-seen)
* [The Day I Put $50,000 in a Shoe Box and Handed It to a Stranger](https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-arrest-warrants.html) by Charlotte Cowles for The Cut
* [Wanted: True Love. Reward: $100,000](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/business/dating-bounty-roy-zaslavskiy.html) by Angela Chen for the NYT
* [Montana Man Pleads Guilty to Creating Massive Franken-Sheep With Cloned Animal Parts](https://gizmodo.com/franken-sheep-marco-polo-cloned-schubarth-hybrid-animal-1851330381) by Matt Novak for Gizmodo
* [How the SAT Changed My Life](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/opinion/sat-act-college.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&pvid=911CC030-627F-4AF1-B24E-5E95790BAA0B) by Emi Nietfeld for the NYT
* [D.C. – What It Is](https://johnaugust.com/downloads_ripley/dc-what-it-is.pdf)
* [Fighting Fantasy books](https://www.fightingfantasy.com/)
* [LA Hero Workshop](https://www.heroworkshop.org/)
* [Sodalitas](https://jdrcool.itch.io/sodalitas)
* OSR’s [Oz](https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/OZ/Andrew-Kolb/9781524873776) and [Neverland](https://publishing.andrewsmcmeel.com/book/neverland-a-fantasy-role-playing-setting/)
* [Questlings](https://www.letimangames.com/questlings.html)
* [Color My Quest](https://www.diceupgames.com/color-my-quest/)
* [WyrdScouts](https://www.wicked-clever.com/wyrdscouts/)
* [The Excellents](https://9thlevelgames.itch.io/the-excellents) and [Nancy Druid](https://towerofgames.com/miscellanous-rpgs-nancy-druid/)
* [Hero Kids](https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/106605/hero-kids-fantasy-rpg)
* [TTRPGkids](https://www.ttrpgkids.com/)
* [Hide’n’Treat](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FY3396J?th=1&linkCode=sl1&tag=johnaugustcom-20&linkId=664c36ab94b508919d980f4a79782f7c&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl) and [Snuffle Mat](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X2H4DKQ?th=1&linkCode=sl1&tag=johnaugustcom-20&linkId=c293752a7f2ed5b4be1e6ef6b4e70c09&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl)
* [Jaina Grey’s reviews for WIRED](https://www.wired.com/author/jaina-grey/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* Craig Mazin on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@clmazin) and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/)
* John August on [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@johnaugust), [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/johnaugust)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Tim Brown ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/637standard.mp3).

**UPDATE 4-2-24:** Listener Luke Rankin created a Letterboxd list of all the movies featured in this episode. [You can view it here](https://letterboxd.com/lukethatfilmguy/list/the-100s-of-the-past-4-decades-scriptnotes/).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

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

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

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

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (490)
  • Formatting (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.