Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/the-one-with-christopher-nolan).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 622 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Our guest today is the writer-director of the acclaimed indie films Following and Memento. He’s gone on to make movies including The Prestige, Insomnia, Interstellar, Inception, Tenet, and The Dark Knight trilogy. His latest film is Oppenheimer. Welcome to the podcast, Christopher Nolan.

**Christopher Nolan:** Thank you very much.

**John:** We’re so excited to have you here. It’s great to finally meet you, because I’ve known your brother Jonah for a long time. He’s been on the show two or three times, but I’ve never met you.

**Christopher:** Very nice to meet. He speaks very highly of you.

**John:** Usually, when Jonah’s on with Lisa, we’re talking television, because they are mostly making television stuff. Today I only want to talk about big screen movie stuff and just stuff that’s on giant screens, stories that tell themselves in two hours or a little bit more than two hours.

**Christopher:** It’s a while since I hit two hours.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Christopher:** But yes.

**John:** But also, stories that are a onetime journey, where it’s not about coming back for next week.

**Christopher:** Absolutely. No, a very different shape to things.

**John:** I want to get into that. I want to get into your history with cinema, how you think about movies, your work as a screenwriter who is going to be directing your own movies. Then we’ll look at some scenes from Oppenheimer and really look at how those scenes work on the page.

**Christopher:** Great.

**John:** Then in our bonus segment for premium members, I’d love to ask you a listener question. They wrote in with a general question, but you’re the perfect person to answer it, because they asked about dreams in movies and how dreams in movies function. You’re a person who has some experience with dreams in movies.

**Christopher:** I do, yeah. I’ve spent a lot of time worrying about that and trying to make that work, so yeah, happy to talk about it.

**John:** Cool. Let’s get into it. You are five days older than me, but have a very different history going into it. When I look through the stories of Christopher Nolan as a young child, he picked up his father’s Super 8 camera and started shooting films. Is that accurate, or is that just a story that people tell? That’s how it really started?

**Christopher:** No, it’s accurate. I mean, look, at our age that was the thing. The Super 8 camera was the go-to mechanism for recording family images back then if your family was lucky enough to have one. My dad had one he was very pleased with and proud of. He lent it to us as kids, which now as a parent, I don’t know what he was thinking. We did wind up destroying it eventually. In later years, I strapped it to the bottom of a car and broke it. He was very upset with me. But that was some years later. For my whole childhood, I was always filming things and putting images together, trying to cut images together on the old Moviola, Super 8’s wonderful format.

**John:** We had to do it in film school. We had to use Super 8s. You’re literally just taping little pieces of film to the wall as you’re trying to put stuff together. It’s so barbaric and primitive.

**Christopher:** It is, but I just unboxed the brand new Kodak Super 8 camera that they’ve been promising for years to make. It’s finally a real thing.

**John:** It’s great.

**Christopher:** It keeps coming back. It’s a wonderful format.

**John:** Now, you had the technology to shoot little films, but did you have a sense of what cinematic storytelling was? Because it’s one thing to have a camera. You’ve seen movies. But when did you have a sense that there was a script before there was a movie? In trying to make those early experiments, were you writing anything, or were you just going out and shooting stuff?

**Christopher:** No, we were just going out and shooting things. I really was seven years old, eight years old, getting together with friends and doing riffs on Star Wars that had just come out. The interesting part about that as it relates to narrative is that it’s different for different writers, but for me as a filmmaker first and foremost, writing came to me over time as a way of formalizing my instinctive process of putting one image after another to create some kind of sensation of narrative. We’re talking silent Super 8 films. As these things become longer, as you move into 16 mil and you start making things that you need more structure to, need more form to, then you start writing.

That to me is always something I’ve tried to bear in mind about my own process is that when you embrace the screenplay form, as I have over the years, and come to really love it, you always have to remind yourself that the initial impulse, and therefore the thing that people are watching films for, is that string of images telling a visual narrative when we’re talking about cinema. It’s nice to have that recollection, to have that physicality of holding images in my hand, taping them together. It stays with me just as a sort of guiding principle as I’m getting lost in the words.

**John:** You talk about moving from the Super 8’s images, a series of images, to having to figure out a bigger plan for it. It reminds me of actually the history of film cinemas. The initial things, the original screenplays were just a list of shots, and eventually had to figure out like, “Oh no, it’s a little bit more like a play. We have characters interacting with each other. We actually need to find ways to portray that.”

**Christopher:** Yeah. It’s very interesting, I think, to try and analyze how screenwriting fits in with editing. As a writer-director, I do a lot of editing on the page. I very much enjoy the technology we have with word processing. It’s technology that’s been around a long time. But I wrote my first screenplay on a manual typewriter, so to me it’s still a bit of an innovation.

I love overwriting and then editing the same way I edit the images and, indeed, the dialogue and stuff when we get in the edit suite. I think the relationship between the two is very interesting, because editing is a key feature of cinema that’s not shared in other media. Eisenstein, he summarized it, “Shot A plus Shot B gives you Thought C.”

In the case of Oppenheimer, for example, this came into play in a very major way when I went to the Institute of Advanced Study, which is where Oppenheimer is the director. We filmed there eventually. I met the current – or he was then the director of the IAS, Robert Dijkgraaf, very brilliant string theorist, brilliant scientist. I was talking about what I was doing in the film and how I was going to try and show the thought process of a quantum physicist thinking about atoms, thinking about molecules. He said this terrifying thing to me. He said, “Of course, a lot of the scientists at the time in the 1920s were alienated by the fact that you could no longer visualize the atom.” As a filmmaker, you’re going, “Hang on. That’s the job I’m going to have to do.”

I’d written this into the script as indications of types of images and tried to do it in a relatively free form, poetic way, just to suggest to everybody what it might be. But in talking to Dijkgraaf, I started to realize that what we can do with imagery, with editing, is we can take Image A, Image B, make Thought C. If you’re dealing with, for example, the duality of waves and particles when you talk about light, to be able to show waves, show particles, have the audience combine them in their minds. I was dealing with that at script stage, but also thinking ahead technically to where that’s going to be.

I think that one of the things that I try to do in my writing at a certain point – it’s not usually with the first draft – or maybe in one area of the script or something, I’ll try to start thinking like an editor as I’m writing, and how the juxtaposition of images is going to be something more. I don’t know. I would be interested to get your thoughts. It’s intriguing to speculate, does the screenplay form sufficiently communicate the editing process, can it sufficiently communicate the editing process? I try to game the system by – in Oppenheimer I put all the black-and-white scenes into italics, for example – trying to find ways to give the reader the feeling of editing.

**John:** Greta Gerwig was in your seat a couple years ago talking through Little Women. That was a story that also jumped back and forth between a present timeline and a past timeline. For her script, all the scenes that were in the past were in red. Rather than in italics, they were in red. We talked through that as a process.

For folks who haven’t seen the Oppenheimer screenplay, if you’ve seen the movie, you know that there’s two concurrently running stories. There’s Fission and Fusion. Fission is Oppenheimer’s story more directly. It’s in color. That’s him telling his story. It’s the “I, narrator” part of that. Then there’s the story of Fusion, which is the investigation after the fact. It’s all done in black and white. In the screenplay version of it, all those black-and-white scenes are in black and white. How early on in the process of putting this together did you realize you were going to tell those two stories that way, that those were going to be in black and white, and that on a page you would delineate them differently?

**Christopher:** Really before I wrote anything, other than notes. My process has tended to be more and more one of spending months thinking about the film, thinking about the script, what it’s going to be, and almost not letting myself write until I feel like really I’m ready to go, like I really need to. Structure to me is part of that.

My first film, a film called Following, which is shot 16 mil, black and white, has a nonlinear structure. I came up with the structure before I wrote the script. That’s what I generally do. It’s three braided timelines. I decided the way I want to write the script, I’m going to write it chronologically, so that everything makes sense, and I know that it all works, base rules, and then I’m going to cut it up. In fact, then I was probably physically cutting up. Actually, I think I had a word processor for my second draft. But for the first draft, where I wrote it chronologically, I was typing it out and then cutting and pasting it to the structure. That didn’t work very well, because what I found is you then had to rewrite endlessly to try and create the flow.

**John:** Because the experience of the reader, the experience of the viewer is going to be start to finish.

**Christopher:** Exactly.

**John:** They’re not jumping that same way that you are.

**Christopher:** They’re not jumping that same way. What I had uncovered is the reason why applying an editorial structure to a project that didn’t have it baked into the script never works. The studios will go to that sometimes. It’s sort of, “How do we say this thing?” But you always feel it, because it has to be part of the script.

Now, with Following, it was written to the structure. In my mind, I’d figured it out, but I thought that I would cleverly write it chronologically, rearrange it. The amount of rewriting involved in that was such that I’ve never done that since. I’ve always now written, whatever the structure is, I write from page 1 through to page 123 or whatever, or in the case of Oppenheimer, 180.

That way, when you’re doing a film like Memento, for example, which has an inverted chronology… I say nonlinear because – it’s actually very linear – it’s very connected, but it is inverted. If you analyze that screenplay, I wrote it from the first image that the audience would see to the last, so it has a conventional three-act structure underneath, or underpinning the more elaborate temporal construction of it. I think that’s an important reason why the film worked for an audience.

**John:** When you’re writing a script, be it Following or be it Oppenheimer, who is your intended reader? Who do you visualize reading the script, or do you visualize a person who’s sitting there reading through the script, and that you are whispering in their ear to them the story?

**Christopher:** I think it depends on what mood I’m in. I think sometimes it’s the person at the studio who’s going to read it, literally, because you’re thinking about you’re selling something that you already know is worthwhile, if you like. But at other times, it’s very much for myself or for a perceived audience.

I always try to view the screenplay first and foremost as a movie that I’m watching. I’m seeing it as a series of images. I’m imagining watching it with an audience. Then I think before I ever show it to anyone, there’s a pass where I’m imagining the studio reading it. What do we actually have on the page? What works?

One of the big differences I’ve found in terms of nonlinear construction – I think right back to Following, every project I’ve done – when I’ve got into the edit suite, I have found the need to combine the first two sections of any nonlinear, segmented timeline. I did it with Following. I did it with Memento, definitely. I did it with Batman Begins, I remember. Oppenheimer, we did that.

What I’ve come to realize over the years is, because when you show someone a screenplay with a nonlinear structure, you have to teach the readers the structure right away. But movie audiences don’t respond to that. If you’re jumping around too much at the beginning of a movie, the audience just lets it wash over them, and they wait for the movie to start. They wait to find their feet. With every project, I’ve simplified the structure at the front-end so that the audience can connect with the characters and can connect with the type of narrative it is, and then you start jumping around.

I’m fascinated by these things. It’s an area where you see the inadequacy of the screenplay formatting. A lot of filmmakers have chafed at this. Stanley Kubrick famously would swap around the margins and have the dialogue run to the outside margins and the stage directions in the middle. Everyone’s struggling against, “Okay, how do I make a film on the page?” I’m fascinated by that. I don’t mind it. I enjoy the screenplay format very much. I could never write a novel. I wouldn’t know how to find an authorial voice in that way. I love the screenplay form, because it’s stripped down, bare bones. You’re writing things as if they were facts, things that happened. For me, it’s a really fun way to write, but there are these endless conundrums. Do you portray the intentionality of the character? Do you portray a character opens a drawer looking for a corkscrew?

**John:** That’s information that’s not necessarily in evidence, but-

**Christopher:** Unless they pull the corkscrew out-

**John:** Absolutely.

**Christopher:** … how is anyone ever going to know that? I started off in my early scripts being very, very rigid. I wouldn’t even use a character name until somebody had called the character by name. That was very useful for me as a screenwriter but also as a director, a writer-director, because it meant that I was always aware of the fact of have I communicated the information about who this character is or haven’t I.

The problem is you have to show the script to a lot of people who aren’t reading your screenplay as a movie. They’re reading it as a screenplay. They’re reading it for information about what character they’re playing or what costumes are going to be in the film or whatever that is. Over the years, it varied project to project, but you try to find a middle ground where you’re giving people the information they need, but you’re not violating what you consider your basic principles as a writer.

With Oppenheimer, I decided to write the script in the first person. In doing that, I wanted to be sure that I wasn’t cheating, because the temptation if you start writing the first-person, start writing the, “I went into the room. I sat down at the desk,” all the rest, I love the effect that had on the writing and the relationship with the reader to the film, but I didn’t want to cheat. And so what I did is I wrote quite a few scenes at the beginning, maybe almost the whole first act in the third-person, conventionally, so that I knew that everything worked technically the way it needed to for a screenplay. Then I put it into first-person without changing anything other than the… That worked beautifully for me. That hooked me right in. I knew I wasn’t cheating. I wasn’t describing thoughts that no one would be able to convey, that kind of thing.

**John:** For listeners who haven’t read through these pages yet, it’s a little shocking at first, when you first come across the “I” on the page. You’re reminded that screenplays are traditionally written in either the third-person or the second-person plural, “we hears,” “we sees,” as if you’re an audience member staring up at the screen. In your screenplay, I still feel like I’m an audience member watching, but the “I” in this is Oppenheimer. In all the places where you would’ve had to type Robert or Oppenheimer, you’re typing “I,” and there’s “mes” and there’s some “wes.” The first time you catch a “we,” you realize, oh, it’s not we as the audience, it’s Oppenheimer and another character, which is exciting and thrilling. But it does anchor us into his point of view through that whole sequence, that he is always the person driving that scene. He’s our POV character in all those moments.

**Christopher:** It was a big breakthrough for me. I knew the structure I wanted. I knew that I wanted to tell the story subjectively. But I knew that I didn’t want to use voiceover. The thing about voiceover, it’s seductive when you’re looking for a subjective storyteller, because of that first-person. I was actually stuck.

My brother Jonah and I, we were quarantining in a house together. I was writing downstairs. He was writing upstairs. Came up with this idea, and I thought, I’m not going to say anything to him. I’m just going to rewrite what I’ve done and then show him the first act, just say, “Look, just gut check, what do you think?” without drawing any attention to it, because I was very excited by it. It freed me up from feeling the need for voiceover, because I felt that the script was giving me the subjectivity in a different way. He read it and was like, “Yep, don’t know why no one’s done that before, but that works.” What he said to me made me laugh. But for years and years, I’ve written scripts where you have to read the stage directions. I’ve never found any way to get anybody to read the stage directions.

**John:** Of course.

**Christopher:** He said to me, “You finally found a way to get people to read the stage directions,” because when you put them in the first-person, people value them as information, so they read all of them. Indeed, with this script, people really did read the stage directions in a way that they never have in my other scripts.

**John:** Since we’re on medium, would you mind reading, on page 1 of the script, it’s scene 2. Basically, we’ve opened the film with this imagery that you talk about, this poetic imagery, “A vast sphere of fire, the fire of a thousand suns, slowly eats the night-time desert.” There’s two quotes. But then rather than moving into a location, we’re landing on a face. Would you mind reading us that?

**Christopher:** Yeah, Scene 2. “A face. Gaunt, tense, eyes tightly shut. The face shudders- the sound ceases as my eyes open, staring into camera: Peer into my soul- J. Robert Oppenheimer, aged 50, close-cropped graying hair. The gentle sounds of bureaucracy… Super title: ‘1. Fission.'” That’s the one time where we have Fission, and then we have Fusion.

**John:** How early on in the process did you decide to start in this moment? Through a lot of this movie, we’re inter-cutting between two hearings or two moments, two events. One is this room, 2022, this Atomic Energy Commission interview. There’s also a Senate hearing. How early in the process did you know that those were going to be keystone, anchoring moments for the story?

**Christopher:** I had to know that before I started writing the script. I can only start writing when I have the structure in place. I was adapting American Prometheus, wonderful book by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005, I think. It took 25 years of research and writing for these guys to produce this book. It’s this incredible resource, but it’s 700-and-something pages. It’s a massive tome. My approach was to read it, not take notes, nothing, read it again. I read it a couple of times and then just spent a lot of time thinking about what had struck me about it, about what I was interested in, what I would tell somebody about this story. Based on those notes, I started to feel out what were the things that were going to give me the structure I wanted. I knew I wanted subjectivity. In a way, to do that, I felt like I also needed objectivity crosscut with that. I needed two timelines braided together.

There’s a reference about two-thirds of the way through American Prometheus. There’s a reference to the Senate confirmation hearings that Lewis Strauss, ultimately the antagonist, we’ll reveal to be the antagonist in the story, was subjected to. As a writer, immediately grabbed that and went, oh, there’s a really interesting relationship between what happened to him in five years – I think it was five years later, ’59 and ’53 – what he had done to Oppenheimer and then what was done to him. Very, very similar. As a writer, you’re always looking for those kind of poetic echoes, those kind of rhyming relationships in narrative. I chased that down.

I went to the Senate congressional record of those hearings, went through the testimony and found some incredible things in there, and then started to create in my mind this timeline of, okay, if we keep coming back to this, we keep coming back to the greenroom, him preparing for his testimony, and then eventually we go in and we see the testimony. We see those things based on the transcript, when scientists came and testified against him in this very public way. I got really interested in the parallelism with the security clearance hearings of Oppenheimer, which were done in exactly the opposite way.

What happened to Strauss was very, very public, and it was in a very grand setting, in Washington. What he had put in place, orchestrated for Oppenheimer, was more or less a broom closet. It was the most, deny him all of the limelight, sweep it all under the rug. The contrast of the two things, that, I started to get excited about. There are all kinds of interesting parallels of what happened to him.

For example, I started to realize, while reading the objections in the Oppenheimer transcript, which is also about a thousand pages – and I made it all the way through that one, because it’s so compelling – I found things like Oppenheimer strongly and his lawyers strongly objecting to the fact they had no list of witnesses. Strauss in the congressional testimony is making the same complaint, that they’re not giving him a list of witnesses. Things like that, that as a writer, you’re like, “This is such a gift.”

Then of course, you have the fun of going into these written transcripts that have no indication of tone, of voice. They’re not giving you any information. They’re very dry in terms of the format. In a funny sort of way, not to sound massively pretentious, but you have to interpret them. It felt a bit like what my friend Ken Branagh must do when he does a Shakespeare film, where he’s having to… Yeah, the words are there, but what are you going to do with them?

That was really a fun thing, but it also felt I’ve got a responsibility, actually, because you’re taking Edward Teller’s exact words that he said about whether Oppenheimer should be given the security clearance, and then you’re editing them, presenting them to the actor, presenting them dramatically in the screenplay, saying, what did that mean? I’m pretty sure I knew what it meant, but you don’t actually get to hear them say it, because there are no recordings.

**John:** You have the book. You have your original research in two different areas, all this stuff. But we skipped over the part of why you were curious about it in the first place. This is a book that existed, that was acclaimed, Pulitzer Prize-winning. But when did it enter into your orbit, and what made you read it the first time and the second time and the third time? When did you decide, “This is a story I want to tell. This is a movie I want to make.”

**Christopher:** Something of a long story. Oppenheimer first came into my consciousness when I was a teenager growing up in United Kingdom. The threat of nuclear weaponry was very much in the news. It was very much in the zeitgeist at the time. It was something we were all very, very concerned about.

**John:** We’re the same age. That very much was that experience. That was our anxiety source at all times.

**Christopher:** You remember the pop culture at the time, things like The Day After and Threads and these movies, When the Wind Blows, Sting’s song Russians, where he refers to Oppenheimer’s deadly toys. I think that’s probably the first time I encountered the name. Over the years, he’s a personage, I didn’t know a lot about him, but things about him would pop into my conscious, probably a lot from my brother, actually, who was very interested in these kind of things. But at some point, I got a hold of the bizarre fact that in the buildup to the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer and his fellow scientists could not completely eliminate the possibility of a chain reaction that would destroy the world, and yet went ahead and pushed that button.

I included that in my previous film, Tenet, in the screenplay, because I needed a strong and understandable analogy for a very complex science fiction conceit. I think it was one of those moments of the screenplay, it always felt like it would probably come out of the finished film, because it’d be too much, too much dialogue, whatever. But when we would screen it for people, they grabbed a hold of the Oppenheimer name. It was something they knew a little bit about. Even if they’d never heard that story, they knew it was a real thing. So we kept it in the film, and it was important to us in the film.

As a wrap gift, Robert Pattinson, who’s in Tenet, he gave me a book of Oppenheimer’s published speeches from the 1950s, where he’s speaking to the issue of how to control what to do about this new technology they’ve unleashed on the world. It’s terrifying reading this stuff, reading these brilliant minds discussing how to stop the world being destroyed. It brought it all back to me, really.

Then Emma and I – Emma Thomas, my producer and my wife – we spent a weekend with our old friend Chuck Roven, who produced The Dark Knight trilogy with us. He suggested that I read American Prometheus. He knew the rights-holders. It was something he’d been trying to push forward. I read it, and it was that wonderful feeling you get where you’ve been interested in something, you’ve been trying to explore it in different ways, but not quite knowing what to do with it, and then you read this book that’s so definitive.

As a writer, when you’re working, particularly when you write on spec, because I always write on spec – I write the screenplay, and then I try to write a home for it – and so you don’t have a legal department. You’re on your own. It’s like, okay, I need authority. I need an authoritative source that I can contain myself to, just look at that, get my facts from there, and know that I’m playing in the world of credible, call it journalism, credible writing that’s been vetted over the years, so I’m dealing with the truth as best people can understand it. The different points of view are presented fairly, as they are in the book. It’s a very good book. That gave me the confidence to want to start telling the story. It started to show me what the shape of it could be. By dealing with J. Robert Oppenheimer as an individual, as a person, with all his human flaws, with all of his brilliance and all of that, how the entire history of nuclear weapons, the way in which the world had shifted and pivoted on its axis, it gives you a very accessible point of contact with that.

**John:** Yes. That’s great. Now, looking at your produced credits, this seems to be your first adaptation, or first real-life story, but you’ve gone through this process before. This wasn’t your first time tackling a historic subject to do this, right?

**Christopher:** For British people, Dunkirk is a very well-known, a very important piece of national history, or even mythology, really. As I approached it and I looked at and I researched it, I realized that to tell the story the way I felt it needed to be told, I couldn’t do that with real-life people. I needed to invent characters to take you through. It’s a slightly strange comparison, but it’s not unlike Titanic, what Cameron’s doing there, where he needs fictional characters to be able to move them through the event in such a way that you get a full understanding of the geography of it or the fact of it.

The thing about Dunkirk is it’s a story of collective endeavor. It’s a story about massive numbers of people and movements of people and how that works. There’s a tricky thing with how you approach that. A lot of filmmakers, a lot of writers have done it in very different ways. I think if you were writing it for television, it would be one approach. I think for a feature, what I felt would work – and it seemed to work well for audiences – was to create fictional characters with no backstories, no conventional character treatment.

The script was a very, very experimental document. It was very short. It was a 90-page script. The characters were really just their actions. That’s what these characters were. Some people you would show that to would get it. Some actors you show it to would be confused by that. Others would get it. But I felt that was the way to take you through that very large event and have an understanding of the geography of it, the politics of it, the thing of it. It was very minimalist dialogue. It was, as I say, no backstories for characters, things like that. It was very stripped down.

Coming to Oppenheimer, it’s a similarly important story. Dunkirk is sacred ground for British people. I think the Manhattan Project, the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, these things are unbelievably important to the world as a whole, and particularly to America and Japan. You’re then looking at, okay, how do you take on something that’s so much bigger than what a movie can be, in a way, and taking the real-life person, taking the opposite approach to Dunkirk and saying, okay, this is actually his experience, and we’re going to lock into his point of view on everything.

Then the other thread, the more objective thread comes in, in order to give you the necessary exposition about what happens to him later in life, about the politics, about how his actions then interact with the establishment, and introduces this character of Lewis Strauss that I became very, very obsessed with – and Robert Downey Jr ultimately played him in the film – and their relationship. I looked at it from almost the Salieri-Mozart view from Amadeus, which is a wonderful, wonderful play and then film, about rivalry and the weirdly trivial personal interactions that can drive a very destructive rivalry.

**John:** How early in the process did you have a sense of thematically… You knew that you were talking about Oppenheimer. You had a sense that Strauss would be the other central character. But was it during the writing process that you found those thematic things that tied together? You talked about rhymes that happen. Compartmentalization as a theme, the way that you try to hold different parts of your life separate, the question of who wants to justify their whole life, which is asked twice in the course of the story, when did you know that those were going to be some of the central questions and how things would thread together? You say you hold off writing as long as you can, then you sit down to do it. But how much discovery is actually happening while you’re typing?

**Christopher:** Enormous amounts. All the things you mentioned were discoveries of actually writing. What I try to come up with is the parameters. The structure’s very important, but the parameters, what the film’s going to be, what the three-act structure’s going to be. But you have to leave room to play. I love to overwrite, as I was saying earlier.

**John:** When you say overwrite, are you writing scenes that just go on too long or scenes that you don’t need at all?

**Christopher:** I tend to not write scenes that I don’t need at all. It’s more within the scene, particularly with the dialogue, I’ll tend to overwrite. It’s almost like stream of consciousness, monologues kind of thing, that you can then winnow away, find what’s in there that’s the thing you’re trying to express.

I think with thematic connections and ideas, I’ll write notes on those, but some of those ultimately prove too self-conscious. You don’t want to get caught doing it. I’ll write a lot of those, write a lot of notes. I don’t use the outline. I don’t use the notes. I’ll write the script. If I get stuck, I’ll then go back through pages and pages of notes, to see did I miss something, was this something. Sometimes you pick things up, and you put them back in. With those kind of elements, the elements you’re talking about are the things that sit outside the narrative in a way. They comment on the narrative. They’re the meta things. They’re very tricky.

**John:** They’re tricky unless characters are introducing them in ways that are germane to the scenes that they’re in. Compartmentalization is-

**Christopher:** Exactly.

**John:** … incredibly important within the context.

**Christopher:** It naturally starts to become a reflection or an irony that the person must oppose to compartmentalization, as Oppenheimer, and ultimately that’s what makes… It almost defines him by the end of the film. But I wasn’t too self-conscious about that. When I say tricky, I don’t mean… It’s exactly as you say. It has to be germane to the story, or it has to be absolutely necessary so you do it anyway.

There’s a line in Dunkirk that always causes me a certain amount of, I don’t know, guilt or whatever, because I have a soldier late on talk about survival and define survival. I think the line is he says, “Survival is shit. Fear and greed squeeze through the bowels of men.” That’s the thing. I always knew that that’s not a valid line to have a soldier say in the middle of a situation. It’s a very retrospective sentiment. We all have these things. The joy of being a writer-director is you do get the ultimate say onto whether or not it stays. That’s one where it’s like, it’s wrong, but I’m glad it’s in the movie, and I kept it. Luckily, nobody ever demanded I take it out.

I read, years ago, an interview with Paul Thomas Anderson where he talked about things that you write into a script, and you’re like, “Oh, I’ll fix that later.” Quite often, they become things. Quite often, it’s the things that don’t work or the mistakes or the things that don’t quite fit the pattern that you wind up actually valuing, that give the thing its idiosyncrasy. For my process, as I write, I’ve done a lot of thinking, I’ve done a lot of notes about those kind of elements, and then I want to forget them and try and write from the point of view of character and story and what’s really going on in the narrative, what feels necessary.

**John:** Let’s talk about what’s actually on the page, because your writing style is relatively spare. You talk about you don’t want to intrude and reveal inner character thoughts when the audience wouldn’t necessarily be able to see those. You’re not describing sets much. We’re in these places often, but you’re not giving a lot of set decoration. You’re not talking a lot about wardrobe or props, unless they are used within the moment. Has that always been your style? Has your screenwriting style changed over the last 20, 30 years?

**Christopher:** I think for me, it’s been a continual journey to try and strip it down. I enjoy that style of writing anyway, but frankly, as scripts have gotten longer and the films have gotten longer and I’m trying to stuff more and more into the sausage, you really do try to strip it down. I try to write scripts that really will be a page a minute, which if you tend to over-describe things or describe things in too literary a way, the scripts are going to get very long. Then is anyone going to trust that you’re actually… I like to be able to look at the bones of it and know when I’m describing that stained glass window that’s behind you right now, that doesn’t take any screen time. I try to write in a way that reflects screen time, that reflects the kinetic energy. Then you strip down to just the necessary beats. Has it changed for me over the years? I think I got better at it. But different films require different approaches as well.

The funny thing is when you’re in it, when you’re writing – I’m sure this is the same for you – these things seem so important and unquestionable. I remember being at a party when I was writing Dunkirk. I was talking to a fellow writer, who writes TV. I said, “I’m doing this thing, and I’ve decided I want to write it with no dialogue,” whatever, and this, that, and the other, and said a few things. Then he said, “Why?” Of course, I had no answer. It was so clear to me that that would be a good thing to do, that that would be inherently somehow positive to strip away dialogue and just go with action for this cinematic thing.

You become very, very convinced – and I think you need to become very convinced – that you’re doing it the only way that it’s possible, the only way that would ever make a good film. Of course, it’s not true, and there are a million different ways to approach things. You try and get the right approach for the film you’re going to make.

**John:** You talk about kinetic on the page. You definitely sense the editor on the page. You have a tremendous number of pre-laps and post-laps that make it really feel like this is the experience of watching the movie, that the dialogue is going to anticipate the cut, that we’re going to continue on a little bit after the cut. Things are going to braid themselves together well. Someone who didn’t know might just assume, oh, it’s the editor who moved that stuff around, but it’s very deliberate and clear on the page. You get out of scenes with energy leaning forward that tumbles you into the next scene. That’s why the movie can be the length and the size that it is, and it still feels fast and still feels like it’s moving really quickly.

**Christopher:** There’s something that’s always been very important to me. Dunkirk actually was the extreme of that, because I came up with a structure based on a musical concept of the Shepard Tone, which is this audio illusion of continually rising pitches. I’ve always been interested. I’ve used it in scores for a lot of my films, actually, and for sound effects. The sound of the bat pod in The Dark Knight is a Shepard progression. I figured out that I could apply it to screenwriting, that in that instance of Dunkirk where I’m looking for this incredibly tense experience, I could braid the storylines together in such a way that one of them is always hitting a moment of crisis. There’s no relief in the film whatsoever, which is why the film had to be short, because there’s no time to catch your breath, which is the point of it. It was very important that that work on the page.

When I talked about the script for Dunkirk, I remember I literally said to Emma at some point, “What if we did it without a script? What if we just [indiscernible 39:33]?” She quite sensibly was like, “No, you need to go write the script.” What I was aiming at is looking for a way that the script could become transparent in a way, that it could be the guide for the kinetics of the cinematic action and just show you. I knew what I needed to film in terms of the physics of what was going on and which ships were sinking and what was going on with the mole or whatever. I was trying to look at it as a real-life event and staging it and shooting it. The screenplay was all about the points and moments of energy.

In a way, it’s not that I ever could’ve made the film without the script. I don’t think you can make any good film without a script. But the script was a map for how to edit the footage together, more than any other script I’ve ever written. That was really the whole point of it. It was a map for Lee Smith, my editor on that film, to sit down and go, “Okay, this is how this all works,” and to tell us how to shoot it in a way that would accommodate that.

With Oppenheimer, it’s a more conventional approach, more traditional approach, but always, that same element is important to me, of trying to incorporate editing into the craft of writing, not because you’re trying to jump ahead, because you know where you want [indiscernible 40:47] because that’s what a screenplay needs to do, because you’re writing it for a medium that enjoys this great privilege of Shot A plus Shot B gives you Thought C. One filmmaker I showed Oppenheimer to early on said a really wonderful thing to me. You talked about how the film is all montage. What this filmmaker liked about that was that’s what movies do. That’s what’s unique to the medium.

**John:** That’s why you didn’t make a play. You could’ve made a play.

**Christopher:** Exactly.

**John:** Your sense of those two storylines happening, you could’ve done it as a play, but it’s not a movie. It’s very different structure, very different idea.

**Christopher:** Exactly. That leads you to this, I don’t know what you want to call it, guiding principle, whatever, impulse, that says that the document of the screenplay has to embrace editing. For me, that has to be part of my writing process, or I’m not using the screenplay for what it can do fully. It’s like tying a hand behind your back. When I talk about overwriting, I’m really talking about within a scene and then all the script as a whole and then trying to winnow it down and just really use editing in a very surgical way, to strip things down, but be able to explore a lot of different ideas at the same time.

**John:** What is your writing process? When do you like to write? How much are you trying to get done in the course of a day? When you actually sat down to write Oppenheimer, what was your workflow like?

**Christopher:** I think, like a lot of writers, I like to write about five minutes before I actually start writing, and then I like to write about 10 minutes after I’m finished. I think writing’s very hard and very lonely. Like all writers, I try to find my way to trick myself into it, into whatever. I’ve learned a few things over the years.

When I went to university, I went to a lecture by Julian Barnes, a novelist, and he said a thing that stuck with me and I’ve used myself, which is, at the end of an evening or a day’s work, he’ll try to finish halfway through something, because then when he comes back the next day, he knows where he’s going, and he can get started. That’s something I’ve definitely tried to do. I try to be reasonably disciplined and then write office hours for most of it, and then not do all-nighters or crazy hours until you absolutely have to, until you’re on the case of something.

The thing that I’ve learned, that every writer needs to learn, the thing that I know absolutely, is that feeling you have that you can write something, when you know, “Okay, I’ve got it now,” you have to write exactly then and get it on the page, because that feeling will disappear like a fart in the wind. It’ll be gone. You’ll come back to the desk, and you’ll be like, “What was it?” You can write notes. That’s not going to help. You just have to sit down and write it.

With Oppenheimer, I knew what the end of the film was going to be. That was important to me. It’s always important to know where you’re going with the end, with any movie. But I woke up in the middle of the night with the whole last three or four scenes figured out. I got up in my underpants, went down, crossed the garden into my office, sat and just wrote it. I think I didn’t get my computer. I think I wrote it on a legal pad. But I wrote it as foreseen, and it never changed.

I’ve learned that over the years. It’s a really important thing for everybody to know, because the feeling is so convincing that you’ll always be able to write it. It’s like being drunk, then sobering up, or vice versa. You’re a different person the next day, and you don’t have it anymore, and then you’ve got to think your way back into it.

I also like to use music a lot. What I’ve found is if I use music repetitively in my writing process, that’s another way, it’s another shortcut to getting back into the mindset that you were in a couple days ago, an emotional mindset.

**John:** At the start of a project, I’ll generally make myself a playlist of like, this is the music that reminds me of what this movie is.

**Christopher:** Exactly.

**John:** Then I can play that and like, “Oh, okay.” So if I have to come back to something six months later, “Oh, that’s right, that’s the John who was writing that,” and I can remember what that-

**Christopher:** Yeah. It’s a huge emotional connection, emotional cue. I find I’m unable to make a playlist in advance. I have to feel it out as I go try different bits of music, try to see what connects me to my excitement about the project. It’s a great shortcut for putting yourself back in a particular emotional state, because I think writing’s a very emotional process. People always view it as an intellectual process, but I actually think the actual writing is emotional. It speaks to that, when I was saying that those elements are tricky, those elements that are about or reflect on the narrative or create connections. Those are the intellectual things. They’re the things we like to discuss. But they have to be emotional. If they’re emotional in the story, then they work.

For me, I think a lot of my note-taking process and a lot of my thinking about what I’m going to do when I write, that is intellectual. I do a lot of diagrams. Big fan of Venn diagrams for different narratives or whatever. When I go to write, then I have to be in an emotional state, and I have to write from an emotional perspective.

**John:** Absolutely. You said those last scenes you wrote, they didn’t change at all, but looking through the script, I do see blue revisions, pink revisions, yellow revisions, so some stuff changed along the way. I asked because I’m working on the Scriptnotes book right now, which is due January 5th. Oh, god. The chapter I just went through was on script revision. Can you talk about what changed from the first draft to later drafts? Were they things you didn’t need, new stuff you decided to add? What was the process of changing stuff?

**Christopher:** When you’re into the color pages and you’re looking at those production revisions, that’s a complicated issue, because I’m a writer-director, so I will literally sometimes… I remember sitting on LaSalle Street in Chicago filming The Dark Knight. We flipped the [indiscernible 46:48]. I sat down on my laptop, and I wrote a scene and handed it to Gary Oldman or whatever. You’re often creating production revisions under different circumstances than they would normally track if you were in a writers’ room, for example, or if you weren’t on set. Quite often, the changes are weird little… We can’t shoot it in the barn; we’ve got to shoot it in the bar or whatever. You just change that. Then there are fundamental things.

For me, I think what changed in Oppenheimer, there weren’t enormous changes, but things evolved. This is why I very much enjoy directing my own material, being a writer-director, because things like the raindrops as an image, that wasn’t in the draft originally. That came. It’s not on page 1 of the script, because I didn’t want to put it in after the fact and pretend that it was being written that way. It was something that was indicated later in the script. Then as I came to think about it in logistic terms, it’s like, “Okay, that can play as a coda. It could play at the front. There’s things we can do with that.” It has more prominent placement in the finished film. With Jen Lame, my editor, her input, we’re saying, “Let’s try this right up front and really lead with it.”

But over the course of making the film, we started to make the correspondence between this image of the ripples and raindrops and then what he might see when he looks at a map, the circles of fire. I was getting Andrew Jackson, my visual effects supervisor, to make these things up on the spot, say, “Let’s take that raindrop footage, let’s re-project it somewhere, and let’s play around with it.” You’re developing these thematic visual ideas.

I try to use the script as an evolving document, and I try to keep it up to date, because for my own thinking, you can have a clever idea or an idea you think is good, based on what you’re shooting or what’s going on on set. But if it doesn’t work in the screenplay format, it’s probably not as good as you think, actually. I do try to keep the script up to date. I’m not trying to be mysterious with the crew and with my collaborators about how I’m going to use images. I’m trying to keep everybody up to date.

**John:** That’s great. It’s come time in our podcast where we do One Cool Things, where we recommend things to our listeners that they might want to check out. You have a book recommendation, apparently.

**Christopher:** I do. When We Cease to Understand the World by Benjamin Labatut. It was recommended to me by Alejandro González Iñárritu. It’s a fabulous book that deals with a lot of the things that Oppenheimer deals with. It deals with these brilliant minds and all sorts of extraordinary things in history. Very readable. I highly recommend it.

**John:** Excellent. Great. We’ll put that in the notes. My One Cool Thing is called Infinite Mac. It’s this emulator that just runs in your browser. You go to the site, and suddenly it’s like you’re in a time machine. You can fire up any old Macintosh. It just gave me such a rush of nostalgia for like, “Oh, I remember what that was like.” Suddenly, you’re on the desktop of a very old Mac SE running system 5.2 or whatever. You forget how stuff used to work. You forget just how floppy disks used to work and all the apps that were so important to me in the time, that are now all gone.

**Christopher:** I don’t. I’m still using them.

**John:** It’ll be all new stuff for you.

**Christopher:** It’d be brand new.

**John:** Time travel for me.

**Christopher:** Yes, it’s time looping back on itself. I remember very clearly. I’ve always used ScriptThing, which then became Movie Magic. I remember when it went to Windows, and it slowed down tremendously. I was like, “Can you run it on DOS?” You could run it on DOS. It has a DOS emulator within Windows.

**John:** Wild.

**Christopher:** I am the ultimate Luddite. I still go back to my Royal manual typewriter and do the odd scene on that just to reconnect with it.

**John:** That’s fantastic. Then I’ll send you another One Cool Thing. Someone sent through, the app that we make called Highland, it’s a guy who types on a manual typewriter, but then you basically take a photo of the page, and it scans it in, and it makes it an editable document. It’s if you want to write on a real typewriter, and then it scans it in, so therefore then it can be an editable document [crosstalk 51:12].

**Christopher:** That, I need.

**John:** Just for you, we’ll send you that link.

**Christopher:** Please do. That sounds fantastic.

**John:** That was our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli, who also did our outro this week. 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. 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 that are 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 dreams. Christopher Nolan, an absolute pleasure to get to talk to you about screenwriting.

**Christopher:** I’ve really enjoyed it. Thanks for having me on.

**John:** Cool.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Jamie in San Francisco, he wrote in to ask, “I wonder if you could talk a bit about the use of dreams in screenplays. John describes dreams as the brain doing laundry or taking out the trash. Craig attributes no meaning or significance to his own dreams. But in movies, it seems the opposite is almost always the case. More often than not, they show us the past or the future or some deeper meaning to the present. Are they a crutch? Are they overused? Are they tropey? Talk to us about dreams.” You made a whole movie where dreams play a giant role. What is your actual belief about dreams for human beings, but also dreams in movies?

**Christopher:** Dreams in movies, it’s very complicated. It took me many, many years to crack Inception, because dreams in movies don’t work, basically. They feel like a cheap… They tend to shortchange the audience. The audience has a very sophisticated mechanism for constructing the reality of a film, that when you then invalidate something, your brain discounts it from the narrative enormously. It’s something that I think studios very often don’t understand about scale and how you achieve scale in a movie. You can have crazy, exotic, wild imagery that might look good in the trailer, whatever, but if it’s subverted in the narrative by being, for example, a dream, it gets written off.

It took me a long time to crack it. I thought a lot about why are dreams problematic in movies. I think it’s because movies are already dreams. I think the way we process films is very similar to the way we process dreams. They are collective dreams in a way. When you write dreams, it’s a hat on a hat. It becomes self-canceling if not handled in the right way.

I think with Inception, I think the way I managed that was to keep dreams extremely grounded and make a big point of the fact that you don’t know you’re in a dream when you’re dreaming it, those kind of things, and constantly remind and involve the audience in the mechanics of the technology that’s using the dreams. The film rarely allows itself to become too metaphysical, too poetic, in the way that dreams often are in films. I think they’re very tricky.

As far as in real life, what are they, that’s hard to answer really. I think they’re our way of processing our lives in a different way, looking at them from a different angle. I think they’re a very healthy and necessary process. I also think, as I say, that films have a wonderful relationship with dreaming and with dreams, and they are our way of connecting. We remember films very much the way we remember dreams.

I had a very interesting experience many years ago. I watched David Lynch’s Lost Highway. I had a peculiar experience. I think I was watching it on VHS at home. I did not connect with the film. I found it impenetrable. I found it boring. I almost didn’t finish watching it, because I was watching it on VHS. Put it to one side, whatever. I’d watched it on my own. I didn’t have anyone to talk to about it, wasn’t particularly interested to talk about it. Then about two weeks later, I found myself remembering Lost Highway as if I were remembering one of my own dreams. I realized that however he’d done it, Lynch had found a way… I’m trying to remember which way around it. It is like a tesseract, is a projection of a hypercube, three dimensions.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Christopher:** He found a way of un-peeling the way a dream works in our brain, feeding it to us as a narrative, so that it lives in your brain as a dream. I think it’s one of the strongest examples of that connection between the way we process sights and sounds and motion pictures and the way we feel about our own memories and dreams and those confusions.

**John:** You talking about Memento leads me to another answer to Jamie’s question, is that I think so often dreams don’t work in movies because there are no stakes. There’s no consequence.

**Christopher:** Exactly.

**John:** Just characters within that. What you do with Inception so well is that there are huge consequences. The whole thing is about the consequences and the plan for why this dream is happening. We as an audience know why this dream is important, why it matters, and what is at stake for the characters. Nightmare on Elm Street, we know that those dream sequences actually matter, because the character is going to die in a dream.

**Christopher:** Exactly, or The Matrix. The Matrix, it’s dreaming. It’s induced by the machines, but that simple thing of your mind makes it real and the blood coming out somebody’s nose, and you know, okay, yeah, there are stakes. Very similar to William Gibson novels like Neuromancer, where you have that concept of how you can be hurt. Is it Black Ice? I can’t remember. The internet becoming a thing that can actually hurt you, cyberspace becoming a thing that can actually hurt you. Then yeah, the stakes are there.

But the truth is, I think with dreams in particular, even introducing stakes, there’s still a real danger with the imagery of them, with the fanciful nature of the imagery, and what it buys you and what it doesn’t buy you, how it integrates into the film. You want everything you put in the film to be owned by the narrative. You want it to feel solid and valid as something you’ve paid your $15 for, bought your popcorn. Otherwise, you feel cheated.

In a weird way, it’s a little off topic, but when I showed Ken Branagh the script for Oppenheimer, he did ask me, as a fellow filmmaker – this is why it’s great to work with other filmmakers, even if they’re just acting in a film – but he said to me, “You’re never cutting away to World War II or to the War Room.”

I thought about it. It’s like, okay, I’ve seen a lot of films do that. Particularly in a CG era, those images, they tend to sit as if they’re not in the film. They actually make the film feel smaller. They’re always in there as an attempt to make the film feel bigger, but they actually shrink the world of the film, because they don’t feel valid. They don’t feel earned. As I say, in a CG era, the texture of them will be completely different to the main unit photography. I think the treatment of dreams in films, the other thing it’s like is voiceover. It can be amazing. It can be incredibly useful.

**John:** It has to be fundamental to the structure of the story.

**Christopher:** Exactly.

**John:** It has to be part of the social contract at the very start of the film.

**Christopher:** Exactly.

**John:** Clueless doesn’t work without the voiceover, but if you try to put that in after the fact, disaster.

**Christopher:** Yes, and giving voiceover a bad name, because most often when you see it, somebody slapped it on at the end to try to make it work. But done right, planned, put into the script, that’s when it works.

**John:** Jamie did not know he was going to get you answering his question about dreams. I think Jamie’s probably very excited that you weighed in here. Christopher Nolan, thank you again.

**Christopher:** Thank you.

Links:

* [Oppenheimer – The First Three Pages](https://www.experienceoppenheimer.com/words)
* [Christopher Nolan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Nolan) on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0634240/).
* [American Prometheus](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/13787/american-prometheus-by-kai-bird-and-martin-sherwin/) by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin
* [The Open Mind](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2776777) by J. Robert Oppenheimer
* [The Shepard Tone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzNzgsAE4F0)
* [When We Cease to Understand the World](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62069739-when-we-cease-to-understand-the-world) by Benjamín Labatut
* [Infinite Mac](https://infinitemac.org/)
* [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 Matthew Chilelli ([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/622standard.mp3).

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/how-would-this-be-a-bio-pic).

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

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

**John:** It is Episode 621 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

The past few weeks have offered up a lot of big personalities in the news, with some of these individuals dying or being fired or removed from Congress. Today on the show, we ask the most important question, of course: how would this be a biopic?

**Craig:** Thank you for saying BAI-oh-pik and not bai-AH-pik.

**John:** A film that is a biographic is a BAI-oh-pik, but sometimes it’s written out as without a hyphen, and it becomes bai-AH-pik. That’s not a thing.

**Craig:** That’s not a thing. I think people are confusing it with myopic, which is understandable, but also not understandable, because it’s not like we refer to people’s bios as bai-AHs.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** So BAI-oh-pik, everyone.

**John:** BAI-oh-pik.

**Craig:** BAI-oh-pik.

**John:** We’re making a strong stand here for that.

**Craig:** Damn right.

**John:** We also have some follow-up on AI and inner monologues. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, Craig, I want to pontificate about which event in history has had the biggest negative impact on human civilization.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Yeah, so some college stoner talk here.

**Craig:** Woo! Okay.

**John:** Maybe think about some alt histories there. We also have some news. We have a live show coming up, this Sunday, December 17th, at 4:00 p.m. The show’s going to be sold out by the time you’re listening to this.

**Craig:** Of course. We’re the Jon Bon Jovi of podcasts.

**John:** It’s going to be at Dynasty Typewriter again. There will be some streaming tickets available. If you’re listening to this on the Tuesday that the episode drops, check the link in the show notes for our live show at Dynasty Typewriter. We’re going to have some great guests. It’s our holiday show. It came together kind of last minute, but we’re very excited to do it.

**Craig:** Who is it benefiting this time?

**John:** This time it’s benefiting the Writers Guild Foundation.

**Craig:** Fantastic, which does excellent work supporting veterans and the writing community in general. Just so people know, it’s not the Writers Guild. It is the charitable nonprofit arm of the Writers Guild, vaguely associated.

**John:** We’ve done a lot of shows with them, for them over the years. It’s nice to be back doing one for them. Now, before we get into the work follow-up here, apparently there’s an important bit of Melissa follow-up about Thanksgiving.

**Craig:** We are recording this on December 3rd. It is Melissa’s birthday, by the way. Happy birthday, Melissa.

**John:** Happy birthday, Melissa.

**Craig:** She said, “I have follow-up for you.”

**John:** We should say that Melissa Mazin is your wife.

**Craig:** She is my wife, and has been for quite some time. She said, “In your last show about Thanksgiving, you said that the women,” meaning her and our friend Beth, “were not allowed to cook,” that Josh and I were the only ones who were allowed to cook. She said, “That’s not accurate. We chose not to cook.” Now, I’m going to say, in follow-up to that follow-up, we haven’t ever gotten to the place where we would need to say to her, “You’re not allowed to cook.” If she chose to cook, there would have to be a discussion. But she wanted it to be clear that she didn’t need permission. She simply wasn’t interested.

**John:** That’s a fair distinction there. I think many cases in life, you can see, was that actually a choice, did she actually have the ability to choose to cook, and was that denied from her.

**Craig:** She feels she had the choice. There’ll be follow-up to this one on a subsequent podcast.

**John:** Apparently so. It’s nice to know that Melissa does listen to the show.

**Craig:** Religiously.

**John:** That’s great. By religiously, you mean that she listens with votive candles burning around her.

**Craig:** With my face on them. Absolutely.

**John:** Let’s get to some less controversial follow-up. We’ll start with David. This is back to Episode 620. We were talking about visual effects and digital doubles and AI. David writes, “The bad crowd work mentioned in Prom Pact, that was meme-ified as, quote, ‘Disney put AI people into this crowd.’ That wasn’t AI. That was just cheap VFX, likely done at the last second.”

**Craig:** That sounds right. In looking at it again, they did seem like were sort of the kinds of people we see in previs stuff. We used to just have storyboards, and now for complicated sequences, we can do previs, where you do get these horror-looking humans. But it doesn’t matter. It’s not meant to be seen by anybody except for you, for planning purposes. I think David’s probably right there.

**John:** I would also say that the differentiation between this is AI versus VFX is increasingly irrelevant. A lot of visual effects are going to have AI components built into them. The fact that it looks terrible doesn’t… Whether it was done with visual effects or AI, it’s not actually so important. It’s the fact that they put something on screen that look like human beings, that were not human beings. That’s the concern.

**Craig:** If we get used to it, if we normalize it, as the kids say, we’re in trouble. Reasonable distinction to make.

**John:** You want to take Alana here?

**Craig:** We’ve got some follow-up from Alana. She is commenting on Episode 611, where I apparently mentioned a screenwriting format that’s divided into two columns, one for what you see and one for what you hear, and that it might make more sense for screenwriting than the current standardized format. “In Mexican telenovelas, the two-column format has been used for decades as the standard screenwriting format, though apparently in recent years, people have turned to the standard format that’s used in most places.” I wonder if perhaps the folks writing the Mexican telenovelas may have gone backwards here, because I think that makes sense. I think it makes sense.

**John:** I was trying to find an example of Mexican telenovelas in the two-column format, because I’m familiar with two-column format, which is often used in commercials.

**Craig:** Commercials.

**John:** Other things, you see it there. Left-hand side is the visuals. The audio, and including the dialogue, is on the right-hand side. Yes, it does kind of make sense overall. I think our current screenplay format, which it’s all one big flow, it reads really well. You can actually read and get a sense of what’s happening very cleanly and smoothly in our current version. There’s trade-offs to doing that two-column format.

**Craig:** I agree with you. I think maybe the two-column format might be best used by production. There are times where it’s hard to create simultaneity. We can do it in dialogue, with double dialogue, which I just sort of hate doing anyway, because it just sends the actors into a shouting over each other tizzy. But what’s almost impossible to do is simultaneous action and dialogue. You can do a little bit of it. But even then, if you put it in parentheses, it’s still like there’s a temporal thing. It’s a bit linear. The two-column format does allow for something that’s simultaneous. But I agree with you. It is easier to read. Maybe not as useful for production, but more useful for reading.

**John:** Going back to simultaneity, even in dialogue, when Greta Gerwig was on the show, she was talking about how in her dual dialogue, she had very specific points where she wanted the actors to be overlapping and how things fit together. She put these little slashes in to indicate where these things are supposed to fall. That is the kind of micro-control you would love to be able to have. You’re always going to bump up against the hard limits of how you can portray speech on page.

**Craig:** At some point, you are going to have to explain it to the actors and make sure they understand that this is a technical thing you’re aiming for. I find that actors in general appreciate it if you put it in that context. If you say this is actually going to be a bit technical, then they get it. If you try and convince them that this is about art, then I think reasonably, they’re like, “No. This is not how I would do it. Humans wouldn’t normally do this.” But if you put it in technical terms…

**John:** Follow-up from Joe in New Zealand talking about Episode 615, called The Mind’s Eye. He says, “The discussion about inner monologues hit home for me, because my lovely wife has a primarily outer monologue.”

**Craig:** What?

**John:** “She goes about her days speaking aloud near constantly-”

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** “… whether she’s in the room alone or in a room with me.”

**Craig:** Oh, Joe, no.

**John:** “Early in our relationship, it caused confusion, because she’s mostly unaware of it. To her, it feels like going from silence to talking when she addresses me, but my attention filter doesn’t always pick up on it. I thought of it as a singular quirk until we visited her family. I found myself in the living room with her, her brother, her father, and her mother, four adults all wandering around, playing with a dog, going about their business, talking constantly.”

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** “Not to each other, not engaging, not questioning or responding, just a stream of conscious thought flowing out of each of them. It was so funny and so charming in the moment, but I definitely lied about why I was smiling and chuckling. It’s still a minor source of confusion 18 years later, but ever since then, the music of her chatter from the other side of the house is simply one of the many joys of our home.”

**Craig:** This is the most kiwi thing I’ve ever read in my life. Joe, the good news is that your wife, who I will refer to as Mrs. Joe, found the best possible husband. The fact that you consider it a joy is why you are still married 18 years later. I would go insane. I love a quiet house. I don’t know about you.

**John:** I like a quiet house too. It’s nice.

**Craig:** It’s wonderful. I will admit that there are times where I have an outer monologue, and those times are very specifically when I’m working on puzzles. I will start to talk. Melissa will say, “You’re sitting there saying things like, ‘But what is that about? Why would that be there? Oh, okay, so this is absolutely this kind of… Okay, so if I do that…'” I just do it because I’m working weirdly. But if I were to do that constantly-

**John:** You’d be divorced?

**Craig:** No, I’d probably be the victim of a accident.

**John:** This is reminding me of some interview I saw with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. They’re talking about their producing partner who apparently had a bit of this, and if they were driving someplace, would have to read aloud every sign that they saw, that they passed. It’s a thing. They have to externalize that stuff.

**Craig:** Just going to have to just bear with them, I guess.

**John:** To some degree, I am talking. I definitely talk to my dog a lot if it’s just me and Lambert.

**Craig:** Everyone talks to their dog.

**John:** Because they’re such good boys.

**Craig:** Lambert is such a good boy. We got some follow-up from Greenhorn from back in 615. Greenhorn says, “My thanks to John and Craig for their helpful advice.” Oh, I remember this. This was the second unit director who was trying to claim co-writer credit.

Greenhorn says, “The pushy second unit director backed down in trying to claim co-writer credit. He said a production company wanted to see a script. I said that I’d need to be paid to write a draft, and then that would also clear up any confusion over our roles. I am the writer, writing a project for you to direct. He accepted this. In his trying to squeeze writer credit, either he as a second unit director thus far was just ignorant of what was fair, as Craig suggested, or he was trying his luck. If the latter, that does not bode well for a working relationship, but I’m so keen to get my break that I’m kind of taking the view that if swimming with sharks is what it takes, so be it, so long as I can protect myself.

“Now, the director said he relayed my response, which is, ‘Pay me for a draft then,’ to the production company, and they replied that they didn’t have a development budget. This company makes $100 million movies, so it’s hard to believe that they can’t afford to pay a writer to write up a script for a project they’re interested in, or is this standard practice in the US?

“I’m a London-based British writer, and happily, I’ve started to get paid to write outlines and scripts, but only today I’ve had a reputable US producer put a writing brief to me. I’ve offered a take on it, which he likes, but he says he’d need a spec, not an outline. I said, ‘I’m being paid to write scripts now, so I’m not looking to write on spec.’ The UK producer I’m speaking with on other projects gladly seem to get this, but this guy just repeated that he’d need a script. It feels wrong and, frankly, insulting that he’s expecting me to give weeks or months of work without any kind of pay or commitment, or is that something that US producers can get away with when a writer hasn’t broken in yet and indeed join the WGA?” Oh, there are some facts we can lay out here, John.

**John:** Yes, there are. Greenhorn, it’s good that you are being paid to write stuff in the UK. You should be paid to write stuff everywhere. Writing something on spec for somebody in a situation you don’t control is not a good practice to get into. For, certainly, a US-based producer, someone who’s a WGA signatory, they should not be doing that at all.

**Craig:** It is a violation of our contract, very specifically, a violation of our minimum basic agreement, our collective bargaining agreement. It also is a violation of the WGA working rules. You are not allowed to write anything on spec for a signatory. You can pitch stuff, but you can’t write. Now, of course, Greenhorn is British. Greenhorn is not in the WGA. This US producer is fully aware of what the deal is. Can they get away with asking a British person to do this? Sure, but it’s wrong. I’m not sure that I would use the word reputable in front of this US producer’s name. If you’re reputable, you don’t ask for this, as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** As a reminder, when we talk about writing on spec, this is a thing where you as the writer are choosing to write a project. Ideally, it’s something you own and control. It’s entirely your thing. Now, there could be situations where a producer comes, is like, “I really want to do a movie set at McDonald’s in space.” It’s like, great. You could go off and write that movie, and that person could be interested in your thing, but you control this fully. You cannot do that situation where that producer somehow owns this thing without having paid you money to write it.

**Craig:** That’s right. If you hear an idea and think, “That sounds amazing. I really want to write this,” the deal is that producer is going to attach themselves and maybe just be a dead weight on it. But it’s yours. You own it. They don’t own the copyright. You wrote it. By the way, you shouldn’t write an outline either. You should write nothing unless you have an employment agreement.

Now, that’s how we do it here with WGA writers in our business. The British system is not as protective as ours, which is odd, because they don’t have work for hire. And yet, as we’ve said many times, in exchange for giving up copyright, we get all the protections a union can afford, and it’s clear that they don’t quite have that in the UK.

**John:** Let’s get to our main topic this week, which is how would this be a biopic.

**Craig:** It’s not bai-AH-pik.

**John:** Not bai-AH-pik. It’s a BAI-oh-pik. We had a whole series of deaths happen recently. People who live long lives are just fantastic. We love people living a long time.

**Craig:** Rosalynn Carter.

**John:** I thought we’d start with Sandra Day O’Connor. Sandra Day O’Connor, for folks who are younger or not American, she was our first female Supreme Court justice. She died recently at 93 due to complications related to advanced dementia. She’d been public about the fact that she had dementia coming on.

**Craig:** Yes, so she has not been-

**John:** In public life.

**Craig:** … in the public eye for many, many years.

**John:** She obviously was an inspiration to a generation of female lawyers, as this pioneer there. She grew up in Arizona. She was a graduate of Stanford, went to Stanford Law School. She was dating William Rehnquist while she was there.

**Craig:** So hot.

**John:** So hot. A belated chief justice. But then she went on to marry another classmate, John O’Connor.

**Craig:** Well done. It has to have been an upgrade.

**John:** When she graduated from Stanford Law School, she was turned down by law firms, because she was a woman. She had to start her own firm with her husband. She was an Arizona state senator, first female majority leader. She became a judge through the Arizona system and then was appointed by Reagan to the Supreme Court. She was a deciding vote in a lot of crucial cases. She was a conservative, but she also voted with liberal majority on other situations, in controversial cases.

Probably the thing she’s most noted for is Planned Parenthood versus Casey, about a woman’s right to abortion and the term “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion. Undue burden felt like a good phrase to hang around a story told about her. Craig, how would this be a movie? Is there a movie? What are some comps that you’re thinking in your head?

**Craig:** I think there is a movie. They made a movie about Ruth Ginsburg.

**John:** Yeah, On the Basis of Sex.

**Craig:** Correct. I actually think there may be a more interesting movie to be made about Sandra Day O’Connor. The reason why is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a progressive firebrand who served faithfully and brilliantly for many, many years, doing exactly what she said she would do. It was one of those stories where somebody is principled, and they stay principled. They face people, obstacles and things in their way. They surmount, and they thrive. Sandra Day O’Connor was far more sneaky. She’s an interesting case of somebody who came up through what you and I knew to be Republicans. That party’s no longer in existence. Might as well call it a different name.

The party of Reagan. In the “only Nixon can go to China” thing, Ronald Reagan, being the first president to appoint a female Supreme Court justice, did so under the aegis of, “This isn’t about women’s lib stuff, of course. She’s a good, staunch conservative in the Ronald Reagan mold.” Like many Supreme Court justices, including some that we have today, she began to surprise people, because while many people disagree with the lifetime appointment clause, what it does is it lets people just do what they want.

**John:** It’s like tenure.

**Craig:** It’s tenure. Sandra Day O’Connor showed an evolution and a wisdom and began to change the way the court was thinking. I love the fact that she dated William Rehnquist. That’s really cool, because then they’re on the court together. That’s fun. There’s cool moments and scenes like that, and also ,somebody wrestling with their own conscience and wrestling with their own principles. The fact that she had to take her husband on just to get a law firm, it’s…You can see somebody compromising until they didn’t have to anymore. That’s really interesting.

**John:** The question of any biopic we’re going to wrestle with a lot-

**Craig:** BAI-oh-pik.

**John:** BAI-oh-pik, gotta say BAI-oh-pik. The question is always where are the edges of this, where do you start the story, where do you end the story. There’s that temptation to do cradle to grave, which I think is generally a mistake. Those are not going to be the most interesting moments of a life. Once you do decide what the more limited window is, do you stay within it, or do you jump out to trace other things? You’re trying to thematically fold this all together.

I can imagine a Sandra Day O’Connor movie that is essentially just about the decision to appoint her and her going in through this moment and surviving that little crucible. I don’t recall her nomination process.

**Craig:** Very smooth.

**John:** So probably not that.

**Craig:** Ronald Reagan had full control.

**John:** He had control of everything.

**Craig:** The Republican Party was a corporation back then and ran like one. The thing I would need is actually information about her marriage, because at the heart of it, you do want that relationship. You want some sort of love story. Same thing that happened with the Ginsburg story. I think also there is something brutal about the greatest minds succumbing to dementia and fading away and what that means for the person who loves her and loved her all that time. That I think is valuable, but it’s also a story of legacy, and that’s really interesting to me. There is no Ruth Bader Ginsburg without Sandra Day O’Connor.

**John:** Absolutely. Depending on where the edges are of the story you’re telling, she was the first, but then Ginsburg is the second woman, I think, on the court.

**Craig:** That sounds right.

**John:** That sounds right. After she’s broken this through, what is it like to have a second woman, once you’ve actually been through there, and how do you-

**Craig:** A woman who’s from, quote unquote, the other side. That’s where it gets interesting. The Supreme Court is notable for very odd bedfellows, weird friendships that form. Kavanaugh, fascinatingly, has become a slightly weird swing vote at times. No one can seem to predict what happens when people get on the court.

**John:** Yeah, because important to recognize that you are appointed because they believe you’re going to have one set of facts, basically that you’re going to be the same person. But of course, people do change over time. That’s why stories are interesting.

**Craig:** Absolutely. When you watch Supreme Court hearings, they are a study in political non-commitment. Everyone knows what’s going on. The job is to be slippery without seeming like you’re slippery, until we all vote yes, and then you’re going to do whatever you want.

**John:** Next up, not controversial at all, Henry Kissinger died recently at 100 years of age.

**Craig:** Yeah, I don’t think this is going to be too… Yeah.

**John:** 100 years old. Actually, you listened to audio this last week of just him at events, coherent and talking at 100 years old, which is great. Statesman, war criminal. Movies have to make choices about how they’re going to portray the complexity of a man’s life.

**Craig:** Kissinger is going to be a movie. That will be a movie.

**John:** 100%. A movie or a mini series. That’s worth talking about.

**Craig:** Movie or a mini series.

**John:** I feel like Sandra Day O’Connor is a movie.

**Craig:** Movie. Kissinger probably you could do a mini series. I’m sure it’s in development already. He falls into the category of monumentous people, for better or worse. He was just this fascinating character, working for a president that openly detested Jews. Here was Henry Kissinger, the most Jewish of Jews.

**John:** Born in Germany. Born Jewish in Germany, fled-

**Craig:** Fled.

**John:** … with his family to New York.

**Craig:** But notably, never lost the accent. He was always an immigrant. For Jewish people, there are levels of assimilation, like there are for any ethnicity in the United States. Having that accent, it’s just remarkable to me. That Nixon-Kissinger relationship is fascinating. There are moments, I think, where Kissinger probably did good, in the way that Lindsey Graham, in his bootlicky way, probably kept Trump from doing some terrible, terrible things. I think Kissinger probably did halt some horrible things. There were some things where he didn’t let Nixon get on the phone because he was drunk. Having somebody that is such an outsider be so inside is fascinating, from a dramatic point of view.

**John:** Absolutely. I was going through the incredibly long Wikipedia article on him, pulling out some little moments. He became a US citizen after he joined the Army to fight in the war. There was a moment which he was just a private during the American advance into Germany and was put in charge of administration of the city of Krefeld, because he was the guy who could speak German, and actually, apparently, did a really good job. It’s just those weird moments of, oh, now we’re fighting the Germans, and you speak German, and that is the moment where you can pick up and shine. That feels like the kind of thing that is in the longer version of this, which is probably the mini series. I don’t know that this fits into the movie.

**Craig:** I agree. That’s why you do want it to be a mini series, because for somebody like Kissinger, you want to walk away… It’s a little bit like the way Sorkin ended Social Network. You feel like you’ve known the spirit of somebody, but you also pity them and loathe them all at the same time. There’s just a core of something that’s sad there. But you can’t make a mini series merely to say, “Bad. This person bad.” That’s not the goal, I don’t think.

**John:** We have some insight into his character, obviously. He gave a lot of interviews. This one interview I wanted to pull out was with an Italian journalist. He writes, “The cowboy doesn’t have to be courageous. All he needs is to be alone, to show others that he rides into town and does everything by himself. This amazing romantic character suits me precisely, because to be alone has always been part of my style or, if you like it, my technique, together with independence. It’s very important for me, and conviction. I’ve always been convinced I had to do whatever I’ve done.”

**Craig:** Yes, which a lot of terrible people also have. Certainly, Kissinger did not lack any conviction. But I would suggest that that is bravado, in that everybody has a dark midnight.

**John:** What does he fear? That’s a thing I don’t think we have a sense of yet, but what the movie or mini series would have to get into.

**Craig:** Given the decisions he was making and the lives that he destroyed, particularly in Cambodia, but all over Southeast Asia, there had to have been moments of doubt, had to, because ultimately, it didn’t work.

**John:** Thinking about the edges of this mini series – it’s going to be a mini series – I think you have to pick an exit point, because he ended up staying in governmental life and policy life up until months ago. He was always an advisor to people. But I don’t think that’s going to be interesting. I don’t think that’s relevant.

**Craig:** Agreed. The meat of it ends with the fall of Nixon and the end of the Vietnam War. Then I think you jump ahead to him much, much later in life and see him trying to rehabilitate or defend or whatever, and yet still, again, there is that last moment where you have to ask, where is the humanity of this person, and what happened? How does it feel?

**John:** So question of how many actors. Where do you break up his life? Is it three actors? Is there a 20-something, is there a 40-something, and then an old man version? Where are the splits?

**Craig:** If I were doing it, I would probably want just one actor, if I could. If he’s very young in the war – I don’t know how old he was when he was in World War II – then it’s hard. Then you want two. But if he’s a full adult, then I think… Because also, you’re going to need to do some prosthetic work and makeup on somebody to play Kissinger. Nobody’s just walking in the room looking like him. You don’t necessarily want to drift into the whole Saturday Night Live, “Look, I look exactly like the guy.” We had to deal with this with Mikhail Gorbachev in Chernobyl. It was a tricky thing. I feel like you could probably get away with one really, really good actor, because the great bulk of the work is going to be-

**John:** The Nixon era.

**Craig:** … 60s and 70s.

**John:** I’m surprised there’s not a movie out there yet. There’s a documentary Alex Gibney did, The Trials of Henry Kissinger. The comps I was thinking about for this, it’s obviously Oppenheimer, a recent version, which was focused though on one moment in his life. I think we’re expanding beyond just the one focal point. It also made me think of, there’s a Michael Jackson biopic coming out. It reminded of just like, wow, you are walking into a minefield there. Talk about someone who’s a hero and a villain.

**Craig:** Yes, and you have to go in knowing that people are going to be critiquing this heavily no matter what you do. There’s no way that you put this out and everybody goes, “Yeah.”

**John:** “Yeah, that’s good.”

**Craig:** “We all agree.” It’s not as simple as something like Frost/Nixon, for instance, where Nixon’s clearly the villain, and really the hero journey there is, will David Frost get this guy to spill it or not. This is different. It’s also different than, the other thing I was thinking about was the John Adams mini series, Paul Giamatti. The point of that was that John Adams, crusty and grouchy and miserable as he was, was perhaps the most important Founding Father. That’s not the case here. This is something else.

**John:** Simpler story perhaps, Rosalynn Carter passed away recently, also in her 90s. She was the First Lady when her husband, Jimmy Carter, was the president. Born in Plains, Georgia, married Jimmy Carter, was politically active during her husband’s entire governorship and presidency. She was very involved as a First Lady. She was in cabinet meetings in ways that was controversial at the time, although there’s precedent for that before then, of course. Active with the Equal Rights Amendments. One of the first modern feminists who was in the White House there. Portrayed as a Steel Magnolia, sweet and loving but spine of steel.

**Craig:** Tough.

**John:** Tough. Criticized for lack of attention paid to fashion, which I think is an interesting thing, the sexism that goes in there. Hard to point to achievements in and of herself. It’s hard to imagine the Rosalynn Carter story that isn’t largely about Jimmy Carter, although I would say a comp for me would be Priscilla by Sofia Coppola, which is looking at the wife of Elvis, rather than that whole story.

**Craig:** But even there in Priscilla, the point is she was a child, that we have forgotten that Elvis essentially was a pedophile, I guess, by modern standards.

**John:** Yeah, by modern standards.

**Craig:** It’s funny. Melissa went to the Stevie Nicks concert last night. Apparently, Stevie’s still crushing it in her 70s. I was like, “Did she play Edge of Seventeen?” “Oh yeah, of course.” I’m like, “That’s about a boy who’s 16, so I guess technically it’s still pedophilia by today’s standards.”

In the case of Rosalynn Carter, to me the story is probably about the relationship between Rosalynn Carter and Jimmy Carter. It’s a little bit more like Johnny Cash. I don’t know. It just feels like on her own… By the way, in a weird way, on Jimmy Carter’s own, even though he was president, I’m not sure there would be enough there. But their relationship was fascinating, so long-lived and so beautiful and decent, and the way that they both just walked the walk. Also, the two of them defined a kind of Christianity that is what I would think of as actual Christianity.

**John:** When you look at the Habitat for Humanity work that Carter was doing later on in his years, it’s literally building houses for people, just like, be a carpenter.

**Craig:** Following the teachings of Jesus and giving and giving and giving. You’d like to think that, in part, that’s why they both made it so far in life. They were fulfilled with each other and by life and their good works, which is in stark contrast to some of the people that we now deal with, these social media-baiting idiots. It’s almost like a different species of person. The sadness of her death to me was more in the context of end of an era.

**John:** I worry about lack of conflict. I don’t know where the source of the conflict is. The conflict doesn’t feel like it’s between the two of them. Who is the antagonist here, and how is she growing and changing? I don’t have a sense of that yet. Any movie is going to need to figure out what that is, because right now, it’s almost Hallmarky in the sense it’s just smooth sailing.

**Craig:** One of the things that drama struggles with is to portray decency, steady, reliable decency, because it’s not interesting. We simply aren’t entertained by it. Neither one of them seemed interested in interesting anyone. They just wanted to do good things. I do think a Rosalynn Carter biopic would be a challenge. Jimmy Carter, you know that he was involved in this insane nuclear accident?

**John:** No, I don’t know anything about that.

**Craig:** Not that he caused it, but he was a nuclear engineer. He worked on nuclear submarines. There was an accident at a reactor. Jimmy Carter and his team was sent in to clean it up, and they did. It was Chernobyl-ish in the fact that they were exposed to quite a bit of radiation and all the rest of it. He was an heroic guy, and I think more than any other president, has received a little bit of historical rehabilitation, at least any other from my lifetime.

**John:** Going back to the whole issues of conflict and where is the conflict in this story, I am aware that we on Scriptnotes are always talking about the hero’s journey, the sense of, oh, this is the character who grows up in a place, leaves the place, is transformed, goes through these trials. That’s not the only way stories can work mythologically. There’s things called the heroine’s journey and other alternative ways of thinking about what a central character’s journey might be. We’re trying to put together an episode talking through these alternate ways of thinking about that.

**Craig:** Listen. Anything that interests people, I think, is the goal. It doesn’t have to be from one perspective or another. What’s fascinating to me is that, as varied as world cultures are, storytelling and mythologizing are incredibly similar. The Hero’s Journey ultimately really was just saying that. The word hero was applied to all genders. It is kind of incredible. It makes me wonder if this way we think about storytelling, it’s just imprinted in the brain. It’s not necessarily cultural. The brain has a way of organizing drama. But that said, I’m open to anything. If it makes people sit forward and engages them, yes.

**John:** I think some of the overlooked stories in mythology would be Demeter’s story, or the kidnapped woman who has to adapt and survive in a place, Medea as a woman who is not a classic protagonist story, yet is a part of foundational.

**Craig:** Great story there.

**John:** It’s a great story though.

**Craig:** Those kids die.

**John:** They do.

**Craig:** She’s angry.

**John:** She’s very angry.

**Craig:** Oh, man, does she get angry.

**John:** You know who else is angry?

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** George Santos.

**Craig:** The Pope, George Santos?

**John:** Pope George Santos. For folks who are listening to this years after we recorded it and are going, “Who is George Santos?”

**Craig:** “Who is George Santos?” George Santos, I believe he was the Pope. He was a Jewish, not-Jewish, astronaut, physicist, professor. I think he was the president and also none of those, just a liar.

**John:** George Anthony Devolder Santos we believe is his full name.

**Craig:** Maybe.

**John:** Spent his early life in Jackson Heights and also in Brazil. He was elected as a US Representative from New York City as a Republican, openly gay. Everything that basically he ended up saying turned out to be a lie.

**Craig:** Lie.

**John:** This was all revealed after he was elected. The New York Times reported how much of his life was misrepresented. There was really a sense of failure of journalism to have not investigated any of this stuff earlier on. He was the sixth person ever kicked out of Congress.

**Craig:** Congress is enormous. 535, I think, people. Over the course of 200 and whatever many years, he’s number six. He not only was a serial fabulist, who for instance eventually would say, “I’m Jew-ish.” He also was a fraud. He was misusing campaign funds to buy fabulous things. We’re talking about him like he’s dead. He’s still alive. He is fascinating.

**John:** Yes. I think he’s a great character.

**Craig:** He is. I love listening to him, because it’s like somebody coming out and saying, “And now, the dumpster fire show.” It’s weirdly funny.

**John:** It’s funny because you recognize he actually has no power. With Trump, it’s terrifying, because like, oh shit, people are actually going to vote for him. Everyone recognizes this is absurd.

**Craig:** It is a remarkable clown show. You’re right. He does feel vaguely innocuous. He did misuse campaign funds, and that’s a crime.

**John:** That’s a crime. He’s indicted. He will probably go to jail.

**Craig:** He will go to prison, as well he should. I hope he does. But he’s also kind of ridiculous. Even when Saturday Night Live would make fun of him, it seemed like they were enjoying it.

**John:** Absolutely. Bowen Yang’s portrayal of him was delightful and funny. You’d worry, oh, it’s softening him too much, but not really. It’s not like the thing you worry about with Trump, where you’re making him likable. You’re not making him likable, because he’s absurd.

**Craig:** He’s absurd and he was ejected from a Republican-controlled Congress, and he was a Republican. He is now starting to accuse other people of things. He’s like, “Okay. If you kick me out, I’m going to say that one’s gay and that one did this and that one beat his wife.” There’s a great exchange where he accused a guy of beating his wife. The problem with George Santos is he’s like the kid who cried wolf times a thousand. Who knows what anything coming out of his mouth-

**John:** You can’t believe anything, I think-

**Craig:** Nothing.

**John:** … which is part of the fun. Looking for comps with this, Shattered Glass, in terms of a fabulist, is just watching it all come crashing down. What’s so weird though is, in the movie Shattered Glass – Billy Ray wrote and directed that – it’s over the course of one day, it just all comes crashing down. Here, the story comes out, but it just keeps going and going and going.

**Craig:** It just keeps going.

**John:** It reminded me a little more of Tiger King, where it’s just like, you’re an absurd character here, and somehow the world has to go around.

**Craig:** Great comp. That’s a great comp. That’s why a documentary that would follow, if it had followed George Santos around-

**John:** Oh, god.

**Craig:** … and picked up his reaction and his bizarre lies and then showing how he was lying with a simple edit from what he says to what is real would’ve been amazing. Shattered Glass, Billy portrays Stephen Glass as a tragic figure who wants applause and love and can’t get it. Peter Sarsgaard does such a beautiful job of playing somebody who beats himself up for getting suckered.

Everybody knows. There’s no conflict. Everybody knows. He knows. He knows he’s lying when he’s lying. He’s basically saying, “I’m lying.” There’s a great clip from Fox News where someone asks him something, and he gives an answer, and she goes, “You just can’t tell the truth.” That is literally on Fox News. No one ever believed anything he said, and then that’s it. Then he got kicked out.

**John:** There is a movie in development.

**Craig:** You’re kidding me.

**John:** Oh, no.

**Craig:** Oh, come on.

**John:** It’s HBO. It could be really fun.

**Craig:** It’s on HBO? Who’s doing it?

**John:** It’s written by Mike Makowsky, who came on Scriptnotes. He’s the guy who did-

**Craig:** Oh, I remember.

**John:** … Bad Education.

**Craig:** He’s a good writer.

**John:** Good writer. Episode 448, he was on for that. Here’s the write-up that we have so far. “The film tells the story of a seemingly minor local race that wound up a battle for the soul of Long Island and unexpectedly carved the path to the world’s most famous and now disgraced Congressman. It follows the Gatsby-esque journey of a man from nowhere who exploited the system, waged war on the truth, and swindled one of the wealthiest districts in the country to achieve his American dream.”

**Craig:** I wish Mike all the luck. I don’t know how I would do… I also don’t know how to do a lot of things. Then I see them and I’m like, “Oh, that’s how you do it.”

**John:** It feels like the HBO movie is the right way to go. It’s Frank Rich who-

**Craig:** It’s a movie?

**John:** Yeah, a movie.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** It looks like it’s a movie.

**Craig:** You said Frank Rich?

**John:** Frank Rich. Veep and-

**Craig:** Now I’m in.

**John:** … Succession.

**Craig:** No offense to Mike. He’s a really good writer. But Frank Rich just simply to me, he doesn’t just signify quality, he creates quality. I can’t imagine that anything involving Frank Rich will be anything less than excellent.

**John:** Now you’re excited.

**Craig:** Now I’m sitting full-

**John:** Now you’re on board.

**Craig:** I’m going to watch this.

**John:** The last one is Sam Altman and OpenAI. The short version of this, we’re recording this the 3rd of December, 2023. Who knows what the next-

**Craig:** Week or two will bring.

**John:** New stuff always happens. Essentially, Sam Altman is the CEO of OpenAI, which is one of the big AI companies as of 2023. His rise to this position, at 19 he founded Loopt, which is a location-based social networking mobile application, raised $30 million in venture capital, ultimately sold it for $43 million. Was president of Y Combinator, the big venture startup, and then OpenAI, which was founded by him, Greg Brockman, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Microsoft, and Amazon Web Services, other folks in there.

**Craig:** Veritable rogues gallery.

**John:** Absolutely. You’ve got some really fascinating personalities in there. Then of course, the big thing that happened recently for us was that OpenAI’s board, which is a nonprofit, which is really confusing, voted to oust him. His employees rose up and said, “No, you can’t get rid of him,” and so he came back in.

**Craig:** Now, in the traditional version of this story, what happens is the evil board decides to push AI into dangerous territory to make more money, and the courageous CEO, backed by his faithful workers, rebel. It is the opposite of what has happened here. What appears to have happened is the board was worried that things were getting pushed too far, and Sam was like, “No.”

**John:** We don’t honestly know. One of the things that’s so fascinating about this moment we’re in right now is that we don’t know they actually fired him, because they’ve been so, so vague.

**Craig:** I guess maybe I’m saying a rumor.

**John:** You’re saying a rumor. It’s been so, so vague. The best explanation I’ve heard most recently is the board realized they couldn’t control him. It wasn’t about a worry of a specific thing. They just figured out, “Oh, we have three votes. We could oust him.” They just did it without thinking through stuff.

I think my question is, when a version of this story is told, which I think probably will be told, again, where are the edges of this? Do you just really focus on those few days and all of the drama around it? It’s a really tight thing, like Margin Call, which is really a tight, little story, or do you go bigger and broader? Because we’re still in the middle of it, we don’t know what is actually going to happen with OpenAI. I think that’s probably a mistake. I think you do need to put some edges on it.

**Craig:** We should ask ChatGPT what it thinks.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** I feel like it’s a sequence in a movie. I don’t think in and of itself, a board ousting somebody and then putting them back in feels… I wouldn’t tune in.

**John:** It feels like part of an episode of Succession. It doesn’t feel like enough of a story in itself.

**Craig:** In fact, it’s part of seven episodes of Succession.

**John:** It’s happened a few times on Succession.

**Craig:** Just a few. The board voting and getting rid of somebody and not getting rid of somebody, we’ve definitely seen that. It does work as a dramatic device in fiction. In reality, in some of the Apple movies, they’ve said, “Okay, we’re going to get rid of Steve Jobs. Oh, we’re going to put Steve Jobs back in.” But it’s never the focus of the movie.

**John:** The other comps obviously are Social Network, Blackberry, which I really enjoyed.

**Craig:** I want to see Blackberry. I haven’t seen it.

**John:** Blackberry’s fun. It’s like, “Oh wow, we’ve built this amazing thing.” Then the iPhone comes out, and everything comes crashing down in ways that are delightful.

**Craig:** Yeah, and they’re Canadian.

**John:** They’re Canadian. It’s a thoroughly Canadian movie.

**Craig:** So Canadian. I love that.

**John:** It’s so good. The appealing thing about trying to do this movie is it gives you a chance to also include a bunch of other famous people. Peter Thiel and Elon, Satya Nadella. There’s lots of people you can stick in there.

**Craig:** So many people that will sue you.

**John:** Let’s talk about that.

**Craig:** Thiel’s going to sue you, for sure.

**John:** Thiel, he’s already sued-

**Craig:** He may sue us for even talking about him.

**John:** Absolutely. We have no criticism of Peter Thiel on this podcast.

**Craig:** Oh, god.

**John:** But I will say, let’s talk about who can sue you of the people we’ve talked about’s things. The nice thing about the dead people is they can’t sue you.

**Craig:** Dead people can’t sue you.

**John:** Santos is going to have a hard time suing you.

**Craig:** Santos, he could try, but he doesn’t have the money anymore, and he’s going to go to prison probably. Peter Thiel and Elon Musk can sue you in the blink of an eye, and in doing so, wreck you if you fight back, because obviously, they have essentially unlimited resources. That’s terrifying. It is one of the reasons why we need an independent, free, and thriving press in this country, because the press really is protected in ways that individuals aren’t. I’m sure that any company making something like this would be a little concerned. Elon and Peter certainly have been litigious before.

**John:** Of the biopics we talked through today, which ones do we think are going to actually happen? You were pretty thumbs up on Sandra Day O’Connor.

**Craig:** Yes. I think that Sandra Day O’Connor feels like it could be a decent movie.

**John:** Henry Kissinger?

**Craig:** Definitely.

**John:** 100%. Multiple versions of it probably.

**Craig:** Yes. That’d be a good HBO mini series, I would imagine. Limited series, I should say.

**John:** Rosalynn Carter?

**Craig:** I don’t think so.

**John:** I don’t think so either. I think you’d have to find a very specific way into it. George Santos is actually already happening.

**Craig:** It’s happening.

**John:** It’s happening.

**Craig:** Frank Rich.

**John:** Frank Rich.

**Craig:** Mike Makowsky.

**John:** Sam Altman, I don’t think yet.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** People are trying to do it. I know there’s people milling around.

**Craig:** He’s also just now emerged as a name people know because of this. Prior to that, he wasn’t TV famous.

**John:** He’s also young. There’s a lot of runway ahead for him.

**Craig:** Absolutely. I assume that he, like all of the Silicon people, uses a blood boy to refresh his blood.

**John:** A thing I didn’t talk about is, in addition to OpenAI, he has that service that’s scanning people’s eyeballs for identity and cryptocurrency.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** That’s good stuff.

**Craig:** Can’t wait to-

**John:** Can’t wait for that.

**Craig:** … see what’s coming on the horizon.

**John:** Nothing ominous about that.

**Craig:** Nope. Going to hide in my house.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is the International Phonetic Alphabet, which I’m now learning, because I’ve never learned it. The IPA is a way of describing all the sounds in human languages. It’s a very distinct system for how you write that down. I’ve always seen it, and I’ve never been able to interpret it or understand it. I’m writing my flashcards, and I’m just learning how to do it.

**Craig:** Love that.

**John:** It is really clever and cool. You recognize the similarities and differences between languages and between dialects and accents, because the same word in English, based on different accents, would have very different written versions in IPA.

**Craig:** Notations.

**John:** Notations in IPA.

**Craig:** I just did a puzzle recently where part of the deal was you had to use one of the IPA diacritics, a single dot, two dots, or a line, to change the pronunciation of a word-

**John:** Oh, neat.

**Craig:** … in the clue to be able to solve the answer. Then later, when you looked at all of those things, the dots and the dashes form Morse code letters.

**John:** Love it.

**Craig:** It was fun to sit with the IPA notation there and do that. It’s very cool for nerds.

**John:** For nerds. For nerds.

**Craig:** For uncool people like us.

**John:** But also, those are homonyms. What’s one-

**Craig:** Homophone?

**John:** When a word has two different pronunciations, but it’s written the same way, that’s a homonym?

**Craig:** That is a homonym, right.

**John:** Homonym.

**Craig:** Homophones are the ones that sound the same but mean different things.

**John:** Present versus present. They track those differently. It’s not just where the emphasis is. Literally, the vowel sounds have changed.

**Craig:** Yes, exactly. I’m with you. I support your One Cool Thing. I think it is cool.

**John:** Every January 1st, I try to have an area of interest for the new year.

**Craig:** That’s very John August of you.

**John:** IPA is going to be my area of interest.

**Craig:** I did a variety writers thing a few days ago, and Nathan Fielder was one of the other writers on the panel. He listens to our show.

**John:** As does Bowen Yang, who played George Santos.

**Craig:** Bowen listens to our show?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** He’s a genius. I’m obsessed all the way back to his lip syncing videos. You’ve seen those, right?

**John:** Oh, 100%.

**Craig:** They’re amazing.

**John:** That’s where I first became aware of him.

**Craig:** He’s amazing. Okay, so Bowen, hi. Come on our show. You’re awesome. Nathan wanted me to pass along hello to you. He also said, in his Nathan, he’s like, “I feel like John August is a very organized guy.” Then he said, “I don’t mean to say that you’re not organized. I just feel like, you know.” I was like, “No, you nailed it. He’s a very organized guy.” You’ve organized your new topic for 2024.

**John:** Yeah. I’m prepared.

**Craig:** Well done. My One Cool Thing is a trailer for a television series that just came out, I believe two days ago, as of this recording. It is for the show Fallout.

**John:** I’m excited to see Fallout. Our friends have made that show.

**Craig:** Fallout is executive produced by Jonah Nolan and Lisa Joy, who have been on our show before. Jonah, I believe, directed the first couple of episodes. I don’t think they’re the showrunners. I just know them. I’m so sorry to the showrunners. We’ll get you in the show notes, I promise. After The Last of Us, there seemed to be this, I don’t know, epidemic of sudden development of video games into shows and movies and things. I suspect quite a few of them are not going to work very well.

What I loved about the trailer for Fallout was the vibe, which I think is different than tone. Tone is sort of like, what kind of comedy, what kind of drama, is it melodramatic, is it realistic. Vibe is this other stuff. It’s just like, did you capture the soul of something. As a Fallout fan, I watch that trailer, and I’m like, “Yeah, they got the vibe.”

Now, I can’t say anything yet about the story they’re telling. They have to create a central character, because when you play, it’s just you. You don’t have a name, and you don’t talk. We’ll see how that works. The vibe, that retro futuristic thing, and how they smartly knew to say, “Okay, the power suits have to look exactly like that, but the ghouls don’t have to look like the ghouls in the game. We want to maintain Walter Goggins’s face so that he can act.” These are the decisions you have to make when you’re adapting video games. So far, from what I’ve seen, looking awesome.

**John:** That’s great.

**Craig:** That’s on Amazon.

**John:** Feels like Amazon. We’re guessing. It’s on a streamer.

**Craig:** Amazon? It’s Fallout. Whatever. It’s Fallout.

**John:** I’m excited to see it.

**Craig:** Yeah, very much so.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Our outro this week comes from James Llonch. It features Craig Mazin ranting about his least favorite screenwriting app.

**Craig:** Which one? Oh, yes, that one.

**John:** That one. If you have an outro, you could send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. We always love to hear your outros. That’s also the place where you can send questions and follow-up. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also 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 can find them at Cotton Bureau. They ship in time for Christmas, so get those.

**Craig:** Great Christmas gift-

**John:** Great Christmas gift.

**Craig:** … for the dork in your family.

**John:** Also, Christmas gift, Arlo Finches are still out there for the kids out there.

**Craig:** I don’t know if Finches is… I want to make it different. I want to give you a different pluralization.

**John:** Arlos Finch?

**Craig:** Arlo Finchae.

**John:** Finchae?

**Craig:** I like Arlo Finchae.

**John:** All right. They’re good. You can get them signed. There’s a link in the show notes for those. Writer Emergency Pack, they sell really big on Amazon. Craig-

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** It’s weird making a seasonal product, because literally, our chart is just like a straight line up. It’s like a hockey stick. It’s a gift. People give it.

**Craig:** I don’t think people who don’t sell things understand what Christmas is really about.

**John:** It is crazy.

**Craig:** Christmas is an economic phenomenon.

**John:** 80% of the money we make on Writer Emergency Pack is holidays.

**Craig:** You are hardly the only business that does.

**John:** You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net. Also, a good gift, you could get somebody a Scriptnotes gift. At scriptnotes.net, you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on which event in history had the most negative impact on civilization.

**Craig:** Heavy.

**John:** Thanks, Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** This Bonus Segment topic I’m stealing from Electoral Vote, which is a website I read every day about what’s happening in US government. It’s a good site for that. Their question was, which single event at any time in history has had the biggest negative impact on civilization? They had good suggestions from their own listeners, but I wanted to hear from you, what you were thinking about. We also have to discuss, what is a single event? Is this a thing that happens in the course of a day, or can it be over a couple years? Is World War I an event?

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Yeah, sure.

**Craig:** Sure. You could, if you wanted to, just squish it down to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which kicked it off.

**John:** Yeah, but there would still probably have been a World War I. It was going to happen.

**Craig:** It was a pile of gasoline-soaked rags.

**John:** I’m saying the African slave trade is not an event. That to me is too broad of a thing.

**Craig:** It is not an event. We’re looking for an event. That’s a tough one. It also eliminates things like disease, which has had a greater impact on us than anything.

**John:** The Black Death.

**Craig:** Bubonic plague, smallpox, all of these things. The adoption of Christianity by the Romans and the transformation of this-

**John:** Theodosius, I think, was the-

**Craig:** It was Constantine. I believe it was Constantine.

**John:** The Romans, they were taking this, what essentially was a kind of obscure cult, and making it the state religion.

**Craig:** Just made it the state. I thought it was Constantine, but I could be wrong. Either way, whoever did it suddenly turned this cult of sacrificial, the worship of the poor, and made it imperial. The Holy Roman Empire then spread and essentially took over all of Europe and went to war with the Ottoman Empire, and also imparted what the Americans called manifest destiny, a religious aspect to the concept of domination, dominating other cultures because they were not appropriately religious. The Holy Wars were incredibly costly. Then the sectarianism, where the church had a schism, and that created wars, all the way through to what was happening in Ireland. That, I think, as an event, it’s… Listen. There’s another way of looking at it, which is if the Romans hadn’t done that, and they spread the Roman mythology across, that it still turns out terrible.

**John:** There’s plenty of alt histories, which is basically like, what if they hadn’t done that? We’re living under a more standard Roman mythology of stuff. That would be weird as well.

**Craig:** We worship Jupiter.

**John:** Exactly. Along the thread of conquering the world, you also have Genghis Khan and say his birth or his rise out of that place. You look at the transformation of Asia and the fact that some astonishing number of percentage of people have Genghis Khan’s DNA because of what happened there.

**Craig:** You could point to Mao’s Great Leap Forward. In terms of hard-to-comprehend numbers of deaths, maybe 20 million people. Numbers that we really can’t get our arms around.

**John:** Columbus visiting America. Would Europeans have gotten to America at some other point? Yes.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But Columbus’s arrival and then subsequent voyages and having the Crown behind him and the resources to really annihilate indigenous peoples.

**Craig:** Annihilate them largely through disease, although I would still trace that back to the notion of we must spread Christian values to the world of nonbelievers and pagans.

**John:** I don’t have a good sense, honestly, of when the missionaries actually became part of it, because I perceive it as being a gold rush at the start.

**Craig:** Yeah, the missionaries were right there. The conquistadors. Everybody went under the banner of Christ. Everybody was there to spread the word. Justin Marks, we’ve had Justin on the show.

**John:** I think so. He was on the show.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s got Shogun coming out, which also looks fantastic. I love Shogun, by the way. One of my favorite novels. The Jesuits were there in Japan in the 1800s. They go everywhere. The missionaries find themselves all over the world. That was the tip of the spear of colonialism and the slave trade and all sorts of terrible things. Oh, man, one event.

**John:** The burning of the Library at Alexandria.

**Craig:** Brutal.

**John:** Brutal, brutal loss. It’s a little unclear how much those were the only copies of those documents and how much other stuff could be found.

**Craig:** Why didn’t they back it up in the Cloud?

**John:** Come on. Cloud storage, man.

**Craig:** Guys, it’s Cloud storage. It’s free.

**John:** Absolutely. Dropbox.

**Craig:** Wouldn’t it have been cool to go back and say, “You guys can back this up in the Cloud.” They just look up.

**John:** Let’s talk about inventions. The steam engine, obviously, as an instrument of war. A lot of these things, you could see there’s the pro and the con. The printing press allowed for misinformation and the Bible, but it also allowed for literacy and development of culture.

**Craig:** One of the great events that transformed the world, I think again, probably for good and for bad in equal measures, was industrialization, the concept of the assembly line. In the Revolutionary War, Americans kind of invented assembly lines to create arms, to create armaments. It was one of the reasons we won. You could certainly point to gunpowder as being a huge problem.

**John:** Or the first mass-produced revolver was 1836. That’s a huge change. Before then, you’re making a gun one at a time.

**Craig:** Exactly, and you’re firing one shot at a time and loading in your things. Yes, all absolutely true. Then there’s the open question of nuclear weapons.

**John:** Is Hiroshima the event?

**Craig:** There are people who argue that Hiroshima prevented the invasion of Japan and even more Japanese deaths and more American deaths. There are people who argue that Hiroshima prevented the Soviet invasion of Japan, and then the Stalinist oppression of that country. Then of course, there are people who say, “Sorry, you just murdered tens and tens and thousands and thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with this war. They were just civilians.” But also, notable, we haven’t had a world war since the invention of nuclear weapons, because it seems untenable.

**John:** Maybe some future topic we’ll talk about the good things, the single best things that have happened, because I can think of a couple off the top of my head. The contraceptive pill changed society for the best.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** Just the ability for women to head to the workforce and have control over their fertility.

**Craig:** Vaccination.

**John:** Vaccination.

**Craig:** Vaccination on its own is a miracle. A miracle. So of course, idiots have to blame it for things. It’s unbelievable.

**John:** It’s the worst. Thank you, Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

Links:

* [Sandra Day O’Connor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor)
* [Henry Kissinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger)
* [Rosalynn Carter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalynn_Carter)
* [George Santos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santos)
* [Sam Altman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Altman)
* [What happened at OpenAI? The Sam Altman saga, explained](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/20/openai-sam-altman-ceo-oust/) by Rachel Lehman for The Washington Post
* [International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)](https://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/)
* [Fallout – Trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kQ8i2FpRDk)
* [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 James Llonch ([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/621standard.mp3).

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/this-uncertain-age).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 620 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, what is it about this moment at the end of 2023 that feels so uncertain, so unsettled? We’ll discuss how we’re feeling about the industry and beyond. We also have follow-up on advice we gave listeners in previous episodes, and new questions on composite characters, anecdotes, and sustaining a D&D group. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we are going to freestyle an introduction to the Scriptnotes book, the first draft of which, Craig, is due in January.

**Craig:** Oh, no. I haven’t done anything.

**John:** It’s a nightmare where you wake up and you realize the exam is happening.

**Craig:** I haven’t studied.

**John:** You forgot to drop the class.

**Craig:** My essay isn’t finished.

**John:** The book is in good shape, but we don’t have an introduction. Most of the book is really just based on our transcripts. We will have a freestyle discussion, and that’ll become the introduction to the book.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** People can hear it here first. First, Drew, we have some follow-up on previous people who wrote in with questions.

**Drew Marquardt:** We heard back from Ghosted, who is no longer ghosted. They wrote, “I just wanted to write in with an encouraging follow-up. After having been ghosted by the studio for six months when a film I wrote disappeared off a streaming site, the director emailed today to tell me that it is now available to rent and buy on Apple and Amazon. Thank you for encouraging me to go directly to the director and to contact the WGA about my concerns over not having a copy of my work. I did both, and I’m not sure if it led to this outcome, but at least it helped me feel less helpless.”

**Craig:** That’s quite good.

**John:** That’s good.

**Craig:** I think people, especially in Hollywood, we’re trained early on to, “Don’t overdo it. Don’t write in too much.” That can sometimes turn into utter passivity. Don’t be scared.

**John:** Just in my own life this past week, I had heard back about this project. I got news through my agent about, “Oh, it’s sort of unsettled here. We’re not really quite sure.” It’s like, “I’m just going to text the producer and ask.”

**Craig:** Yeah, “What’s going on?”

**John:** It nudged things forward. Don’t feel like you’re going to be a dick to ask about what’s going on.

**Craig:** There’s a difference between shy and weak. You’re allowed to be shy while you’re asking people questions. It’s perfectly fine. You can be a little nervous, especially if you’re new, because we’ve all heard the stories of the person that emailed every day, three times a day, because they had gone to persistence school or whatever. Nobody likes them. But you’re not that person, shy lady or guy. You’re just a little reluctant.

**John:** Good. Our next bit of follow-up is a similar vein here. This is from Ben.

**Drew:** Ben writes, “I was the person whose boss’s boss’s boss forwarded my script to a creative executive at the studio I work at as an office coordinator. The creative executive loved my script, and I had a general meeting with him. Here’s what happened in the past year. I took John and Craig’s advice and emailed my new creative executive friend and asked him if he could send my script, along with his general good feelings and approval, to an agent he would feel to be best suited for me. The creative executive never emailed me back. That’s fine.”

**Craig:** Nailed it.

**Drew:** “He’s super busy, and he probably just didn’t have an answer for me, so I just continued to write. I decided to write a middle-grade novel as my grad school thesis. I’m happy to report that not only did I graduate with my MFA, I also currently have interest from seven publishing agents.

“However, after the strike ended, I reached out to my creative executive friend. He seemed excited to hear from me. We got on Zoom to talk. When he asked me what I was working on, I said I had a comedy pilot. He said he’d love to read it. I sent it to him, but it’s been two months, and I haven’t heard back. Not sure what to do about that, but my instinct tells me to simply wait it out and keep writing. My dad always says it’ll work out for you, just not in the way you think it will, and I’m going to go with that.”

**Craig:** Your dad’s very Zen.

**John:** Your dad is very Zen. Dad may be a little bit too Zen, for two months.

**Craig:** I agree. Dad’s moving towards just flat-lining there.

**John:** I would say it’s worth following up with the creative executive, say, “Hey, checking in to see if you’ve had a chance to read that pilot I sent through to you. Also, some good news on this front that this book I wrote seems to be attracting some interest.”

**Craig:** There’s another possibility, which is that he’s just not that into you. There is always that situation where maybe there’s an initial spark of interest, and then it dies down. You have to accept that that’s a possibility. In our business, people get very excited very quickly about things, a little bit like overdramatic people in their love lives, just fall in love within seconds, and then two weeks later, they’re like, “Who?” You may have just caught a spike, and the spike is gone. That’s okay. Really, the advice here is don’t just rely on this one connection. Start looking for another one.

**John:** You need to date around some, Ben.

**Craig:** This well may have run dry.

**John:** Yeah, which is fine and fair. That absolutely does happen. That is not a crisis for you. I like that, Ben, you went back and just kept writing, which is crucial.

**Craig:** That’s the key.

**John:** You did a new thing, which is important. That will get you far in life, we’ll hope. It’s time for my thesis for this episode. Craig, I’m going to lay this out. We haven’t talked about this at all ahead of time. I’m curious what you think.

My belief is that, as people, we go through life with this expectation that next month, next year, all of the tomorrows will be largely as they are today, and while there will be change, we can generally anticipate what those changes are going to be and incorporate them into our vision of the future, because we are nothing more than a predictive species. We think, “What’s going to happen tomorrow? What’s going to happen next season?”

For example, every year, we can anticipate there’s going to be a new iPhone. It will be faster. The camera will be better. But it’s not going to fundamentally transform society. It’s not going to change our personal lives. We’re not going to put off next year’s vacation because, “Oh, I don’t know what the next iPhone is going to be like.” That would be absurd.

But then there are changes that do transform society. Sometimes those are slow enough that we don’t really notice that they’re happening. You and I were both around for the start of the internet. The internet did change everything, and yet it was a very slow roll-out. It didn’t feel like day after day-

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** … we had to anticipate things are going to be vastly different in our lives. Even when Amazon came or when Napster came, yeah, it was new stuff, but it didn’t fundamentally transform how we thought about the future.

But then there have been some moments that were really abrupt shocks, where things feel like, “Oh, I just don’t know what’s going to happen next.” 9/11 was one of those. We talked about the 2016 election. We did that special episode after that, because it was hard to envision how things were going to fit. The pandemic was another thing. It totally knocked us off track. We just didn’t know what life would be like after that, how would we get back to a normal space.

What I’m feeling right now, as we’re recording this at the end of November 2023, is a different but kind of related sensation. It’s that we’re not in one moment of particular crisis – this is not a pandemic, this is not a 9/11 – but I feel like personally, as an industry, I’m having a harder time envisioning the future than I normally would. Some of that is obviously just coming out of the strikes and knowing how stuff is going to start up again. Some of it is the upcoming election. A fair amount of it is AI stuff. But I feel like we’re in this moment of unprecedented uncertainty.

I’m out pitching a movie right now. In a best-case scenario, we might start shooting in 2025, may come out in 2026. I’m having a harder time envisioning 2025 and 2026 than I should be, what two or three years from now is going to look like. That’s just the vibes I’m feeling, this unspecified anxiety. I thought we’d talk through this on a couple different axes. I’m curious whether you’re feeling anything similar, Craig.

**Craig:** To an extent. I have a little bit more certainty in my career, because I basically am parked at a place, making a thing. Unless there’s a dramatic upheaval where nobody wants to watch any television at all, my future’s stuck in a place for a few years. However, it’s very easy for me to go, let’s just play the game. Let’s say you’re not making the show, and I’m not parked at a place. I would absolutely be feeling this uncertainly.

First of all, there’s been a lot of movement in terms of who runs places. Things have changed across the board in that regard. Also, I think you could just feel in the air that Netflix is experiencing things. I don’t know how you would describe their experience of things. There was an article that came out. I don’t know if you read this article about Carl Rinsch.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** It’s incredible. It’s Ringe or Rinsch. Carl Rinsch, he directed that movie 47 Ronin.

**John:** Now I know what you’re talking about. The recap of this, I believe, is that he directed a movie called 47 Ronin, a Keanu Reeves movie that was a bomb. Then Netflix said, “Sure, we’ll make this series with you.”

**Craig:** They won a bidding war with Amazon. He went out with this idea for a series, and they gave him, ultimately, $55 million, and they did not get a series. Apparently, at one point, he asked for an injection of cash to help him keep going. It was $11 million, which by the way, I didn’t know you could do that. Did you know you could call a studio and just say, “I need $11 million.” They gave it to him.

**John:** To him.

**Craig:** To his production company, and then he used it to bet on crypto.

**John:** And actually made money on bets on crypto.

**Craig:** Made money and then bought Rolls Royces and just went insane.

**John:** We should specify, we are not saying he went insane. Insane things happened, based on this. We read an article.

**Craig:** I’m following the article. I’m not a psychologist. When I say he went insane, I mean he definitely did things in an unorthodox fashion. Netflix, it seems like that’s the way they used to operate, so that was how it went. That is not at all how it goes now. All of these places seem to have finally realized that the Netflix business plan was not a very good plan. Everybody is contracting and trying to figure out what they’re going to do with streaming. No one really knows. All they know is that they have taught everyone to watch everything that way.

Because I work for HBO, I know that there are still linear viewers, people that get HBO on a satellite dish or through cable, and programs come on at an hour on a certain night. It’s a larger amount than you would think, but if you watch the graph, it’s going down as people die. There’s usually one year of paying for DIRECTV after someone dies before they realize they’ve got to cut it off.

I have no idea what’s going on. Disney bought Hulu. Disney bought Fox. Marvel, which used to be the most blue chip brand in Hollywood, seems to be a little tarnished right now in terms of performance.

**John:** [Crosstalk 10:51] what’s going to happen with their next set of movies.

**Craig:** Yeah. The latest one just did not do very well. Star Wars has been stumbling around for a while. Also, weirdly, Pixar. I’m not picking on Disney here. It’s just they happen to own everything. Pixar, which used to be the most reliable brand, feels like it’s swallowing its own tail at this point. People don’t really seem to care the way they used to. Then we have these black swan events, like Barbie, because Barbie, people were like, “Well, of course.” No.

**John:** That was not a given at all.

**Craig:** No. Every movie that’s made from a toy generally stinks. Barbie was Lego Movie-ish in its surprise-ness, and so was Oppenheimer, a movie that theoretically would only appeal to older men that watch the History Channel. Nobody knows anything has become even more powerful. I should say nobody KNOWS anything.

**John:** You gotta emphasize the right word.

**Craig:** Nobody KNOWS anything. I’m with you. I don’t feel comfortable predicting, by the way. If we do our, “Hey, let’s predict-”

**John:** No, no, no. I think that’s actually my point is that, in general, you could make some predictions and feel relatively good about, it’s going to fall within this range. I don’t have a good sense of what the range of acceptable predictions would be for the next couple of years.

We were talking about Marvel films underperforming. Someone brought up in a podcast recently that Marvels was an expensive movie, but Killers of the Flower Moon was just as expensive of a movie, and we don’t talk about that as being a disappointment, because it was made for Apple. We just have the entry of these huge companies who have no… It doesn’t actually really matter to them whether a movie makes money. That’s a huge difference from the last 20 years that you and I have been in the industry.

**Craig:** Normally, when people come into Hollywood, they are absolutely trying to make money. Apple, with Killers of the Flower Moon, definitely felt like they were making a prestige play and an Oscar play. A lot of it is about, these companies want to be taken seriously. They understand that, in a weird way, awards and things like that do confer a legitimacy. If Apple can win Best Picture, that’s a big deal. It means other filmmakers are going to want to go there and do that.

Killers of the Flower Moon was not intended to be a blockbuster, whereas every Marvel film is intended to be a blockbuster. In a year, there may be 20 more superhero movies that do great, but it does feel like the curve on superhero movies, that we are on the way down. We haven’t started to crest. We crested, it feels like to me. It finally happened: the glut of Westerns killed the Western. Hollywood just loves to overeat.

**John:** I feel like, Craig, on any of our prior 10 years of doing this show, we could’ve talked about the trends in genres and things like that, like, oh, superhero movies are rising or falling. What’s different about this one is that a year ago, there wasn’t AI. There wasn’t AI in the sense that there is now.

It was exactly a year ago that ChatGPT came out. We had Rian Johnson on the show. We did that experiment where we talked about, “Oh, let’s imagine what the next thing would be.” What I can say to you listeners now is that there are parts we cut out of that episode, because afterwards, we were like, “That was really uncomfortable,” thinking about how this would mirror or not mirror a future movie that Rian would want to make.

Since that time, I haven’t used ChatGPT for anything, but we did have Nima, who works for us, train a model on the Scriptnotes transcripts, to figure out how well could it mimic what we would say about screenwriting.

**Craig:** How’d it do?

**John:** It was a mixed bag. Drew, you’d say it was not that impressive.

**Drew:** It would start, and the first two sentences would be sort of right, and then it would just devolve.

**John:** That will get better.

**Craig:** Good, because then you can replace me, seamlessly.

**John:** Craigbot.

**Craig:** Yeah, Craigbot.

**John:** The thing we found is that it was fluent but generic. Ultimately, it wasn’t very specific to what our experience would be. It wasn’t useful for doing the book. We thought it would be a good research tool for the book, like, go through this and see what we talked about in terms of character conflict. It really wasn’t bad. It wasn’t better than this, which is why Drew and Chris have had to kill themselves over the last six months to pull these chapters together.

AI overall is probably the root of a lot of the uncertainty I’m feeling about the future. Every other podcast for the last week has talked about Sam Altman’s ouster at OpenAI, which was a big episode of Succession.

**Craig:** His un-ouster.

**John:** His un-ouster there, which was really interesting. The conflict behind the scenes there really seemed to be about these two different movements, of the effect of altruism trying to slow down or stop progress on AI stuff, and the effect of accelerationism, which is basically, “No, no, let’s take off all the brakes and go wild.” It feels like it’s a philosophical question, wrestling about Terminator and to what degree we’re going to do that. That always felt like a science fiction premise. Now that it doesn’t feel like a science fiction premise is partly why I’m feeling really unclear about what the next couple years look like.

**Craig:** Asimov famously came up with his three laws of robotics. Even though our federal government is staffed primarily by dotards and morons and do-nothings, at some point the government is going to need to regulate this. It’s just inevitable, or we face our doom. It’s inevitable, of course. If it’s unchecked, it’s inevitable.

I wonder if the progress of AI is going to be hindered a little bit or go a little more slowly than we think, because… This is something you were saying about training the AI to do the transcripts. I wonder if quality – that is that feeling that this is human and intelligent – comes down to the last .1% of similarity, that there is just that one little, tiny, tiny thing that is really hard to get to. Obviously, if it’s unchecked, it’s unchecked, and it will get there. That’s inevitable.

**John:** We’re also in this moment right now where SAG is deciding whether to ratify their contract. That’s a bit here. We should say, for folks who haven’t been paying attention, the source of contention within SAG-AFTRA at this moment is really over the AI provisions and whether those are enough protections for performers.

**Craig:** I’m going to just make some statements here that I believe are true, based on my understanding of how labor law works. What isn’t really happening in the discussion over ratification is, “What happens if you say no?” because it’s a disaster if you say no. Basically, the way it works is the negotiators come back, and they say, “This is the deal we recommend.” Then the board says, “We agree. We are recommending that the membership vote yes, and we are also ending the strike.” All of that happened. As a SAG member, I would urge people to make their voices heard and to prepare for the next negotiation. I think that the vote will ratify.

**John:** I think it will ratify as well. I do think the discussion around this has been good and interesting, just because brand new terms were invented in this contract that make us really think about how we’re going to be dealing with non-human representations on screen. The two basic things – we talked through this stuff before on the sidecast – a digital replica is a representation of an actual performer who is there, and a synthetic performer is a made-up thing, a human-like character that has no basis in an actual person.

**Craig:** That’s right. On our show, for instance, I know that for certain large crowd scenes, we do use digital replicas to fill things in.

**John:** Probably digital replicas where you’re scanning an actual person.

**Craig:** We’re scanning an actual person.

**John:** An actual person.

**Craig:** In fact, creating a digital replica that is not based on the scan of an actual person is incredibly hard to do. It’s expensive and time-consuming. You want to scan actual actors. That makes your life so much easier, because once they’re scanned, you then have something that you can…

The other thing we do a lot of times is just shoot real people on green screen doing actions, running, jumping, turning, and then we can comp then in digitally and adjust, paint in something on their head or something like that.

Generally speaking, we’ve already been doing this. The horrible outcome that you want to avoid is, there was a movie where some kids were in a bleachers in a gym, and clearly Disney had just AI’ed in four people that were just nightmare, the kind of people you see in previs. It was horrifying. Yes, in schlock, I suppose that might be a problem, but generally speaking, for credible productions, we’re scanning real people.

**John:** Craig, forgive my ignorance, because you are shooting your show in Canada, and so obviously, your Americans actors are under a SAG contract, but for your background performers, is that a Canadian contract?

**Craig:** Yes. There’s a Canadian Actors Union. Most of the actors that we employ are Canadian. The Americans or the Brits we bring in for obviously certain… The thing is, it’s not like we’re like, “Oh, only Americans can get the good parts.” An example is Lamar Johnson, who played Henry in our show, is from Toronto. He’s Emmy-nominated for his performance. We’ll look in Canada. We’ll look in America. Most people on the show ultimately by number are Canadian, under Canadian acting contracts. We also have directors in the DGA. I’m a DGA director, so I direct under a DGA contract. Other directors that we had who were from overseas would direct under a Canadian Directors Guild contract.

**John:** A new aspect of the AI stuff, I want to talk about coverage. We have friends who write coverage. I started off writing coverage for, first, this little [indiscernible 21:01] Pictures. Then I was a paid reader for TriStar Pictures. Every day I would go into TriStar, pick up two scripts. I’d be paid $60 a script to write coverage on those.

**Craig:** Pretty sweet.

**John:** Pretty sweet job.

**Craig:** Not bad.

**John:** I’d drop those off the next day.

**Craig:** Not bad.

**John:** Coverage, of course, consists of a synopsis of the material, so generally a one-page typed-up synopsis, and then an analysis, half a page, three quarters of a page, talking through whether you recommended this, basically, what’s working in the script, what’s not working in the script. It’s a way for the executive who didn’t read the script, or read the script a week ago and doesn’t remember it, can have something to say about this thing. Also, it becomes something that is filed away, to say, “We did read this script. This is a person we’re [indiscernible 00:21:41] as a writer.”

Since ChatGPT came out, I thought, okay, that’s going to be a vulnerable job, because the kinds of writing you’re doing, and the synopsizing is something that ChatGPT seems really good at. You can just feed into it a script right now, and ChatGPT would write a reasonably good synopsis.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** Last week, a listener wrote in saying that he had experience with this AI coverage thing. He was a screenwriter but got approached to beta test this screenwriting coverage tool. He said, “I thought it would suck, but I agreed to beta test it. I’m writing to you because it didn’t suck. I have the coverage it generated on one of my old specs that I can share with you if you want. It was generated in five minutes. While it had some generic beats, it felt like a huge step in how Hollywood might use AI, and it’s coming much sooner than expected.”
Craig, that is the pages you have in front of you right now. It has a log line. It shows genre, keywords, time period, occasion, setting, and then the script score, which I feel very nervous about, about character development, plot construction, dialog, originality, social engagement, theme, and message – those would be a grid that you would normally see on a top sheet of coverage – a synopsis, a short one, a long one, then it goes into premise and notes, some things about things you should be thinking about in terms of the characters and their archetypes. It has suggestions for main character casting, with name actors for these different roles, and comp movies to be thinking about in comparison. The writer who wrote in said this was all accurate. He felt like there was some generic stuff in here, but this clearly was really talking about the script that it had read.

**Craig:** I think that this is probably a good example of how stuff that’s not in that .1% is manageable. Most scripts are not great. Most scripts that get covered, probably 99.9% of them don’t get bought or produced. A lot of what coverage is is people presuming that a script is going to be bad, because it’s a safe bet, having somebody write something down, so that when they talk to the person who wrote it, they can sound like they knew that they read it, even though they didn’t, and look at some key things, or just simply not have to worry about passing it along or processing it. The question I have about this is, what does it do with Jerry Maguire.

**John:** I would say that experience as a reader at TriStar… I have my little database of all the coverage I wrote. I wrote like 100 pieces of coverage for them. I recommended two things, and I got called to the mat for both of those two things that I recommended. My job was to say no. My job was to say, “This is a pass because of X, Y, and Z.” Most of them were very easy passes, like, this was not a movie we were going to make. There was nothing so exciting about this writing that you say, “Okay, you should at least read this writer.” That is also my concern is that this is probably really good at saying no to stuff, and it’s going to miss things that would otherwise be exceptional.

**Craig:** I wonder also – because everything of course is machined, there is some sort of algorithm going on here – is it designed to basically always deliver you a balance? “Here’s what I like. Here’s what I didn’t like. Here are some numbers.” But you can’t get that passion thing. You can’t get the thing of like, “No, no, no. It’s completely messed up. There are 12 things that are really, really wrong with this. But the stuff that’s right is so blindingly, gorgeously right.” Does ChatGPT understand yet the difference between this needs work that will be really hard to do, or this needs some simple work to be incredible? That’s where I think it’s going to need some time. Pump the brakes, Sam. Apparently, all those people walked off the job because they, like Sam, were like, “Don’t pump the brakes.”

**John:** They also believed that they would follow Sam to another company, to do the work that they’re doing. In the case of OpenAI, it was that they believe that they were doing good things and that they were doing it in a safe manner.

**Craig:** That sounds culty to me.

**John:** People like us too. It’s always a cult with other people.

**Craig:** No, no, we have a cult.

**John:** We have a cult.

**Craig:** We’re cult leaders, for sure. We’re just very kind, benevolent cult leaders.

**John:** That’s right.

**Craig:** We demand nothing from our-

**John:** Maybe $5 a month.

**Craig:** We don’t even demand it. We gently suggest it.

**John:** If you want the Bonus Segment at the end of the episode.

**Craig:** Many of our cult followers say no.

**John:** Yeah, of course. Great. We should say that this coverage program is not ChatGPT, apparently. It’s based on a different thing. If this guy could do it, other people could do it. This is obviously coming. It’s here. Difficult to predict, but let’s talk about some of the repercussions of this existing. My job, which I was paid $60 a script for, would be on the line, because mostly what they’re paying me for is that synopsis and that critique. There’s no reason to do that. You should feed this thing in. What this is kicking out is as good as the stuff I was doing.

**Craig:** I think that if your job is to figure out how to mulch through a ton of scripts that you suspect are going to be bad, because you’re dealing with just general submissions, then yes, you’re going to want a machine to do it. You’re going to miss stuff, but then again, you knew you were missing stuff anyway, because you were paying people $60 an hour, most of whom were not John August.

**John:** It was $60 a script, not an hour.

**Craig:** Sorry, $60 a script, even better for the people paying. Most readers aren’t you. Hollywood is full of stories of people paying $60 to get coverage that says, “This stinks,” and it turned out to be Pulp Fiction. Those people will just continue their imperfect process without paying the $60 a script, but by paying, I don’t know, some licensing fee to whatever.

Where I think we are still going to need people are like people like our friend Kevin, who don’t just do coverage; they do story analysis. They are really there to essentially give the studio executives the notes that they give the writers. That is thoughtful. That is dramaturgical. That is also about understanding the breadth of cinema, reacting in real time to the audience and what their tastes are and how they feel. All of those things, that’s science. That’s much more connected to what we do, which is creating things.

I think it’s going to be a little time before this thing actually can spit out a reliable predicting number, because the other thing that’s going to happen, of course, is ChatGPT or its cousins will all agree that a script is a 3 out of 10, somebody nuts will make it, and it will be a blockbuster.

**John:** Everything Everywhere All At Once was a script that I feel like probably would not thrive in this environment. I love those guys to death, but it was a challenging script to read. That’s going to be an aspect of all of these situations.

I want to think about, if you are a producer, a director, anyone who’s getting sent stuff, if you are a showrunner who’s being sent stuff, it’s going to be hard not to say, first, pass this through here, and let that be the first filtering process. If that is going to be the first filtering process, every writer with a spec script is going to go to these things and say, “What is this system going to say about my thing?” That’s the different thing, because it would be one thing to go to a person who reads for a studio, does coverage, and say, “Hey, would you read this for me and tell me whether this would make it through?” Here, you’re going to pay your 5 bucks or whatever, submit it, and get this report back.

**Craig:** That’s a great point, that basically, if Hollywood switched over to this, it would be like they just pay $60 a script to one person to cover everything. If people can figure out who that guy is or who that girl is, then they’re just going to game it, because they know that person has a certain kind of taste.

**John:** You could just iterate, iterate, iterate, just get the script up to the point where it gets the highest score possible off of this. Is that good for you, or for cinema? I don’t think so.

**Craig:** The thing is, it’s inevitable that some script is going to get a 10 across the board, and people are going to make it, but while people are making it, the other humans are like, “This stinks. This is the emperor and his new clothes. This is not a 10 out of 10.” It’s just something the computer liked.

**John:** It’s also important to remember that all programs are based on large language models or things that are churning images too. Often, they’re based on some sort of seed. There’s a random number that is being created. That becomes the underlying pattern for how it’s going to be doing some stuff. If you were to feed the same script through three times, you might get three different answers, just like you might get three different answers from readers. I think we’re going to be chasing this dangerous thing.

**Craig:** Look. Coverage has always been imperfect. If they have mechanized an imperfect thing to make it a faster and cheaper imperfect thing, then yes, I agree, people that make their living from coverage should be concerned.

**Drew:** Can I add one more thing to that?

**Craig:** Yes, please.

**Drew:** I also feel like a lot of young execs are trained on writing coverage, and that’s how a lot of their tastes are developed. That feeling of, “Oh, I love this script,” is helpful, and even if you hate it, you have to articulate yourself. I feel like that’s going to hurt writers too, because you’re going to have execs who are not able to articulate why.

**Craig:** So execs are going to get worse.

**John:** That’s what we need. The only optimistic case I’ll make for this is that some of writing coverage, yes, it is a learning process, but it’s also absolute drudgery. To get rid of the drudgery… Writing synopses was always the worst part of coverage. It’s like, “How do I try to synopsize down this script and make it make sense in these paragraphs?” It’s not a useful skill, and so I’m really delighted to send that off to a system to do that. It’s the analysis and how to talk about what’s not working, what is working, and how to talk to the writer or talk to everybody else about that-

**Craig:** That’s a great point.

**John:** … is a crucial skill.

**Craig:** The robots are ruining everything.

**John:** A friend of mine works and does coding for a very specific kind of machine that uses a language that is esoteric to its one thing. He said that for what he’s doing, ChatGPT is not useful. It can’t write that language, because there’s just not enough examples online of how that language works.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** He also has to do JavaScript as bridges on stuff. He’s not that good at JavaScript, so he uses ChatGPT every day to write all the JavaScript for all the stuff he’s-

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** … doing for this, and it’s crucial.

**Craig:** ChatGPT will code for you?

**John:** ChatGPT is really good at coding.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** It’s very good at coding.

**Craig:** I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. This code is good at itself.

**John:** You can use it to write an iOS app that does this kind of thing.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** It can iterate through it and does a really good job.

**Craig:** Wow. That’s cool.

**John:** Most coders these days are not on Macs, basically, because Mac, it’s not so set up for it. But there’s a thing called Copilot for Microsoft, which is writing code with you the whole time. It’s becoming a crucial part of coding stuff. My friend was talking about this esoteric language he’s using. He says it’s just a matter of time before it can do it, and that he feels he has maybe three to five years left in the industry, and then anybody could do his job. His special training’s not going to be useful.

**Craig:** That is a very good thing for him to say. I think a lot of people just deny and do not want to imagine a world where their skill has been reduced to useless, because it’s terrifying, and it’s challenging to your core identity. It’s actually quite brave of him to say that. It’s really smart, because I assume he’s looking to do something else while he’s got his three to five years left. I assume he’s retirement age or-

**John:** Oh, no. He’s 30.

**Craig:** Then he I assume is thinking about, “What else can I do?” because that’s a real thing.

**John:** These machines he writes code for are still going to exist. Somebody’s going to have to essentially tell the ChatGPT what code needs to be written, but there’s fewer and fewer jobs for doing that.

**Craig:** The skill required for that is reduced.

**John:** You could outsource it. You could do whatever.

**Craig:** It used to be one of the safest jobs in the world was guy who understands the one thing to engineer this thing that everyone has. That’s the safest job in the world. I think it’s important for people to keep their eyes open on this stuff. Again, it’s an interesting debate.

We can’t necessarily just go, “You know what? A lot of people make their living driving horse buggies, so we can’t have these cars.” We can. We will. It’s happening. Horse buggy guys need to find a different gig.

**John:** Many fewer horses in America than there used to be.

**Craig:** Correct. We try and figure out things. The government does come in and prop businesses up. Based on the way our system works, there’s really no reason for us to be mining coal anymore, other than the fact that there are two senators from West Virginia. We will, however, progress. It’s just inevitable. Very smart of him and very brave.

**John:** Last thing, I wanted to give you this demo, where I was going to play two clips for you, one which I have recorded my voice reading a thing, and one which I trained a model to read it for you.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** Unfortunately, I couldn’t do it, because actually, it was too complicated to do. It was this whole Google collab. I looked at the video. I was trying to do the thing. I couldn’t translate it out of Japanese. This is a situation where literally weeks from now, it’ll be simpler to do. I just didn’t want to take my voice sample and give it to some sort of outside service. I was doing it all on my own machine.

**Craig:** I see, I see. I’m excited for that.

**John:** It’s incredibly straightforward to do. If I was willing to pay 20 bucks, it would’ve been really easy to do.

**Craig:** I would’ve given you the 20 bucks.

**John:** I just didn’t want my voice out there already training a model.

**Craig:** Oh, I see. I see.

**John:** I was trying to do it myself. I was thinking about our podcast is us talking through this stuff. I feel like for many of our listeners, we are our voices. It’s so easy to synthesize these now.

**Craig:** At some point, we do enter this area where verifiability will actually become its own resource. Diamonds look like cubic zirconias, and vice versa. Zirconiums? Zirconias? Zirconias. I think it’s zirconias. Cubic zirconias. I can’t tell the goddamn… Nobody can tell the difference just staring at it, except for diamond experts. Then they get their little loop out, and they stare at it, and they’re like, “Oh yeah, this is fake, and this is real.” If you can’t tell the difference just walking around, who cares? Gold-plated versus solid gold, who can tell the difference, if you don’t pick it up? But it matters to us. It matters. This is an original Chagall. This is a Chagall print. Can you tell the difference? No. Does it matter? Enormously.

It’s funny how the NFT thing was all about verifiability without any product. All they were selling was an empty verifiability. Verifiability of actual things will become important to people, and that will become a job. You should tell your friend. The discernment between the fake and the real. People care. It matters to them that it’s real. It really, really matters.

**John:** Two points of verifiability that I want to bring up. First off, during the pandemic, you and I noticed that we always used to have to sign contracts, and suddenly, no, no, you can just DocuSign it.

**Craig:** I love that.

**John:** You’re just clicking, and it’s filling in a little thing.

**Craig:** Click, click, click, click, click.

**John:** Somehow, we decided that was okay, and it stayed. Bless it. Love it.

**Craig:** Thank god.

**John:** Also, when I need to do a wire transfer, I need to move stuff from one account to another account, they call me, and I have to go through a voice verification of this thing, “I approve this transfer,” and stuff like that. It’s ridiculous, because I can record this now once and just play it, and it’ll be there.

**Craig:** Anybody can record it or synthesize your voice and play it back. We just sold our house in La Cañada. When you do the first big document, where you say I’m selling my house and for this price, there are like 8,000 signatures. I remember having to do it by hand, like, are you kidding? There’s just a pile. Now it’s just like tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap.

**John:** Oh, good. I haven’t bought a house in 20 years.

**Craig:** Oh my god, just tap, tap, tap, yes, yes, yes. I’m signing it before the page loads, just because it doesn’t matter anyway.

**John:** There was a whole person whose job that was to show up and walk you through all those forms. That person doesn’t have that job anymore.

**Craig:** That person doesn’t have that job anymore.

**John:** It was a terrible job.

**Craig:** It was a bad job. 80 pages of just California state boilerplate disclosure, blah, blah, blah, what happens if grass exists, asbestos. You’re just like, “I’m not reading any of this,” just sign, sign, sign. So yeah, sign, sign, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, it’s wonderful.

**John:** I will say a point for verifiability is our own Stuart Friedel is now a notary public. Stuart Friedel notarized some forms for us recently. It was an absolute delightful process. If you need a notary in Los Angeles, Stuart Friedel’s your man.

**Craig:** Stuart Friedel is your man. I will say that Stuart does have that notary thing going on, which is just this inherent trustability. You’re like, “Yeah, you’re a good egg. I trust you. That’s why the County has authorized you with your stamp.” I love notary stuff. It’s actually fun.

**John:** With you and your family, have you developed any passwords for things, so if someone calls asking for-

**Craig:** Oh, hostage?

**John:** Hostage situation. Have you developed that with your family?

**Craig:** No, because my answer is no.

**John:** “I’m not paying anything.”

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly.

**John:** You are Mel Gibson in Kidnapped.

**Craig:** Basically. “What’s that? You’ve got them all? Good.” No, we don’t have that. It never occurred to me that… If my family calls asking for money, I’m going to be like, “What? What do you mean?” I think after a few questions, I’ll be able to-

**John:** Suss it out.

**Craig:** … sense that something’s up. We do have 1Password, which is very helpful, I will say, in terms of…

**John:** 1Password, the system for making sure you have different passwords for all your different things, but there’s one central repository?

**Craig:** Yeah. 1Password, the app has a family plan, and so you can create vaults. We have a shared vault. What’s really helpful is like, “Dad, I ran out of medicine at college.” I’m like, “Okay. Probably getting emails, but fine. I can access your stuff, because I have your password, so I can log into your thing,” and that’s helpful.

**John:** That’s helpful. Most of this anxiety conversation has been about… We talked about industry stuff. We talked about AI stuff. Briefly, I think the prospect of going through another election cycle is absolutely dreadful to me.

**Craig:** Horrifying.

**John:** Horrifying. The fact that we know going into this that we’re going to see so much more misinformation that looks really good and is incredibly personalized, which is frustrating, and the possibility of an authoritarian state at the end of this election cycle. One of the reasons it’s harder for me to envision 2025, 2026 is the world looks very different based on the outcome of that election.

**Craig:** Yes. We will all be dreading it. Everyone will be dreading it. I choose to not think about it. This is one of those areas where I’ve really been making an effort lately to acknowledge that thinking about terrible things that are going on in and of itself is not productive. Donating money, donating time, talking to other human beings and wishing them well and telling them I’m concerned about them and just letting them know that I’m caring, that matters. Sitting and fretting-

**John:** Ruminating does nothing.

**Craig:** Nothing. And yet, that’s what the system of news delivery is designed to do. It’s actually no longer designed to inform. It is designed to get you to keep clicking on a thing, like a rat trying to get cocaine. I refuse to do it. I’m a voter in California. We are going to vote for Joe Biden. That’s happening. My vote in California is useless. I’m voting, of course, for president, but I don’t have to ruminate in that regard, nor do I have to worry about trying to get my neighbors to vote a certain way or any of that stuff. Also, we don’t have to worry about watching ads. We get away with murder here. If you live in Ohio, I think that’s all you get are president ads. I’m trying to not ruminate. There’s my New Year’s resolution.

**John:** Less rumination?

**Craig:** Less rumination.

**John:** Then I think, lastly, on labor, we’re all going into this next year anticipating IATSE’s contract is going to be a difficult one to fight, and there could likely be a strike, and so any production we’re thinking about going into could bump up against a potential strike.

**Craig:** When is that?

**John:** The summer.

**Craig:** The summer. That’ll be exciting for us. I remember in our first season, there was a vote. It was interesting. IATSE, they’re not quite like the way we do things. They had a contract with HBO that was different than the contract they had with everybody else. Technically, our crew would not have gone on strike. However, they probably wouldn’t have shown up. We didn’t quite know what was going to happen. I guess we’ll be there again. I really hope that the powers that be learn from what just happened, really, really learn from it.

**John:** I think they have to have a different strategy going into this, which is basically, “How do we avoid a strike? How do we make a deal with these unions that hears them, listens to them, understands what the concerns are, and addresses those concerns in a way? Basically, how do you present the negotiating committee with a deal that is so good that they don’t want to say no?”

**Craig:** If they were to optimize, the way to optimize would be, I don’t even think, in this case, “How do we get to 11:59 p.m.?” It’s, “How do we get one week?” for a strike vote, or, “How do we get them to not call for an authorization vote? What do we need to do?” If they go in there thinking, “We’ve got to beat them and teach them that they can’t do what these other unions do,” they will do what the other unions did-

**John:** 100%.

**Craig:** … which is, A, strike, and B, win. Carol.

**John:** Or whoever is going to be in charge of that.

**Craig:** Exactly. Jeez. Sheesh.

**John:** Sheesh. Let’s get to some of our questions here, because I did promise those at the start.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** I thought we would start with Anonymous.

**Drew:** Anonymous writes, “I’m writing a pilot, and recently saw an anecdote in a Reddit thread that was so good I want to use the basic idea as my opening scene. I just want to use a situation the person described. The rest of the pilot has very little to do with it, but it’s an amazing entry point for the character arc. However, I do not want this person to feel like I stole from their life story. What is your take on this? Should I, A, reach out to the person, B, avoid the whole thing, or C, just use it and change it up a bit?”

**John:** I’m voting C.

**Craig:** C, use it and change it up a bit. We’re writers, for god’s sake. Look. You’re not stealing anything. What are we at, 600-and-what episode?

**John:** 620.

**Craig:** 620, so this will be the 612th time that we have said that ideas are not intellectual property. Unique expression in fixed form is. You do not want to take that person’s actual literary material, their sentence structure and their vocabulary and all the rest of it. You don’t want to plagiarize. But if somebody tells a story about something that happened to them, you can absolutely use the premise of that story for something. Of course you can.

If you’re feeling guilty about it, then don’t. But if you aren’t, do. The one thing you shouldn’t do is go ask for permission, because you’re just opening up a can of worms for yourself that’s just awful. When people put things online, whether they realize it or not, they are publishing things that are now publicly available. You can’t plagiarize, but you can take an idea. That’s not property.

**John:** The other thing I would say is that the times you ask for permission is when it’s somebody who might be using that in their own material, both because you don’t want to be a dick, but also because they would be doing the same kind of thing with it. There was an anecdote that a friend told me about a hotel room. He was also a writer. “The story you told me was fantastic. Are you using that for anything? Because if not, I want to incorporate that.” It became a part of a moment in a sequence in Go! I asked him first, because I wanted to make sure he wasn’t doing anything with it, because I wanted it to be free and clear and open.

**Craig:** Professional courtesy. Courtesy among writers, of course. Listen. All those things that people put on Reddit, Am I The Asshole, and all the stuff that goes on, what is it, the Didn’t Happen of the Year Awards and all that, it’s out there. It’s out there. People need to learn the difference between inspiration and plagiarism.

**John:** One from Steve?

**Drew:** Steve writes, “I have a question about composite characters in real life adaptations. I wrote a script based on true events where the main characters are represented in court by a lawyer. The lawyer is a minor character based on a real person who wasn’t a great guy and may have sabotaged the case. My version has made the shady lawyer a nicer guy who does the right thing, as I replace the subsequent lawyers with this one guy. Should I change the real lawyer’s name? He’s become a composite character. Does he need a composite name? I made him a better man in my script than he was in life, so I’m not worried about being sued for defamation. I am, however, concerned that keeping his name may lend merit to his problematic legacy, resulting in unwarranted good will.”

**Craig:** That’s an easy one for me. Change the name.

**John:** I say change the name.

**Craig:** Why wouldn’t you? Unless the name has some sort of amazing value, change it, of course.

**John:** Steve says, “Where the main characters are represented in court by a lawyer.” The lawyer is not the central character. The lawyer is not Erin Brockovich, and so change that.

**Craig:** Exactly. Change it. Inherit the Wind changed the names of the lawyers. Why wouldn’t you? It doesn’t matter. It’s a composite character anyway. Change it.

**John:** Change it. Let’s wrap it up with an easy one about D&D.

**Drew:** Sam writes, “During the strike, I was able to finally put together a D&D group over the last six months. Seeing them every week has been the best thing that has happened for my mental health and creativity. However, we are all television and film people. As shows start crewing, people will have to travel for work. I worry that the precious little thing will fall apart if we don’t see each other every week. John and Craig have talked about being part of a long-running D&D campaign and group, and I’m wondering how it works when some people are away.”

**John:** Two points of answer here. First is technology, and second off is group dynamics and what are rules are going to be for when people are gone.

**Craig:** You want, ideally, a group that is sizable enough that you don’t need everyone there, or even everybody minus one there, to have the evening. Most D&D adventures are, by default, designed for a party of four characters. If you have four people there, you should be able to play. Now, a good DM understands also how to adjust the encounters if it’s four people or eight people. That in and of itself is a D&D class that I would love to teach one day. That’s primary. Then secondary is Zoom. Using Roll20 has been great for us.

**John:** We should talk, for people who don’t remember, Roll20 is the system which we are all on our own computers, looking at a top-down view map. We see our characters. We can take our actions and click through things. We’re still playing D&D, but the representation, rather than being little lead figures, is on screen.

**Craig:** We should probably never use lead figures.

**John:** I guess we called them lead figures. They were never actually lead.

**Craig:** I think at some point they were lead, and then a lot of-

**John:** Little painted figurines.

**Craig:** Little painted lead figurines. It’s remarkable how technology just blended together in this moment when suddenly we couldn’t be together.

**John:** We started in the pandemic.

**Craig:** We had been playing prior to the pandemic. The pandemic, like the question-writer here, did suddenly create a circumstance where we played way more often. We were playing once a month before, because it was so hard to get everybody to agree to it. Now it’s just like, if I don’t want to leave my house, or if I’m in a hotel, but I have three hours, yeah, I’m logging in, and I’m playing D&D. You have a hybrid situation. We are basically just one session left of our massive Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign.

**John:** Which has been four years, five years?

**Craig:** It’s just been endless and wonderful in its own way. Lot of memories. Then what comes next will be really interesting to see. I’m in Canada, so it’s going to have to be remote for a while, where we all just log in, or we do a hybrid. Sometimes everyone sits around a table, and then there’s a laptop down there with a talking head.

**John:** I was out with COVID once, and so I Zoomed in for that because I had COVID.

**Craig:** Zoomed in, exactly.

**John:** I would say you have to have enough people for that to work. If it’s a group of really just four people, you can probably find times for all four of those people to be together. We would submit to those online calendar services where you would say what dates are you available, and everyone clicks the same link, and they can figure out what times you can actually all get together, either in person or online. It’s worth trying to find ways to stay together and to keep the momentum going. Cool.

**Drew:** Great.

**John:** It is time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a show I saw this past week, Just For Us, by Alex Edelman. I saw it down at the Taper. I think it’s closing the Taper now. I think the time has run out for it. I know it’s coming to Boston, Berkeley, Detroit, Chicago. If it’s in one of those cities, you should see it.

The show is a one-man show. He’s a writer-performer, sort of like Mike Birbiglia, who’s been on the show a couple times. Alex was also a staff writer on TV shows before this. The premise of this, and I won’t spoil too much of it, is that he decides to attend this meeting of white supremacists at an apartment in New York City. That’s the central event, and then he’s jumping off to all these different stories and anecdotes about how it all fits together in his Jewish identity.

What I loved about it structurally… And it’s so interesting to study how you delineate and perform a bunch of different characters in a one-man show, and the choices you make about how you’re going to do that. With him, it was a lot of location-based stuff. It’s like, that stool represents this person; this stool represents this person. So he doesn’t have to do all the voices, but now he’s in this person’s role and that person’s role. And also, how you establish the present tense of the main story and then go off to all the little anecdotes and detours and still bring you back in that. I’m sure that was a situation where there was a written plan, and then in performing it, you realize how far you can pull that string before you have to come back to the main storyline. If you get a chance to see it, Just For Us, by Alex Edelman. I really enjoyed it.

**Craig:** Where is that running again?

**John:** It was at the Taper.

**Craig:** Taper.

**John:** Now, I think it’s last few days, so by the time this comes out, it may have closed down, unless they added some more dates. But new cities it’s coming to, and I’m sure it’ll be filmed at some point.

**Craig:** It’ll be on Netflix. Amazing. My One Cool Thing was a device that I used yesterday for our Thanksgiving feast. My friend Josh Epstein brought it. He’s a theatrical lighting designer, very technically oriented guy, but also, like me, the chef in the family. Our two families do Thanksgiving together. Our wives, lovely as they are, are not allowed to cook. We do all of it. The two of us love surfing the cooking trends for Thanksgiving. We were on the spatchcock train pretty early, which again, I just have to say, if you’re not spatchcocking your turkey, you’re just doing it wrong. It took an hour and 15 minutes.

**John:** It’s crazy how fast it is to cook a turkey that way.

**Craig:** It’s just wonderful.

**John:** Cutting out that backbone makes a lot of difference.

**Craig:** Poultry shears, bone, done.

**John:** It is brutal cutting it out, but once, you’re done.

**Craig:** If you have poultry shears, takes three minutes. That’s the key. If you’re using regular kitchen shears, impossible. Poultry shears, easy. It’s incredible what the right tools will do. One thing that he brought this year, because what we did was… We love heritage turkeys. We each got two heritage turkeys that were smallish medium, because one big, huge turkey’s kind of annoying, because people want some more white meat, and they’re like, “Oh, look, we have all these massive turkey legs that nobody really wants.” We put them in. They were both spatchcock, brine, put them in.

He brought this thing that was so cool. I think, John, you in particular would love this. It’s called the Weber Connect Smart Grilling Hub. It’s a little black box receiver. You can put some temperature information on it. But of course, like everything else now on the internet of things, you have an app for it. What I loved about this thing was it had inputs for four different probes. We were able to have two probes for both turkeys’ white meat and two probes for both turkeys’ dark meat. The probes come out of the oven and go into this thing. It tracks on a graph as it’s cooking.

**John:** That’s great.

**Craig:** The one that I had was maybe three pounds heavier than the one he had. It was just a little bit longer to cook. It was consistently, as they both rose up, the delta between the two lines was perfect. We were so happy with it. There was no confusion, like, “Oh, is it done? Is it not done?” No. It’s done.

**John:** You’re constantly opening the oven to check whether something is done enough, but then you’re losing the heat of the oven.

**Craig:** You’re losing heat. This one was like, you just knew. You’re like, “And done.” Take it out. Boom.

**John:** Love it.

**Craig:** It was flawless. Love that. Great technology. You don’t cook, do you? You have that “I don’t cook” face.

**Drew:** Oh, no, I feel like I-

**Craig:** Oh, really?

**Drew:** I try most of the time. I’m not amazing. I didn’t grow up in a house that cooked.

**Craig:** What did you do about Thanksgiving?

**Drew:** I went to John’s.

**Craig:** Of course you did.

**Drew:** I let John cook for me.

**Craig:** Of course. Did you make the turkey, John?

**John:** There was no turkey in our Thanksgiving.

**Craig:** Are you a vegetarian?

**John:** No. We had duck.

**Craig:** Oh, duck.

**John:** Yeah, we had duck confit.

**Craig:** I love duck confit.

**John:** I think I may have pitched this on an earlier show. We just decided turkey, even with all the technology, even with all the brining and everything else, it’s good, but it’s never fantastic. Duck confit is fantastic.

**Craig:** Duck confit is one of my favorite foods in the world.

**John:** Absolutely. We get it. It comes canned from France. You pull it out of the can, you heat it up, and it’s done.

**Craig:** And it’s done.

**John:** It’s delicious.

**Craig:** I want to try and make some homemade duck confit.

**John:** Great. Go for it.

**Craig:** I’m going to make it.

**John:** You should do that, and then you should try the canned duck confit and tell me whether it was worth it.

**Craig:** The canned duck confit will be better. But I just love trying.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Because they do stuff that you just don’t know to do, because they’re French. Duck confit is exactly the kind of thing that you can package and redo. That’s no question. But I’m going to try it.

**John:** My big Thanksgiving adventure was I did Claire Saffitz’s sweet potato rosemary rolls. They’re like a Parker House roll that had sweet potatoes and rosemary. It turned out great.

**Craig:** Sounds delicious. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody.

**John:** Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

**Craig:** This is our, what, 19th Thanksgiving with you at home?

**John:** It’s a lot. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. Thank you, Drew. Edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** Outro this week is by Alex Winder. 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 like the ones we answered today. You can 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. I’ve not seen any of the Scriptnotes University T-shirts out in the wild. I want to see those next. Those are good. You can 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 the intro to our book. Craig and Drew, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Drew:** Thanks.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, so the book is in good shape. All the chapters are there on the grid. I need to go through and do some cleanup on a lot of stuff. A lot of my December will be work there. One thing we do not have mapped out at all is an introduction to the book. I thought you and I could have a discussion that could become the basis for this introductory chapter.

To start by, the question is, why write a Scriptnotes book at all? What is the purpose of a Scriptnotes book? What do you hope this can do for the aspiring writer, or for anyone interested in film?

**Craig:** After all this time, we have accrued so many hours that our normal advice, which is, “Oh, do you want to learn about screenwriting? Just listen to the free podcast we do,” doesn’t really apply anymore. It’s not possible. It would take too long. Also, there’s repetition.

**John:** People do it, but still, it’s a-

**Craig:** It’s not what I would call an efficient process at this point.

**John:** You can’t refer back to a podcast. You can’t go back to this moment.

**Craig:** That’s right. It would be excruciating. Putting together our best hits in a book, it feels like we’ve kind of boiled down the essence. It is, I think, a wonderful reference. People will ask me, “Hey, can you give me some tips? Can I have coffee with you and pick your brain?” I say, “No, because I’ve done a podcast for free for a decade.” But I realize it’s not super helpful. Now, I can just say, “Here’s a book. Actually, buy a book.”

**John:** Buy the book. Please buy it.

**Craig:** Buy the book.

**John:** Don’t pirate online. Let’s talk about books, and how we feel about books about screenwriting, because I feel like I have a mixed history with books about screenwriting. I read Syd Field as I first started here. It was my first introduction to what the form is like. I never read Save the Cat! People love Save the Cat!, but I’ve always felt like these were people who did not actually know what they were doing talking about screenwriting.

**Craig:** Yes, and those books were very much practical, how-to, so, “Oh, you want to be a screenwriter? Here’s a bunch of rules that you as a not-screenwriter can follow, and you’ll be a screenwriter.” We know that that’s not true. We’ve never really set out to be that.

What we, I think, have done is provided a lot of peripheral wisdom that we’ve gleaned over the years doing this job, that will help inform people in a creative way. People that are actually capable of doing this – and they’re out there – will be, I think, tremendously assisted by this, because it’s not prescriptive. It is descriptive. It’s just telling you what our observations are and giving you choices.

When we say, “Here’s a chapter about conflict,” we’re not saying this is how you write conflict. What we’re saying is, “Here are different kinds of conflict. Here are the ways you can approach it. Here are some things you should try and avoid. Here are some traps we’ve fallen into.” To me, that’s how you learn, not by a book writing a chart.

**John:** It’s interesting you brought up conflict, because that was the chapter I just went through. It’s a really good chapter. I’m really happy with it. Looking at the points in there, I think you probably mapped out the six kinds of conflict that are there, and then we had a discussion about them. It was better than what you by yourself would’ve done or what I by myself would’ve done. It’s really a synthesis of both of us.

One of the big challenges for Drew and for Chris and Megana, who’s also been working on this, has been how to find a census of voice between the two of us, because we generally are on the same kind of wavelength, but we don’t have quite the same voice. I also think about our intended reader, who may be a little bit different than our average listener is. Craig, who do you hope reads this book?

**Craig:** Who I hope reads it, people who are aspirational and serious about trying to do this professionally. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think it’s inappropriate for other people. This is a perfectly fine book if you’re a hobbyist. This is a perfectly fine book if it’s a little side thing you do that maybe one day might work. It’s a perfectly fine thing to do if you’re having a midlife career shift and want to approach this.

But mostly, the people that I want to be the Catcher in the Rye for are people in film school who are being mistaught, and who are paying dearly for the privilege of being mistaught. I would like them to read this. I would also like the people who teach in schools to read this. It’s a little frustrating to me that, again, a lot of these schools collect massive amounts of tuition, and sometimes we get sent screen caps from classrooms with our stuff on the board. I’m glad our stuff is on the board. It’s just annoying that other people are getting away with charging tuition to regurgitate something on a free podcast. Now you get it regurgitated here in this beautiful book. But I think it’s an excellent companion, hopefully, for people who are learning.

**John:** When I started my blog, I always said that my idealized writer was the kid in Iowa, growing up, who was curious about screenwriting and had really no way to really get into it. I would say that’s still true for the book, but also the Julia Turners out there, who are really interested in screenwriting and stuff, but they’re not going to ever write a screenplay themselves. It’s not their goal, but they really are curious about what goes into the craft and the business of it all.

The basic kind of chapters we’d find in there, there’s really three big categories you could put them into. First is topic chapters, which would be about conflict or getting notes or-

**Craig:** Craft.

**John:** … craft and business. We have the interview chapters, where we’re talking with filmmakers, which is really practical advice about how they navigate all this stuff. Then we have our deep dive chapters, where we really go deep on one movie, like Raiders of the Lost Ark, talking about how it works. Those feel like the kinds of things you need to understand in order to get started in this business.

**Craig:** You’re actually prompting me now to think of somebody else I would like to read this book.

**John:** Who?

**Craig:** Critics.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Critics, our budding critics, fully fledged critics. I think having insight into how things are created helps you have insight into why you do or do not like the thing that you see. Certainly, understanding how the business functions may help people more accurately write reviews. When they say, “Oh, the dialog is clunky; the screenwriter must be bad,” or not, or maybe a screenwriter was bad, but it’s not the one that you see credited, or who knows?

There are lots of things that I hope people can glean from that about how we go through the discussion of creating work, but also, even how we break down stories, how we think about stories, which is different, generally, than how critics do. It might make them better. It might.

**John:** One thing that’s been so different working on this book versus the Arlo Finch books is Arlo Finch is designed to be read from beginning to end. It had a consistent narrative flow to it. There are some nonfiction books that are like that, where basically, this chapter builds on a previous chapter builds on a previous chapter. Here, that wasn’t really possible. The organization of which chapter goes after which chapter will hopefully have some kind of connection. We’ll try to put in a filmmaker chapter that is a little bit related to what we just talked about in one of these other things.

The better reference for me is the Player’s Handbook from D&D. You can constantly refer back to this thing. If you want to look, like, “Oh, I’m stuck on this moment. What is theme again?” it’s like, “Oh, I can go back to the theme chapter.” We can talk about what theme is. You can read it independently of having read the rest of the book.

**Craig:** It’s a bathroom book.

**John:** It is a bathroom book is really what I’m trying to-

**Craig:** This is a bathroom book.

**John:** No shame in a bathroom book.

**Craig:** We don’t mean for the bath. It’s a toilet book. I love books like that. They’re great. You pick them up. You just open them anywhere, start reading. Fine. Good.

**John:** Good.

**Craig:** Bathroom book. Great Christmas gift.

**John:** Great Christmas gift for 2025.

**Craig:** For 2025, yeah, exactly.

**John:** In 2025, your gift-giving needs are set.

**Craig:** Put that under the Christmas tree next year.

**John:** Next year. Great. I think we have enough material here to start a chapter, and Chris and Drew can get going on it.

**Craig:** Fantastic. Can’t wait for people to read what I just said, on the toilet.

**John:** Thanks, guys.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [The Strange $55 Million Saga of a Netflix Series You’ll Never See](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/22/business/carl-rinsch-netflix-conquest.html) by John Carreyrou for the New York Times
* [Digital background actors in Disney’s Prom Pact](https://x.com/caiden_reed/status/1712403348597694692?s=20)
* [Sacking, revolt, return: how crisis at OpenAI over Sam Altman unfolded](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/25/how-crisis-openai-sam-altman-unfolded) by Dan Milmo for The Guardian
* [Alex Edelman: Just for Us](https://www.justforusshow.com/)
* [Weber Connect Smart Grilling Hub](https://www.weber.com/US/en/accessories/smart-grilling/weber-connect-smart-grilling-hub/3201.html)
* [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 Alex Winder ([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/620standard.mp3).