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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 603: Billion Dollar Advice, Transcript

July 26, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 603 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, you and I both know that it’s never been easy to be extraordinarily wealthy in America. You monopolize the railroads, you’re called a robber baron. You perform a few hostile takeovers on public companies, bankrupt them after laying off thousands of workers, and somehow you’re the bad guy.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know. Isn’t that a shame?

**John:** It is. Today’s billionaires I think maybe have it even worse, because they get dragged on Twitter for buying Twitter and ruining Twitter. Orcas have finally learned how to capsize their yachts. Today, I thought maybe we could offer some guidance for the billionaires and other folks who are looking for a safe and tranquil place to put their money, which is the film and television industry. This episode is for the dreamers, the builders, the doers, the absurdly rich. It’s also a history lesson in the way things used to work and could maybe work again, with independent studios making things for distributors. To help us look into all of this, we have a very, very special guest, Craig, Akela Cooper.

**Craig:** Fantastic. Hi, Akela.

**Akela Cooper:** Hello. Hi!

**Craig:** Hey!

**John:** Hey! Akela Cooper, you are a writer for film and TV. Credits include Malignant, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Luke Cage, and the breakout hit M3GAN.

**Craig:** That’s pronounced me and three-gan.

**Akela:** M-three-gan.

**John:** Me and three-gan.

**Akela:** M-three-gan.

**Craig:** M-three-gan. That is M-three-gan.

**John:** M-three-gan.

**Craig:** If I know one thing in this world, it’s that that movie would have done even better had it been pronounced M-three-gan. I think in some countries it may have been pronounced M-three-gan. Go on.

**Akela:** I was going to say, that’s one of those writer things, where it’s just like, no, you guys, it’s really Megan. At a certain point, I’m like, oh no, I have lost the narrative on this. It is M-three-gan.

**Craig:** It’s M-three-gan. It’s M-three-gan. There’s going to be M-four-gan. It’ll be M-three-ga-four-n. M-three-ga-four-n is what’s going to happen.

**John:** M-three-ga-four-n.

**Craig:** M-three-ga-four-n.

**John:** Akela Cooper, you are also a WGA captain, who I first met on the picket line in front of CBS. I was so excited to meet you. I think I gasped audibly, because I loved your movie. Your name I’d seen for a long time. I got to see you in person and shake your hand. Akela Cooper, welcome-

**Akela:** Thank you.

**John:** … to Scriptnotes.

**Akela:** I love that the picket line is just bringing people together. Even at the rally today, everyone was like, oh my god, I turned left, and I seen someone I haven’t seen in 10 years. I turned right and I seen someone I haven’t seen in five years. It’s like a writers reunion.

**Craig:** That’s what you think good news is. For me, I see somebody I haven’t seen in 10 years, I’m like, “Oh, no. I gotta go hide behind a very slender tree. I’m going to turn sideways and pray.”

**John:** Akela, we barely know each other. I mostly know you through your work. I was looking through IMDb, and I thought we might actually start with getting an origin story. I might guess your origin story just based on this really expensive credits list I see here of the things you’ve worked on. It feels like you worked your way up in a way that a bunch of our listeners are really aspiring to, because I look back over your 10-year arc. You’re starting off on, first credit I see a credit for is Tron: Uprising. Presumably, you were a staff writer. Was that really your first job?

**Akela:** That wasn’t my first first job. It was my first credit, which was animated. Shout-out to Christopher Mack at the Warner Bros Writers’ Workshop, may that rest in peace. Oh, wait, no, I had gotten staffed on V, the reboot of the ‘80s miniseries on ABC that went a season, and then actually, in between seasons I needed work. Chris Mack was like, “Hey, I know Disney is doing a Tron animated series. You want me to put you up for it?” “Yes.” I ended up getting a freelance actually.

That’s where I first met our lot coordinator, Bill Wolkoff, who was my boss on that. It was just the three of us in a room. There was another executive story editor who was on there. We broke this episode, and then I went off and I wrote it. Then years later, it aired. My staff writing job was on V. Unfortunately, I never got a credited episode on that, just because a whole lot of fuckery happened on that show.

**Craig:** I love that song. That’s my favorite Led Zeppelin song.

**John:** Akela, you bring up a really good point, because I misassumed that Tron: Uprising was your first job because a staff writer isn’t guaranteed a credit in IMDb or anywhere else for being a staff writer on a show. It’s only if you actually get an episode that you get a credit on that you’re necessarily going to show up there. You had a whole extra year or work before you show up in a public record for this.

From that point forward, I look through your credits here, you’re climbing that ladder. There’s a ladder. You’re climbing up it, because you go on to Grimm, Witches of East End, The 100, American Horror Story, Luke Cage, Avengers Assemble. Each of these steps, you are… I see you getting a story editor credit, which is the next rung up from staff writer. I see you getting a co-producer. I see you just rising up the ranks, supervising producer to co-AP. That’s sort of the dream process, right?

**Akela:** Yes.

**John:** You kept working up show after show. They’re all in a genre. They’re all very specific sci-fi, fantasy spaces. Was this by plan? Talk to us about how you’re moving from show to show.

**Akela:** It was by plan in that I wanted to hit that next level. As an elder millennial, I feel like I’m… Sadly, we all know this is what we’re fighting for now. I’m part of a last generation that was able to work my way up the ladder and learn each step of making a TV show as I went along. I certainly hope we win on those fronts, because I think we’re doing the next generation of writers a disservice by cutting them out of the process, as streaming has.

I was part of the CBS Writers’ Workshop and the Warner Bros Writers’ Workshop, and that’s what they told us. It’s assistant, and then hopefully you make it to the table and you become a staff writer.

Then traditionally in network you would have to do 22 episodes before the studio would bump you. On V, I had done 13. When I went to the next show, which I believe was Grimm, NBC was the one that was like, “You didn’t do 22, so we’re going to make you be staff writer all over again.” I had to do staff writer again. Then I did 22 episodes of Grimm. Then I got the story editor bump.

Just from there, I kept hitting those 22 episodes on the network side, and so that helped when I transitioned to streaming, like on Luke Cage, where at this point now I think it’s co-producer. I have the experience. You gotta give me that title.

As it was explained to me, you get the episodes, and then either the series is renewed and then you get a bump automatically in your contract, or if you go on to another show, it’s like, I’ve got all this experience behind me, you give me my bump.

There were some bumps along the way, because I do remember specifically for The 100, it was a difference of do you want the title or do you want the pay. I’m like, “You’re going to give me that fucking title, because I’ve earned it.” I actually ended up taking less pay just so I could get the title, because I knew I was going to need that title going forward, especially as a Black female writer in this business. I took the title over the money. Again, going from The 100 to Luke Cage, it helped.

**Craig:** That’s a good lesson right there in delayed gratification. Any time somebody offers you money or blank, take the or blank. There’s a reason they’re offering you money. It’s a trap. Just think it’s a trap every time, because you’re right, if you can hang on… I almost think they’re counting on people being desperate and taking the money instead, because yeah, once you get the higher title, yeah, you’re going to get more money starting next time, and then building off of that, more and more and more. Well chosen. Good on you.

**John:** The other choice I see that’s really smart here is you were not only doing television. You were also writing features this whole time through. Were you consciously working in long-form scripted, and were you always trying to make features in addition to this stuff, or were they opportunities that came up along the way? Because even before Malignant, you have Hell Fest, you have other stuff you were working on. What was your split there? You were doing TV, but you were also trying to do features?

**Akela:** I focused on TV. I ended up going to USC in the grad program, which at the time was feature-focused. Then I fell into TV. I loved TV, but I had no idea how it worked. Then I found out at USC. It’s like, this is how it works. I’m like, this is amazing. While I was focused on working my way up, I wasn’t really writing features. I was writing spec episodes. I was writing pilots. At a certain point I was also writing short stories, just to have something else in my quiver when they needed to send out samples.

It wasn’t until I got on Luke Cage that it’s like, okay, I think Luke Cage, I made co-producer of Season 1. It’s like, woo, I’ve made mid-level, which is huge. It’s a huge thing to get your foot in the door as staff writer. Then getting that bump is also huge. Then when you make it to mid-level, that’s when I was like, yeah, break out the Prosecco. At that point, I felt comfortable in that I had a body of produced work, so I didn’t have to write as many specs anymore. At that point, I was like, I’m not writing specs anymore. You can see that I’ve had episodes produced.

**John:** You weren’t writing spec television episodes, but then you could actually focus back on doing features, because everyone can always read a feature and say, oh, look at how good her writing is.

**Akela:** Yeah. It had been an itch that had been growing. It’s like, now that I have this time, and now that I am at this level in my TV career, let me go back and take some time to write features. While I was on Luke Cage, I had had two horror movie ideas that had been knocking around in my brain. I’m like, let me get these down on paper. I had a system where if the Luke Cage writers’ room started at 10 a.m., I would show up at 9 and then work for an hour before the room started, just on the outline and then eventually the script. I wrote two spec scripts that way while also working on Luke Cage. I would work at home after work as well, and sometimes on the weekends.

I went to my TV agent, ICM at the time. May that rest in peace. It got absorbed by CAA. I went to my TV agent and was like, “Hey, I’ve written some features, and I’d like to write movies also.” He introduced me to a wonderful agent on the feature side. Then he sent out those spec features. That led to a meeting at Atomic Monster. That worked out very well for me.

**John:** That’s awesome.

**Craig:** I love the fact that you were there… Anytime anyone, but particularly generations younger than John’s generation and my generation, anytime anybody is showing up early, working early, working on weekends, betting on themselves, I sing. I sing. It’s just wonderful. It’s wonderful to see, because it does pay off. It does, honestly. It’s just very exciting to hear somebody betting on themselves like that and then the way it pays off. Well done.

**Akela:** I actually knew the editor of Get Out. We’d met somewhere. I forget now. He had reached out, and it’s like, “Oh, she’s writing features now? I’m being brought on to direct this movie. Would she mind coming on board and doing a rewrite?” That’s how I got on Hell Fest.

**John:** I once had your work ethic, where I actually could get up early and do a thing. I don’t have it anymore. How did you keep energy in the tank to do this writing before your actual writing job? That to me is so tough.

**Craig:** She’s young, John. She hasn’t died inside like we have. Look at her. She’s vital.

**Akela:** Why thank you.

**John:** You’re not a teenager. You still have that young 20s energy, even a ways into your career.

**Akela:** I think I was mid-30s 2015. I am not good at math, but I think I was, because I’m 41 now. Elder millennial, as they say, or whatever the fuck they’ve designated us. They can never seem to land on anything.

**Craig:** Maybe we’ll take you. Maybe Gen X will just pick you up. You’re worth picking up.

**Akela:** At one point, I was part. It was the tail-end of Gen X. Then it’s like, no, we’re going to call you the Pepsi Generation. Then that didn’t stick. Then they forgot about us. Then millennial and Gen Z became a thing. It’s like, hey, what do we call the people between ’78 and ’83? Who the fuck knows?

**Craig:** That’s a pretty specific range there.

**Akela:** That also shifts. There are so many people who will be like, “No, it’s ’79 to ’84.” Wherever it is, I’m smack in the middle at ’81.

**Craig:** Wait a second. I have a question for you, Akela. Do you have children?

**Akela:** No.

**Craig:** There it is. There it is. There it is.

**John:** There it is.

**Craig:** That’s why she’s not dead inside.

**Akela:** As you can see behind me, Craig, I have a cat. I actually have two cats.

**Craig:** I was just guessing, based on the cat and the coolness behind you and the lack of just crap everywhere that belongs to children that put it there, even though this is mommy’s office and you told them not to go in there and they did anyway. John and I, as parents we are the worst about promoting parenthood, because all we ever do is talk about how kids are why we’re so tired. They just haul you out.

**Akela:** That is also where I get time.

**Craig:** Man, you just made one great decision after another, as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** I do look at what I see in your background of the Zoom here. Everything there is breakable by a child. That Predator statue-

**Craig:** Oh, gone.

**John:** Gone.

**Craig:** Gone.

**John:** Gone.

**Akela:** That’s Pumpkinhead.

**John:** Oh, it’s Pumpkinhead. Thank you. I couldn’t see it clearly.

**Craig:** It does look like Predator from here.

**Akela:** I have one of those too, but he is in storage right now. In the before times, when we had in-person offices in writers’ rooms, I have a box of all of my collectibles that are specifically for my office. My Predator is one of them.

**John:** I love it.

**Craig:** You’re a nerd?

**Akela:** Yes.

**Craig:** Love it.

**Akela:** Born and raised.

**Craig:** John and I are playing Dungeons and Dragons tonight, so you’re with your people.

**Akela:** I have played Dungeons and Dragons exactly once. I did have fun. It’s just like, hey, we’re going to do this campaign, and it’s going to be Sunday evening for four hours. It’s like, I wish I could, but no.

**Craig:** You just need to commit to that.

**Akela:** I’ve got a couple of people being like, “We’re going to do a one-shot at some point.”

**Craig:** Do one-shots. Exactly, do one-shots.

**John:** One-shots are perfect. That’ll be great. I want to talk to you about M3GAN, because I saw M3GAN in the theater with an audience who loved it to death. It’s just a fantastic movie and a fantastic ride. My question for you is, from its initial incarnation, did you know that tone was going to be there, that tone where it’s aware of its own absurdity and embracing it and also it’s going to have the jolts that you’re hoping for in a horror movie. When did the tone of it become clear?

**Akela:** The tone of it was Gerard. I wrote a straight horror movie.

**Craig:** Gerard Johnstone, the director?

**Akela:** Yes. The jolts and the scares, yes, those were intended. I’m happy a lot of them landed. The hilarious tone, that is Gerard’s New Zealand sense of humor. I was really, really happy when he was brought on, because it was a case of, I had seen Housebound when it was released on DVD, and I loved it. When the guys at Atomic Monster were like, “Hey, we found a director. It’s Gerard Johnstone,” I was like, “I know that guy. I saw his movie, and I liked it. Cool.” It’s one of those things where I didn’t have to go on IMDb and be like, who the fuck did they hire? He brought that sensibility. I was like, oh, wow, I love it. I love how we played together in that area, because he took what I wrote and then enhanced it in that way. It was so fun to see.

**John:** It’s always great when a writer has a happy director story, Craig.

**Craig:** It doesn’t happen frequently. Then again, so few films get made now, that one would hope that they’re all somehow happy. Can you talk us through the dance? It’s hard to write dancing. The M3GAN dance is astonishing. I feel like we’re buried in culture right now. There’s so much of it. It’s all noise, no signal. Then every now and then, something just pokes through in such a way that everyone goes, “Everybody, shut up and look at this!” In the trailer for M3GAN, when she starts dancing, there was just something about it. I’m curious how that kind of thing gets built in, even from the page, or whether it was on the page or now, and how that storytelling happens.

**Akela:** It was not. I love it. I love that it’s in there. It’s one of those things that writers are going to have to learn. You guys have dealt with production. On the feature side, when I was writing it, after I turned in the first draft, and I got notes from Atomic Monster and Blumhouse, the mandate was, “We cannot have M3GAN moving that much.” They didn’t know how they were going to build the doll and whether or not it was going to be practical or if it was going to be CG or what. It was like, no matter what, if I’m writing her moving, people are going to see dollar signs. I had to go back into the script and cut out “she runs” or she does this and she does that. It’s a lot of head movements. M3GAN will glance this way, and M3GAN will do that. I knew I could get away with that and-

**Craig:** Eyes.

**Akela:** Yeah, and her talking. As far as arms and limbs and doing all this, even the bully sequence, I wrote it like how Steven Spielberg had to visualize Jaws after Bruce the shark, which I took that name and gave it to Gemma’s first robot in honor of that. I wrote it that you would see her in quick flashes from the bully’s perspective. She would be behind a tree and then this and that.

When we cast an actress to actually physically be there, that just opened up a whole other world. I think it was a situation where, when they were doing location scouting, they really liked that office building, but then you get to that moment, and there’s this long hallway between M3GAN and David, and the question during production was like, how is she going to close that gap? It was like, what if she throws them off some way, somehow? It was like, okay, how is she going to do that? I believe Gerard said the idea of her dancing came to him at 3 a.m. in a dream.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Sometimes that works that way. Man, I wish we could show everyone that enjoys movies and television how often some of the things we love come out of the most mundane problem solving, not even problem solving of the romanticized version of how do we make this character interesting? It’s more like, we got to get the doll from here to there really quickly, in a way that makes logical sense, so that the guy down there doesn’t just go, “Bye.” What are we going to do? Then out of these things sometimes comes this fascinating magic.

**Akela:** I remember when I got to see a rough cut. It was a rough cut. They didn’t even have the ending on there. I was like, “What the hell?” Then I just started laughing with everybody else. I was like, “This is odd, but I think it works. Am I crazy? I think it works?”

**Craig:** Whoever the choreographer was, hats off, because I would watch it, and I don’t think my body could do that. There was something about the [indiscernible 00:20:25] that was just so bizarre. It’s interesting that you say that so much of the tone comes from the director. The movie to me only works insofar as I take it seriously. The fun parts are fun, and the campy parts are campy, but if there isn’t something real holding it all together, then it’s just not there. It’s just there’s nothing there. It’s a very ’80s movie in that regard. There were a lot of movies in the ’80s that were horror movies but funny, but horror movies. It was nice. It was such a great throwback to that era.

**Akela:** It was the same thing with Malignant. Obviously, when you’re writing, you’re going to put fun moments in there, because you don’t want it to be super dour. I had jokey moments and stuff like that, but the tone of M3GAN, yeah, that was Gerard looking, because he even hired his friend, who is an actor, is the cop who’s talking to Gemma and is like, “Yeah, that boy’s ear was ripped off and tossed far.” Then he starts laughing. It’s like, “I shouldn’t have done that.” That was an improv on the day. That was Gerard being like, “That was awesome. Let’s keep that.”

As far as Malignant goes, I didn’t sit down at the keyboard like I’m going to write a Giallo horror movie. It was just like, I’m just going to write a straight horror movie. Which characters can I use for humor? The cops. The cops. They wanted more humor, because I think in my original draft, her sister was a psychologist. Again, serious and straight. Then she became an actress towards production. It’s just for more of that humor that James wanted in that, because he very specifically I think wanted to make a Giallo horror film. I did not know that when I was writing it though.

**Craig:** It worked.

**John:** It worked. Congratulations on these films exist. Let’s segue to talking about how we can make movies and TV in a better and different way. Way back, Craig, in 2013, you and I did what was called A Young Billionaire’s Guide to Hollywood. Craig, you said, “This is not a good way to spend a billion dollars if your goal is to have $10 billion.”

**Craig:** I stand by that statement. That is correct.

**John:** A hundred percent. I would say that neither is building a rocket ship or investing in an F1 racing team. You do it because you want to do it. I think if you are a person with a ton of money who wants to throw a ton of money at something, throwing it at Hollywood is not the worst idea.

**Craig:** You’re right, although it does seem lately that large corporations have been investing in Hollywood to try and make 10 times their return, which has been part of the problem.

**John:** It has been a large part of the problem.

**Craig:** Because you’re absolutely right, it used to be, and this will tie into my One Cool Thing when we get to the end of the show, that very wealthy people would buy sports teams because they were very wealthy and they loved sports. If you could break even or make a little bit of money, fantastic, because the point is, I own a sports team. Mark Cuban’s like, “I’m going to buy Mavericks. I don’t care. I love basketball, and that’s how it’s going to go.” What you wouldn’t get so much is the AT&T buys the Yankees because they believe they can leverage it to synergies and blah blah blah. It does seem like some of the money that’s been moving around in our business hasn’t gotten the message that maybe this isn’t just about pure profit.

**John:** You’re talking about corporations, giant corporations swallowing each other to do a thing. I’m talking about, and this is actually something that really comes out of the genre area, is that once upon a time, we used to have independent studios who were making things. We still have some of those in the film side. We have Legendary, which I guess is now not as independent. We have A24, which has done really well for itself, Annapurna. We have Alcon.

**Craig:** There was Annapurna.

**John:** There was Annapurna. Annapurna was a thing. We have Alcon. We have Bold. We have these companies. A lot of times, those film companies are making their mark by producing less expensive genre pictures that do really, really well. In the case of M3GAN, it was a universal release. It could’ve been at A24. A lot of other places could’ve made that movie. It was not an expensive movie to make.

**Craig:** Blumhouse.

**John:** There’s Blumhouse.

**Akela:** Blumhouse, yeah.

**Craig:** That’s what Blumhouse is.

**John:** I think there’s a model for that. Also, I want to reach back to, once upon a time there used to be TV that was done that same way too. We used to have Carsey-Werner. We used to have Stephen Cannell. They weren’t bankrolled by the studios. They brought in their own money. They were able to make things and sell them off to companies.

**Craig:** Sort of, because those, you could make so much money back then. There are few people still making that kind of money now, like the Shonda type money. She makes her company. The studios that made television, Paramount and so on and so forth, would back your show. It would become this massive hit. Stephen Cannell had so many of those, or Aaron Spelling. Then those people would end up with a billion dollars and be like, “I don’t need Paramount now. I’m just going to do it myself.” They had been funded by the studios paying them a lot.

**John:** Things started in a place. Here’s where I think there may be an opportunity now. Just today, as we’re recording this, news came out that Warner’s is negotiating to sell some of the HBO content to Netflix. It tells you that this model of, we’re only going to make things for ourselves and we’re going to keep them inside our little walled garden, may be changing. People may be starting to make stuff for other people, which is really good news, I think, down the road. Akela?

**Akela:** Or it’s like we’ve come back around to what worked before, because back in that area, Fox eventually had Fox Network, but Fox Studio would still sell shows to CBS or ABC and vice versa. Then the goal was, hey, we’re going to get 100 episodes. Then it became 88. Then we’re going to sell it in a syndication, so that you can watch it when you’re at the gym on a fucking treadmill. Supernatural would run in perpetuity on TBS.

It was a system that worked. People made a living. You had your Stephen Cannells and Dick Wolfs. Also, as a middle-class writer, you could make a living, because guess what? You were getting residuals when they sold it into syndication.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right. The headline, with the Captain Obvious Statement of the year, said, “According to sources, this,” meaning Warner Bros selling some HBO content to Netflix, “is a financial move.” What? Really?

**Akela:** I’m shocked. I’m shocked.

**Craig:** It’s not friendship is magic? This is fascinating to me. It’s really interesting that it’s happening with HBO, because HBO never was engaged in syndication. HBO was always walled off because it was funded entirely by subscriptions through paid television, and those subscriptions were beefed up through the arrangements with carriers, cable companies and satellite companies.

The ritual suicide that our business has engaged in over the last five years, to eliminate all those structures and make sure that everybody can lose as much money as Netflix does, has created a system where that doesn’t even happen anymore. It does make sense. Look, I don’t know if my shows are going to end up there. It doesn’t matter to me, as long as people watch what I do. I don’t see a problem with this. I guess the first thing they’re going to be throwing out there is Insecure. They’re going to put Insecure on Netflix. So many more people are going to watch Insecure on Netflix than ever watched it on HBO. I have no doubt about this. None.

**John:** It’s not just though that the streamers are saying, the stuff we made for our service will actually license to other places. If you’re Sony, this is really good news, because Sony is one of the few places that’s left that does not have its own streamer. If people are more willing to pick up a show that is owned outside of a service, that’s great news. The opportunities to take things that were made just for one place and actually get them monetized other places, it’s going to help everybody out.

**Craig:** Let’s remember that this was how it was even working five years ago, because Netflix was running Friends. Warner Bros had no problem licensing Friends to Netflix and making a gazillion dollars off of it. Then everybody was like, wait, why are we giving all of this stuff to Netflix and building Netflix up, when we could be doing this ourselves? Missing the fact that Netflix was paying them money for something that no longer cost them money to have. We spent all the money required to make Friends. It’s over. Our Friends costs for this year will be zero, and our income will be all of the money that Netflix sends us for Friends. This does make sense.

We will slowly but surely reinvent the wheel. They will call it something new. Eventually, they’re going to figure out how to take all these channels and conglomerate them into networks. We’ll get back to three networks. Nothing new under the sun.

**John:** Absolutely. There will be true streaming services like Netflix, like we’re used to, where there aren’t commercials. Then there’ll be the commercial version of Netflix. Then there will also be Crackle and Pluto and all the other services that are AVOD and selling ads. It’s okay. It’s okay for people to watch things where they watch them and where they end up. That’s fine.

Here’s my pitch though. I think this is an opportunity for the same people who are now trying to make the next deal with Shonda or Greg Berlanti or Ryan Murphy. If you’re a person with a ton of money, why don’t you go to Shonda and say, “Hey, rather than making that deal at that streamer, why don’t we just make a company? We’ll make all the stuff ourselves and license them out to these places.”

**Craig:** You already lost Ryan, because he went to-

**Akela:** He’s back at Disney.

**John:** He’s back at Disney apparently.

**Akela:** He’s back at Fox by way of Disney.

**Craig:** Disney-Fox.

**John:** Disney-Fox.

**Craig:** Fisney.

**John:** Akela, someone comes up to you with this offer. Do you do it? You have experience in film and TV. Would you?

**Akela:** Yes. If someone is going to be like, “Hey, I’m going to give you x billions of dollars.” Am I making my own network, or am I just making shows?

**John:** You’re Carsey-Werner.

**Craig:** Production company.

**John:** You’re making shows. You’re a production company. You’d do that?

**Akela:** Yes, in a heartbeat. We all have friends who have cool fucking ideas that do not get on air because of the bullshit way this industry works now. It’s so frustrating. It’s so frustrating. I’ve had this happen. I had this happen before the Strike, where it was like, streaming service not to be named was like, “Oh my god, we love your original idea.” I’m like, “Great, I’ve got heat on me. This is going to happen.” Then they took a week, and they came back, and it’s like, “We don’t know if it’s a sure thing, so can you go get a director and an actor attached to this?” It’s like, no.

**Craig:** Do the work of a production company, but you’re not going to be a production company. You’re not going to own anything, but do all the things that owners do. By the way, even if you don’t have any friends at all, which I’m working my way towards that-

**Akela:** Oh my gosh.

**Craig:** Even if you have one show that you make that is a big hit, if you own it, you are going to make vastly more money than if you don’t. The trick of it is, in the old days there was deficit financing of shows. Shows cost more than the license fees that they received from the networks to air them.

Paramount produces a show, and every episode costs, I don’t know, let’s just say a million dollars. It wasn’t that, but let’s just say a million. CBS says, “We’ll give you 500 grand for the rights to air that.” They’re losing a half a million dollars per episode until it hits that magic amount quantity, 100 back then, where you could sell them to syndication, and then boom, all profit all day long, and in perpetuity. If you’re a show like Seinfeld, it never ends. Deficit financing things is tricky for individuals to do, but yeah, in today’s day and age, where a lot of these shows are not producing 22 episodes…

**Akela:** If someone came to me, I would be like, obviously, I’m going to make my show, because now I don’t have to listen to nopes I don’t want to listen to. Again, my friends who have cool ideas that I would love to see as shows, that are different, that bring in different perspectives. It’s like, fuck it, let’s just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. That’s what everyone else is doing, even though they try to pretend that by going into the past and figuring out what worked before and just repeating that until that horse has been beyond beaten to death, I would be different in that it’s like, I’m going to take a risk, and I know it’s a risk. I’m not going to fire myself if it doesn’t work.

**Craig:** That’s absolutely true.

**John:** Akela, part of what you’re describing might also be, you might want to do a process where rather than shooting an entire season, you might want to actually shoot an episode and see if it works.

**Akela:** What?

**John:** You might actually want to test that. Maybe we could figure out how to do that too.

**Akela:** What would we even call-

**John:** The flyer.

**Akela:** … that thing?

**John:** What would we call the one episode that’s-

**Akela:** If you’re getting in a plane and you’re guiding it, it’s like piloting something?

**John:** Like a pilot? Oh, a pilot?

**Craig:** No, no, no, I hate that. Let’s call it something better. Let’s call it a winger, because you’re winging it. It’s a winger.

**John:** It’s a winger.

**Craig:** The winger wasn’t great, so we’re not picking it up. This is where late-stage capitalism goes. We’ll make everything a pilot. Everything’s now a pilot. The whole season’s a pilot.

Listen. I don’t want to over-romanticize. The old system made an enormous amount of crap. Television was just awful for a long time. It was really a lot of crap. A lot of corny crap. They would make all these pilots. The pilot system, by all accounts, was pretty demeaning. It was this horrible rat race where everyone’s chewing at each other to be the last show that’s picked up from the pilot stuff. The fact that a lot of people were employed doesn’t negate the fact that the people that were in charge of picking pilots and then putting those shows together were kind of crappy shows, were subject to horrible amounts of testing. Networks are still doing people turning dials up and down. “I don’t like her. Her jawbone’s too pointy.” She’s gone. Next. Boom. It wasn’t all sugar and rainbows.

**John:** Craig, there’s a difference between a pilot and pilot season. Pilot season was terrible, because it was [inaudible 00:35:15]. It was artificial scarcity of actors and directors and talent and locations. The idea of being able to see what the thing is before you had to make the full thing is a huge benefit. We had the Game of Thrones guys on to talk about their pilot process and how much they learned shooting a pilot of that show, which was a godsend for them. We could take the best things about the previous system and the best things about the new system and marry them together, I hope, to make something better.

**Craig:** That sounds like a brilliant idea. Let’s do that.

**Akela:** Again, it was also a time where people would just try things. Occasionally, you would get something like The X-Files. That worked. I don’t think at the time that the studio was like, “Oh my god, this is amazing.” It was like, “It works. Slap it on Fridays and see what happens.”

**Craig:** Absolutely. Seinfeld and Cheers come to mind as two shows that were abject failures at the start, just full-on fucking failures, and then they weren’t. Once they caught on, and that’s a lot of television to make, sweating bullets, hoping that people finally catch on. Then they do. There were risks that occurred, and there were rewards that occurred. There was a lot of middle-of-the-roadism also, for sure. There was just some common sense that had been picked up over the years. Pilot season only existed because of cars.

**Akela:** They were sold in the fall.

**Craig:** They were sold in the fall, so that’s when the new show started.

**Akela:** Cars were sold year-round, but the new models would come out.

**Craig:** The new models would come out in September, and the car companies needed new shows to run the ads on. That’s why we ended up with what we ended up with. All that’s gone out the door. It will never go back to what it was, but you can feel…

It was almost like everyone looked around and said, “Nothing about what Netflix is doing makes sense, but obviously, it must make sense, so let’s do what they’re doing, because it couldn’t be that none of that makes sense.” Then they all started doing it. Then they were like, “Oh, no, it doesn’t make sense. It actually doesn’t make sense. We should stop and start going back to stuff that makes sense,” which they are now painfully doing. It seems like there is a painful course correction going on here. The pain is entirely self-inflicted by this industry.

**Akela:** It is. Everyone got enthralled by the idea of subscribers. I am of average intelligence. I will admit that. Sometimes things just do not make sense to me, like NFTs. What the fuck?

**Craig:** NFTs are stupid, and people started to realize that.

**Akela:** Has no one considered that if everyone has a streaming platform, there’s only so many subscribers to go around? What do they think is going to happen? Now we know. It’s imploding.

**Craig:** Now we know. If the only way you can keep your business afloat is by constantly growing your subscriber base, you’re going to run out.

**John:** You’re going to run into a hard cap there.

**Craig:** You’re going to run out. It just doesn’t work. Also, do you remember how expensive cable used to be if you threw HBO and Showtime on there? Oh my god. The bill was 250 bucks a month or something. Now it’s like, if I spend 15 and 15 and 15 and 15 and 15, I can get what I used to get for $300? Yeah, I’ll do that. They devalued their own stuff. They busted all the partnerships they have that created structure.

Again, not sugarcoating the way the past was, but at least from a financial point of view, none of this stuff makes sense to me. I’ve never understood it. I’ve always felt like, I don’t have to. It’s a little bit like I do what I do. Billionaires do what billionaires do. I don’t want a billion dollars. Let them go do that. It does feel like some obvious NFT style what is catching up to us all.

**John:** I see two listener questions here, which I think might be fantastic for our guest here today. Drew, can you help us out?

**Drew Marquardt:** Adam in London writes, “I’m wondering if you have any advice for what I call freeze-frame details in screenplays? These are the kind of details that viewers will only see on a second watch of the film. They might even have to slow down the film or freeze-frame it to see it properly. I’m thinking of the kind of little clues in movies like Hereditary or the subliminal flashes of Tyler Durden in Fight Club. These moments shouldn’t really register for viewers the first time around, so is it odd to signpost them to the reader in the script? Any advice on how you’d word such a moment?”

**Akela:** I usually do signpost them for the reader, just because again, having gone through this process, I’m not going to say executives have gotten lazier, but a lot of people don’t really read scripts, they skim them. Hopefully, your director is going to read it, but you run the risk of things being cut if they’re like, “Oh, we need to get the page count down,” or, “We need to get to this event faster.” I will underline or bold some things in the script, because it forces the reader, the executive, to look at that. This is necessary. If I need to, I can’t remember what script I did this on, but I will be like, hey, this is important.

There was a script recently, pre-Strike, pens down, but yeah, I had a moment where I’m like, “I’m going to highlight this. It will be important later.” Then later on it’s like, “Hey, remember that time I said this was going to be important? Here’s why.” I just want to make sure that the reader, before I’m even given those notes, knows that that moment is important. It’s more of an executive thing than a director thing, because again, I you’ve got a good director, they’re going to read the whole thing. I do highlight those moments however I can in my voice. I think the listener should highlight them in their voice.

**John:** Adam’s also asking about Easter eggs, so things that you might not notice that very first time you’re watching the movie. On a second viewing of Malignant, you might spot some little thing that you didn’t see the first time. That’s maybe not crucial to the initial plot, but it’s rewarding. Akela, can you think of any examples of that where it’s a piece of logic or a piece of something that you’ve put in a script that is maybe not essential for the first viewing of the film, but you need to make sure it’s there for the story to track and make sense?

**Akela:** Again, that would be in the script that I’m currently writing.

**John:** You’re doing it then.

**Akela:** Yes. I don’t say it’s an Easter egg, but in a TV episode, and again, I can’t remember, it was like, on second viewing, the audience should notice this. I have written that in TV scripts, I know.

**John:** I’ve written exactly that, that wording too. Craig, for what you’ve been working on, have there been any examples of things where you’re writing something which you know the viewer’s not going to really catch this the first time through, but will it be meaningful the second time, or that only in a later episode we realize that this line of dialogue is important.

**Craig:** If it’s important, it’s important. That’s how I think about it. If I needed to be in there, either for super fans or people who are obsessive, then it’s going in. Like both of you, I will call it out, so that it’s understood that it’s not just a random detail that should have the same weight as everything else. It is important, even though it seems maybe like it’s not.

Now, there are things that emerge almost always through production, because you capture something, and you’re not quite sure what to do with it, or you get an idea, and you’re like, “Hey, you, go over there, shoot this thing. I don’t know if I’m going to use it or not, but I might.” Then you do, because it’s good. It’s interesting.

One example from Chernobyl, this moment in the episode where it concentrates on the liquidators, the soldiers who went to go clean up Chernobyl, there’s a moment where one of the soldiers sings this traditional Russian song, which lo and behold, is sad. I think it’s called Black Crow. It’s beautiful. It wasn’t anything that we knew about. I didn’t know about it. Johan didn’t know about it. One of the actors was Russian and was just singing it one day, because he said this whole place where we were shooting reminded him of that. I was like, “Here we go.” Sometimes, those things happen.

Because that was a moment where someone was singing something in Russian, we had no expectation that anyone was going to think it was anything other than just some sort of, there’s Russian singing happening now, but not, oh, the lyrics are incredibly poignant and relevant. We just decided screw it, if people are interested, they’ll research it up, and they did. It’s a combination of happy accidents or things that you just, they’re important to you, and that’s enough.

**John:** Yeah. Drew, another question for us?

**Drew:** IMS in Toronto says, “I’m an outlier who doesn’t particularly care about character names. As an audience member, I always seem to forget them or confuse them, and as a writer, I try to avoid them as much as I can. I’m currently writing a story set in the near future, and I refer to all my characters by their profession, you know, reporter, doctor, professor, etc. Since the characters in the story don’t really know each other, there’s no good reason for them to refer to each other by name either. I believe most viewers wouldn’t even realize none of them have proper names. However, a reader told me I should definitely conventionally name the characters for the sake of producers. He says that being an unknown writer, I should avoid straying too much from established standards. He also says that should the script ever get produced, actors might be turned off by the fact that they be playing engineer versus a cool character name. I think that not having a proper character name plays well into a heightened futuristic vibe and vision for the show, but what’s your instinct on this?”

**Akela:** If you believe that in your future world, names are not important, that needs to become a part of the world. That is why they are just called engineer or doctor. Play that up so that the reader understands, oh, this is a world where no one has a proper name. Then you’re not getting notes from executives or actors, because my first thought was like, man, so many actors are going to be like, “What the hell? No,” if only for those IMDb credits, because even now, we’re told, even if it’s just someone who has one line, don’t just put bartender or lady coming out of the bathroom. Give that person a name so that it’s a human being on the IMDb credit.

**John:** I always love that IMDb credit which is like “guy pissing at urinal.”

**Craig:** It’s a great credit.

**John:** The best.

**Craig:** That credit is evocative.

**Akela:** I am someone who’s obsessed with character names. I literally a couple of days ago called my mom, because I’m writing personally, pencils down, something for myself, and it’s set in my hometown. I needed names from the ’90s. I was like, “Hey, can you go get my brother’s yearbook and just start taking photos of his classmates?” I build names off of that.

It is intriguing. That could also be his Wes Anderson thing. We all know a Wes Anderson movie when we fucking see one. If his thing is I don’t want character names, these characters are their professions, that’s a thing. That’s his thing. Again, just make it part of his specific aesthetic in that world, and I think you’ll be fine.

**Craig:** I agree. I actually love this idea. Let me tell you what I don’t love. What I don’t love is anyone who says any version of, “Because you’re an unknown writer, you should not do following.” Fuck that. You’re saying I shouldn’t do a thing that known writers do? If you’re successful and you do this thing, I, being not successful, shouldn’t emulate what successful people do. The thing that successful people do very successfully is not give a fuck about stuff like that. It’s an interesting choice.

It worries me that it’s a show as opposed to a movie, just because 20 episodes in, I do want to get to know people a little bit more intimately, but my guess is you would. At some point, you would. If we’re just talking about a script… Even for the actors, I think when the actor realizes, oh yeah, by the way, Pacino signed on to be Doctor, so it’s okay that we’re coming to you for Lawyer. I think it’s a really interesting thing.

I don’t know who the reader is. I don’t care about crap like that. I’m not interested in readers giving that kind of input. Story input, character input, flow of narrative, all that stuff. It’s when readers put on the “if I ran a studio” hat. You don’t. In fact, your name in my movie would be Reader, so yeah, do that part.

**Akela:** It is interesting. Sorry, I didn’t realize this was a show. I thought it was a movie.

**Craig:** He said show at some point, or she.

**Akela:** They.

**Craig:** They.

**Akela:** It was a show. That would be an interesting thing. Also, what happens when you have two doctors?

**Craig:** You have Tall Doctor and Short Doctor.

**Akela:** Yes, you have to start getting into descriptors. I’m fascinated with the person who asked the question was like, “The characters don’t know each other, so they don’t really address each other by name,” which okay, but if you have Doctor and Engineer talking about Architect, what are they saying?

**Craig:** That’s where I’m not quite sure, since it’s set in the future, even though near future, if this is just a convention that’s occurred societally or if it’s something that’s specific about this other planet or if it’s just that thing where this person says the characters in the story don’t really know each other. There’s no good reason for them to refer to each other by name either. I should say as an aside, one of my pet peeves is when people are constantly using each other’s names with them.

**John:** Their names when they wouldn’t be, yeah.

**Craig:** We just don’t do that. Sometimes I realize, oh my god, I’ve made it to the end of the script, and no one ever said this person’s name out loud, because they didn’t have to. At some point, we do need to know what it is. It would be one thing if IMS said, “They’re going to be called Reporter, Doctor, Professor, and they will never have a name beyond that.” That’s a super hard choice to make.

**John:** It’s a choice.

**Craig:** It’s a choice. If the theory is at some point we’ll learn their names, and actually that’s kind of a big deal, that’s fascinating. Then learning their name becomes really interesting, because when we find out someone’s name that we’ve been talking to or having a connection with, it’s a moment. It’s an interesting moment.

**John:** Absolutely. I agree with everything that’s been said. I think what we need to remember about a name though is it’s not just a thing, handy little handle for our reader, it’s also how people in the world can refer to each other. I think IMS is going to run into problems where they need to talk about that person to a third party, and you just have no way to do that.

Watching a Game of Thrones, most of the time I could not remember any of those characters’ names. We have shorthand in the house, but the tall guy, or the guy who’s traveling with her. You figure out that kind of stuff. You have ways to talk about people. You end up inventing names for people, even if the show itself does not give the person a name. They’re going to be finding ways to identify those people. Let’s do our One Cool Things. Craig, I see you’ve added a One Cool Thing, so I don’t want to take it away from you here.

**Craig:** You wouldn’t, but I don’t always have a One Cool Thing. I like that now it’s special. It takes me forever to watch things. I have been just getting the quiet, passive-aggressive stink eye from Rob McElhenney for months now, because I hadn’t watched his documentary show on Hulu called Welcome to Wrexham.

Welcome to Wrexham is the documentary story of the English football team, the footy club, that he and Ryan Reynolds purchased in Wrexham, Wales, and the story of this team that’s buried in a fairly low-level tier of English football, struggling to make it to get promoted to the next level up.

Finally, I couldn’t handle it anymore, and so I did it. I was going to do it anyway. You watch something for a friend. When you start, it’s a little bit homeworky. I was so in on this thing, within, I don’t know, seven minutes. I was so in on it. It is so well done. It is so charming. It is so sweet. It is not at all what you think it’s going to be. Yes, there is some fun bits of football, but I don’t care about soccer. I’ve never cared about soccer, and furthermore, I never will. What I am obsessed with, stories of economically depressed towns in the United Kingdom. Boy, do I-

**John:** Billy Elliot, yeah, right there.

**Craig:** Oh, Billy Elliot, how you claim my heart, or In the Name of the Father, or any movie that deals with the economically… The Full Monty. There’s so many. What a genre. I love that genre. This is true. This is real people. It focuses on a certain kind of segment of English society that we just generally don’t see. We see lords and ladies, and we see the royalty, and this is something else.

First of all, Rob and Ryan are both, not only on television, but in person, just lovely human beings. They’re just quality humans. What you see is what you get. They’re authentic, and you can tell. What they’ve done for this town and what has happened to this town is pretty remarkable. It is a delight. It is funny at times. It is exhilarating at times and very, very sweet always.

As a kicker for those of you who are Scriptnotes fans, they sent over a gentleman named Humphrey Ker to be their emissary. Humphrey is an Englishman. For those of you who are Scriptnotes fans, he is Megan Ganz’s husband, so Megan Ganz, who’s been on our show and who’s a wonderful person. I met Humphrey when we were all in those early, heady days of Mythic Quest, figuring out what that show was. Humphrey was on staff there as well and also played a part on the show. Big recommendation for Welcome to Wrexham. It is on Hulu. There are a lot of episodes.

**John:** There are a lot of episodes. There are a lot of episodes.

**Craig:** There are a lot of episodes, but they’re 25, 30 minutes long. They go down easy, quick, and you do not need to like either soccer or Britain.

**John:** Or human beings.

**Craig:** Really, or humans. If you like Rob and Ryan, I think you’ll be okay. In fact, if you like Rob or Ryan, you’ll be fine.

**John:** One of the two. A difference between you and me, Craig, so Rob is your friend, Ryan is my friend. I watched it the day it came out and then texted him.

**Craig:** Yeah, because you’re literally a fucking Eagle Scout. You are literally an Eagle Scout. Do you know how many badges I earned as a Boy Scout? Guess.

**John:** Two?

**Craig:** Zero, because I was never a Boy Scout, nor would I ever be. How dare you.

**John:** You should’ve been. My One Cool Thing is shorter and simpler. An article by Clare Watson in Nature called Evolution Keeps Making Crabs, And Nobody Knows Why.

**Craig:** What kind of crabs are we talking about here?

**John:** You know evolution. Evolution, things adapted to their environment. They change. You have trees of things that grow out. You see, oh, these would be all the crabs. For some reason, crabs have independently developed many, many times. They are not related in ways that they should be related. They will develop claws and pincers in ways that they work. There’s true crabs and not true crabs. There’s something about the biomechanical form of crabs that is-

**Craig:** I’m literally laughing every single sentence that you say the word crabs.

**John:** I say crabs. It’s great.

**Craig:** Every single one is funny. Keep going.

**John:** There’s something about crabs, Craig.

**Craig:** Yes, there is.

**John:** They just get under your skin. They’re an irritant.

**Craig:** You keep scratching at this, you’re going to get to something important.

**John:** You keep scratching, I’m going to get to something good here. How they work in multiple environments has given them some sort of evolutionary advantage. We keep coming back to crabs for some reason. I think at some point, we’ll be visited by an alien species, and they will probably be crab-like, because it just seems to be a very effective form.

**Craig:** Have you seen the South Park episode where they go underground and meet the crab people?

**John:** I do not remember a crab people episode of that.

**Craig:** Spectacular.

**John:** I’m sure. I’m sure it’s spectacular.

**Craig:** Crab people. Crab people. The headline here, we’ve discussed many times that people who write articles do not write the headlines that go on the articles. I can’t give Clare Watson credit for this. Clare Watson wrote the article that you’re referring to here. Somebody at sciencealert.com wrote this headline, Evolution Keeps Making Crabs, And Nobody Knows Why. That’s awesome. Nobody?

**John:** Nobody.

**Craig:** What? Where are all these crabs coming from, evolution? This is also delightful.

**John:** It is delightful. You look through the tree here, and you see, oh, why did it happen this way? We don’t know.

**Craig:** Nobody knows.

**John:** Crabs.

**Craig:** Crabs. People.

**John:** Akela, what do you have for us?

**Akela:** I guess overall it’s Arnold Schwarzenegger.

**Craig:** That works.

**Akela:** I’m a fan of documentaries, and I recently watched the Arnold doc on Netflix. Also just being an ’80s baby, Arnold Schwarzenegger was huge in my household. My dad is a huge Conan the Barbarian fan, so he watched it all the time. I love Terminator, Commando, Predator. We’ve talked about Predator.

**Craig:** Commando.

**Akela:** I’m just fascinated by that era. I’m also in the process of reading this book called The Last Action Heroes: The Triumphs, Flops, and Feuds of Hollywood’s Kings of Carnage, which is basically about that period in the ’80s between Schwarzenegger, Stallone-

**Craig:** Stallone.

**Akela:** … Van Dam, Chuck Norris, Jackie Chan. It is fascinating to just see behind the curtain of that and how much Stallone and Schwarzenegger actually hated each other. It was basically like evolutionary warfare. They were each other’s inspiration. I think after Stallone did Rambo, Schwarzenegger was like, “I need a movie like that.” Commando came out.

**Craig:** Commando happened. Did they talk about how Stallone ended up in, I think it was Stop or My Mom Will Shoot?

**Akela:** No, I haven’t gotten to that part yet. I am on-

**Craig:** It’s incredible.

**Akela:** He has just directed Staying Alive.

**Craig:** All I’ll say is, Schwarzenegger is an evil genius. That’s all I’m going to say. Let’s see if they get to it. It’s spectacular.

**Akela:** Oh my god, you watch the documentaries. I am on TikTok, and so sometimes there will be clips from old movies. There’s this interview with Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, which I think is part of the behind the scenes on Predator. Jesse Ventura was like, “I went into wardrobe and I found out that my bicep was one inch bigger than Schwarzenegger’s. I was bragging about it.” Then Schwarzenegger was like, “Good, because I went in before him and I told the wardrobe lady to measure him and lie and say his bicep was bigger than mine, so that then I could go and bet him a bottle of champagne that it wasn’t true.” He is a mastermind. It’s so weird how cunning and charming Arnold Schwarzenegger is. He has done awful things. In the documentary, he actually owns up to all of that. That man’s mind is like a steep trap. It’s since he was a child too.

**Craig:** I will say that the bicep trick, it’s almost exactly what he does to Stallone, except on a scale that is so terrifying, and that led to an entire movie being made that should’ve never been made. It’s astonishing.

**John:** I love it.

**Akela:** I look forward to that. That’s what my Cool Thing right now is. Again, I just love ’80s action movies, ’80s horror movies.

**Craig:** Have you ever seen the little best of moments from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s DVD commentary on Conan the Barbarian?

**Akela:** A long time ago.

**Craig:** John, have you ever seen it?

**John:** You’ve talked me through them. It sounds amazing. I think over D and D we’ve talked about it. It’s great.

**Craig:** It’s so special. “Look at [indiscernible 01:00:27]. Look at him. Now he’s turning into a snake.” He’s just saying what you’re looking at. “Now he’s drinking the liquid.”

**John:** It’s descriptions for the visually impaired and blind. I love it.

**Craig:** It’s incredible. He’s so drunk when he’s doing it. He’s so clearly shit-faced.

**Akela:** One of the great things years ago was the musicals on YouTube of his movies, like Commando the musical. Oh my god.

**Craig:** I gotta check that out.

**Akela:** You have to watch this. It’s hilarious.

**Craig:** Love Commando.

**John:** We’ll add it to the list.

**Craig:** “Hey Bennett, why don’t you let off a little steam?”

**Akela:** It really is them singing. It’s like, “Bennett, John, I’m here again.”

**Craig:** What is his name? It’s John. What is it again? It’s a name that a man with a strong Austrian accent would not have.

**John:** Perfect.

**Craig:** He plays John Matrix. That’s his name, John Matrix, you know, a very popular name in [crosstalk 01:01:25], John Matrix.

**John:** Matrix.

**Craig:** “I’m John Matrix.”

**Akela:** It’s just at some point, he was so successful. People were just like, “We don’t care how he got the accent.”

**Craig:** It doesn’t matter.

**Akela:** It makes no sense how he has any of the jobs he does.

**John:** Love it.

**Craig:** Just the armory bunker that he has in Commando alone, which I loved. I loved that. I was like, “He’s got a special secret room full of all the weapons in the world.” Anyway, that’s our show.

**John:** That’s our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt.

**Craig:** Wahoo!

**John:** It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Woo-woo!

**John:** Our outro is by Nora Beyer. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can 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 they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. Craig, I forgot to send you, I think I did text you the new Scriptnotes T-shirt. Did I send it to you?

**Craig:** I don’t think you did.

**John:** You can picture the CBS Special Presentation, right?

**Craig:** (sings)

**John:** Imagine that with the word Scriptnotes coming in and that color pattern.

**Craig:** All I want to wear. Just get me an entire wardrobe of that.

**John:** They’re absolutely gorgeous. You will love them.

**Craig:** That was before your time, Akela, I’m guessing, the CBS Special Presentation intro music? (sings)

**Akela:** I think so, yeah.

**Craig:** That was such dopamine for ’70s kids.

**John:** Oh my god.

**Craig:** That meant something fucking incredible was about to go down.

**John:** Was about to happen.

**Craig:** Whether it was like, it’s Rikki-Tikki-Tavi or it’s whatever, it’s some animated awesomeness or some just incredible thing.

**John:** Not a Bond movie, because CBS didn’t have the Bond movies, but something great like that was going to be on. So good.

**Craig:** Something awesome. It would spin. Crack. Crack for ‘70s kids.

**John:** So good. So good. 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 should record, although we’re running out of time. Akela, are we willing to talk about the writers’ programs you went through before you started your staff writing career? Because I’m really curious how those went for you and what you think about the changes there.

**Akela:** Yes.

**John:** Akela Cooper, thank you so much for coming on Scriptnotes. It was an absolute delight to get to talk to you about Schwarzenegger and genre and how to change the film and television industry.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** You’re an absolute hero [indiscernible 01:03:52].

**Akela:** Thank you. This was fun.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Akela, so you, before you started as a staff writer on V, you had gone through film school. You’d also done two different writing programs. Can you tell us about what you learned in those different programs and how they helped or did not help you get started as a television writer?

**Akela:** They both helped tremendously. As somebody who’s a little bit socially awkward, I did the CBS writers’ program first, and it was really helpful in helping to set expectations for staff writers when we are on the show. For lack of a better phrase, a lot of times, staff writers don’t know how to act in the writers’ room. That can often be to their detriment, which will lead to them not being asked back. We had people who would come in. Showrunners would come in and talk to us about expectations and answer our questions, like, is this okay, is that not okay.

It was just a great experience in how to navigate potential scenarios and also just building a network of people that we could reach out to, whether it was like… I’m actually still friends with Carole Kirschner, who runs the CBS writers’ program. I had a great mentor in Leigh Redman, who was at CBS at the time. If ever I felt lost, I would be like, “Hey, can you guys help me out here? I don’t know what I’m doing wrong,” or on that level.

We also did mock writers’ rooms. It was like, hey, we’re going to break an episode of Grey’s Anatomy. John Worth came in to talk us through that, show us the ropes of what a writers’ room does and how it operates before we actually got into one. It set us up for success.

Warner Bros operates in pretty much the same way. It was just another bite at the apple. It’s like, okay, this is what you do for this situation, and this is what you do for this situation. Warner Bros was also very helpful in getting most of us representation. I got my manager through the Warner Bros Writers’ Workshop, which I still have today. I think he and I are going on 14 years together.

**John:** A question for you, Akela. You are a huge success. You came out of these programs and are a huge success. Of your cohorts who are in those programs, how many of them are workings as writers today, top of your head? A bunch?

**Akela:** A bunch. In CBS, I can say Aaron Rahsaan Thomas was a showrunner for SWAT on CBS. From CBS, he ended up getting on Friday Night Lights. Janet Lynn did a bunch. She did Bones, I think after CBS, meaning that’s the job that she got coming out of the program. She’s been working her way up. Those are the two off the top of my head. I think there’s another one who ended up in animation, who was with us in our program. He was doing well in animation. Warner Bros, Lilla and Nora Zuckerman, who were the showrunners recently on Poker Face. Now I need to look up all of our class. Most of us are working.

**John:** That’s a pretty good hit rate. It feels like it was a good investment for these programs to have spent the time and money on you guys to make sure that you had this training, because now you’re able to make shows for these networks, which is amazing. Now, talk to us about what you learned in those programs versus learned at USC and film school? You went through a graduate screenwriting program?

**Akela:** Yes. Love USC, as someone who had no connections to the industry here. It was helpful for me. I know a lot of people don’t need grad school. You don’t have to spend that money. Again, I went to USC for feature writing, not knowing there was… At the time, there was a nascent TV program. I got into that, because we would have to take one class. I ended up discovering this whole new world that I did not know existed beforehand.

USC is what got me into television. It opened my eyes in that way. I had a lot of good professors who were very supportive, because a lot of people think that USC, especially at the time, was like, “This is where you go to make several blockbusters. They don’t care about art or anything like that. That’s what you go to NYU for.” Our professors were like, “No, write what you want to write. Write what you are passionate about.” They were very nurturing and encouraging in that aspect and just teaching us.

As far as features goes, I did need to learn structure, because I had written scripts in high school and college. They’re trash. It was very helpful. There’s a structure, first act, second act, third act. You can break it up into five acts if you fucking feel like it. There’s a structure to movies.

Also, even with USC, it’s like, nothing else matters if no one cares about the characters. That was the big thing at USC. It’s like, you gotta get your audience invested in your characters no matter what you are writing. It was a really good experience in setting me up to learn the basics before you start going off and breaking the rules.

**John:** Akela, can I guess that USC was really good in theory and how to get words on the page, but these programs were how to actually be a working writer in the business? Is that a fair difference?

**Akela:** USC was like, you had deadlines and you had to turn in pages, but CBS and Warner Bros is like, you got two weeks usually. It doesn’t matter, when you’re on a show, what you are going through. You gotta turn in your scripts. It’s a machine. Of course, this was network television that they were focusing on at the time. It’s like, once that production train is moving, they’re not going to stop for you as a staff writer, so you have to learn how to hit your deadlines and make your showrunner’s life easier.

**John:** Craig, you have never been a big fan of organized education over screenwriting or television writing. Hearing this description of the writers’ programs at these studios, what’s your instinct? What do you feel?

**Craig:** They’re proper vocational programs. It makes absolute sense. In most, we’ll call them crafts, trades, there is a job training that is run either by an employer, which in this case is what this is, or they’re also apprenticeship programs that are run through unions. What you don’t do is spend $80,000 a year to have somebody lecture to you about arc welding. You instead are employed and trained as an arc welder. You learn how to arc weld from folks in the arc welders local whatever. Then you start arc welding.

I am fully in favor of all vocational programs like this, but particularly these programs that are run by the companies, because they’re certainly not going to be leading you down a primrose path. They’re going to be teaching you how to work for them. That’s what they’re there for. Big thumb’s up to any vocational program. Not so much of a thumb’s up to expensive graduate programs.

**John:** Akela, what is the status of these programs right now? Some were canceled. Some were reinstated. Do we know where these programs are at right now?

**Akela:** I believe CBS is still going, but Warner Bros has been dismantled due to-

**Craig:** I thought they brought it back. I thought there was an outcry.

**Akela:** There was. From what I understand, I don’t think it’s going to be the same thing. I could be wrong. The program, as far as I knew it, is no longer there.

**John:** Of course, one of the issues also is how our industry works, is that these programs can train a bunch of writers inside their programs, but those people are going to be working for all the other networks. I can see someone looking at this as a cost on a balance sheet and saying, oh, why should we be paying to train writers for Netflix or for other people. It’s short-term thinking, but also that’s the frustration.

**Akela:** I think CBS joined, because when I did CBS, they didn’t pay for you as a staff writer, which is a point of contention, but Warner Bros. The idea was that Warner Bros didn’t want their own farm system. We were like Triple-A baseball. They were going to invest money in us.

On V, because I got V through Warner Bros, they paid for me. My salary did not come out of the show’s budget. That’s what that means. I think they would do that for two years, because they do want to start you off as a staff writer, and hopefully you get on a hit show and you work your way up and then they’ve got a showrunner down the line. The original idea of the Warner Bros Writers’ Workshop was that, yes, they’re going to do what you say, John, they’re going to invest money in us, and then years later they’re going to have a trained showrunner within their camp.

**Craig:** I think Universal’s feature development program works similarly, where they’re like, look, we’re going to put you through this program. You’re going to learn these things. We’re basically giving you a blind script deal for something. We can also put something on you. We can assign you something. The point is, you’re going to write something here. You’re going to write it for… There are definitely ways to make it function.

The expense of these programs is couch change. It’s not an actual number that is relevant to the operation of these companies. No offense to Mr. Zaslav, but every time he sneezes more money comes out than the amount that any of those programs cost. If they want to say that, they can say it, but that ain’t why. It’s usually because it’s a hassle to make a program, find people to run the program, deal with people having issues with the program, and then figuring out who should be in the program. It’s annoying. Doing things is hard. It’s so much easier to not do things than to do things, so they don’t want to do things. This is worth doing. It would be hard for anybody to defend not doing it with any excuse other than, “I don’t want to.” That’s the only actual legitimate excuse I can imagine.

**John:** Akela Cooper, thank you so much.

**Akela:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you, Akela.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* Akela Cooper on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4868455/) and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/akelacooper/)
* [Paramount Writers Mentoring Program](https://www.paramount.com/writers-mentoring-program)(formerly CBS Writers Mentoring Program)
* [Warner Bros. Television Workshop](https://televisionworkshop.warnerbros.com/)
* [M3GAN Dance Scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c7XccFwJrQ)
* [Episode 122: “Young Billionaires Guide to Hollywood”](https://johnaugust.com/2013/young-billionaires-guide-to-hollywood)
* [Ben Affleck And Matt Damon Launch Production Company With RedBird Capital’s Gerry Cardinale](https://deadline.com/2022/11/ben-affleck-matt-damon-launch-production-company-with-redbird-capital-1235178013/) by Bruce Haring for Variety
* [Warner Bros. Discovery In Talks To License HBO Original Series To Netflix](https://deadline.com/2023/06/warner-bros-discovery-in-talks-to-license-hbo-original-series-to-netflix-1235421444/) by Peter White for Deadline
* [The Carsey-Werner Company](https://www.carseywerner.com/) on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carsey-Werner_Company)
* [Чёрный Ворон (Black Raven) – Chernobyl OST](https://youtu.be/-q23tuds2ZU)
* [Evolution Keeps Making Crabs, And Nobody Knows Why](https://www.sciencealert.com/evolution-keeps-making-crabs-and-nobody-knows-why) by Clare Watson for Science Alert
* [Welcome to Wrexham](https://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/welcome-to-wrexham) on FX and Hulu
* [Arnold](https://www.netflix.com/title/81317673) on Netflix
* [The Last Action Heroes](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/668268/the-last-action-heroes-by-nick-de-semlyen/) by Nick de Semlyen
* [Commando: The Musical](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FFQ_g8OoQM)
* [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](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/) on Instagram
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Nora Beyer ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli). Our intern is Halley Lamberson.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/603standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 602: Research Isn’t Cheating, Transcript

July 26, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: Well, my name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is Episode of 602 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, it’s another round of the Three Page Challenge, where we look at pages written by our listeners and discuss what’s working and what could be working better. We’ll also answer listener questions on verisimilitude in dialog, POV, writing samples, and more. In our bonus segment for Premium members, what can we get away with never having to do or learn?

Craig: Podcasting.

John: Craig and I will discuss the perks of procrastination. An announcement, next week will be some sort of repeating episode, because Craig and I are both going to be off the grid for a little bit, but it’ll be okay. Everyone will be fine. We’ll find a great episode from the vaults to pull up and put into your ear.

Craig: We only have 600 of them.

John: Actually, even more when you consider bonus episodes and other things we’ve done along the way. There’s plenty of good content.

Craig: Guys, spin the big wheel of podcasts and see what you get.

John: Or maybe just listen to this episode extra slow. Give it to yourself in small doses, and then you’ll have more to savor. You do you is what I’m going to.

Craig: You do you.

John: We have a little bit of news. Craig, I texted you last week, because Weekend Read 2, our app for reading scripts on your phone, is now out. It’s in the app store. It’s been in beta for more than a year, but we finally put it out there. It has not only all the For Your Consideration scripts that we always have in there, but it has two old short stories of mine, it has your entire Chernobyl collection, it has all of the Scriptnotes transcripts for 600 episodes, thanks to Drew Marquardt.

Craig: Amazing.

John: It’s there.

Craig: I was looking at this. It’s pretty cool. What font do you guys naturally default to? I’m just curious.

John: The default font for the reader view is Avenir.

Craig: Avenir.

John: Avenir. It’s a good face.

Craig: Is that what you call these things? It’s a good face?

John: A typeface. You call them typefaces. It’s a good face.

Craig: That’s what the kids in the cool font community call it.

John: It really is. That’s my graphic designer background coming back through, because a font is a specific, deliberate. Medium bold would be the font, and the face is the whole family together.

Craig: Nice face, bro.

John: Nice face, bro.

Craig: Somebody walks by your desk. “Sweet serifs. Nice face.”

John: Sweet serifs. The Three Page Challenges that we’re looking at through today will be available in Weekend Read. The point of Weekend Read is that it is so hard to read a normal formatted script on your phone if you need to. You’re pinching into your zoom. It’s not a great experience. This makes it a good experience. It melts it down, and it re-formats it in a way that works really well.

Craig: John, what is the cost of Weekend Read 2?

John: Weekend Read 2 is free to use for all you people.

Craig: $0?

John: $0.

John: It’s a public source we put out there. If you want to have a larger library, if you want to do notes, if you want to have it read stuff aloud to you, then you can subscribe to it. It’s two bucks a month, I want to say.

Craig: What? That’s a pretty good deal.

John: It’s a pretty good deal. That pays for our coding. It also pays for Drew and Halley, our intern, who are formatting stuff and finding stuff to put in there every Friday so we can keep new stuff in that library.

Craig: Nice. We gotta keep Lamberson eating. We can’t let Lamberson starve. Halley, you know I’m going to call you Lamberson, right? Because again, I just want to say, Halley, what a great last name.

Halley Lamberson: Thank you, Craig. I now have people calling me amenably.

Craig: Nice.

John: Aw, the anagram.

Craig: Nice.

John: One thing we added this last round, which is a suggestion from Dana Fox, our mutual friend, is the typeface Open Dyslexic. Craig, have you looked at Open Dyslexic as a typeface?

Craig: You mean is a face?

John: As a typeface. Have you looked at that face?

Craig: I’m confused. It’s face, right?

John: It’s face.

Craig: Wait, it’s called what now?

John: Open Dyslexic. Are you in Weekend Read right now? Are you looking at it right now?

Craig: I’m looking online at Open Dyslexic. Oh, look at that. I can see. Whoa.

John: Some people find it easier to read this.

Craig: Interesting.

John: It has very unusual weights. It’s a little bottom-heavy in a way. Some people find it much easier to read. Our friend Dana finds it much, much easier to read. We put that in there for her.

Craig: This is really interesting. I’m fascinated by the science behind this. I suppose it makes it much easier to understand what the bottom and the top of any particular symbol is. The lower L’s have little uppercase squidgetties coming off them, so they don’t just look like mine.

John: Little feet going the opposite direction.

Craig: It’s also a groovy font. It feels like, hey, man, I’m a little high.

John: You’re just a little bit high. I think the idea behind it is it makes your brain less likely to flip a letter, which is some forms of dyslexia. What I’ve heard about dyslexia more recently, and this is me opining on things I’ve read in one article, is that a lot of it tends to be a brain auditory processing thing much more than a visual thing, but whatever helps a person read and feel more confident and comfortable reading is a good thing.

Craig: Whatever impediment there is between you and what you want, if someone’s helping you get there with technology, then hooray. It’s funny. I never thought about this sort of thing, because I don’t have dyslexia. Nobody in my family or immediate family has dyslexia. It wasn’t anything we had to concentrate on. Once you get there, you go, “Oh yeah, that makes sense, actually.” There has to be at least some difference in fonts. Sorry, faces.

John: Obviously, there’s basic fundamental readability. There’s reasons why you don’t use tiny type sizes. There’s reasons why you want contrast between the letters in the background. There’s a reason why we made Courier Prime the typeface, because it just was a better typeface to read. I guess Open Dyslexic is an attempt to be very aggressive about making sure the letter forms are so distinct that they don’t get flipped in people’s heads. I like people who are trying to solve problems out there in the world.

Craig: Love it.

John: Love it. Love it. Let’s solve some problems out there in the world by tackling some listener questions.

Craig: Segue man.

John: Because we often put these at the end of the episode, and then we run out of time and energy. We’re going to foreground them today. Drew Marquardt, can you help us out with a listener question?

Drew Marquardt: I sure can. Eric writes, “I’m writing a screenplay where the protagonist is an aerospace engineer. I myself am just a humble, lower middle class guy with very little college education. I want my characters to sound real, so I’m asking my older cousin about these topics, since he did go to college and graduated in this field. I sat down with him and recorded us talking about a bunch of subjects and explored the mind of the main character. He gave me these awesome pieces of dialog that the main character could say. I also text him from time to time as I build the script and ask him, ‘Hey, check out this scene. I wanted to talk about blah blah blah. Does this sound?’ He replies in full detail how the character should be saying things. Is this cheating or allowed? Could I use his language verbatim to build this character in this world? Does he get a writing credit, or what type of credit would be given for this, or is it just using a resource like reading a book and pulling out language from it, which I’m also doing?”

John: Eric, I’m sorry. You need to just stop what you’re doing and never, ever try to be a screenwriter again. You’ve broken incredibly important rules about never using any person’s expertise in your script.

Craig: Throw your laptop out, Eric. Throw it out.

John: It’s tainted. Everything’s tainted.

Craig: Set your clothes on fire and leave town. I think you probably have figured out that we’re totally fine with this. It’s actually just a sign that you’re doing your job well, to check with people. No, what they’re doing isn’t writing. No, they shouldn’t be getting a writing credit. It is perfectly reasonable to say to them that you will do your best to advocate for a consulting credit of some sort, like aerospace consultant. You can’t guarantee those sorts of things, because ultimately, somebody’s going to be producing this, and it’ll be up to them. This is totally fine. I do this all the time, call people up like, “Does this sound right?”

John: “Does this sound right?” I think you’re concerned specifically about like, oh my god, I’m using the actual words that he said. In this case, it’s your brother, first off. He’s giving you consent. He knows why you’re asking him these questions. You’re showing him scenes. He’s giving you feedback. He wants you to be able to write the best thing, both because he’s your brother, but he also would love to see aerospace engineering portrayed properly on screen. You’re doing [inaudible 00:08:30] for all these reasons.

Weirdly, it’s only the last sentence of your question that I want to flag here, “Is it just using a resource, like reading a book and pulling out language from that book?” Be more careful about pulling out language from a book there, sir. In reading that book, you might figure out what terms people are using and how people talk about stuff, but just make sure you’re not plagiarizing. Make sure you’re not literally taking the sentences out of that book. Yes, do research. Research is not cheating. It’s never cheating.

Craig: No, it’s essential. When you say language, if you mean nomenclature, terminology, all fine, you want to do that stuff for sure. Yeah, you’ve got a great resource there. It’s your cousin. It’s his cousin. It’s not his brother.

John: It’s one more step removed.

Craig: One more step removed.

John: Less blood in there.

Craig: I feel like people that do jobs that are constantly misrepresented on screen are going to be thrilled if they can see a movie where they’re like, “Oh my god, it’s clear that these people talked to an aerospace engineer.” Have you ever heard, John, the little bit of Ben Affleck’s commentary, the DVD commentary for the movie Armageddon?

John: Yeah, I think you’ve talked about it on the show. It was an amazing thing.

Craig: It’s so wonderful. I’ve talked about it before. Part of what he’s talking about is just this huge gap between what the movie is imagining or presenting and what the reality is, which I’m sure, yes, if a bunch of guys and ladies at NASA were watching, that they would probably just laugh their asses off. You’re avoiding that, which I think is a fantastic thing to do. Eric, I feel like you knew we were going to say, “Eric, you’re okay.”

John: That’s fine too. Sometimes you just want some validation, like, “I’m right here.” Eric, you’re good.

Craig: Eric, you are right.

John: Craig, I have a question for you. Are you close with any of your cousins?

Craig: No, but there’s a reason. There are a couple of reasons. I only have two first cousins. I had three. One of them passed away. My dad was 13 years younger than his sister. My mother is an only child. My dad was a mistake. Therefore, I am the son of a mistake.

John: You’re generationally much farther away from those cousins.

Craig: That’s the point. They were so much older than I was when I was a little kid. There’s Bilya. He doesn’t go by Billy, but we always knew him as cousin Billy. Cousin Billy and cousin Laurie. They were lovely. It’s just that they were just much older. Then also there’s a lot of… My sister and I never quite understood what was going on. In the older generations of my family, there are all sorts of, I don’t know, grievances, things like-

John: [Crosstalk 00:11:13].

Craig: This was in a situation where we saw each other all the time at family reunions. It was pretty rare. I was always excited to see them, because I looked up to them, because they were so much older and exciting. No, I’m not. How about you?

John: I’m not. I’m the youngest of all that branch of cousins. We lived in Colorado. Everyone else was further back east. Growing up, my cousins Tim and Cindy were close enough to my brother’s and my age that we would hang out some. I do have some good, fond memories of that. They all moved to different places. I was never around them. They all got much, much, much more Christian over the years, and so it became harder and harder. We still keep in touch. When my mom died, they were at the Zoom memorial service, and lovely cards and all that, but no, not close.

I always envied people who had cousins in town, because that felt like such a special thing. It’s not so close as a sibling, but a friend plus a blood connection felt like a really cool thing to have.

Craig: I do have that with my cousin Megan Amram.

John: Absolutely, but you didn’t even know she existed until well into the Scriptnotes era.

Craig: I certainly didn’t know she was my cousin until we 23 and Me’ed each other. She’s my cousin. I mean, third, possibly fourth, but yeah, she counts. That’s the cousin I have, Megan Amram.

John: That’s the cousin you want. The cousin of choice.

Craig: Yes, cousin of fact and choice.

John: Love them both. Let’s try a new question. Drew Goddard. Drew Goddard? You’re not Drew Goddard.

Drew: I’m not Drew Goddard.

John: Let’s try a new question. Drew Marquardt.

Craig: Is Drew Goddard here? Is he listening?

John: He’s very tall. We would notice him if he were on the Zoom, because he’s very, very tall.

Craig: Very tall.

Drew: Ricky in Venice Beach writes, “My entire movie is told from the hero’s perspective, and there is never a scene that she’s not in. She also has three family members who have powerful character arcs that I want to resolve by the end of the story.”

John: Are they cousins is my question.

Craig: And how powerful.

Drew: “The problem I’m running into is how to resolve these subplots in the third act when the lead character has traveled far away and is no longer geographically close to them. I would love to cut back to the other characters to see how they changed over the course of the story. Unfortunately, I’ve never cut away from the lead character’s perspective the entire movie. I feel like cutting back to these characters makes sense emotionally and thematically, but it just feels off to me. What advice or thoughts do you have about breaking from your main character’s perspective in order to complete a separate character arc?”

Craig: Ricky, something is wrong. Something is fundamentally wrong, because you are saying that there are three family members who have powerful character arcs. I’m not sure how powerful they can be if they’re never alone and they never are separate from the main character. Do those character arcs connect specifically to your main character? Is there a way for everybody to get together for a little family reunion at the end?

It sounds like you’ve got a problem of, “I want to do this and I want to do that,” and the two things are opposite. It’s what Lindsay Doran refers to as a closeup with feet. You’re trying to do a closeup with feet, and I think you’re going to have to pick one way or the other. That means probably going backwards in your script and looking for where things may have gone slightly awry.

John: In a previous episode, we talked about group dynamics and how important it is for the group as a whole to evolve and for the individual relationships within that group to evolve. It’s possible that I can imagine scenarios where these characters really work together a lot more, and so therefore we did establish arcs that those characters could go through. Just because of the circumstances of Ricky’s story, they’re not going to be around to complete those arcs.

Craig’s solution, basically to go back and really look at do I need these things to happen, that way is entirely possible, or the other solution of just like, we need to get everyone back together at the end to learn and see what has happened and what has changed, because I don’t think you’re going to be satisfied with the first-time cutaway at the end of the story to break POV. I’m sure our listeners can find 10 examples in great movies that do that, but it’s certainly not recommended practice.

Craig: No, I wouldn’t. I’m a little nervous. These character arcs, I just want to know, how are they relevant to my main character? Are they relevant? Do they inform the main character’s experience? Generally speaking, if you have a, like you say, “My entire movie is told from the hero’s perspective,” that means it’s about her. Therefore, all the choices that you make as a storyteller, that put her in the middle of the wheel, and then there are spokes of the wheel, like her family members, all those spokes have to feed back to the hero. They are there for a dramatic purpose that must connect back to the hero.

I have no interest in whether or not Aunt Sally’s marriage falls apart if the story is about Grandpa Joe, and Aunt Sally’s marriage has nothing to do with Grandpa Joe. We just need to connect it. We need to. At that point, that should guide you. If they don’t connect…

John: Let’s imagine a story in which the hero has inspired one of the characters to give up drinking or make a fundamental life change. I can see that being a powerful arc. They went through a whole thing, but they’re not there for the end.

Keep in mind, Ricky, that what’s meaningful to the audience isn’t that that character’s changed. It’s that your hero got to see the results of that character changing. It’s when you’re seeing it from your hero’s eyes, oh, this change happened, and that your hero was proud of this character and feels a connection to this change that has happened. That’s the reward. Cutting away to it without the hero knowing it isn’t going to be satisfying to the audience.

Craig: It’s interesting. I don’t think we’ve ever really talked about this. Storytelling that is built around a character, and that’s the majority of what we do, a central character, is essentially a narcissistic exercise, where that character’s feelings, that character’s experiences, that character’s problems, and that character’s resolutions and actions are what matters to us. We are essentially complicit in their narcissism. Other things happen elsewhere. They don’t matter as much. They just don’t. We don’t mind that. It’s just not a problem.

That’s why it’s so funny in whichever of the Austin Powers it was when the henchman dies and then they go to his family, because it underscores what a bizarre act of narcissism storytelling is.

I think what you’re struggling with is you’re trying to be not narcissistic about it, but here in the audience, all you’ve done is mainline narcissism heroin into my veins. I just care about the hero, because I identify with the hero. The story is for me to feel and appreciate. I want to know who I’m with. I don’t want to ever leave that person. If I do, it’s only because I want to see how it feeds back into the person I care about.

John: Perhaps it was a hundred episodes ago we talked about main character energy and how in real life it can be a dangerous pathological thing. In movies, main character energy, you know what? That’s what you’re here for is the main character energy. That could be, Ricky, what you’re feeling there is that. Don’t run away from it. Drew, what do you got for us?

Drew: Danny writes, “An independent producer and friend came to me with a sitcom idea. I thought it was great, so we developed the characters and plot together. I’m the sole writer of the script, with written by-credit, but he is a co-creator. He supports me submitting it as a writing sample for fellowships, but I list him as a collaborator if I’m submitting that script for incubators. We also have a pitch deck in case we have any opportunities to take it out.

“When I start querying managers after the strike, would it be okay for me to send this pilot as a second sample in addition to my other original pilot? The script definitely shows my voice and writing skills. The concept is not entirely mine, but we’re not a writing team. If I do send the script, should I mention my co-creator? Should I say a producer approached me to write on spec, or should I just focus on writing and polishing another completely original script before querying representation?”

John: Craig, I think where we’re getting confused here with Danny is that a producer approached to say, “Hey, would you write this thing kind of with me, kind of for me, on spec?” This producer person wants to produce this thing, but Danny is the writer. Danny owns everything. Danny can absolutely use this as a sample. There isn’t a problem here. That person is not a co-writer, doesn’t need to have their name anywhere on it, unless the agreement they have is that this person is only producing it, and every script has to say producer attached or something.

Craig: I think this is a problem that isn’t a problem, because what Danny is describing is a producer. A producer says, “Hey, I’ve got an idea for something,” which in and of itself is not, as we know, property. The producer looks for a writer. The writer says, “Oh, I like that. I’ll write it.” What do writers do with producers? Of course, they bounce ideas back and forth. They talk about stuff. Then the writer goes and writes. The producer is attached to produce. That’s it. When it says, “I’m the sole,” quote unquote, “writer of the script with written-by credit, but he is a co-creator,” no, he’s not.

John: Nope.

Craig: No, he’s not. First of all, just so you know, created by is a credit that the Writers Guild assigns as a function of separated writes. It has to do with who wrote the underlying story, and that is writing. What this person is is a producer. That’s great. There’s a whole world of non-writing producers. Danny, when you start talking to managers, you could send them pilot. Why wouldn’t you? You wrote it?

John: You did. It’s your writing. It shows what you can do. Let’s say you sign with these managers, and the managers want to take this thing out. Then it’s maybe a conversation like, “Okay, this producer is attached. Okay, what does it mean? What is the producer actually expecting? Has the producer done other things? Are you going to try to get some more senior experienced producer on board with this? Is the producer going to take it out on their own?” All that stuff has to be figured out. For you, Danny, getting representation, that’s not a barrier in your way.

Craig: Just mention it if you’re talking to a … If a manager’s interested, then you can say, “Oh by the way, just so you know, there is a producer attached to this one.” This one, no, free and clear. It’s not like you can only have one producer. Take a look at the credits for things. Jeez, Louise.

John: Good lord.

Craig: You can have a thousand producers. If a manager’s like, “I wanted to be the producer,” good, you can be the producer. Hey, how about this? Everyone gets to be a producer. Who cares? I’m the writer, and then there are 4 million people that have… That’s why the Producers Guild exists, to basically say, okay, of the thousand of you that have the producing credit, we’ve figured out that you’re a producer and you’re a producer. The rest of you stay in your seats.

John: For folks who are not familiar with the Producers Guild, you’ll see credits at the end of the movie or at the start of the movie that say “produced by,” and you don’t know who those people are. If it says PGA after it, PGA, just those letters, that means the Producers Guild has gone through, looked at who the people are who worked on this, and said these are the people who really produced-produced the movie. It’s a limited subset of the bigger, longer list you see there.

Craig: John, are you in the Producers Guild?

John: I am not in the Producers Guild. Are you in the Producers Guild?

Craig: I am in the Producers Guild.

John: Nice.

Craig: They gave me an award, and I had to join. Here’s the thing. It does make sense to figure out… One of the things that Producers Guild did that was quite wise was… Because they’re not a union. They’re not a labor union, even though they’re called guild. The Writers Guild and the Directors Guild just happen to use the word guild, as do the Screen Actors, but we’re all unions. They’re not.

What they did that was smart was they made themselves essential by I guess contracting with the major awards, to say, “Okay, if you’re giving out best television show or best movie, the people that collect those are producers. Who should get up there? We’ll figure it out. We’re the Producers Guild.”

At the end of each season of television that I do, at some point I get a thing from the Producers Guild, not because I’m a member, everybody gets it, that says, “What’s your title? What’d you do? Check off the boxes if you did these. Don’t check off if you didn’t do these. Then we’ll make our choice.”

John: It’s a thankless task maybe to decide that, but I understand. The producers themselves decided they wanted to do this, because they were tired of having the value of a producer credit devalued by all the people who get those credits for reasons that are not really producing.

Craig: Exactly. They don’t make you join, by the way. You can. It’s nice. It helps them do the work that they do. They do this for everything, because if you want to go up there and get your award, you have to prove that you should.

John: Drew, let’s try another question.

Drew: Gary writes, “In Episode 598, Vince Gilligan discussed today’s over-reliance on IP as the basis for new shows or features. That seems to put even more impediments before fledgling or at least uncredited writers, given the difficulty of being able to option such a property. I have recent experience with this issue. I wanted to develop a script based on a 1956 YA novel, but the literary agency connected to the author’s estate wouldn’t give me, an uncredited writer, an option. What are possible strategies for such writers, or is it hopeless to get an option without somehow acquiring a production company’s backing?”

John: Gary, I feel for you. I think it is going to be hard for you as an uncredited writer to get that, unless you had some special connection with the author or with the material, you were somehow able to break through the, “It doesn’t really make a lot of sense for us,” options to backlog.

I would say hold on to this notion of adapting this book and focus on some other things. At some point you will be signed by a rep, you will be going on the water bottle tour of Los Angeles. That might be an opportunity to say, when they ask, “What else do you want to do?” it’s like, “Oh, I’ve always really wanted to do this book.” Pick which producer you might want to say that to. If it’s really a good fit, then that producer could track down those rights and may get that book for you to adapt. That’s a way that I’ve seen it happen in real life before. Craig, other instincts from on your side?

Craig: I think that’s basically everything I would say, except maybe if this is a fairly obscure novel, you might want to just wing it. Just do it, because they don’t want to give you an option, because they don’t know you, and they also don’t know if the script will be any good. Who knows? They give you an option, and then, oh god, next week, I don’t know, David Koepp comes calling, and they’re like, “Oh, no, we gave it to Gary.” That’s probably not going to happen, is it?

One of the things that Vince was saying is, okay, there’s an over-reliance on IP, and the implication of that is that if something hasn’t been snapped up in terms of rights, then maybe it’s just not really on anyone’s radar at all, or maybe people tried and gave up. It sounds like you’re talking about a screenplay as opposed to a series. Even if it were a series, it would just be a pilot script.

Your job is, you want to write a script based on this novel, maybe write it. Honestly, what you’re really gambling is… Okay, I don’t know how long it’s going to take you to write it. Let’s say it takes you five months. You’re gambling that in the next five months, no one is going to come out with a script for that novel, which I’m going to guess no one has come out with in the last five years. Might be worth it. Then show them the script. Then they might be like, “Oh.”

John: “Oh, this is actually not too bad.”

Craig: “This ain’t too bad.”

John: Is it a long shot? Yeah, it’s a long shot, but it’s not the worst idea, because what you’re going to come out of this with hopefully is at least a good script, a good script people can read and say, “You know what? Gary, he’s a good writer.”

I remember way back when I was in film school, I read a Alien versus Predator script. I have no idea who wrote that. It was just a spec that someone wrote an Alien versus Predator thing. I was like, “That’s a really clever mashup of these two things.” It never got made. Different fork of that whole idea came to be at a certain point. It was a cool idea. I’m sure that person got signed and got some meetings that got stuff started. That could be you, Gary.

Craig: Absolutely.

John: I would also say Craig may be right. If it really is inspiring you to do that more than some other original idea of your own, consider it.

Craig: When you say, “I want to develop a script,” I would love, Gary, if you said, “I want to write a script.” Development is what we do when other people are like, “I don’t know.” A lot of development really starts with a script, whether it’s something you’re rewriting or it’s something you’ve written already.

Maybe write it. Like John says, worst comes to worst, you have a cool sample. Can people make that sample without the rights? No. Do they have other stuff that they would want to do anyway? Yes. Was it likely that they were going to be, “Oh my gosh, there’s a 58-year-old novel that we could do.” Probably not. I wouldn’t worry about it. Go for it.

John: Gary, are you infringing on their copyright to write that script? Yeah.

Craig: No.

John: Are they going to come out to you?

Craig: No, they’re not. You’re not.

John: Here’s the question. You are not doing anything that diminishes the commercial value of the original thing.

Craig: You’re not exploiting it. Look. Here’s the deal. You can sit in your house, and you can write fan fiction about Star Trek or whatever. You can write anything you want. When you sell it or when you distribute it, that’s different. To write a screenplay and not receive money for it and not have it turn into a movie and not put it online and have it distributed around, no, there’s not exploitation.

John: Here’s the infringing part I would say. It’s that if Gary wrote the script, and then he wanted to submit it to the Office of Copyright for copyright protection, no.

Craig: No, you can’t do that.

John: You’ve created a piece of work that you cannot copyright.

Craig: That’s right. That’s right.

John: That’s a risk you take.

Craig: Exactly. It’s a risk you take. Actually, even that is not quite true, because if you write something, somebody else can come along and say, “Oh, Gary wrote this.” For instance, if let’s say the novelist were still alive, which they probably aren’t, the novelist picks up Gary’s script, and they’re like, “Whoa, this is a great script, but Gary can’t copyright this. I think I’ll just rip the cover page off, stick my name on it.” That would be infringing Gary’s… Gary does have protection, but he can’t exploit anything.

John: It’s interesting. That is a fascinating thing.

Craig: He only has protection insofar as this work represents what I did, but it is not exploitable, because I don’t have permission from the original rights-holder.

John: What we’re describing is essentially a chain of titles. Gary doesn’t own the underlying piece of material. No one else owns Gary’s script. In order to make a feature out of this project, you need both underlying material and Gary’s script.

Craig: Yes, I believe that is correct. That said-

John: Not lawyers.

Craig: … if an attorney wants to write in and explain why I am absolutely wrong, I am welcoming of it.

John: We’d love it.

Craig: It is a learning opportunity.

John: Let’s go on to our Three Page Challenge, because we have three entries into this. I want to make sure we spend some good quality time looking through them. If you are new to the podcast and have not listened to an episode where we do a Three Page Challenge, here’s what this is.

Every once in a while we ask our listeners, hey, would you like to send in the first three pages of your script, it could be a feature, it could be a TV series, for us to talk about on the air? Everything we’re going to be talking about is completely voluntary. These people volunteered for this treatment. We are not picking stuff off the internet and poking holes in it. People asked for this feedback.

Those folks went to johnaugust.com/threepage, all spelled out, filled out a little form. They said it’s okay for us to talk about it, they’re not going to sue us. They attached a pdf, and it went into a magical inbox that Drew and our summer intern, Halley Lamberson, read through all of those entries. Halley, this was your first time doing this. Can you talk to us about this process? How many scripts did you and Drew look at this past week?

Halley: I think together we looked at a couple hundred. The process was very fun, reading through the submissions over a couple days and talking to Drew about the ones we thought were standout. It made me think about my own writing to read the entries.

John: I remember when I was a reader at TriStar, you learn a lot by reading other people’s writing. You definitely learn sometimes things you never want to do and stuff you see on the page, like, “Oh, let me make sure I never, ever do that.” The sampling that you guys picked, I liked, because they were both interesting ideas and had some issues that Craig and I could talk about.

Thank you very much for all your hard work. Folks, don’t send in those Three Page Challenges until we ask for them, because, man, they really do stack up quick. You guys are really good about sending stuff in.

Let’s maybe start with Skulduggery. This was from Matthew Davis. Actually, in our last live show, one of the raffle items we had was we guarantee front of the line for a Three Page Challenge when we do our next Three Page Challenge. That was Matt Davis. He sent that through.

If people want to read along with us, it’ll be attached to the show notes for this episode, so you can click through and find the pdf, or they’re in Weekend Read right now if you want to read them. If you’re just listening to this on your drive, Drew, could you give us a summary for Skulduggery by Matthew Davis?

Drew: Madame Louvier, a Haitian Voodoo queen with her face grease painted as a skull, moves through the forest of the Louisiana backwater, illuminated by lamplight. She approaches a small home where Jenny, 40s, gives her son $10 and sends him away on his bike.

Inside the house, Madame Louvier has Jenny drink a mysterious elixir and commands Jenny to exhale a blue vapor, a spirit which Madame Louvier inhales and communes with. Jenny’s vision warps. She sees Madame Louvier with a giant boa constrictor, cutting a strip of fabric from Jenny’s dress and fashioning it to a voodoo doll. Louvier’s dagger erupts in blue fames and turns every candle’s fire blue.

Louvier explains that their journey is entwined with Pirate Jean Laffite and threatens to kill Jenny unless she tells her the location of a map, which Jenny only has a faint memory of.

John: Craig Mazin, talk us through your impressions of Skulduggery and some of the things you noticed as you went into it.

Craig: There were some nice visuals to start with. I’m a little fussy about movement issues.

John: I have a lot of movement issues in this too.

Craig: There was a cool beginning. “Frogs and crickets cry out from the swamp. Lamplight illuminates a SKULL. The skull… MOVES.” Oh. Okay. “We realize the skull is a grease-painted face: She opens her eyes with an emotionless, blank stare: ONE EYE GLAZED-OVER – an injury long ago unaddressed.” Oh. Okay. “Draped in a blood-red cloak,” great, “the ghastly figures murmurs as she trudges along… ”

Wait a second. Now, was she trudging or was she just still? That’s a cheat. This is where we run into trouble all the time. This is where directors start to tear their hair out, because you can’t do both. You can’t start with this fixed skull, play the trick that it’s not really a skull, it’s actually a person, but also have them walking. If you are going to say they just started walking, then what were they doing before? Just standing, waiting for the movie to start? These things, they maybe don’t seem like that big of a deal. They’re actually a really big deal.

Let’s get into the meat of it all. There’s Jenny, who is in a backwater home. I don’t know what that is.

John: I don’t either.

Craig: What is a backwater home? Is it a cabin that’s on the bayou? Is it in the swamp?

John: I have no idea what the size or scale of this is. Also, when we’re getting inside, there’s a hallway, so it’s not just a cabin, but I don’t have a sense of this. There’s a porch. Is this a gothic Southern mansion, a Big Fish-y kind of thing? What is this?

Craig: Also, you can’t start a scene with somebody handing someone a $10 bill and saying, “No need to hurry back.” Was he also just standing, waiting? Some of the issue here is that the way these scenes start, it’s almost like people were waiting for somebody to go, “Action.”

There are so many ways to start a thing like this. We could be outside that house, and we could here, “Mom,” and, “Okay, come here,” whatever it is. There’s always ways to do it. It just seems like the actors are waiting, and then someone goes, “Okay, now do stuff,” and then they start doing things. We lose a little bit of the sense of the moment before, which is a really big deal for actors. It’s something that I think about all the time as a writer.

She sends her kid away. He, “Pedals his ramshackle bike away.” Pedals is capitalized for some reason. I don’t know why. He, “Pedals his ramshackle,” ramshackle is not a great word for a bike, “away. He pauses.” Do you mean he stops? He, “TAKES ONE LAST LOOK BACK AT HIS MOTHER… ” Then the scene ends. Does he just stay stopped? There’s movement issues. I’m struggling with the movement. How about you?

John: I’m having many of the same problems you’re describing here. I love that it’s evocative and atmospheric. That all feels great. I like the skull reveal, but I had the same problem with the movement. We didn’t need to “realize the skull is a grease-painted face,” just, “The skull is a grease-painted face.”

The, “She opens her eyes with an emotionless, blank stare,” you’re saying she, but you haven’t even introduced the character yet, which was a little bit of a bump for me. “MADAME LOUVIER — a Haitian-born Voodoo Queen,” I need some matches dashes there to get us out of that little clause.

Matt is using a lot of colons as a punctuation device. That could totally work if we were consistent, but he does a lot in the first page and then stops, so making some choices about how you’re going to get us down the page.

I read Madame Louvier as… She’s “Haitian-born Voodoo Queen,” so I’m reading her as being a dark-skinned character, but then it felt weird to me that I didn’t have any racial information about Jenny Duralde. I’m maybe pulling it in from her last name. I just got a little nervous suddenly that, oh, no, I’m going to be in a trope-y, voodoo-y kind of thing that is uncomfortable. I think just being a little bit more specific would be a great idea.

I had the same problem with JD, the son. Gives him a dollar bill. She says, “No need to hurry back,” but I don’t even know what that’s in context to. I was thinking if she calls JD, and JD is on his bike, he could be on his bike from the very start, and she says, “No need to hurry back,” or, “Get yourself a soda too.” Then I see, oh, she’s sending him away. Because he wasn’t on the bike to start with, I didn’t know what I was seeing for most of the scene.

Craig: There’s also a little bit of a missed opportunity to understand relationship, because she says, “No need to hurry back. I’ll be fine.” Her hand is shaking. He notices her hand is shaking. He knows she’s scared. Also, clearly, there has been some kind of conversation, because, “I’ll be fine,” even though they were just standing, and she suddenly handed him the money.

“Treat yourself to a soda, okay?” Then he goes, “Thanks, mom.” Now, “Thanks, mom,” is not great. You say, “Thanks, mom,” when it’s like, “Hey, kids, there’s Sunny D in the fridge.” “Thanks, mom.” “Thanks, mom” is really weirdly dull for what is happening here. I don’t quite know what this kid is thinking. Also, man, he gets on that bike fast.

John: That’s why I think you start the scene with him on the bike.

Craig: We continue with some movement issues. We start with fingernails diving into a burlap pouch. “They pluck out a VIAL OF ELIXIR.” She’s walking down a hallway. Man, she got there fast too. It feels to me, like, wouldn’t we want to hear the knock, knock, knock? I don’t know, seems like we missed some interesting opportunity.

John: You’re missing a “transition to.” If there were a “transition to” at the bottom of JD going off on the bike, and then we were jumping forward in time, because we are jumping forward in time, because we’re going to come to her. She’s already in the chair, and there’s candles everywhere. A thing has happened. It’s okay to do that. We can compress some time, but give us the “transition to,” because we need some sense this is not a continuous thing.

Craig: Absolutely. Then we get into the meat, which is this supernatural thing. I don’t know what’s going on. I gotta be honest. I know eventually what is happening is Madame Louvier is abusing some sort of voodoo ritual to get Jenny to tell her where the Pirate Jean Laffite’s map is, which is fine, perfectly fine thing to do, I guess, if you’re an evil voodoo ritual person. Prior to that happening, I don’t know what’s going on. I don’t know what Jenny wants.

John: Exactly.

Craig: I don’t know why she’s participating in this.

John: Is she terrified of this woman coming, and that’s why she sent the son away? She seemed like a willing participant, at least at the start of this, because she’s already there, and all the candles are lit. It doesn’t seem like she’s a captive, quite, so she may have called for this woman to come, but she’s scared of this woman. I don’t have a clear read on what’s supposed to be happening here. Mystery is great, but I’m just confused.

Craig: Yes. For instance, if I understood that she said, “My son is sick,” in a more interesting way, “My son is sick. He’s going to die. Can you do some voodoo and make him live?” okay, I know what she wants, at least. I just don’t know what she wants. Voodoo, it’s Haitian. I understand that. One of the languages of Haiti is French. Where we do run into tropes, with anyone that speaks-

John: Oh, god.

Craig: … any language is them saying something in one language and then repeating it in English. Why would you do that? Just say it in one or the other. She’s constantly saying something in French and then repeating it in English, which is…

John: Tropey, tropey, tropey.

Craig: It’s really tropey.

John: I scratched out all the English repetitions. In every case, they can say something in French, and the context is clear based on everything else that’s around it. We get it.

Craig: Exactly. There’s good description of all this cool CGI stuff that’s going to happen, but I’m confused about what is happening with… The context is where I’m really tossed, because the scene begins with, Jenny has already encircled her chair by lit candles. She’s ready to go. This lady shows up and says, “Drink.” That’s it. She just hands her a thing, goes, “Drink.” Then Jenny’s like, “Yep, done.” Then Jenny says, “Thank you.” Okay.

Then all this other stuff happens, and I’m not sure why. A lot of cool visuals. It was exciting. I like the way that Madame Louvier was yelling at her. Cranking up the speed of the scene was really interesting, but we’re missing some key information.

John: Madame Louvier also says, “Drink,” before the vial is seen. There was just orders of how you’re telling the audience and the reader what’s going on. Showing the vial, and she says, “Drink,” great. If you say, “Drink,” and then you show the vial-

Craig: She did. Before that-

John: I guess before, she pulled out a vial of elixir, but we wouldn’t have necessarily seen that.

Craig: That was part of the… If she’s walking, then I don’t know how to show that, or at least in the closeup that’s indicated here. It was cool. She “drops her cloak, revealing a FIVE-FOOT BOA CONSTRICTOR draped around her neck,” although-

John: Love it.

Craig: … we’ll have to make sure that that cloak really does cover the neck well, because your costume designer’s going to be like, “Uh.” The snake-covering cloaks are actually hard to find. When she yells at Jenny to tell her about the map, Jenny says, “I saw it once…as a child.” What? Earlier, she goes, “Our journey entwined with Laffite,” and Jenny goes, “Laffite?” Huh? Huh? Then she’s like, “Laffite!” Then Jenny’s like, “Oh, that Laffite. Yes, yes, I did see that once as a child.”

Then there’s a series of shots, which are “fractured scenes flashing in her mind,” Jenny’s mind. Man, that’s a big shift to go from a scene beginning with Madame Louvier, close on her, and now we’re in Jenny’s mind. It’s hard to pull off that bit without being overloaded. I think there’s probably too much going on here, Matthew, just too much, too fast, too abruptly, and motion issues.

John: Agreed. Just going back to the title page here. Set up as a pilot episode, an Episode 1, that’s all great. I would take the MFA off Matthew’s name. You’re not going to see that. I would take that away.

Craig: Master of Fine Arts?

John: It is Master of Fine Arts. Drew and I both have our Masters of Fine Arts-

Craig: You know who doesn’t?

John: … from the Stark Program.

Craig: I don’t.

John: You don’t. Halley will by the end of next year. Also, “fifth draft,” no. Don’t tell us how many drafts this was. The date is perfectly adequate for this.

Craig: Yes. Also, the date here is June 6th, 2023. Now, because Matthew gets to jump to the top of the line, he gets to send in a thing and then right away we show it. Just do be aware, there is this little thing of you don’t want to send people a script that is from 12 years ago. You sometimes don’t want to send them a script from today or yesterday, because it seems like you were just like, “Hot off the presses. I haven’t thought about this. Here you go.” A couple months, that’s pretty good.

John: Thank you, Matthew, for sending this through. Thank you for buying those raffle tickets there. I’m glad you got your script in here. Drew, can you tell us the log line now? The idea is that we only see these two pages, then you tell us the secret about what the actual script is about.

Drew: “An orphaned Cajun boy and his summertime friends search for a legendary pirate treasure but must outwit a merciless Voodoo Queen merely to survive.”

Craig: I guess Jenny died.

John: I think Jenny dies [inaudible 00:46:36].

Craig: Jenny.

John: Jenny.

Craig: Jenny.

John: Great. I would not have predicted that it was going to be a child-focused thing. That could be great. It’s dark for what this is, but dark habits, that’s fine.

Craig: It’s true.

John: It looks like there’s a bonus here. He included the Skulduggery map, which Craig can download, because apparently there’s puzzles involved on the map.

Craig: I’m looking at it. We have two things. We have some sort of letter that’s written in a cipher, which I could absolutely run through a crypto quote analyzer. It’s my least favorite kind of puzzle solving. Then there is a map that contains various pentagrams and rectangles and also a couple of additional things using that symbol, glyph alphabet. I don’t feel strongly about it. The one thing that’s interesting is that the first line of the cipher includes a lot of Roman numerals, which makes me think-

John: A date?

Craig: … these ciphers are only letters and not numbers.

John: Great.

Craig: Who knows?

John: Who knows?

Craig: I have not dedicated the time to it.

John: You have not. We will include that along with the script, if people want to try to solve that.

Craig: Great.

John: Let us get to our next entry in the Three Page Challenge. This is Scrap by Tertius Kapp.

Craig: What a great name. Lamberson, someone’s coming for your crown.

John: Tertius is a pretty damn good one. Drew, could you give us a summary?

Drew: Sure. Two young men, Sam and Knowledge, sit inside a space shuttle wearing colorful space suits emblazoned with ZSA, Zimbabwean Space Agency. Over the radio, Sarah announces the countdown to take-off, but when a cow’s head rips into the shuttle, it becomes clear that the shuttle is homemade. Sam insists that they rebuild their homemade craft, because he is chasing a girl and wants to impress her with a video of the takeoff. Sarah tells Sam not to pretend he’s an astronaut for this girl, but Knowledge insists Sam needs to lie about his job, girls want an entrepreneur, not a scrap metal scavenger. Sam then expertly drives a trolley full of scrap down the local street and into the scrapyard.

John: I enjoyed quite a lot of this. I would say I was concerned and confused when I read that Sam and Knowledge are both in their late 20s. This felt much younger to me based on just the premise. I also want to make sure that I actually am reading this right, because I took this to mean that they were using their phone to create the video as if they were blasting off, that they were in no ways themselves to see that this was all happening, so that it wsa all to impress this girl who was coming in there. There was some sort of fun misdirection, but ultimately, I got frustrated that the dialog got very premise setup-y and didn’t surprise me with details that let me know this is what Sam is like, this is what Knowledge is like. It was just very much like, here’s a premise. Sam loves this girl that he hasn’t seen for a long time, and is trying to impress her. Craig, what were your takeaways?

Craig: I agree with you that the writing was a bit surface-y in that it was very expository. We were talking about the circumstances. We were announcing our intentions and our feelings without any subtleties, just, “This is what I think.” “This is what I think.” “That is what they think.”

I’m more concerned about the premise, because the idea is I haven’t seen a girl in 13 years. I’m going to go to a reunion. I assume it’s a high school reunion or something. When I go there, I’ll be able to show her this video to prove to her that I’m an astronaut, except Zimbabwe does not have a space agency. Zimbabwe has not sent astronauts into space. One would presume that if they are still indeed in Zimbabwe, that his schoolmate would know that Zimbabwe does not have a space program.

John: Basically, do they believe that this girl is so sheltered that she would have no way of actually ascertaining this to be true or not true? I agree with you there. That premise was concerning, especially that it’s meant to take place I believe in present time, because they have phones and stuff. If this were somehow the ’50s or something, I could see impressing a girl who somehow had no idea that such a thing was impossible or had not happened.

Craig: It’s at least in the ’80s, because it’s Zimbabwe and not Rhodesia. Here’s a few things, just simple things, Tertius, that are easy to address. First, we’ve got, “Inside the command pod of a space shuttle.” Now, you’re cheating, because we’re going to reveal it’s not a real space shuttle. In fact, it’s just something that they’ve built, cobbled together, plastic and aluminum wrapped around wooden staves. How do we not see that initially? You might want to talk about it being dark. Maybe there’s emergency lighting or something just to hide what’s going a little bit.

Knowledge is, for at least Americans, a gender-neutral name, so I wasn’t sure if Knowledge was male or female or otherwise. It would be helpful a little bit.

“A countdown in Shona language is heard over the radio.” Then it says, “Sarah (on comms).” Now, we don’t know Sarah. We haven’t met Sarah. That’s not a way to introduce somebody’s name. You can just say female voice.

John: Female voice.

Craig: They hold hands. They look into a phone’s camera with proud smiles. Now, do you mean I see the phone’s camera? Are they looking into the camera of the movie? If I see the phone’s camera, then I know it’s fake already, because astronauts don’t look into phone cameras while they’re launching. “We’re all stardust, brother. Let’s go home.” They’re not leaving the planet, but this is leaving planet stuff, counting down, “Commencing solid rocket… ” Do you know what I mean?

John: I took that as being they were shooting a video, and in that video they were saying to each other, “Stardust. We’re all brothers.” They would send that video through to the girl.

Craig: I understand, but he says, “Let’s go home.” Wait, where are you? Are you on Mars? Are you on the moon? Why is there a countdown because you’re going home?

John: Let’s go home to the stars. We’re going back to the cosmos from which we came.

Craig: That’s weird.

John: I think it’s kind of poetic. I get why [crosstalk 00:53:21].

Craig: It’s a little doomy. If you’re an astronaut and you’re like, “Let us return to the stars,” I’m like, “Oh, you guys aren’t coming back.” That’s a dark thing to say as you’re heading off into space, I think.

Also, Sarah, when she cuts off the countdown, she says, “Holy shit – what’s that? Stop! Stop! Abort launch! Sam!!” Now, obviously, Sarah is reacting to the cow that’s about to hit them. When she says, “Holy shit – what’s that?” it’s a cow. What happens is, even though going forward in time, because we don’t know it’s a cow, you can get away with the confusion. We will subconsciously do the math backwards. When we do it, even, Tertius, if we don’t, in our seats, go, “Wait a second,” something happens. There’s little cracks in the dam of believability that occurs subconsciously, that you want to avoid.

John: Think about what could Sarah be shouting at the cow to get the cow to run away, that we could misinterpret in the moment.

Craig: Yeah, as if she’s going, “Shanu … ina … nhatu … mbiri,” and then, “Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,” and then boom, cow head. That would be fine, because it wouldn’t be enough time for her to be like, “Ah!” Also, if a cow is charging your fake shuttle, why would you keep the premise up? “Stop! Abort launch!” It’s over. There’s a cow.

There’s all these little… You know what? This is a great example, Tertius, first of all, why writing comedy is incredibly hard, harder than drama. The need for constant logic and stress testing of every little thing that happens is so important, because if any of that stuff isn’t really, really solid, you lose credit for the jokes, because people feel like you’re just cheating your way to get to the line you wanted to instead of earning it and surprising them, like magicians. There’s multiple things to think about here. I’ll say this. I’ve never seen that scene before. I’ve never seen a cow bust its head through a space shuttle command thing.

John: I liked the reveal that they were in the field, there was a cow, all that stuff.

Craig: Good invention.

John: It was only when they’d gotten us to the point of, oh, now we’re going to talk about the premise of why we’re doing this thing that I got a little… My enthusiasm flagged. Craig, did it bump for you that the countdown was in Shona, and then everybody else was speaking English the whole time?

Craig: It sure did. It sure did, because again, it’s stressing the logic. Look, obviously, what Tertius is trying to figure out here is, I’ve got people who are Zimbabwean, and they either speak English and Shona or only Shona. We’re making a movie, and we want people that speak English to watch the movie and not worry about subtitles maybe, which is fine. There is a convention where people will speak accented English.

People in Africa do speak with a particular accent. There’s all sorts of accents across the continent. You can zero in on like, okay, specifically, what is the Zimbabwean accent for English, and then maybe just stay there, because if you start in Shona, I’m a little confused, yes, why the person over the radio is speaking in Shona. These two people are speaking to each other in English. It just didn’t make much sense.

John: Agreed. Let’s jump to the very end of this. We have the streets of Harare. “Sam is expertly riding a trolley laden with scrap metal down the street. He has a homemade handbrake to help him steer the heavy load and he whistles to communicate with traffic.” Sure, I get this. I like this.

What I didn’t know though is, I don’t have any visual for what the streets of Harare are like. I don’t know if this is super crowded streets. Should I be picturing Mumbai, or should I be thinking of empty, rural streets? I just don’t have a good visual for this, so I don’t know what I’m seeing around, which really affects what I’m picturing in my head with him steering this cart.

Craig: Look, Harare is certainly not on the scale of Mumbai, but if I were to say the streets of Mumbai, I would also not know what I was looking at, or I said the streets of New York or the streets of Los Angeles. We’ve got a lot of different kinds of streets. Basically, every town has main street, urban center, suburban, sticks, poor, rich-

John: Paint us a picture.

Craig: … commercial, residential. Give us a little bit more a sense of what neighborhood are we actually in. What do I want to know about… All these things will give me information.

Obviously, look, Sam is a blue-collar guy. Even the kids call him Scrapman. He collects scrap metal. This is not a wealthy person. Where’s he collecting it from? Is there a contrast between him and his vehicle and the neighborhood he’s in? Is he riding around in maybe the nicer part of Harare, and even kids are looking down on him, or is this kid really happy and cool? Does he like the kid? Is he glad that the kid… Is the kid like, “Hey Scrapman. Here, I’m helping you,” and he’s like, “Great. Thanks, kid.” I’m not quite sure what to think about that.

John: We were just out in a field with a cow, which felt rural, and now we’re in a city. I don’t have a good sense of what I specifically should be thinking about. This is a situation where I as the screenwriter might throw in a one eighth of a page establishing Harare and giving us a sense of what this looks like and feels like. That may not make it into the movie, that establishing shot, but it helps the reader anchor visually what kind of space I’m in. What is the air like? What does the light feel like? What is this space? Is it noisy? Is it crowded, or is it empty? Tell us in that establishing shot.

Craig: You can also tie it into the end of the space shuttle scene where they’re in the field. He says, “Behind them the shuttle finally falls down.” The camera rises up, and we see in the distance a city, cut to Harare, so I know that the city is far away, but not crazy far away, so I get that there was a journey, or something, because it’s going to be weird to go from cow field to city with no connective tissue.

John: Drew, can you talk us through the log line, the secret rest of the story for these three pages by Tertius Kapp?

Drew: “A janitor’s son discovers an unusual lawnmower part in his father’s store. When he tries to sell it online, offers go into the millions. He’s captured and recaptured by various intelligence agencies but must find his high school sweetheart to solve the riddle. He has unwittingly discovered an extraterrestrial artifact.”

John: That is a fantastic premise. I like it a lot.

Craig: I’m cool.

John: Great.

Craig: You got a good premise. Now execute. Logic. Logic, logic, logic.

John: Logic in comedy. Our final Three Page entry, Drew, can you talk us through Another Life by Sarah Hu?

Drew: A young Taiwanese couple stand in the departures at JFK, the husband, Daniel, says goodbye to his wife, Josie, and their baby, Ava, as Josie and Ava are boarding a plane to travel for a month. He ties a red bracelet on baby Ava, who is wrapped in a red blanket. Meanwhile, at another airport, Anne, a young Taiwanese mother, hurriedly sends her baby girl, Mei, off with a woman in her 60s named Fei, to be delivered to Anne’s parents in Taipei. Mei is wrapped in a blue blanket.

After their first flight, Josie and Ava are at the Narita Airport in Japan, when Josie suddenly collapses waiting outside the gate to Taipei. A gate agent rushes over to help. At the same time, and at the same gate, Fei approaches the gate desk and signals to the agent that she needs to use the bathroom and hands baby Mei over to the agent. The gate agent who had rushed to Josie’s side, now cradling Ava, joins the agent who is holding Mei.

John: Craig, talk us through your first impressions with Another Life.

Craig: It seems like we’re doing a baby switcheroo here. Really, you couldn’t get more of an emphasis on the fact that one baby’s wearing the blue and one baby’s wearing the red.

One is coming from JFK, and one is coming from Philadelphia, at I assume the same time, although it’s weird. It says, “Super: 1985. JFK Airport.” Then we do the scene. Then we go to, “Super: 1985. Philadelphia Airport.” 1985 is really long. I just want to know, is it the same day, same week, same month? Is it not? I think giving us a little more information there is fine. 1985, I think it’s going to be frustrating for people, because it’s so generic. I think genericism is a little bit of the issue here.

Look, let’s just first talk about the most obvious issue, which is that everybody has to figure out how to deal with people speaking not English in movies for English-speaking people. You’ve dealt with it. I’ve dealt with it. We’ve all dealt with it.

Sarah’s choice was to say, right off the bat, “All dialog in brackets indicates Mandarin language.” Fine, except literally all of it, except for a couple lines… Actually, one of the lines is in Japanese. There’s one line, and then the VO of the gate announcement is in Mandarin.

At that point I’m wondering if there’s maybe a better way, because what happens is all the dialog ends up in brackets. I got fatigue. I got punctuation fatigue when every single line was in brackets. Let’s put that aside, because that’s a technical thing.

There’s a slightly generic vibe here. The airport feels generic. The time feels generic. There’s nothing about this that says 1985 to me. I have no feeling for 1985. I don’t know what time of year. The conversation that Josie is having with Daniel, who I assume is her husband-

John: I assume so too.

Craig: … is generic. This is the back and forth. “Stop worrying. It’s only a month.”

John: “She’ll be a brand new baby by then.”

Craig: “You can really focus on work now. I’m sorry I’m just… tired.”

John: Then he hands a roll of film over and puts a red bracelet on the baby’s wrist. “Take a picture every day for me. So you remember how much you are loved, Ava.”

Craig: You’ve had a kid. I’ve had a kid. Nah.

John: That’s not a real moment.

Craig: Nah. It’s not a real moment. It doesn’t feel real. When parenting couples are dealing with stuff like this, you get to a moment of truth or honesty after all the other sweating and stuff. I’m not sure, what is Daniel worrying about exactly? She’s taking the baby. What’s the problem? I get that he’s like, “I’m going to miss my baby.”

Also, she’s like, “You can really focus on work now.” “Josie registers Daniel’s hurt expression. ‘I’m sorry I’m just… tired.'” Why isn’t Josie hurt that Daniel’s like, “You’re leaving for a month, and I don’t give a crap about you. I’m just bummed out that my baby’s going to be gone for a month.” Also, a month isn’t that long, and no, she’s not going to be a brand new baby. It didn’t feel true. It didn’t feel complicated. It didn’t feel sticky and tricky.

Then this is compounded by the fact that when we flip over to the Philadelphia side, we have another generic conversation. I’m not quite sure what was going on. Who’s Fei?

John: God bless Drew and Halley for maybe writing up that summary, because I think the summary actually makes more sense than what I was getting on the page. Mei is the baby. It’s complicated that names are all very similar.

Craig: I get that. Mei’s the baby. Adam’s the two-year-old brother. The mom is Anne.

John: Is Anne.

Craig: Who’s Fei?

John: Fei is the woman who’s carrying the baby to visit family or something.

Craig: Fei’s character is 60s. That’s it. When Fei says, “She’s so sweet. What’s her name?” is Fei a flight attendant that is carrying the unaccompanied minor baby? Who is Fei?

John: It’s not clear who Fei is. I suspect we would learn that maybe on Page 4. It’s frustrating to me, because I read this three times and really had a hard time keeping it all straight. I’m not sure I actually did fully understand.

Craig: Maybe she’s hired her.

John: What the purpose, yeah, hired her to take, to see her family.

Craig: Yeah, because it seems like Anne, the mom, it says, “Severe school marm vibes.” Anne seems like she’s like, “Baby, yuck. Here, you take this baby to my parents. Here’s diapers. Here’s formula. Beat it. I’m not going to call you. I don’t need one last look. Just go.” I’ve learned something about Anne there. It doesn’t sound great. I would still need to understand the context of who Fei is to make sense of this scene. Otherwise, Sarah, the issue is, instead of me thinking the things you want me to think, all I’m going to be thinking is, who’s Fei?

John: What’s up here? Is she stealing the baby? I don’t get what it is.

Craig: Who’s this lady, and what’s her job, and why did she do this? Also, when, “Anne watches closely as the gate agent processes Fei’s boarding documents,” in italics, “Will this work?!” Okay, so there’s intrigue, but again, the intrigue only works if I understand who Fei is, because I don’t, so I don’t know what’s going on.

Then we get to the airport. Josie’s made her way to Narita Airport. “She makes her way slowly, with great effort.” What does that mean? Is she already hurt, winded? We haven’t seen any problems with her.

John: We saw her on the airplane. “She braces herself, wincing.” There was some problem in the scene before that.

Craig: Like a bad hip?

John: I don’t know.

Craig: It doesn’t sound like a heart problem or anything. Wincing is like, “Ow, my leg.” It says her POV blurs and distorts. Now it says, “Josie makes her way slowly, with great effort. From Josie’s POV: The Taipei departure gate in the distance blurs, distorts.” Why would she be looking at the departure gate when she’s arrived and is walking away from the departure gate?

John: She’s arrived in Narita, but then she’s going to Taipei. This was a stopover on her way to Taipei.

Craig: Was that established?

John: Not especially well. That’s a good thing that the couple could talk about at the start is, “Do we have enough time to get from that get to the next gate? It’ll be fine. It’ll be fine.”

Craig: “I’m just nervous because the layover was so tight.”

John: Exactly.

Craig: I think that’s the issue is I got confused there again. More importantly, she collapses. I’m like, whoa. Now I understand what’s going on. Both Fei, mystery 60-year-old, and Josie, mom, are heading probably to the same place. I think they’re going to the same place. They’re both going through Narita. They’re both trying to get to the next leg of their journey when Josie collapses, and then here comes Fei to be like, “Oh, help her.”

John: “Help her. Hold my baby.” Babies get mixed up.

Craig: “Hold my baby.”

John: Craig, before we get to the two-baby problem, which I’m assuming is going to be part of the log line-

Craig: Isn’t that Dan and Dave’s new show, two-baby problem?

John: The two-baby problem, yeah.

Craig: Two-baby problem.

John: From the creators of Game of Thrones is the Two-Baby Problem.

Craig: Comes Two-Baby Problem.

John: On Page 1, we have a two-prop problem. “From his pocket Daniel reveals a roll of Kodak film and a red macrame bracelet, centered by a jade ring.” This actor is how holding two props and will talk about one of them and do something else with the other one. No. You get one prop. Touch the one prop. Forget the roll of film. I think it’s a mistake to have two props that have to do two different things. We can only handle one piece of information at a time.

Craig: If you want to do both, just reach into your pocket after you do the one. Reach into your left pocket after you reach into the right pocket. That should work.

John: Going back to what stuff is in Mandarin, what stuff is going to be in English, brackets are a choice. My guess is that this is set up this way because these babies are ultimately coming back to the US, and so most of the film is going to be in English. With that as a choice, you might want to think about just italics for-

Craig: Completely agree.

John: … whatever the foreign language is, because it’s just easier to read.

Craig: So much easier to read. I completely agree. Italics is your friend here. Just go for that. It will just make the read so much easier. The brackets, it’s weird, even just subconsciously, even though you did a nice job of laying out for us explicitly what you meant by the brackets, what happens is, as you’re reading, everything feels like an aside, because that’s what brackets do in my head. It all feels weirdly un-emphasized, which you don’t want.

I’m curious to see where this goes and is it a two-baby problem. For me, the big issues is I want there to be more specificity and more honesty and truth in the relationship going on between husband and wife. I want to know who the hell Fei is. I don’t need much. I just need to know what is… I’m paying you to do this. Just do it. I get it. She’s paying a lady to go and do this. Okay, but I need something.

John: I haven’t peeked at the log line yet. If this truly about the babies getting mixed up, at some point we’re going to need to actually spend some face time on the babies. I think this script maybe should’ve spent a little more time on that, even just on the plane, or just other people commenting on the cute baby. Some face, some good fat baby face time could be really helpful in terms of setting up the stakes here.

Craig: I love a good fat baby.

John: Drew, tell us what this is actually about.

Drew: “A loner Asian American workaholic befriends a woman with whom she was unknowingly switched with as a baby. After seeing glimpses of a life that could’ve been, the discovery of their switch threatens to destroy the fragile identity she’s safeguarded all her life.”

Craig: It’s a two-baby problem. We were spot on there. I’m a little nervous, Sarah, that it is so telegraphed that we’re just waiting for it to happen, which isn’t great. You might even want to consider just showing one of them. If you were to, say, not show Fei. You just see… It’s Josie, right? Josie?

John: Yeah.

Craig: Josie. Josie’s got her kid, gets on the plane, gets off the plane, collapses. A lady with a kid hands her kid over to somebody else and goes, “Let me help you.” Then the switch happens. We’re like, “What? Oh my god. A switch just happened.” This whole thing with the bracelets, you’re like, “Here comes the switch.” You’re just waiting for it. That’s not what you want, generally, especially not right off the bat.

I’m also a little nervous just based on the lack of specificity of environment and dialog. The log line is describing a fairly sophisticated drama, I think. “Destroy the fragile identity she’s safeguarded all her life,” that’s heavy. That, I would just say as you look at the pages after this, that of course we don’t have, really be on patrol for that, because anything that undermines the realism is going to take away from the drama and can push it towards soap opera in a bad way.

John: I want to thank everybody who sent through Three Page Challenges, and especially the three people who we talked about today. So great and brave of you to do this. I think everyone learns when we can see what you guys did on the page. Reminder if you’d like to do this yourself, you go to johnaugust.com/threepage, all spelled out, and we will put out another call for adventure sometime in the weeks ahead.

It is time for our One Cool Things, Craig. My One Cool Thing is an essay that I think you will enjoy reading. It’s by Adam Mastroianni. Apparently, it’s a full research paper he presented, but you can read the blog post or the Substack-y post that he did, which is simpler and much more easily digested.

It’s called The Illusion of Moral Decline. What he wanted to study is, do Americans or people worldwide believe that things are worse now than they were before, that people are meaner, less kind, that morals are declining. The truth is, the answer is yes, they always do. They always have believed that things are declining and that things are worse now than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, until you drill down about their actual personal experiences, and the people around them, and like, oh, actually, not so much for me. It really digs into the studies on why that is and what’s really happening.

It has some interesting framing theories about why we always perceive that stuff is getting worse, and particularly that morals are declining. It’s not simply just that it’s a thing that happens as you get older, because even if you talk to people in their 20s, they think things are getting worse. It’s just a set point thing. It probably ties into the degree to which you tend to forget the negative things from 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and turn up the brightness on past memories. You can’t do that with the present. It’s a really well-designed paper.

Craig: That’s really interesting. I remember I took a sociology course in college. Was it Emile Durkheim? I can’t remember which famous sociologist it was, but wrote about, and I’m probably scrambling this also, but in my mind the concept was called scrupulosity. The idea was that over time, we confront moral crimes, and the ones that are the most offensive to us, the most upsetting, we drive out, we essentially make deviant. What might’ve been acceptable at some point, like, “Oh, yeah, you can go ahead and marry 10-year-olds,” we’d find that repugnant. In fact, we are now announcing that that is deviant and we’re not doing it anymore. It’s wrong.

What happens over time is that our desire to make behavior on the edges deviant never changes. It is simply moving. As we move forward in a closed-off society, we begin to reassign more and more behavior into a deviant category, because we just keep… We can’t stop and go, “Okay, we’re good now. Everything’s fine. We accept everything.” It’s a related concept. Fun stuff for a college discussion. I don’t know how much I agree with it, but it’s a thought.

I do have One Cool Thing that I guess is also this interestingly philosophical discussion that I also don’t know how I feel about it. I’ll share it with you. I don’t even know how I arrived at it. It may have been through Arts and Letters, which is one of my favorite websites. There’s an online publication called Evergreen Review.

It is a very long essay, long, so strap in, written by Yasmin Nair. It is called No, No, Nanette: Hannah Gadsby, Trauma, and Comedy as Emotional Manipulation. If you’re hearing this and going, “Oh god, no, not another article or essay, think piece yelling about Hannah Gadsby,” you might want to skip this, because it definitely does. She is very critical of Nanette.

However, what was interesting was really where she got. It was like Hannah Gadsby was her way in. Where she arrived, and this is the part that I found fascinating, was a discussion about both the costs and necessities of performing trauma in order to be perceived as authentic, which is a phenomenon that is way more salient to me now in this day and age than it was, say, when I was younger. When we were really young, trauma was not performed at all. It was hidden. You just didn’t talk about it.

John: Or maybe you would say you were processing it, but you were never performing it.

Craig: You were never performing it. Furthermore, no one assigned authenticity to people because they performed trauma. This is not to say that performing trauma is wrong or that you shouldn’t incorporate what’s happened to you in your performance as an artist. What it’s really talking about is us, the audience, and saying, what does it say about us that we assign more authenticity, and are we depriving people of authenticity if they don’t. That was a really interesting discussion.

I’m not familiar with Yasmin Nair, other than to say that she is one hell of a writer. I’m looking at her now. She is a writer and activist based in Chicago. She is also a co-founder, with Ryan Conrad, of Against Equality. What is Against Equality?

John: I don’t know.

Craig: It is “an online archive of writings and arts and a series of books by queer and trans writers that critique mainstream LGBT politics.” Whoa, so it’s LGBT inside of LGBT and self-criticism. It’s “an anti-capitalist collective of radical queer and trans writers.” All I can tell you is, I am not queer and I’m not radical, however I am impressed with Yasmin Nair’s ability to put a sentence together.

She is really good, and she made a very… It was just a really well put together thing. It’s worth reading, even just to see what something very cogently written looks like. I put it out there as food for thought and discussion. It is not an endorsement or a lack of endorsement.

John: Fantastic. Last little bits and reminders here. Weekend Read is now on the app store, so download that. It’s on iOS or for iPad as well. You can see all those Three Page Challenges there. Lastly, thank you to Vulture, who gave us a shout-out this week, for the Scriptnotes sidecasts that we’ve been doing with Drew and Megana.

Craig: Nice job.

John: It was really nice. They were just a short, little side project, but it’s nice that people are enjoying them. Thank you, Vulture, for that little shout-out.

Craig: Way to go, Vulture.

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt.

Craig: What?

John: It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our intern is Halley Lamberson.

Craig: Lamberson.

John: Outro this week is by Jon Spurney. Craig, it’s a good one. You’ll enjoy it. 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 can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts, links to the Three Page Challenges, and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts, and they’re great, and hoodies too. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on getting away with it.

Craig: Getting away with it.

John: Craig, we got away with it again. Thanks for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, last week we talked about things that our daughters never have to learn how to do, like drive stick shift, or that we never have to do, because we’re at a point in our lives where we can just, “Nope, I’m not going to do that, not going to learn how to do it. I just don’t care anymore.”

Craig: That’s exactly right. We’ve aged out of some things.

John: For me, an example would be calculus. I get calculus as a general concept. I understand it’s about rates of change. I’m never going to learn calculus. I’ve come to terms with that. It’s okay. I don’t need to learn calculus. Calculus is not going to enter into my world.

Craig: First of all, I like the way you pronounce the word, because you say calculus [KAL-kuh-luhs].

John: I said calculus [KAL-kyoo-luhs].

Craig: Oh, you did say calculus. This may be the interesting situation where [crosstalk 01:22:25]. Did you not take calculus in high school then?

John: I did not take it in high school. I took a physics class. I took physics for majors in college, which required calculus. I got the calculus book and read enough ahead so I could get my way through that physics class, which was just complete hubris for me to take. I never really fundamentally understood it. I can’t really do an integral or derivative or all that stuff. I get why they’re important. If I needed to land a rocket, I would use that, but I don’t, so I don’t.

Craig: I did take calculus. I remember none of it. In a sense-

John: We were the same.

Craig: … you got away with it, because we were exactly the same, even though I put in a whole lot of time and energy to get a really good grade in that calculus class.

John: We’re not so different, you and I.

Craig: It turns out, Mr. August, are we that different? This is a great topic, because it reflects our advancing age. When we were younger, like Lamberson, you want to keep up. That’s the point. You’re keeping up. Also, it’s easier to keep up, because you are not just swimming in the current of culture. You and your friends and your cohort are creating it. You are what’s current.

Somebody sent this to me, which is relevant to this topic, and it made me laugh so much. There’s a screenshot of a tweet and then a comment about the tweet. The tweet was from SB Nation. The tweet was, “Is Baby Gronk the new Drip King, or is he just getting rizzed up by Livvy?” Then someone named Damien Owens wrote, “I’m 50. All celebrity news looks like this: Curtains for Zoosha? K-Smog and Batboy caught flipping a grunt.” That is correct. I am 52, and that is in fact that Baby Gronk, Drip King, rizzed up, Livvy looks like to me, although I do know what drip is, I just want to say.

John: Yeah, but Drip King is a specific person.

Craig: I thought a Drip King was any guy that’s all glammed up with his jewelry and awesome clothes.

John: Apparently, the actual backstory on that specific quote is that Drip King is an actual lacrosse player somewhere in Massachusetts. It’s all an inside joke and stuff. You know what rizzed up is referring to?

Craig: No.

John: What is one of the key attributes in Dungeons and Dragons?

Craig: Oh, charisma.

John: Charisma. Rizz comes from charisma. Rizzed up, it means to charm, to seduce, charm, flatter, impress.

Craig: It’s like the glowed up, relative to self-improvement and beautification, [crosstalk 01:25:07].

John: When someone rizzes you up, then they’re charming. It feels like a thing that someone would do on Love Island.

Craig: Is Baby Gronk the new Drip King? What?

John: It’s all very debatable. Here’s the thing. We don’t have to hear it.

Craig: We don’t have to. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.

John: We don’t have to. We don’t have to care. You don’t have to keep up on all the slang. You don’t need to.

Craig: I don’t even care that people are laughing at us right now for how stupidly old and out of it we sound and are. That’s how great it is to finally get out of the current. They’re all laughing at us, like, “Oh my god, look at them. They don’t know. Oh my god, he thought Drip King was… “ Who cares? We don’t care. Go ahead. Make fun of us. We don’t care. We don’t even hear you. We’re too old.

John: My daughter makes fun of me because I don’t remember her phone number, but I’ve never had to call her phone number.

Craig: If you put a gun to my head, I could not tell you what either of my kids’ phone numbers are. I know my wife’s phone number because it was pre contacts consuming phone numbers.

John: I also have to fill in Mike’s phone number on all sorts of forms all the time for emergency contact stuff. Amy’s not my emergency contact.

Craig: No, and for good reason. Looks like you’re dying today.

John: In the office yesterday, Drew, Halley, and I were making a list of things that we don’t need to think about or worry about anymore, and things that we’re done with. How to repair a car, how to repair an engine, how to change the oil. Halley said she doesn’t need to know how to fix a tire. I still think you need to know how to fix a tire, because sometimes you are going to be in the middle of nowhere, and putting on a spare is a good thing. What’s your impression on tires?

Craig: You can get away with not knowing how to fix a tire, and here’s why.

John: Run flats.

Craig: Run flats are a thing. You can at least get yourself to somewhere with cell service, at which point somebody in a tow truck can come by. If you can do it yourself, that’s fine, but you know what’s more dangerous than not knowing how to fix a tire is almost knowing how to fix a tire. You can injure yourself. You can certainly injure your car. I watched a friend of mine jack his car up, and he did not have the jack in the right spot, and right through.

John: [Crosstalk 01:27:13].

Craig: Right through the bottom. Just right through the bottom of the car.

John: Oh, god.

Craig: It was brutal.

John: I’ve changed some tires in my life, and they worked.

Craig: I’ve done it. I didn’t enjoy it, but I’ve done it. I don’t feel a great need to do it anymore. A lot of cars don’t come with spares anymore because [crosstalk 01:27:31].

John: No, they don’t. It’s true. They don’t. My dad was an engineer. He had a slide rule that I remember loving. I would take out his briefcase and play with the slide rule, never understood how to use it. I’ll never need to use a slide rule.

Craig: Slide rules were already a thing that you and I didn’t have to worry about. Once calculators came along, that was it. Slide rules were done.

John: Christmas cards or holiday cards. Craig, your family doesn’t-

Craig: I’ve never worried about those. Melissa loves them. We don’t send them out, but she loves receiving them.

John: We just get them. We love getting the John Gatins family Christmas cards.

Craig: Those are always the best. I’m not joking about this. She will take every single Christmas card and tape it up to one section in the kitchen so that the wall is covered in people’s Christmas cards. I just don’t know. There are some things that are so fundamentally different between me and her as human beings, that I don’t even bother to say, “Why would you do that?” I’m just like, “Oh, okay.” Not in a million years. I get those Christmas cards. I read them, and I’m like, “Great. I’ve consumed the information. Now into the garbage you go.” Not her. She’s like, “I’m putting these… ” They stay up. They stay up until like January 12th.

John: They all go in a basket that we never look at again, and then we throw them all out, recycle them.

Craig: That would be perfectly fine.

John: A thing we did give up on that we used to do, we gave up on, was frequent flier loyalty. We’d only fly United, so we could be the premium tier of United. Then we got stuck. We got trapped taking flights that were less ideal because of that. It would get stuck in Chicago overnight. It was like, you know what? Stop. We’re giving up on loyalty to any one airline.

Craig: You guys, you are exactly what the point was, like, “How do we get these people to take this crappy flight? Let’s lock them into this loyalty program.” If I have a choice and all things being equal, I’ll fly American, because that’s where most of my points and such are. There are a lot of credit cards that are airline-agnostic. American Express, you can collect points that apply to anything, doesn’t matter, any airline, whatever, so I agree with you.

John: Craig, can you whistle?

Craig: I can whistle in a couple different ways. I can whistle by breathing in. I can whistle by breathing out. I can also whistle like (whistles), which is through my front teeth.

John: Can you do the hail a taxi cab whistle with your fingers in your mouth?

Craig: I cannot.

John: I’ve tried to teach myself that several times. I’ve looked at the videos. I’ve done the practice. It’s just not a thing that works for me.

Craig: I just end up blowing spit.

John: I’ve given up on that. It would be nice. I’ve also given up on Antarctica. I always wanted to visit all the continents. I thought at some point I really want to go to Antarctica.

Craig: That’s just you, dude. That’s just you.

John: Do you want to go to Antarctica?

Craig: No. Why?

John: Because it’s the bottom of the world. It’s exciting to me.

Craig: Are the restaurants good?

John: No, the restaurants are terrible.

Craig: Do they have a casino? Let’s put it this way. There are too many places I haven’t been, shamefully, that I will need to go to before I go to Antarctica. It would just be so insulting to the entire subcontinent of India if I go to Antarctica first. That would just be a slap in the face. One does not slap India in the face.

John: That’s a bad idea. Other thoughts from you about stuff you just don’t ever see yourself doing again? I have on the list mow the lawn. We got rid of most of our lawn, but we have gardeners. That’s fine. That’s good. I don’t ever need to own a lawnmower.

Craig: I mowed our lawn as a kid in hot New Jersey summers. It wasn’t the cool lawnmower. It was the bad lawnmower. It was bad. I don’t need to mow lawns anymore. There are some things I suppose that still in my mind I’m like, I’m going to get around to figuring out how to do. There are certain video games that I’ve just been like, “I’m skipping it.” So many people, including you, are like, “You going to play Diablo? You going to play Diablo?”

John: It’s so good, Craig.

Craig: I’m not saying it’s not. I’m sure it is.

John: It’s not for you.

Craig: At some point, I’m like, I can’t play everything. I know that Diablo is going to be crack. I need to save some crack space for Starfield, and I need to save crack space for the new Cyberpunk DLC, and I need to save crack space for some other things. Man, I’m trying to play Legends of the Tears of Zelda. Breath of the Wild did not grab me the way it grabbed everybody else.

John: That’s my Diablo. I’m not even trying. I’m not even going to try.

Craig: You know what? I am trying, but I’m like, “Oh my god. This is so big and so much.” There are certain things like that that I’m starting to let go. I have absolutely given up on keeping up with new music. I’ve given up. I’ve given up. I remember as a kid thinking, “Why do people give up on this? They should just stay with it.” I get it. You just get tired of keeping up, because you start to realize, there’s no reward for it. At some point it’s okay to just be okay.

John: I also feel like the stuff that is actually going to matter will just break through in popular culture, and I’ll know what it is. I’m going to know who Lizzo is just because I’m going to know who Lizzo is.

Craig: Lizzo breaks through. Lizzo absolutely breaks through. No question. The other thing is, there’s a lot of stuff that I think breaks through for let’s say my daughter, the younger one in particular, because the older one is into a lot of stuff that I’m into, and then such weird stuff that nobody’s into it. My younger daughter is into a lot of music where I’m like, I’m hearing it, and I think actually I’m just not going to ever enjoy it the way you do. It’s just because I think chunks of my brain were already given away to a thousand other bands, and I can’t get them back. They’re gone.

John: Does any of the music that Jessica listens to, do you have to stop yourself from saying, “This could’ve been written 20 years ago?” Some of the stuff that Amy listens to, I feel like, “Yeah, that’s just kind of Sonic Youth.”

Craig: Yes. Definitely the K-pop stuff, I just think, “This was written 20 years ago.” There’s certain things where I think the song is pretty familiar, but the style is fairly new. One of the things that Jessie and I love to laugh about is indie singer voice, because we both find it hysterical. Whenever that comes out, she’ll send me something. Who was on Saturday Night Live and did quismois? Oh my god. It was so good. (singing) I’ll be home for quismois. Who was that? Quismois. I’m looking it up now. It was Camila Cabello.

John: Great.

Craig: She was on Saturday Night Live, and she sang I’ll Be Home for Christmas, and she said quismois. That may have been peak indie singer voice moment.

John: Love it.

Craig: We didn’t have that when we were kids. There was no indie singer voice. That’s new. I liked that. That was fun.

John: Sure, fun. One thing we won’t give up on is the Scriptnotes podcast, because it’s still [crosstalk 01:34:50].

Craig: Hold on a second. At some point-

John: It will never end, Craig. It’ll have to go on forever.

Craig: I don’t like what I just heard. That’s terrifying. That’s a little bit like getting into a spaceship and going, “Let us now return to the stars.”

John: Thank you, Craig.

Craig: Thank you, guys. Bye.

John: Bye.

Links:

  • Weekend Read 2
  • SKULDUGGERY by Matthew W. Davis (with bonus puzzle map,) SCRAP by Tertius Kapp, and ANOTHER LIFE by Sarah Hu
  • The illusion of moral decline by Adam Mastroianni
  • No, No, Nanette: Hannah Gadsby, Trauma, and Comedy as Emotional Manipulation by Yasmin Nair
  • The Best Podcasts of 2023 (So Far) by Nicholas Quah for Vulture
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • John on Mastodon
  • Outro by Jon Spurney (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our intern is Halley Lamberson.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 601: Side Quests, Transcript

July 5, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: Hello and welcome. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is Episode 601 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Now, in screenwriting we often talk about the hero’s journey, that one-time quest our main character undertakes which transforms them and the world around them. Today on the show, we’re going to think smaller. We’re going to talk about side quests, which in many cases are the lego blocks of our stories. Then we’ll talk about failure and why it’s so important.

Craig: So important.

John: In our bonus segment for Premium members, Craig, let’s talk about virtual reality, because we are recording this days before the announcement of Apple’s new headset, which feels like the perfect time to document our experience of the world before this new Apple headset debuted, or maybe we’ll look incredibly foolish as time passes.

Craig: We appear to be building a Matrix for ourselves. We’ve got AI. Now we’ve got things we can strap onto our eyeballs to send us into a different world. We’re inventing the Matrix on ourselves.

John: I think we need to next really work on some sort of pod of goo that we can slide into and be stored in racks, and then we’re all set.

Craig: Why wouldn’t we? By the way, that goo did look actually fairly comforting. It seems warm.

John: People aren’t talking enough about it wouldn’t be so bad to be in the Matrix.

Craig: Honestly, what is the problem? What’s the problem? It’s fine.

John: Why are we so scared to admit it? The goo is good.

Craig: We are obviously representatives of Machine City. It’s the weirdest beginning of a podcast we’ve ever had. You know what? You know what? I don’t care, because we’re into our 601, John.

John: 601. We’re into our sixth century of podcasting.

Craig: Yeah, so we can do whatever the goddamn sweet hell we want.

John: Let’s start with some follow-up. We were talking in Episode 599 about how screenwriters, TV writers, people who are pitching shows now often have to present pitch decks, which means that, man, do you have to be a graphic designer? We’ve got two follow-ups here. Drew, do you want to help us out?

Drew Marquardt: Sure. Felicia in Los Angeles writes, “A public library card from any of the LA Metro area public libraries and I’m sure many other cities includes a free premium membership to LinkedIn Learning. LinkedIn Learning has some of the most thorough sets of video lessons available for Adobe products and a vast array of other creative software, and they include downloadable work files. As a graphic designer turned writer myself, I highly suggest anyone even remotely interested to check it out. Plus, I mean, free.”

John: It feels like one of those things that I would try and not actually complete. I think it’s cool that that’s out there. There’s a lot of good video out there in the world talking about how to do these things. Templates are nice. Cool. Thank you for that suggestion. What else you got there for us?

Drew: We have another suggestion from Chris. He says, “I want to recommend a web-based design product called Canva. I have a graphic design background, but I will still sometimes use Canva when I’m feeling stuck. I recommend it to anyone who doesn’t know their way around Adobe Creative Suite. Canva provides tons of templates for various projects, including pitch decks, and its drag and drop interface means you only need to bring images and text. There are both free and paid versions. You can’t unlock the features you want most without paying, but it’s still a lot cheaper and faster than learning graphic design and paying for an Adobe subscription.”

John: Great. Another good suggestion there. I will say that for most of the decks I’ve been working, I’ve just been using Keynote, which is the Apple free presentation software stuff, which I know and is good and it works like I expect it to work. People should use whatever tool they like and maybe experiment a little bit.

Craig: I’ve never made a deck. I’m probably at this point never going to. I don’t think a deck is in my future. Basically, at this age, I feel like we can start talking about things we’re going to get away with. I’m going to get away with living my entire life and never making a deck. I’m going to get away with it. I’m getting away with this.

John: I think getting away with things would be another good bonus topic. Drew, let’s note that for our future bonus topic. What are we excited that now we can get away with never learning how to do?

Craig: I’ve got such a list.

John: My daughter, she wants to learn how to drive stick shift, but she could get away with never learning how to drive stick shift. It’s fine.

Craig: Good lord. Of course. There are things I feel like I’m going to get away with, I should’ve done at some point, and I’m just going to get away with it. There’s a movie I’m sure that everyone’s like, “Everyone’s seen that movie,” and I haven’t, and I’m going to get away with it.

John: It’s nice. I’ve faked my way through several meetings pretending that I’ve seen that movie, but I haven’t seen it. I’ve nodded along as people talk about these moments in movies that I’ve never seen.

Craig: The most useful phrase in Hollywood, I will teach it to everybody, is, “I’ve seen it. God, it’s been a long time though. It was so long ago that I don’t remember anything about it. I don’t know who’s in it. I don’t know what it’s about.”

John: Mine is, “I barely remember it, but [crosstalk 00:05:05].”

Craig: “I barely remember it, because you know what? I watch so many movies.” Oh, man. I’ve gotten away with that a lot. I’m getting away with stuff. It’s great.

John: We have more follow-up about spacing out TV episodes. Back in 599 we had our continued discussion about whether it’s best to release all the episodes all at once or space them out one at a time. Luke had some follow-up on this.

Drew: Luke writes about what he calls the spacing effect. He says, “Craig’s observation that TV series released in weekly installments versus all at once tend to feel more memorable is in line with one of the deepest findings in a study of memory, and by deepest I mean not just human memory. We’re talking chimps, bees, sea slugs. Basically, if an animal can remember something, it will remember it longer if it’s been exposed to it according to a spaced-out schedule rather than all at once. This is something that’s been observed in medical residents practicing surgery and also on species of roundworm that has, count them, 302 neurons. We humans have 86 to 100 billion neurons. The spacing effect seems to be emanating from something fundamental happening at the level of individual neurons and how they interact with one another.”

Craig: That’s cool.

John: Craig, you would believe this, because as a person who likes science and medicine, it does make sense that repeatedly training something on something increases the strength of something. It might increase the strength of memory, the ability to recognize a pattern. It makes sense.

Craig: What’s interesting about what Luke is citing here is that it sounds like it’s not even about repetition. It’s simply about spacing it out. If you are going to teach somebody a seven-digit number, what he’s suggesting is that studies say giving the seven digits at once and saying, “Memorize it,” versus giving the seven digits one digit every 30 minutes, that the latter will work better, which makes sense, because the way we convert things to long-term memory is by cycling them over and over in short-term.

There are short-term memories that we, without even realizing it, are processing for long-term memory. Then there are short-term memories that never make it into long-term memory. You can’t think of anything because you don’t know that they happen, which is really weird to think. I’m also completely obsessed with this roundworm with 302 neurons. What a gift to people studying how the brains work. Wow, that’s great.

John: That’s great. I want to bring up a recent example of my exposure to this kind of phenomenon. I watched Jury Duty on Amazon, which I thought was terrific. Everyone loves Jury Duty. If you haven’t seen it, essentially, it’s some of the folks behind The Office. It is supposedly a documentary series following a court case, a jury trial. Everyone else is actors, but one person, he believes he’s on a real jury. It’s just brilliantly done and very, very funny.

The release pattern for that show was there was four episodes at once and then next week they’ll release two more, and then they release the final two episodes, which I thought was a good mix of anticipation, upfront loading so everyone gets to see what the momentum of the show was. I thought it was a smart way to release that show.

Craig: Sometimes it depends on the way your season lays out, because you may think to yourself, “I know that when I get to Episode 4, the ending of Episode 4 is so awesome that people will come back,” but can’t get to that awesome ending without the stuff that happens in 1, 2, and 3, so we need to show everything to everybody. We did a mini version of that with The Last of Us, because we combined what was going to be Episode 1 and 2 into one. We did the, “Here’s two cookies. That second cookie is really good, right? Come back next week. We’ll give you another cookie.”

John: It’s also a luxury of shows that aren’t affixed to having the one-hour length or 30 minutes of length. You can just do what you need them to do. That’s a lovely thing.

Craig: We are a little more affixed at HBO though, because they do still have quite a bit of linear viewing, and so they want us-

John: That supersized first episode, how long was it?

Craig: We were given two allowances. The first one was obviously the main allowance. I think it was 86 minutes or something like that. Then Episode 3, which was the saga of Bill and Frank, we basically were like, “Look, we really love this thing, and it’s 72 minutes, and no one seems to notice.” They were like, “Okay, that’s fine.” Then everything else, 58 minutes 30 seconds maximum.

John: Wow. I didn’t realize you had such restrictions.

Craig: John Oliver probably gets pretty cranky every time his show starts late because some up-his-own-butt auteur like myself is like, “I need another three minutes.” I apologize, John Oliver. You deserve better.

John: Is John Oliver’s show live? It’s not live though.

Craig: No, it’s not live, but because of the linear television 30% of people that watch HBO still get it through cable channel or something, and so there’s a schedule.

John: Wild. This is my favorite bit of follow-up in this episode. This goes all the way back to Episode 536. Craig, I need to refresh your memory about-

Craig: Please.

John: … what happened in this. We had a listener who wrote in, who said she was an actor who was dating a machine learning engineer with a PhD in computer science, “Who fully supports my dream to break into the entertainment industry despite knowing very little about it. He supports me through active listening, making an effort to watch TV and movies together, and paying attention to the industry. He said when we started dating he did not want to watch any of my work until we were further in our relationship. His reasoning is that he didn’t want his opinions, spoken or unspoken, to influence my future career decisions.”

Craig: Yeah, that, I remember that.

John: Now you remember this. You said, “Oh, congratulations, you guys won therapy,” that this sounded amazing, that we were just very happy for her.

Craig: They sounded so well adjusted and thoughtful.

John: Sarah, who wrote in the initial question story here just sent through an update. Drew, can you read the update here?

Drew: Yeah. She says, “A quick update on the story I sent in over a year ago. I’m engaged! It happened on the evening of May 2nd, a familiar date, right? I’m a member of SAG-AFTRA and have followed the writers’ strike closely. When the strike was officially announced, I drove over to Amazon without a second thought and picketed for a few hours. The strike organizers handed out WGA T-shirts to wear while picketing, but I’m not a WGA member, so I didn’t feel comfortable wearing a shirt with the WGA logo on it. However, there was one random box of extra-extra-large We Stand with the WGA T-shirts, so I wore one of those. I’m using an extra-small, so I was essentially wearing a solidarity dress, and I loved it. I wore it all day, to the auto shop, to a friend’s short film premier, and then back home to my boyfriend’s house.

“I started getting ready for bed, but after a few minutes, I realized I hadn’t seen or even heard my boyfriend. I figured he was in his office, but he wasn’t, so I called out for him and started looking around frantically, until I heard a knock at the back window. He was outside in our backyard, and the backyard was lit up with candles and twinkling lights and flowers everywhere. He was smiling bigger than I’ve ever seen him smile. Then it hit me, he was going to propose. I went outside and immediately burst into tears. I mean, dang, he actually really surprised me, and dang, he was all dressed up and looking so handsome. Meanwhile, there I was in my giant solidarity dress and slippers, but I say this with absolute sincerity, I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

John: Aw.

Craig: Aw!

John: Aw.

Craig: Aw! That’s lovely. Listen, I’m not surprised, because I remember this question. I remember how I feel like both of us were like, “Good lord, these people are really good, good.” You know when certain people tell you stories or pose a thorny problem, and you listen to them and you’re like, “My god, why aren’t you just good? Why doesn’t your brain work better?” These people, their brains work great. Listen. Two well-brained human beings, I beg the two of you, if you are able to have children together, I beg you to have as many as you can. I’m begging. I’m begging, because we need good. We need good. By the way, if this story happens in Texas, the second he starts knocking at that back window, she just starts shooting.

John: It ends in a tragedy.

Craig: No question. In fact, I’m sure there are at least seven almost-proposals that ended in somebody getting shot.

John: I’m waiting for the headline like, “Promposal ends in tragedy.”

Craig: Of course. When she says, “He actually really surprised me,” that’s what the person who shoots the boyfriend also says. See, this is why America’s terrible. We’re terrible. I’m laughing at something terrible, because I don’t want to cry.

John: Let’s bring it back to the joy of this letter, this moment, this photo she included of her in her strike dress.

Craig: It’s adorable.

John: Adorable.

Craig: It really is adorable.

John: So happy for her, for both of them.

Craig: Sarah, congratulations. We don’t know your boyfriend’s name, I don’t believe, but congratulations to him as well. He’s got a good one. Thank you, by the way, for walking the line and supporting the WGA.

John: That’s really nice.

Craig: Thank you.

John: Let’s get to our main topic today. Off and on the podcast we’re talking about a character’s main quest or a protagonist’s main quest. They go off on a journey. They have a want, but they also have a need. They have this existential and fundamental drive, this hope, this hope, this dream, this wish, this fear that is propelling them through the story. In the case of a feature film, it is a onetime journey they’re taking, which will transform them. It’ll transform the world around them.

We’re not going to talk about that right now. We’re going to talk about this character needs to do X in order to Y. We’re going to talk about side quests, which I think are the smaller building blocks of a lot of our stories.

This was brought home to me by the Dungeons and Dragons movie, Honor Among Thieves, is chockfull of side quests. It’s silly and fun for that reason. If you haven’t seen that movie, it’s streaming on Paramount Plus. I loved it. There’s a main thing that they’re trying to do. In order to do that main thing, they have to achieve a bunch of little things, which feels so true to DnD, but also felt really right for this movie.

It made me recognize that in most movies, you’re going to see some side quests stacking up there, where there are things that the characters need to do in order to get that next thing done. We haven’t really talked that much about that on the podcast. I figured we would dive in on side quests rather than big main overarching thing.

Craig: It sounds to me like the things that you’re describing may be better called sub-quests, because they’re part of the main quest line, but you have these little mini jobs to do to advance yourself on the main quest line. We need to get the helmet of something. We can’t get the helmet of something until we get the blah blah blah. We need the da da da to get the blah blah blah.

John: We need to find someone in the graveyard who remembers where that thing was buried.

Craig: Exactly.

John: Then we’re going to do all these other things.

Craig: In gaming, traditionally side quests are separate things that are completely off the main quest. For instance, in Dungeons and Dragons the movie, Honor Among Thieves, which is excellent, the barbarian has her own love story that she needs to go conclude with her ex to find piece. That is completely separate and apart from the main quest line, which is to rob the thing. We have side quests and sub-quests. Those two things, they both show up, and they’re both useful. Maybe we can dig into both.

John: Absolutely. A lot of the characteristics apply to both of them. Let’s talk about either of these kind of things in just movies that we’ve worked on where you’ll see them.

In Go, Ronna’s trying to pull off this tiny drug deal, but then she has to sell allergy medicine. She’s thwarted in one area and so therefore has to do another thing to get her back onto the main quest line. We have Adam and Zack. They’ve completed their main thing, but now they’re going to look for Jimmy, this guy they’ve both been sleeping with. That is kind of a side quest, because it’s not crucial to the plot of the story, to their overall fundamental goals, but they need to find this guy. At the end, Claire and Ronna are looking for her keys. That’s the classic like, we need to do this thing in order to drive the car home. Those feel like that kind of thing.

I would say about The Last of Us, really you could argue in that first episode, him agreeing to escort the girl is introduced as a sub-quest or a side quest, because it’s not his main objective at all.

Craig: That would definitely be sub-quest. I don’t think we had any true side quests, like off the beaten path quests, unless you were talking about other characters, but they have their own certain main quests. There is this thing where you have some big goal. In The Last of Us, Joel’s big goal really doesn’t change until he gets to Jackson.

John: His brother, yeah.

Craig: Then it gets expanded. We really did try and stick I guess onto the main quest. Everything does get divided down to these things where you think, okay, this is about going to see my brother, which was an addition. It wasn’t in the game. It was actually one of the reasons… We needed a main quest, essentially.

Dividing it down to small things is incredibly helpful. Before we get into how those side things may look or feel, our capacity for understanding what people do is limited by our own capacity to do things. We have to divide stuff down into steps. There’s no other way to progress. The steps sometimes need to be incredibly mundane so that when you provide a twist and the next little chunk comes along, you can tell the difference. The more you can divide things down into … Because otherwise it’s just one thing over and over and over. Marlin wants to find Nemo, but he’s got to go through little moments.

John: He does. It’s figuring out what those moments are that feel meaningful and have stakes within their smaller context but can also be built back to the bigger thing. In terms of side quests and stakes or sub-quests, you want to call them that, my favorite movie of all time, Aliens, is just chockfull of these little smaller quests. An example is he has to get through the pipe to get to the drop ship to lower it so it can be there on time. That’s his whole separate little thing. He’s off and doing that. Nothing else can work together unless that sub-quest, that side quest succeeds.

Craig: Every piece is necessary, which is exciting, because then you realize, okay, we’re building a plot chain. The weakest link will break the whole thing. As a writer, you’re really forced to ask, do I need this link in the chain, what’s the best way to write it, etc.

John: I [inaudible 00:19:55] out some I think characteristics of the kind of quests that we’re talking about. I’ll start with saying they’re not the hero’s primary goal. They didn’t dream of this quest their entire life. It’s not fundamental to them. It’s more like finding the phone you left in a car, that is a side quest. Not a side quest would be winning an Olympic medal. They’re just completely different scales of things that are not fundamental to the character’s sense of who they are as a person.

Craig: Like I said, we have a certain, I don’t know, ability to think big. Once we establish the big thing, yeah, we need to limit the scope of what we’re doing. Otherwise, there’s just no other way to do it. These little, you can call them mini quests, they concretize the plan. They also reinforce the magic trick that we try and pull early on, which is to suggest to the main character this won’t be hard.

John: Yes, for sure.

Craig: It’s no big deal. Let’s all relax. All we have to do is get to this. In The Hangover it’s like, “Guys, don’t worry. We’ll figure it out. Let’s just get in the car and go.” Then a cop car pulls up. Now we have a real problem. Now we have to engage in an actual substantive quest to further this. You want to start with little, simple things like, let’s just get the car.

John: Absolutely. What you’re describing about let’s get the car is it’s specific and it’s well defined. It’s another characteristic of a side quest is that both the characters in the scene and the audience understand what they’re trying to do and what it will look like when it’s achieved. When you’ve done that little thing, you know it’s going to be done. A side quest might be to figure out who really owns that mysterious house. You can envision that’s an achievable thing. We’re going to know an answer to this thing.

What’s not a side quest would be a character coming to terms with their PTSD. That’s not concrete. You can’t define when that journey has ended, has progressed. There’s no end date to that. There’s no closure to it.

Craig: There’s another term that gamers use, and as you know, I am one.

John: You are a gamer.

Craig: I am a gamer. Which is fetch quest. Fetch quests are incredibly common, especially in radiant narrative games. They really boil down to somebody gives you some reason why they really need a thing. I’ll help you and I’ll give you a this, but there’s this one herb that grows in the forest, in the cave, and blah blah blah. Then you go to the forest and the cave. You’re like, “Oh, I’m just going to pick an herb.” You know very damn well there’s going to be something awful in that cave, and you have to kill it. You fetch, fetch fetch fetch.

John: Fetch fetch fetch.

Craig: What’s important about fetch quests is in their errant-like nature, they really do define what we’re talking about in terms of small and concrete and achievable. The most important thing about these little mini quests is that they appear to be incredibly doable, because eventually you realize that all of these things, when we do these sub-quests, they are working to lead the character astray. They are essentially in avoidance. When I say avoidance, I mean in a meta sense.

It’s not like Joel’s avoiding being a father again in the beginning, but he’s concentrating on a battery. That’s a little bit of a denial. At some point you realize you can only concentrate on the battery so much. They don’t even get a battery. By the time he gets to Jackson, his main quest is almost forgotten. It’s like, “Oh yeah, we got there, and Tommy’s fine. Now what do I do?” Now you have to face the real quest. Sometimes the side quests or sub-quests are helping to distract the character.

John: Sure, they’re keeping you busy. You made the point about achievable, and I think that’s incredibly important. They’re achievable in a limited amount of space and time. By time, I mean both real time and screen time, so it’s a beat or a couple beats, but it’s not the whole act.

A side quest would be getting to the convention in time for the speech. It’s whatever the process is that you have to get there and all the obstacles you’re facing, but you make it to the convention center on time. Not a side quest would be getting your college degree.

You can learn something in a side quest. I can totally imagine a side quest where the character has to learn how to canoe, because it’s an important thing for this next phase, but it has to be something you could learn in a limited amount of time or a change you can make in a limited amount of time. It can’t drag on forever, unless the nature of the story you’re telling is like, okay, we’re going to follow this person’s entire life. Then maybe you could have a side quest that takes years. That’s not most movies.

Craig: No. I like the term mini quest.

John: Yeah, mini quest, yeah.

Craig: The mini part is really important.

John: Yeah.

Craig: It just needs to be… Sometimes what you’re doing with these things is watching them actually cycle completely within one scene, where it becomes important for you to do… You’re in a bar, and someone goes, “Oh my god, that’s the person whose keys we need. Go over there and steal their keys.”

John: Perfect.

Craig: Now I’ve got a mini quest. I walk over, and when the guy’s not looking, swipe the keys, come back. I have completed the entire cycle of the mini quest within a scene. You could take a couple of scenes, but by the time you start making a meal of it, it’s more of a thick main quest.

John: It is. I would say that it can’t be trivial. It can’t be like, write your name on this piece of paper. That’s not a mini quest.

Craig: That’s not a quest.

John: It can’t be impossible either. We have to figure out which of these mimes is Albanian, that’s a mini quest. Building a fusion reactor that works, that’s not a mini quest. That’s some epic quest, which is not going to fit in this limited period of time.

Craig: Agreed.

John: Let’s talk about how we use mini quests and how we write them into our stories. To me it’s crucial that it feel necessary and not beamed in. It can’t feel like you’re in a video game. You’ve got to be really careful about that. It can’t feel like it’s just a fetch quest, that there’s a clear problem to solve, but it’s a problem that the characters want to solve.

If possible, try to have your hero state the objective rather than being told the objective or having someone else assign them a thing. If the hero says, “Okay, if I can do X, will you do Y?” then they are assigning themselves the quest, rather than someone else coming in there and telling them what to do.

Craig: In my example of the keys, I just instinctively had somebody say, “Oh my god, look. Go get those keys,” rather than somebody going, “Oh my god, look. I’m going to go get those keys.” You’re right. There is something strange. You need to receive the job. I never thought about that, but yeah, you need to receive the job.

John: Need to receive the job. If your hero can be the person assigning the job, it’s going to feel better in most cases, than having someone else tell them to do it. Obviously, there’s going to be genre conventions where 007 is being told by M what to do, but then of course along the way he’s making his own choices about how to proceed. That’s the genre convention.

Craig: I think it’s important that your hero receives assignments. Of course, once the flywheel begins to turn, then the hero, like you said, has an enormous amount of agency. At the very beginning of Mission Impossible or James Bond, the action hero receives a mission.

John: A mission could come from an ally. It could come from an enemy. It could come from somebody. It’s often, for many genres, a way things start. We’re talking about things that feel like action movies or feel like they are stakes-driven stories in that context, but what I want to stress is that these little mini quests really can apply to a lot of different genres.

Even in a relationship genre or a rom-com or other things, you’re going to find moments where you’re going to want to throw up obstacles in your character’s way, and your character getting around those obstacles is its own mini quest. Just always make sure you’re thinking about, in this block of 10 pages, is there a clear obstacle for my hero to face, and if not, what can I be doing here to give them some challenges? That can be its own little, small story, this own little, small victory or failure that will keep the story propelled forward.

Craig: Absolutely. You can also, as an exercise, contemplate doing the opposite of that, which is to say you know your hero has to do something really big. Maybe they don’t know it’s really big yet. Neither do we in the audience. Maybe what we think is it’s something small. Once they walk in, they’re like, “Oh, this is not at all what I expected.” You can disguise big things as mini quest until surprise.

John: Absolutely. The same filmmakers who made Dungeons and Dragons also made Game Night, which I think is built out of little mini quests that become giant, epic, big things. It’s a way to think of escalation as a fun corollary to this.

Craig: Can I ask, why does anybody pay to go to school when they can just listen to this podcast? Maybe that comes off as arrogant. I’m just saying, even if we’re only right 30% of the time, that’s still 200 episodes, 200 hours of correctness, for free, or whatever it costs, 5 bucks. I’m just saying.

John: I’m just saying. Craig, yesterday I was out at the picket line at Warner’s, and this guy introduced himself. He’s a little bit sheepish. He’s Canadian. He said, “Oh, I just wanted to say that I really love Scriptnotes. It’s taught me everything I know about stuff. I’ve listened to every episode.” He had ridden his motorcycle down from Canada just to join the picket lines and-

Craig: Whoa.

John: … meet some of the writers he’d always heard about. It was great. Colin, thank you for introducing yourself.

Craig: Aw.

John: It’s lovely.

Craig: I’ve had quite a few people, when I’m walking around in an oval in front of Paramount, come up to me and say they love the show, and they’re young.

John: They’re young.

Craig: They’re young. Sometimes I forget that I’m old as eff. I still feel like, oh, you’re 28 and I’m 28, and we’re just saying nice things to each other. Then I realize, oh, I’m like their dad. Nonetheless, it’s very nice. Also, I have to say, the energy on the picket line has been fantastic. I was in front of Universal the other day. I think it was Wednesday. They had a video game themed picket, and so I was up there with Merle Dandridge, who plays Marlene in the show, and Halley Gross, who co-wrote the second game at Naughty Dog. We had a great time. The spirits, everybody’s spirits are quite high, I have to say, because what are we in, four weeks now?

John: It’s the start of our fifth week as we record this now.

Craig: Fifth week, yeah. Positive energy on the picket line. I like to see it.

John: It really is nice. Next topic I wanted to get into was just the importance of failure.

Craig: That’s the worst thing right after we talk about the picket line. We’re like, “Speaking of the WGA strike-”

John: “Speaking of the WGA-”

Craig: “… failure.”

John: Basically, in the show notes I want to put a link to four articles that Chris Csont, who does the Inneresting newsletter, had pulled up in a recent newsletter. I really liked them, because it was different people talking about how important it was to try things that you know you might fail at, and to embrace that as part of the process, because I think so often, we are not willing to think about our work the same way that athletes think about their work or that scientists think about their work. It’s that failure teaches you something.

Part of that may be because the work we do takes so fricking long that it feels like, “Oh my god, I’ve wasted four months working on this script that doesn’t work.” Jesus, that’s terrible. Some of these articles also point to the importance of letting yourself fail faster and learning from that.

Craig: Unfortunately, sometimes our failures do take quite a long time. You could even look at the progress of your own life as decades of failure to get to maybe where you eventually were going to go.

We unfortunately have the burden of being entertainers. We are saying to people, “We deserve your attention,” which is the most obnoxious thing you could ever say. If you walk into a party, and you’re like, “Everyone, shut up. Turn around, face me, and listen to me talk now for 90 minutes,” that better be a good talk. When it’s not, people get really angry, and they’re mean. They write a thousand reviews and comments on Reddit and so on and so forth.

Our failures therefore are not only public but linked with shame. We are essentially being shamed by critics, the audience, for our failure. There’s nothing we can do about it. It’s not like people are going to stop. We do have to at least be aware that that’s part of it, so that when it happens, hopefully people take it better than I’ve taken it.

John: Going back to my athlete analogy, in most sports you are either going to win the game or you’re going to lose the game.

Craig: Find me one sport-

John: I guess soccer you play to a draw.

Craig: I guess that’s true. I guess that’s true.

John: Aha!

Craig: Hockey also has ties, so fair.

John: While you can be a little bit down at your losses, I think every athlete has to acknowledge that, oh, that’s right, I’m going to lose games, and that I should not feel tremendous shame for losing games. What you can feel shame is making mistakes that are playing poorly, not recognizing things you should have seen, and learning from those things. You’re not taking every one of those losses as an abject failure.

That’s a thing that is harder for writers to do, part because we don’t have such clear metrics for success and failure. When we do look for, like, oh, did that movie open or tank, we may apply that to ourselves, which is not really fair, because that’s not our work. It’s the end result of a thousand other decisions.

Craig: You’re right. We don’t have the benefit of, we talked about mini quests, mini work. Athletes in a sense do a lot of mini work because there are so many games. No one goes to a Yankee game, sees them lose one game, loses their mind. It’s not the end of the world. There’s 162 of them. They get to do this a lot. We don’t. We pop our heads up once every year or two or three or four. It’s just one game. We just get the one game. If we lose, we lose.

It’s rough, because this is actually a fascinating topic. We are not ever encouraged by the business to consider failure as part of the process. The business joins in with the shaming process. Failure is not accepted. It is simply a sign to someone else. When things fail, everyone starts pointing fingers. Certainly, everyone points fingers at the writer. They point fingers at each other. They try and disown it. There is no culture in Hollywood as embracing failure as part of learning. It just simply doesn’t exist.

John: I think it’s because of the public nature of it, because you think about development and everything else as being research and development, R and D. Other companies, tech companies, would do R and D. They’re going to try a bunch of things. They’re going to know that most of those things aren’t going to work, but they’re private. They don’t have to be presented to the world, whereas for us, a lot of our stuff is out there in the world. You can see whether it sinks or fails.

I guess our development projects, the things that don’t move forward, sometimes maybe we should be a little bit more sanguine about the fact, like, “Yep, that didn’t work. It didn’t shoot. It didn’t all come together,” and maybe be okay with that. I think especially some newer writers, they’ll go through one or two bad experiences with development and feel like, “Okay, I can’t do this. I’m a failure. I cannot make a thing happen,” whereas Craig or I, who’ve had, god, 20 projects that haven’t moved forward, recognize it’s just the batting average.

Craig: Some of my projects I wish hadn’t moved forward, because sometimes you’re like, “They’re not going to make this, right? There’s no way they’re going to make this.”

John: They do.

Craig: “What?” I completely agree. It can kneecap you when it comes along, because as I said, again, nobody is going to put their arm around you and say, “Listen, pal,” like a coach, “Hey, everybody’s been in a slump, kid. You’ll get out of it. It won’t last forever. It’s going to stink while it’s happening. You’re going to have to relax. Stop beating yourself up, because that’s just going to make it worse and extend it.” Nobody does that here. They don’t put their arm around you. They kick you with their boot. Everyone screams at you and then closes all the doors and windows. Of course you’re going to sit out there going, “This is terrible.”

Don’t let the judgment factor of the business, critics, audience, Twitter, don’t let the judgment factor eliminate the other thing that’s actually real. The real thing is you learned something. It may have been a tough lesson. Who knows? You’re better now than you were. Inevitably, if you fail, that means when you start your next thing, you are better than you were before the failure. We never think of it that way.

John: The crash and burn of my TV show, DC, I definitely learned a lot from. I would say recognizing all the things that I did wrong that contributed to it was painful for a time but also made me resolve to, if I ever decide I want to do television again, I want to know what the hell I’m doing before I ever start going in there. I’m going to set up systems to shore up my weaknesses and really figure out how to both make a great TV show and not destroy my life. I would not have had that insight if I hadn’t gone through the disastrous experience of making that show.

Craig: Sometimes I look back, and a little bit like when you look back at some of the dumb ass things you said to someone when you were a teenager, to try and get someone to kiss you or whatever. You ever just go on a date and blow it completely? Sometimes I think about those things now. They happened when I was 17. It’s weird. It’s these weird shame echoes. Then again, what I also know, as a number of movies have shown, if you can go back in town as yourself as a kid, you’re so much better with the people that you’re, you’re attracted to. You’re so much smoother. You know what to say, what to not say. You’ve learned. All your failures taught you, but they hurt. The lessons are painful.

John: Both of our daughters are graduating or have just graduated from high school. One of the commencement speakers at my daughter’s graduation was a student talking about when they had just started in junior high, they were obsessed with Corgis. Their whole personality was talking about Corgis and facts about Corgis, and everything was Corgis.

Craig: Oh, boy.

John: Interjecting Corgi facts into conversations.

Craig: Oh, no.

John: They think back about it, they just feel so cringe about it. They went through some other mental health crises and came out of it embracing that Corgi-loving 7th grader and recognizing that they needed to have a radical softness for who they were and who they are right now. It makes embracing the parts of your history that are not the happiest easier, just that sense then, like, oh, this is all part of the journey that got me to here, and I’m going to love all those people and not try to banish them to the dark recesses of history. It was a very smart, very good graduation speech.

Craig: That is fantastic and speaks to this weird phenomenon where we are … We both raised children. I’m going to guess that when your daughter was younger, and let’s say there was a party or something, and some kid did something wrong, you were like, “Okay, come on. You’re cool. Just don’t do that.” Your kid does something wrong, you’re like, “Get over here.” You’re harder on your kid than other children, because I don’t know.

Then the same thing is true for ourselves. We’re harder on ourselves. Somebody else does something I’ve done and then is like, “Oh my god, I’m so embarrassed.” I’m immediately like, “Listen, no. It’s over. Forget it. It’s gone. I’ve forgotten it. Nobody cares.”

John: I think that’s entirely true. Also, I think it’s tougher in this age of the internet being forever that the annoying thing you were 10 years ago is still searchable and Google-able, and that’s unfair.

Craig: If it’s a large-scale thing, absolutely. At any point, somebody can Google my life and go, “Ha ha, look, your movie here did blah.” There’s nothing to do about it. They still do it. They’re like, “Don’t feel good about yourself.” Literally, sometimes that’s what … These people are like, “Are you feeling good about yourself today?”

John: “Let me tell you why you shouldn’t.”

Craig: “Here’s some data.”

John: “Let me offer some.” Craig, let’s do our One Cool Things.

Craig: Uh-oh.

John: Uh-oh.

Craig: Go ahead.

John: I have two, so you’ll have some time to think of one.

Craig: Whew.

John: Whew. I have two very closely related ones. I wanted to read this book, For Profit: A History of Corporations, by William Magnuson, because people had talked about it, and it sounded great. It is great. It’s really looking at the history of corporations going all the way back to Ancient Rome and how they were fundamental, important building blocks for Western civilization overall. It’s how you form societies that can do things that one individual can’t do, both because of the ability to pull capital together, but also to go beyond the lifetime of any one person. Just a very smart book.

I wanted to read this book. This is the kind of book I would normally read on my Kindle, but I’m feeling a little bit eh about supporting the Amazon ecosystem, and so for this book, I wanted to read it some other way. I got myself the Kobo Libra 2, which is a different e-ink reader.

Craig: Nice.

John: It’s actually terrific. Click through the little link there, Craig, and see.

Craig: I’m looking at it.

John: It’s really smartly designed. It’s not symmetrical. One edge is a little bit wider. It has a little lip on it so you can hold it easier in one hand. It has physical buttons for flipping pages. The screen is super, super sharp. It’s good for taking notes and highlighting. I just really am enjoying this. It was also nice to be able to buy books outside of the Amazon ecosystem. You can load them in through anywhere. I’m enjoying it. If you are a person who is considering replacing a Kindle, if you like e-ink readers, but you’re thinking, “I want to get a new Kindle,” maybe look at this first and see if it might be a better fit for you.

Craig: It looks great. The product looks great. The website is really stupid. It starts with, here’s the product. It looks terrific. They have lots of images and information. Then as you scroll down, they just start showing people doing yoga and poking at it. These are the weirdest …

John: It’s not a great website. I bought this off the website. It showed up in perfect form. The box itself, all the packaging was flawless.

Craig: I would get this thing. I had one of the early Amazon versions. I ultimately never used it, because I don’t know, there was something about the iPad that just made it simpler, but now I’m wondering.

John: I had never liked reading books on an iPad. iPad for me is for playing Hearthstone and for web browsing, but for actually sitting down with a book … I also like, with a Kindle or e-ink reader, I never read in bed when I’m at home, but if I’m traveling, I will often read in bed and just tuck in there sideways and read a book. It’s nice.

Craig: Early on, you have to just read it like a regular book. You need it to be in light.

John: These are all back-lit now.

Craig: They’re back-lit.

John: They have very gentle back-lighting.

Craig: You can read it in the dark?

John: Oh, yeah.

Craig: You can read it in the dark. I’m going to get one of these things.

John: It’s really good.

Craig: Kobo Libra 2. I’m going to get it, and I’m going to do yoga and eat granola while I’m poking at it.

John: It’s the whole new Craig lifestyle that we’re excited to see.

Craig: My One Cool Thing is a movie. You rarely hear that from me, because most of the time, I’m going to movies that everybody else is going to. I’m not unearthing gems. There’s a movie I saw that I think most people haven’t seen and should. It’s beautiful. It’s called Nine Days. It is written and directed by a man named Edson Oda, fascinating guy who is Japanese but Brazilian, grew up in Brazil. I think Portuguese is his primary language.

It’s a somewhat surreal story. I won’t give away too much about what’s going, other than to say that Winston Duke, who everybody knows from Marvel movies and other things, fantastic actor, just holds down the center of this thing, but also Zazie Beetz just does incredible work. The cast is amazing. Bill Skarsgård is in there, and Tony Hale. Mostly, it’s just so creative and beautifully written and beautifully filmed. It is not too long. It’s entertaining and quite beautiful. Check it out, if you would. I have no idea. I’m sure it’s streaming on a thing. Yes, it’s streaming on a thing. Nine Days by Edson Oda.

John: Fantastic. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our intern is Halley Lamberson. Outro this week-

Craig: Lamberson.

John: … comes from Daniel Green.

Craig: Wait, hold on. I got to stop you there, John, in mid boilerplate, because Halley Lamberson is here with us. When I heard that her name was Halley Lamberson, what did I need to do?

John: Anagram.

Craig: Anagram. I had to anagram it. There’s so many anagrams to choose from. I’m going to go real quickly with the anagram that is only two words, which I think is wonderful, which is amenably hollers.

John: Sure. I like amenably hollers, because they’re calling you over.

Craig: In a nice, welcoming way. Amenably hollers.

John: Come on in. That’s Halley Lamberson.

Craig: It’s better than menorah syllable.

John: No, I don’t like that at all.

Craig: Back to boilerplate.

John: Back to boilerplate. Our outro is by Daniel Green, who, Craig, you remember Daniel Green. He accompanied you as-

Craig: Of course.

John: … you were singing on Broadway.

Craig: Daniel is a wonderfully talented man.

John: If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts, and they’re great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on VR. Craig, thank you for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, we’re recording this on a Friday. On Monday, Apple is supposed to be announcing their new headset. We know not that much about it, but it’ll be a headset. It’ll be from Apple. People will be curious about it. I’m curious what your experience has been so far with VR, with goggles, with all this world. How much have you done?

Craig: I’ve done a small but focused amount. I learned things about it and myself, at least in its current implementation. I think I have the Quest 2.

John: Quest 2 is the Facebook product, right?

Craig: Unfortunately, yeah, it is the Facebook product.

John: Meta.

Craig: I’m excited to have a not-Facebook product.

John: What do you use it to do? How often are you actually putting it on your face?

Craig: I haven’t put it on my head in probably two years. When I first got it, I was really interested in playing. They had a Room VR game from the folks that make the Room games. It was wonderful. It was just magical. I love those kinds of games. They implemented it beautifully. The movement system is really smart. Instead of moving and your head bobbing, which as you move through space, notoriously makes people sick, in this version there were some hotspots you can aim at and go, “I want to go there,” and then it would just pop you over. You were always essentially standing and then turning and looking around, but not moving. That was great. There was another game I played. Some of it really was beautiful. Then I didn’t care and stopped using it.

John: Similar experience for me. I don’t own any of the headsets. Ryan Nelson, who used to work for me, and then went on to work for a company that mostly does VR, he’s been over to the office a couple times, and he would set up in the garage, with the proper sensors for blocking out the space, and would demo some of the things that he loved. They are incredibly impressive demos. Things like a Google Earth that you can fly into any place and then fly back out, other games that were Portal-like things. Really smartly done, and yet at the end of the sessions, I didn’t feel like I really want one of these for myself, because I felt like I’m not going to end up using it. It never brought me through to this moment.

I’ve also done some VR things that have been specific to a location or to an exhibit. I did this Banksy VR thing, which was pretty well done. For that one, you’re on stools, but then you have the headsets on. You’re going through this space that is showing Banksy things in situ, really where they would be in the world. That was cool. It was good use of that technology.

I don’t think those are the things that are going to be the future of VR. I’m really curious what Monday’s announcement will be, because it feels like there’s some more practical day-to-day use of this tool that could be what we’re seeing next.

Craig: I’m really curious about the form factor, because one of the things about VR is that any external stimulus that counteracts or disrupts the nature of your experience in this virtual space ultimately diminishes the verisimilitude of it. You get constant feedback from your head. There is this big, chunky thing on your head, and you know it. It has weight. It’s sort of squeezey. It moves around or shifts a little bit. It takes you out of things. Now, if there’s a form factor where you’re wearing it but it disappears on you, in terms of sensation, that will be a game-changer. It seems like not a big deal. I think it is a big deal. I haven’t seen anybody talking about it. I’m sure I’m not the first person to mention it though.

John: I’m curious to what degree this is a you sit in your chair with this on thing versus you move through a space, because I think some of the problems and frustrations and my motion sickness from VR has been I am moving through space now, doing this thing. If I am sitting in a chair, and this is filling in my visual field, and it’s a mega-sized monitor that I can do things on, I can see that being really useful for certain things and there being tasks for which that is especially well suited. I don’t know if that’s going to be the focus of this thing. I’m curious.

Craig: I think there will always be motion sickness issues if your body is not moving but your brain is moving and your eyes are moving.

John: Exactly.

Craig: That’s it. That’s why. That’s where the barfing happens. I don’t know how they’re going to get around that, unless they just tailor the experience to not moving like that. Of course, some people do want to experience the visual and audio sensation of being in a wingsuit. I’m not going to barf all over my floor to be in a wingsuit. Some people I think probably don’t. Some people just naturally can do it. God bless them if they can. VR is going to have to bet over the puke gap, which is a real thing.

John: One thing I do think is fascinating is Apple products and other electronics as well have done a much better job integrating with each other. If you have your iPad set up next to your Mac, you can just move your cursor over onto the iPad and back, which seems like witchcraft. Even last night, my husband, Mike, had his French group over. Everyone was there in person, except for the instructor, who’s on the Mac on Zoom. The sound wasn’t good. He’s looking for, “Oh, should I add an external mic?” It turned out you could actually just use your iPhone as the mic and just put that out there, and so it could be the separate audio device for things, which just worked great. It’s only because these devices know each other.

Craig: They talk to each other. Have you done the thing where you copy something from your iPad and then paste it?

John: Totally.

Craig: I don’t know how that works. That’s great.

John: All behind the scenes. It’s really, really smart and nice.

Craig: Thanks, Apple.

John: That’s my hope is that whatever these goggles are, they’re not trying to be a closed system that doesn’t fit in with the other stuff, because that’s death.

Craig: It will be the opposite. It will be the most integrated thing ever. No question. That’s what Apple does.

John: We’ll hope. Craig, thanks for the chat.

Craig: Thank you, John.

John: Bye.

Links:

  • Do Your Worst, Or You Might Never Do Your Best by Bridget Webber
  • Why You Need to Fail TED Talk by Derek Sivers
  • Artists must be allowed to make bad work by Austin Kleon
  • The Museum of Failure
  • For Profit: A History of Corporations by William Magnuson
  • Kobo Libra 2
  • Nine Days on IMDb
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • John on Mastodon
  • Outro by Daniel Green (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with help from Chris Csont and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our intern is Halley Lamberson.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 600: McQuarrie Returns, Transcript

June 20, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/600-mcquarrie-returns).

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

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** This is Episode 600 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Truffles, cloves, saffron in cooking. There are some ingredients that are so flavorful that they must be portioned carefully, deliberately, lest they overwhelm the senses. So too it is podcast visitors. A guest who appears too frequently loses their impact, their novelty. One cannot be shook if one is already shaking.

One such guest is writer/producer/director Christopher McQuarrie, who’s appeared just twice on Scriptnotes, and only on centennial episodes. After deliberation, Craig and I have decided to invite him back here today to mark our 600th episode. Joining us from London, I believe, Chris McQuarrie.

**Chris McQuarrie:** Yes, London, and congratulations on Episode 600.

**Craig:** I don’t know, is it congratulations or some sort of pity to be called for here?

**Chris:** Condolences. Condolences.

**Craig:** This is just… Good lord. Here we are. Nothing ever changes. We’re back with McQuarrie. With McQuarrie.

**Chris:** So sorry.

**John:** So sorry.

**Chris:** So sorry.

**John:** We recently put up a best of episode where we talked through, Chris, your two previous appearances. Just in case someone has no idea who you are, you are the writer and director of the Mission Impossible movies, Usual Suspects, Valkyrie, Jack Reacher. Your credits are long and wonderful. You’re also a good foil for Craig Mazin, which is why I’m so delighted to see you here on this podcast.

**Chris:** That’s what I’m here for. It’s to spar with Craig and stay sharp.

**Craig:** McQuarrie and I have been in the same fake fight for, I don’t know, 20 years. I don’t know how long it’s been. You will not find two men who love each other more and agree on less.

**Chris:** That’s an interesting take on our relationship.

**Craig:** Thank you. See, he’s about to disagree with me, and that’s fine.

**Chris:** Perspective is a funny thing.

**Craig:** All I can say is that it is an honor to know him. It is a pleasure and a joy. He is, I think you’ve nailed it, John, one of those flavors that you really need to be careful with. You said truffles, cloves, saffron. I would’ve gone with more of one of those fermented fish sauces.

**John:** Thai fish sauce, sure.

**Craig:** Something like a very dense-

**Chris:** Curry.

**Craig:** A durian, for instance, a fruit that many people think is delicious and others think smells like puke. That’s okay. Those are all okay analogies for the great Chris McQuarrie.

**Chris:** I can’t understand why anybody thinks we have a beef, Craig.

**Craig:** I love this man so much.

**Chris:** We hide it so well.

**John:** It’s going to be very hard to keep the conversation on the guardrails. I thought we might try to talk about teams and groups, because Chris, a lot of your movies have a central protagonist, but they also have a big group of people who are working together to do a thing. I’d love to talk about group dynamics within feature films and stories with multiple hero characters. I’d love to tackle this provocative quote about knockoffs and the way that Hollywood just makes cheap imitations of things that were good. Then in our bonus segment for Premium members, let’s talk movie theaters, because Chris, you care a lot about the movie theater experience.

**Chris:** Very much.

**John:** I’d love to know where in 2023 we’re at. If you had your dream of a way to see a big opening weekend movie, what kind of screen are you looking for, what kind of sound system are you looking for? There are so many things being thrown at me with this is better than that. What should we actually be looking for? I feel like you’re a person who can tell us.

**Chris:** Oh, good. That’s all good stuff to talk about.

**John:** Hooray. Let’s start with this provocative quote. I did this interview for Vox about AI and the WGA’s AI proposals. In the article that Alissa Wilkinson wrote up, she had a quote that I thought was actually really smart. She says, “I don’t expect the tools to ever turn out something as good as what a real human writer can achieve. I don’t think AI’s going to be able to write Everything Everywhere All at Once or Tar or Succession. At best, it will be an okay imitation of things that humans have already written. Here’s the thing. Cheap imitations of good things are what power the entertainment industry.” Craig, I see some nodding. How do you respond to that quote?

**Craig:** I think there’s every reason to think that’s true, because first of all, history proves that it’s true. People don’t mind it. I think sometimes we think that what we’re seeing here is that people are stupid and suckers. They’re not stupid and suckers. They just sometimes like comforting things, and they like things that are repeated. If you have to wait five years for the next installment of something that kicked something off and made it wonderful, and in between there are acceptable substitutes, people will go for that.

The other area that I think we need to keep an eye on is programming for children, because programming for children is literally intentionally built around repetition. It’s how children learn. There are plenty of shows. On YouTube there are these videos that mostly come out of China. They’re just these super crappy animations that seem as if they’re currently being done by AI, by early AI. I can’t imagine people did them. Those things can be churned out ad nauseam. Yes, I think the concern is less that AI is going to innovate something beautiful and more that AI will replace a little bit of the secondary industry of imitation.

**John:** Chris, we’ve talked to you on a program before. You talked about your career and how you came out of the gate hot. Then there was a time where you’d find yourself doing projects that you realize these were not the things I should be doing and deliberately pivoted to, what are the actual movies that make me excited to go into work and to dedicate my life to making these films. How do you feel about this idea that the industry relies on a lot of not amazing things to fill up the space, and writers are going to be doing those jobs, and yet you individually might make the decision not to participate in that system?

**Chris:** The first part of the question, just generating content. We live in an era in which everything is just about generating the largest amount of content. If streamers are all racing to build libraries and develop subscriber bases, you’re also seeing that very same industry realizing that they can’t rely on that the way that they wanted to. We’re right now at a moment where you feel all the studios are pivoting back to an idea, that they’re suddenly starting to realize they actually need movie stars and haven’t been cultivating them. On the one hand, it’s terrifying, because we’re looking at AI.

The industry can always be counted on to convince themselves that there is a new way to game the system, and that new way invariably implodes. The number of times we as a group have lived through somebody thinking they could do it faster, cheaper, better, they figured out the thing that’s going to change the industry, going all the way back to 3D and how everything was going to be 3D. When digital cameras became the thing, digital cameras were going to replace film. There was a moment where film was really on the verge of extinction, and everybody said that digital was going to make it cheaper, and it didn’t. It didn’t democratize anything. Now you just hire more people to operate digital cameras.

Ultimately, what I have faith in is that there will always be room for, for lack of a better word, handmade, quality storytelling, for the people that are motivated to do it and the people that demand to do it. That’s never going to be the studio. I do not mean to say this in a derogating way. Their whole thing is about risk mitigation, on time, on budget, trying to make things profitable, and so they’re always going to gravitate towards what appears on paper to be the saner, more fiscally responsible thing. We all know from our individual experience, that’s actually not how movies turn out. That’s not how they get made. It’s never how the process goes. It isn’t a predictable process. It’s not a quantifiable process.

You’ll see there’s going to be a push toward that, towards using AI to get rid of the one thing they’ve been trying to get rid of forever, other than the movie star, has been the writer. They would love it if they could do it without us. They would absolutely love it.

I’m always amazed when people who would rather not have me there can’t just do what I do. We as writers, for us it’s second nature to sit down and actually write something in script form. It’s astonishing to watch someone who does not do that for a living have a very clear idea of what they want and actually be paralyzed when they sit down to do it. They actually couldn’t write a single sentence. It’s like some sort of mental block. I think there are people looking at it now and saying AI is going to liberate them of that mental block.

The thing that AI is never going to deliver is empathy and taste. It can imitate it, but it’s not going to deliver empathy, and it’s not going to deliver taste. If you don’t have empathy through your audience, if you can’t be the audience, and some part of you can’t step outside of yourself and be the person in the theater or at home in front of the TV receiving what it is you’re communicating, you’re not going to tell a story that’s going to affect somebody emotionally, at least in the short term with what I understand about AI. I’ll probably be eating my words in six months when AI begins teaching itself.

**Craig:** By the end of this week.

**Chris:** If you look at all the years and years and years of all these different screenwriting seminars, all the humans that have been trying to teach this craft to other humans, you can teach people about rules and techniques, you can show them movies that have worked, you can express to someone how you create, you can’t teach them empathy. The one essential ingredient to being an effective storyteller, I’ve never seen anybody even bring it up as a critical element of telling story, let alone how do you teach somebody that in a series of afternoon lectures?

**Craig:** There are unteachables. I think we’ve always agreed on that, that there are things that you can instruct, but then there’s whatever, however talent is defined. I think one of the cornerstones of talent, you’re right, is empathy. It is possible that what we may be looking at at best, and it’s hard to say because we don’t know, but let’s just say at best, for the foreseeable future, AI can’t do any better than being a very mediocre screenwriter. There are a lot of very mediocre screenwriters working. In fact, there are very few that aren’t very mediocre.

**Chris:** There’s the rub.

**Craig:** There is the rub. In a legitimate way, what we’re talking about is saying, hey, if there’s a choice between hiring a mediocre human and a mediocre computer, I really think we should be hiring the human. That is what we’re trying to get at.

**Chris:** I’m going to be the business side. I’ll play the devil’s advocate. If I’m going to hire a mediocre human or if I’m going to hire a mediocre machine, I’m going to hire the machine, because it’s going to get it done faster.

**Craig:** Of course. Of course.

**Chris:** It’s going to deliver it. What we all know is that first and foremost they need a document. What I like to say all the time is a script is as good or bad as it needs to be on the day you hand it in. If they need that script, and they have a start date, and the start date is Monday, and you get it to them on Friday, you’re going to get the greatest review of a screenplay you’ve ever handed anybody. We love it. It’s fantastic. You’ve solved it. We have some notes, but we’ll figure them out as we go. If there’s no actor attached and no director attached and you wrote Casablanca, it would go into development hell, simply because-

**Craig:** There’s time.

**Chris:** There’s time. AI will feed very nicely into that. Then it will generate a 120-page document with dialog and formatting and locations and they can budget that.

**Craig:** Yeah, but I have to say I still… Yes, absolutely. There are times where they want scripts to budget, and then you say it’s not ready, and they say, “Literally our job is to hand somebody a budget tomorrow. Please give me a thing that I can budget,” which is fine.

It does strike me that even with the consolidation and the conglomeration of these companies that the media business and being a corporation that creates television shows and movies is not the best way to make a gazillion dollars. Jeff Bezos didn’t become a billionaire because of Amazon studios. Apple didn’t become larger than most nations because of Apple Plus. These companies are far bigger than that. If you want to make a lot of money as an individual, man, these hedge funds apparently do quite well.

I still feel like the management in Hollywood, even at the highest levels, on some basic level still also love good stuff. They’re proud of it. They like winning awards. They like being part of culture. They like changing things. They love that. I think on some level they know that involves the human touch, but-

**Chris:** They like one thing more.

**Craig:** Money I assume.

**Chris:** Control.

**Craig:** Here’s the thing about control.

**Chris:** It’s all about priorities.

**Craig:** I will disagree with you on this. There are places that… I work at a place where control is not a priority for them at all. It’s not. What’s a priority for them is that the work is good. That is a priority for them. I salute HBO for that. Obviously, there are lots of places that differ in that.

What I think this quote is getting to is that there is this large chunk of the business, we used to call them programmers, and I wrote on a lot of them, where it was like, the point of this isn’t to be good or special. The point of this is we need this kind of movie doing these following things, hitting this kind of tone for this audience. Go. The fact of the matter is, I believe I have written things that probably AI could have done, will be able to do decently.

**John:** Let’s make a case for the mediocre writer versus the mediocre AI, because in both cases they’ve been trained on a corpus of text, which is all the stuff that came before them. It’s the film student who watched all of the other movies and is just trying to replicate the thing it saw, because the AI’s literally fed all of that popular culture. The best it can do, the best it can reasonably be expected to do, is about middle grade. It can actually make the choice. It can make decisions about what is better and what’s worse.

That may be the saving grace of the mediocre writer is that the mediocre writer still has, to get back to Chris’s thing, still has empathy and taste, still actually understands what is good and what is not good, and may still be aiming for better, even if it doesn’t actually know how to achieve that. It actually has empathy. It knows what it’s like. Going back to a Big Fish or something, knows what it’s like to lose a parent. You actually can have that experience, which an AI can never have. It knows what it’s like to physically be in a body. The AI might be able to come up with a bunch of words that approximate that experience, but it has no real understanding.

Finally, that AI is a chat bot maybe, but you can’t really talk back to it. So much of our job as screenwriters is not just doing what they tell us, but intuiting the note behind the note, intuiting what actually you need to do to get it beyond this next step, how to get it through this development executive to their boss, how to get that director on board. That’s not a thing that an AI is going to understand how to do. It’s not going to be able to think that many levels ahead. I think there’s still a job for a human being there.

I think my concern is that, whereas it used to be us pushing words around, that made us a screenwriter, it might be the person who is writing those prompts and having to deal with all the people that is doing the job of screenwriter. That’s where I think we might get replaced is that it’s we’re the person pushing the buttons but we’re not the real writer, we’re not the person stringing the words together.

**Chris:** Writers have had to, I think, disillusion themselves of certain beliefs, which I think AI is going to push them to have to accept even sooner. There is a lot of dogma around being a screenwriter and what a screenwriter’s role is and also what screenwriters want to do. We talked about this the last time that we all spoke. Actually, you and I spoke. Craig wasn’t there, because he was busy doing other things.

I think the future belongs to the writer-producer. You need to be somebody who not only writes the material but then can be there to help to execute and supervise and deliver that material. You’ve got to get out of the mindset of, I write a screenplay and hand it to other people, and they make the movie the way I think that movies should be made. You have to get away from that. That future has never been a rich one. I really believe that that future is doomed. Now you’re having to compete with a machine.

Whether you write the script or the machinery writes it for the studio executive who cannot write and does not want to hire another writer or doesn’t have the time, it’ll all evolve from, yeah, I would like to hire a writer, but it’ll take me three weeks to make that person’s deal. Then that person will go off, and they have a contractual number of weeks before they have to deliver a draft, etc, etc, etc. I have to deliver this in such and such, in 48 hours, because we have this window and this person is available only for these times. There will be a series of honest compromises that lead to this becoming a necessity and a necessary evil. That’s how I see it.

The writer who’s standing on the other side of it, the person who’s going to be making a living, is the person who’s there’s to fix what the AI broke and then be able to actually carry and deliver it and execute it. You’re always going to need a human being to put the stuff together, the same way AI right now, whatever it’s doing, it needs people. It needs to manipulate, maneuver human beings in the real world to actually pull levers and push buttons.

I don’t know if you read this article about how this AI learned how to lie. In order to bypass a captcha code, it went to some website. I can’t remember the name of it.

**John:** Mechanical Turk or something like that, where it hired, or Fiver.

**Chris:** Yes, it hired a person to get past the captcha for them. That’s the world we’re headed towards.

**Craig:** I think you’re probably underestimating the probability that AI will begin to instruct other AI. You may also be underestimating the probability that we are AI. That’s a topic for-

**Chris:** We don’t know that this conversation is real. None of us are sitting in the same room.

**Craig:** Also define real. I think that in a weird way with all of the cloud around this and how much confusion and possibility there is, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the labor movement in Hollywood to come to an incredibly simple term, which is only humans write stuff. Man, they’re going to scream about it, but I don’t know how else you get around this.

**Chris:** I know how to get around it. They’ll make up a human. There’ll be somebody out there. There’ll be a well-known writer who you’ll find out 10 years later-

**Craig:** Was fronting for AI?

**John:** [Crosstalk 00:20:41].

**Chris:** Yeah, a front. It’ll be a front. By the way, I promise you-

**Craig:** That’s okay.

**Chris:** … there are writers out there who would take 10% of the salary to be the front, to represent an AI and say, “Yeah, that’s who I am.”

**Craig:** How is that already not a show on the air? Let’s go. Let’s go, McQuarrie. The front.

**Chris:** The front.

**Craig:** The front.

**John:** Going all the way back to The Blacklist, where there’s someone up there who’s pretending to be the writer of records. I want to stipulate that the conversation we’re having right now is about the kinds of film and television that we’re making and seeing right now, and so the stuff that we’re writing, that we’re creating, we’re producing. It’s entirely possible that AI could come up with some other kind of entertainment that’s generating itself, that is unique and different and compelling, might replace or displace what it is that we’re doing. That’s a threat not just to us as writers but to the entire film and television industry as we know it right now. That’s not a thing I think we’re qualified to get in the way of. That feels like a bigger governmental action.

I want us to circle back to this notion of Hollywood is built on mediocre stuff. What I like about it is that it’s a recognition that many of us aspire to make the one-of-a-kind, great, unique things. The bulk of what’s on television, the bulk of what is in our theaters every week isn’t even trying to be this great piece of art. It is programmers. There’s nothing wrong with that.

**Craig:** We learn that way. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t written something like that. I know there are some people. By and large, folks like us who have been around for a long time and have worked across the media and have rewritten and written and done originals and all the rest of it, all of us have worked on some of those things for sure. There is no shame in it whatsoever.

Also, again, like I said, it’s how we learn. If the AI is learning, so are we. If you take away the opportunity for humans to be mediocre, they will never get to be great. Even though theoretically McQuarrie was great out the door, what’s been going on is he’s been Benjamin Buttoning talent-wise.

**Chris:** Craig Mazin, everybody. Craig Mazin, dear, dear, dear, sweet friend, Craig Mazin. There is an expression Tom and I talk about all the time, which is educated into stupidity. We learn a lot of very bad habits. We spend a lot of our formative years writing to get past certain people in that chain. You have to write things that feel like a movie to them, even though they don’t actually understand what a shootable document is versus a readable document. We develop a lot of bad habits out of a sheer need for survival.

That is a big part of what feeds into the mediocrity machine is a lot of writers are educated to be mediocre by servicing low-level executives, producers who have had one big credit and now suddenly have all of this authority. You have to get by them. They’re just gatekeepers. Politically they might know how to get a script made, but they don’t really understand the nuts and bolts of telling you what to write so that it’s actually a shootable movie.

When that’s the objective, when the objective is a go movie versus a good movie, you’re always going to get that. Quality is not a standard option. It’s a factory add-on. It’s like, do I want the Blaupunkt stereo or do I want the standard AM/FM radio that they have in the car. Someone in the chain has to demand that this thing be good.

When you’re talking about an assembly line that is about we need it now and we need it at this budget, it’s not that they don’t want quality. Quality is simply not the number one priority. It can’t be, because quality is a nuisance. It’s an absolute burden. It’s a pain in the ass. It’s exhausting. The number of times that you want to just get to what I remember Ed Zwick referred to as the great fuck it. When it’s good enough and you don’t want to do it anymore, you have to have the power and the will, the resources, the credibility, to confront the narrative over and over and over again until it’s good.

When you reach a certain level… When Craig sent me Chernobyl, and I read Chernobyl, and I read the first two episodes and I called him and I said, “This is the most shootable hundred-and-some pages I have ever read.” I can’t understand how Craig Mazin wrote it.

**Craig:** Neither can I.

**Chris:** I said, “What is it?” I asked you in all seriousness. I said, “Where did this come from?” You said, “I finally figured out what I was doing.” You’d been at it for 20 years. I’ve been at it for close to 30 years before I was working on Top Gun: Maverick and saying, “Oh, I actually know what the priorities are now. I actually understand how to structure these things in a way that is instinctive rather than mandated.” You can accelerate that process. You can get through that a lot faster. That involved unlearning 30 years of really shitty habits that have been imposed upon me.

That’s the disadvantage of the writers who are starting out now is they’re swimming upstream against a much stronger current, having to learn the nuts and bolts and the ins and outs of the craft and to get to a place where the complexity becomes simplicity. The headwind that they’re going into now is, “I don’t need you to write the garbage. I don’t need you to do your apprenticeship. I’ve got a machine that can do your apprenticeship.”

I really believe that there needs to be a deconstruction and an education for the writers who are coming, about understanding what’s the priority, what’s the priority of story, how do these things really work, and get people past what I perceive as the absurdity of everybody young starts out thinking they want to make Apocalypse Now in 2001. They want to make all of their heroes’ movies without ever stopping to realize that all of their heroes started out making elevated genre fare and actually knew how to make and had apprenticeships where they just made movies. That’s the key to survival I think is learning how to make nuts and bolts entertainment and arrive at the place where you can then decide, okay, now I’m going to do one for me, where it used to be-

**Craig:** What was Jim Cameron’s first movie? Piranha?

**Chris:** Piranha 2.

**John:** Piranha 2, wasn’t it?

**Craig:** Yeah, Piranha 2.

**Chris:** Piranha 2.

**Craig:** Didn’t even get to write Piranha 1.

**Chris:** Look, it’s the three guys I’ll use all the time. One made a gangster movie, one made a monster movie, one made a space monster movie. Coppola made The Godfather, Spielberg made Jaws, and Ridley Scott made Alien. They all made elevated genre movies. No one can see my air quotes. They were all artists. They were all auteurs. These are absurd terms that I think create an air of conceit. They were all great filmmakers in their own right, who had to make genre movies if they wanted their shot. If you wanted to make Apocalypse Now, you had to make The Godfather. Some part of Coppola really believed he was slumming when he made-

**Craig:** The Godfather was a pulp novel. It was kind of a trashy novel. When the book came out, it wasn’t like people were like, “Oh my god, this is the equivalent of Lord Jim.”

**Chris:** Killers of the Flower Moon.

**Craig:** It was a sexy book where people were shooting each other.

**Chris:** Jaws is a summer beach novel. Alien was a script by Dan O’Bannon, as pulpy as pulpy science fiction gets. Yet when you look at those films, they’re some of their most powerful and enduring movies. They’re also great cinema by just about anybody’s estimation. They’re movies you can go to and watch again and again and again and again. Machines couldn’t make them.

What’s happened is that a wedge has been driven. It was countersunk and pounded through the industry in the ’70s, in the beginning of the ’70s new wave and the idea of the auteur filmmaker that separated art and entertainment. You either make art or you make entertainment. You are an auteur or you are a shooter or you are a journeyman. I’m still trying to understand what that word means. As opposed to looking at it to say the real art for me, the real craft, what is cinema to me, are the movies that strive to walk the center line between art and entertainment.

You’re trying to pull art closer to entertainment and entertainment closer to art. You’re trying to make a film that engages and enriches the audience. That’s the really fine line. That’s the zone that it’s going to take AI a long, long time to get to.

It’s the zone that writers nowadays are almost engineered to avoid, in pursuit of one of two things. You’re either making mass entertainment for an audience, not the audience, you’re making mass entertainment for the Marvels of the world, the DCs of world, the Disneys of the world, which is all great, or you’re making art for the Academy, for a couple of thousand people, most of whom vote without actually watching every single movie that they’re voting for.

Filmmakers are essentially asked early in their career to make a decision. Are you going to be an artist, are you going to make movies for the Academy, or are you going to be an entertainer? Are you going to be a sellout and go make mass entertainment for those guys? I look at it and say why can’t the objective be Jaws, Aliens, shit, Avatar.

Look at Cameron. He is in a class utterly by himself. He’s the only guy out there understanding if I want to make movies on this big canvas, I need to make movies that everybody’s going to come see. He makes mass entertainment. He’s not ashamed of it. Occasionally, his mass entertainment gets nominated for awards. You don’t see James Cameron courting awards. You see James Cameron like, “I’m out to make mass entertainment. I’m out to reach the widest audience possible.”

It just so happens that his big mass entertainment movies like Avatar have a huge environmental message to them. They’re actually not just junk content. They actually contain big environmental messages about awareness of the world around you. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. I don’t see what there is to be allergic about. That’s where I feel like the future of the industry needs to be leaning when we talk about cinema and movies for the big screen.

What Marvel’s doing and what Marvel is I think experiencing right now, they’ve reached a saturation. They’ve isolated their audience. They’ve created a massive, massive, massive audience, but it’s also self-contained. It’s a bubble. They’re not making movies for everybody. They’re making movies for fans of the ever more internal Marvel universe. That’s finite, whereas Cameron can call it like Babe Ruth and say, “My movie’s going to make two and a half billion dollars.” He doesn’t have a massive Marvel universe behind it to do it. There’s huge opportunity there. People have to get over themselves and actually strive for that.

**John:** Chris, what I hear you saying is that in features we have certain filmmakers can prioritize quality over everything else. There’s that classic pick two. You can choose good, fast, or cheap. They’re able to choose good, because they actually have the track record that they can do that. They have started in having to balance those things better when they were making cheaper genre pictures. Now Cameron can spend a billion dollars making a movie, and he has that. On the TV side, we still have brands like HBO, for which quality is their delimiter. HBO has a brand value that is great. You know that a show on HBO is going to have a certain quality. You may like it, or you may not like it.

**Chris:** Quality is their brand.

**John:** Quality is their brand. Do we have on the feature side, quality is our brand? A24 to some degree. They’re always innovative movie. I don’t know they’re always the highest quality. They have a certain point of view. I don’t know. I wonder if we could have basically a film studio that quality is our brand.

**Chris:** Pixar understood. You look at first tier of movies that came out, and that’s what they were dedicated to. Is it sustainable? Is it all good things must end, and there was a very specific group of people shepherding it, it was the objective that everybody wanted? How long can you maintain that, and how finite that group of people is that come with all that education, and are they able to educate other people up into those ranks and to keep that stuff going?

Yes, A24, Working Title, there are certain brands when you look at it and go, “Oh, those, they make those good movies.” There’s a bigger thing at play. I’m looking at Craig right now sitting with the Hollywood Hills behind him. Somewhere behind Craig is the Cinerama dome, which is sitting empty and boarded up. What’s not happening with the A24s of the world and the Working Titles of the world is they’re not making movies that pack cinemas and feed into the health of my other definition of cinema, which is a place you go to watch movies with other people and have a shared experience, which is not only what I think is a really important human thing to do, also it enriches the experience of watching a movie. A horror movie is never as good at home as it is, or certain horror movies, never as good as watching with a crowd of people. Comedies are never as good as watching with a crowd of people and feeding into that.

There are movies that I consider deposits and withdrawals. If you’re making a movie with the intention of drawing the largest possible audience to the cinema, and not an audience, but the audience, you’re making a deposit. You’re actually feeding into that system, and you’re helping that system thrive. If you’re making a movie because how you want critics to feel about you or your film or the awards that you hope to get, and you can convince yourself all you want that the awards that I’m getting are actually good, they’re advertising the film, etc, etc, you’re just admitting that it’s all about money anyway. If you’re making movies for awards and things like that, you’re making a withdrawal.

If you’re not making it to drive the most number of people into the cinema, you’re benefiting from it more than the system is benefiting from it. That’s okay. That’s totally okay to do that. Know that that’s what you’re doing. When you’re making a movie for a streamer, and you’re releasing it in theaters for the requisite number of weeks so that it is eligible for an award, you’re not really paying back into the system. You’re not really here in the name of cinema. You’re there for how the cinema benefits you and not how you benefit the cinema. I don’t look at it that way. My partner doesn’t look at it that way. We look at it like that’s a whole hungry mechanism that desperately needs to be fed, and we make movies for that machine so that machine is there.

**John:** Top Gun: Maverick I think is indicative of that. Top Gun: Maverick was a film that critics loved, audiences loved, theaters loved, that the industry wanted that movie to succeed and was so happy it succeeded, because it was a good movie to see on a big screen with a big audience, and it did great too. The movie could’ve made the exact same amount of money and not had the impact if it hadn’t felt like it was the right moment.

**Chris:** Very early on we said this can’t be a cash grab and that no one will come if it is. When I came on board, the script that I was handed was a lot of fan service, a lot of rehashing of scenes from the original movie. We definitely hit those beats, but we hit those beats in a way that they were echoes of the past and not, oh, let’s just recreate that scene. Do you remember when they made the sequel to Airplane and they just regurgitated the scenes from the original so you got to see them again?

**John:** Yeah.

**Chris:** That worked in the day when you actually didn’t have home video and you had to wait three years to see that film.

**Craig:** Just to defend them, the sequel was not made my Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker.

**Chris:** Of course. Of course.

**Craig:** They get very upset if anyone thinks that they made that movie.

**Chris:** I’m not talking about whoever made it. I’m just talking about the end result. We knew very, very early on there was an expectation around it that it’s Tom and it’s Top Gun, they’re going to come. Tom was the first guy to say, “No, they’re not. They are not going to come. They are looking at this with suspicion. They’re looking at this as though this is a cash grab, and we have to do everything we can to convince them that this is actually an event that they have to come and see.”

The money that Top Gun made, a surprising amount of it was from repeat viewing, multiple viewings of people coming back to see it over and over and over again. That’s a metric that you don’t see charted a lot is how many of these movies that are making a billion dollars are making a billion dollars because people are going to see them the way we went to see ET and the way we went to see Star Wars over and over and over again in the cinema. What Top Gun is is proof that you can do that. It’s proof that if you make a movie that is that much of an emotional experience…

I read some critique of the movie that said, “Oh, it just feels like every moment in the movie is engineered for the maximum emotional effect.” Yeah. That’s the point. What are you talking about? Isn’t that what you do? Yes, I want you to be completely emotionally engaged in it the entire time. We would sit there and watch it and step back from it and look at it objectively and say, “Now I’m in the audience. How do I feel about this? Why is this not working for me? Why am I watching somebody have an experience rather than having an experience with that protagonist?” People are starved for it. Top Gun demonstrated that they were starved for it. They demonstrated that they don’t reject sincerity and earnestness and optimism. They actually came. They showed up for it, and they enjoyed it.

Top Gun changed the way I will approach every movie I make after Mission Impossible. I had started making Mission before Top Gun came out. Now looking at the experience of Top Gun, the first thing I would start with… With Mission you start with what are the big set pieces and what are the big stunts, what’s going to make this different from all the other Mission Impossibles.

Every movie I start with now is, what do I want the audience to feel when they’re walking out of the theater. What’s the feeling I want them to carry away from it. If the feeling is anything other than I feel great about myself and I want to see that again, why are you making it? You’re making it for yourself and not for-

**Craig:** Hold on. I agree with you completely that the… Certainly how I approach things is what is this… The question I ask is, why should this exist, which is a little different than your question, but it’s related. Why should this exist? The related question to that is, and if it ought to exist, clearly that involves the audience. They need to feel something.

**Chris:** Anything can exist. I want to be very, very clear.

**Craig:** No, why should this exist?

**Chris:** It’s who are you making it for? Ultimately, who is your audience?

**Craig:** I’m simply saying I don’t think feeling good about ourselves is the only feeling that is a valid one to chase with an audience. Sometimes you can get pretty far with people feel sad. I think feeling sad is a strong feeling. I think mourning, I think coming to grips with mortality. There are difficult things we can feel walking out that are very valid. I think where I agree with you is I want them to feel them.

**Chris:** You can feel rewarded and satisfied with those feelings, or you can feel punished and worn out and exhausted and demoralized, which is a lot.

**Craig:** Or provoked. Or provoked.

**Chris:** Or provoked, which a lot of filmmakers seem to embrace as something admirable, that the audience is an obstacle. The audience is a thing that is to be tolerated.

**Craig:** I don’t see it as an either or. I see it as simply, yes, getting an audience to feel something and putting their feelings first is… I completely agree with you. I generally speaking do enjoy movies that make me feel good at the end. Sometimes I like those, and sometimes I like movies that don’t.

**Chris:** I want to be very clear. If you’re going to make a movie that cost $30 million, those concerns are not as big. If you want to make a movie that costs $150, $170, $200 million, my advice to you is everybody should leave the theater feeling really great. It’s all proportionate to who the audience is for that film. If a movie’s got to make that formula of, say, three times what it costs to break even, James Cameron understood there was a certain point at which he realized I’m all in, and everybody on the planet has to love this movie.

**Craig:** Sure. Then there’s The Dark Knight. Then there’s where it’s a massive hit.

**Chris:** How much did The Dark Knight cost versus how much did The Dark Knight make? Chris Nolan is a very, very smart, frugal filmmaker. He understands marketing and how to target his movies. He understood who his audience was. He didn’t indulge in that movie. He didn’t go over budget. He didn’t make a movie [crosstalk 00:43:22].

**Craig:** I’m not suggesting that he did any of those things. I’m simply saying that there are very high-budget, popular hit films that carry through in pop culture and are beloved by people where you don’t walk out feeling warm and fuzzy. That’s all I’m saying.

**Chris:** Yes, I understand.

**Craig:** Usual Suspects was a fantastic film written by this kid from New Jersey, that made me feel terrible at the end but also satisfied.

**John:** Satisfied is a thing.

**Chris:** Satisfied is the word.

**John:** Terrible, great, satisfied is the word.

**Chris:** I’m not talking about warm and fuzzy. I’m not talking about warm and fuzzy. I am saying that if you’re going to make a movie past a certain budget, that’s the way.

**Craig:** I think people should always be satisfied.

**Chris:** Satisfied, absolutely.

**John:** There’s a different metric here. We’re talking about $30 million versus $300 million for a budget. Also, what are you asking of the audience to go and experience your movie? If it’s something that they were going to flip channels to… There’s movies that I’ll watch on a plane, but I’m not going to actually go to the theater to watch. If you’re trying to make a movie that you need to get people to go from their home to a theater, to buy a ticket, to sit in that seat, you’re making a big ask. I think it’s fair that they should have big expectations for what they’re going to get out of that and how they’re going to feel at the end of that. You want to make sure that they are feeling a big feeling from the end of that, which may not need to be the same situation on a made-for-streaming that they’re watching at home. I think there are different expectations there.

**Chris:** In that instance, a streaming movie, plain and simple, it doesn’t have to face an opening weekend. It doesn’t have to compete with anything. Actually, the metric by which a viewing is even measured is not the same. Somebody watches it for a few minutes, turns it off, or turns it on and turns off their TV and goes to bed, and it’s still running in the background and counts as a view. That’s very different than people coming out of their homes and paying money to go and sit and watch that movie. It doesn’t have to confront the same-

**Craig:** Agreed.

**Chris:** … obstacles to whatever a definition of success is, which is great. We talked about this the last time. I am hopeful that the streaming world becomes the test bed, becomes the place where filmmakers can cut their teeth, in an environment where their risk is lower. Their career risk is lower. Their tolerance for failure is much higher. Their budgets are a little more constrained.

It’s the farm system that gets people to the place where they can make bigger movies in cinemas, because that’s the thing that I don’t see. There’s not a mechanism that develops people to the level that most directors are working at now on those big, giant movies. It’s one thing to demand quality and to say I want it to be this thing in the middle. It’s the other thing to actually know how to do that and to prepare and to understand that part of what you have to build into that is, I’m not going to hit a bullet with a bullet straight out of the gate. I’m going to be re-shooting. I’m going to be. I have to build that into it. It’s a very complicated process by which you arrive.

Cameron, look how long it took him to make that movie, in order to make it the box office success that it was, to justify the budget that went into making that movie. Every day he was out there and the movie was getting bigger, the movie had to be that much better. It’s an absolutely terrifying way to work.

**John:** I promised that we would talk about group dynamics. Let’s put that aside for a moment because I actually want to circle back to something you said quite early on in the conversation, which is that Hollywood has decided not to have movie stars. We’ve let our movie star system fall apart. Is this a solvable problem? Why is it a problem? Chris McQuarrie, can you make your case for movie stars?

**Chris:** There are two things that having movie stars would require. One, the studios have to want movie stars. Two, stars have to want to be stars. There are a lot of actors who have the capacity to be giant stars. They are defined by their choices. They’re not leaning into the kind of material that, and the kind of filmmaking that would make them stars. Being a star is a level of commitment. It’s a level of awareness. You have to really control your destiny. You have to really understand filmmaking. You can’t just entrust that to other people. Stars have to want to be stars.

The system, again, the award-driven system that tells you you either win Oscars or wear a cape, there’s not a thing in the middle that’s leaning towards encouraging people to be more traditional movie stars. There’s not an incentive to be Clark Gable. There’s not an incentive to be Marilyn Monroe, and yet the business needs those. People want those icons.

You see people time and again arrive in a place where you’re thinking this person’s really going to pop, this person’s really going to take off, this person’s going to be a big star, and then you watch their subsequent choices. It’s not that there was something in the water in the ‘40s that isn’t there now. There was a different system that cultivated those people and that groomed them to be stars, and then the stars themselves understood this is what I need to do to protect my brand and to put myself forward. Humphrey Bogart was a very, very smart filmmaker. Clark Gable was a very smart filmmaker. Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas were giant movie stars. They were also very, very, very smart about how to make themselves stars and to keep themselves stars.

**John:** Craig, how do we get there? How do we get movie stars back, or do we get movie stars back?

**Craig:** Movie stars are enormously helpful to center our culture, because the culture that we create is about human beings. It’s about the human condition, whether it’s a comedy or a drama. We identify with certain humans because of a kind of magic they have.

Tom Hanks is a human being that hundreds of millions of human beings connect to, even though he doesn’t know them. There is something in his eyes. There is something about the way his mind works and connects to his face and his eyes and his voice.

The problem that we have is that we have cheapened fame. The fame is useless now. Everyone’s famous. Fame doesn’t mean a goddamn thing. Fifteen minutes? Everyone’s famous for the rest of their lives. That’s my turn on Warhol. Everyone is now famous forever, because everybody is everywhere, seeing each other. It’s harder and harder to find the signal amidst the noise. It really is. Hollywood tries really hard. There are examples where they try to make people stars. They work on it. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t.

**Chris:** Choices.

**Craig:** There are people who still emerge from all of this mess. The person that comes to mind is Zendaya. Zendaya’s a star. Zendaya’s going to be a star for the rest of my life. She will be a star for the rest of my children’s lives. That’s how that’s going to be. You can just see it. She’s a star. It’s still possible. When we find people like that, it’s important. Timothee Chalamet is a star. That’s just the way it is. We used to grow a lot more of them. It’s just hard now. It’s hard to figure out who is a star and who just has a whole lot of followers.

**John:** For sure. Let’s go to our One Cool Things. Chris, I see you with an object in your hands. What is this One Cool Thing you want to share with us?

**Chris:** It’s called the Anker 3-in-1 Cube. This is my favorite new little gadget. It’s a great travel gadget. It’s a great desktop gadget. It charges an iPhone. It charges your earbuds. It’s got this little pop-out thing that charges your Apple Watch with the fast charging standard.

**John:** Nice.

**Chris:** It’s all three in one, all in this nice little cube that actually folds up with one little click, goes in your bag, or just sits nicely on your desk and takes up very little space. It’s my favorite gadget. I love it.

**Craig:** That’s A-N-K-E-R I’m presuming.

**Chris:** A-N-K-E-R, Anker [AYN-kr] or Anker [AHN-kr]. When you go on Amazon, they’re an electronics powerhouse.

**Craig:** They make a lot of USB hubs and things.

**Chris:** Yes, hubs and batteries and things like that. I have to say I’m always suspicious of those brands that exist only on the internet. I have to say I have a lot of their products. They’re actually very good. This is my very favorite one of them.

**Craig:** Look at this free ad for Anker. Unbelievable.

**Chris:** Free ad for Anker. You noticed I’m wearing the Anker T-shirt and baseball cap, and my car has an Anker skin on it.

**Craig:** I love it.

**John:** Craig, what is your free ad for?

**Craig:** My free ad is for something that I honestly think is magic. I don’t understand how this works. Are you familiar with goodrx.com?

**Chris:** No.

**John:** I don’t understand it, but I think I know what it does.

**Craig:** Here’s this insanity. If you are getting a prescription medication and for some reason your insurance doesn’t cover it, either because the med isn’t covered by your insurance or let’s say in the case of where I ran into this, I had a prescription that I was getting locally at the Rite Aid, but then my doctor was like, “Okay, let’s actually go through Express Meds,” which is our long-term medication thing through the WGA.

While I’m waiting for them to ship it, there’s a week where I need to get it refilled, but Rite Aid was like, “Sorry, they’ve already done it that way. We can’t do it this way on your insurance. However, why don’t you just go to goodrx.com?” I was like, “I don’t want to buy it from another company.” They’re like, “No, just go to goodrx.com, type in the drug you want.” Then it says, okay, where would you like to get this medicine from? One of the things is Rite Aid. They have CVS. They have Walgreens. They have everybody. I click on Rite Aid, and this little coupon comes up. I show it to them. They type the number in. They’re like, “Okay, so instead of being $5,973, it’s $12, also without insurance.” Without insurance.

Now, how is this working? I do not know, and I also am on the verge of not caring, because it does. It’s startling. If you have a prescription and it’s not covered by your insurance, goodrx.com apparently figures it out anyway.

**John:** They’re giving you some sort of a coupon, rebate code thing. It’s putting it in some group plan. It’s doing behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

**Craig:** Shenanigans.

**John:** Great. Shenanigans. Our whole health system is shenanigans. Chris McQuarrie’s laughing there because he’s in the UK.

**Chris:** It’s the way you went, “Shenanigans.”

**Craig:** It is shenanigans.

**Chris:** The answer is shenanigans.

**Craig:** Shenanigans. You know what? I love it. Great. Whatever it is.

**Chris:** It’s a scientific explanation.

**Craig:** If I open the door of the goodrx.com company and the inside is filled with nothing but leprechauns, I’m just going to close the door, back away, and drive away. That’s fine. I don’t care how it’s working. All I know is, what the hell is that? Wow.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** There’s my free ad.

**John:** My free ad is for Signal, which people are listening to this saying, “You’re just now discovering Signal?” Signal is the messaging app. It’s known as being encrypted, which is great. Love it. It’s actually much better for… We had these group email threads that were getting endless and long and terrible. It’s all people who need to talk about one thing. It was these emails that were going back and forth. It was a disaster. We wisely moved over to Signal. There’s just a channel on Signal, which we’re all in this group chat. It’s so much better of an experience. If you are stuck in a group email or a group text situation, try Signal for it, because it honestly has been so much better of an experience going through this. It’s simpler than setting up a new Slack instance. It’s free. It’s been just a great experience. Signal I would recommend if you are in a group conversation situation.

**Chris:** I got rid of WhatsApp and only use Signal. It’s actually great. Signal’s the best one, most secure too.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nico Mansy. If you have an outro, send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions. 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 weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. We’re coming up with this Episode 600 T-shirt, so stay tuned for that. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all of the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on the movie theater experience. Chris McQuarrie, thank you so much for coming back on our program.

**Craig:** Thank you, Chris.

**Chris:** My pleasure. We’ll do team dynamics in a hundred episodes.

**John:** Love it. Perfect.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Chris McQuarrie, let’s say you’re making some giant movie that’s coming out, perhaps in a summer at some point. If I have my choice of theaters and theater experiences to go to, what do you think is the best, current in the United States at least, that I could go see a film like the one you might want to make?

**Chris:** It’s a very tricky question. The great leveler for me is Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision. Sound is a huge component for me. I consider sound and music to be a full third of the experience. I think your sound design and your score are actually more important than any dialog in the movie. Dolby Atmos is the way to do it. Dolby Vision is truly amazing.

**John:** What is Dolby Vision?

**Chris:** Dolby Vision is the Dolby projection system, these laser projectors that are super high-definition laser projectors, which are one of the things you’ll experience when you go to a lot of your movie theaters. There’s foot-lamberts, I believe it is, the brightness in the bulb. Most projectors that you’re seeing, the bulbs are either not replaced frequently enough, they’re not properly maintained. A lot of times, when you’re going to the movie theater, you’re watching what should be, I think it’s at 11 foot-lamberts, you’re watching it at 9 or 8 or even less than that. Dolby Vision, its standard is 14, I think. I should not be giving you all the technical on it, only that it is extremely bright, clear image. The blacks are very, very black and very defined.

A great demonstration I saw of it, you sit in this theater and you watch them project black onto the screen. The black is actually very, very, very dark gray, because how can you get black if you’re projecting onto the screen? Dolby Vision can project proper black onto the screen. When you see it, the difference is quite startling. You get an incredibly rich image, and you get incredibly immersive sound. It’s to me in an all around. Dolby Vision, it can be in different sized auditoriums. For me, if I was going to build a theater in my home and had all the money in the world, I’d build a Dolby Vision.

**Craig:** You got close. I don’t know what you’re waiting for. I agree completely.

**Chris:** You’d be tragically surprised.

**Craig:** Is someone spending money in your house or something? I don’t know.

**Chris:** When you spend five years making a movie instead of two and a half-

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, there is that. I agree with Chris McQuarrie. Take that to the bank, my friends.

**Chris:** What?

**Craig:** Take that to the bank.

**Craig:** Wow.

**Craig:** Yes, that is absolutely correct. The future of projection is lasers, without a doubt. This problem of dim bulbs, as I’ve been saying for a long time, is brutal. Even without Dolby Surround and all that stuff, sound when we were kids was still pretty impressive because of the number of speakers and the size of speakers in a large auditorium situation. Sound has obviously gotten really, really good. Even at home, we can get really, really good sound. The projection on a large screen is difficult for people to have at home. I’m putting aside the communal experience watching a movie. The visual aspect, if it is a Dolby visual, it is a dramatic improvement.

Also, let us take a moment. If you do watch things at home and you’re making your own theater, let us take a moment to talk about something that is near and dear to both my heart and Mr. McQuarrie’s heart and any rational human being’s heart, which is to turn off your fucking motion smoothing. Get your remote out and turn that shit off. Go into the settings. It’s in advanced settings. Anything that’s called smoothing, motion, anything with the word smooth or motion, turn off. Turn it off. It’s crap.

**Chris:** Turn it off.

**Craig:** Crap.

**Chris:** It’s video interpolation.

**Craig:** It’s awful. Awful.

**Chris:** It’s terrible. It’s terrible. Whole generations of audiences are being conditioned to watch-

**Craig:** Crap.

**Chris:** … what Rian Johnson described as liquid diarrhea.

**Craig:** I saw a trailer. I think I was showing somebody the trailer for Chernobyl before it had come out. I was in his house. I just Apple TV’ed it over to his television to watch it. I turned it off within three seconds. I’m like, “Nope. You’ve got motion smoothing on.”

**Chris:** Can’t watch it that way.

**Craig:** It made me feel horrible. It made me feel like I had screwed up so terribly by creating Days of Our Lives – Chernobyl. It just looked so awful. Turn that shit off. That aside, theater-wise, Dolby. Dolby visual.

**John:** Chris, I remember when THX came out. It was an accreditation system, basically making sure that the theater itself actually met certain standards. I remember a THX guy came to one of our classes at USC and said, “If you have a choice of where to sit in a theater, you should sit about two thirds of the way back and in the center, because that’s basically where the filmmaker probably was situated as they were mixing the film.” Is that still an accurate way of thinking about, given your druthers, where a person might want to choose to sit?

**Chris:** I can tell you that when I go to test movies, I end up in the back of the theater most often. It’s the only time I sit in the back of the theater. It’s truly horrible back there, no matter how good the auditorium is, because you’re in the surrounds. You’re not in the center five one. You’re not in that center channel. They’re fairly well balanced. If you’re in the center, anywhere between the front and the middle of the auditorium generally, I don’t sit that far back.

When I’m mixing the movie and our mixing stage, the thing we’re constantly reminding ourselves of is that you will never see the movie or hear the movie as good as the filmmakers do on their state-of-the-art mixing stage. We actually have settings whereby, because we know that there are going to be projectors with a shitty bulb, if you have a scene that’s dark, we’ll deliberately dim it, to look at it and say, is there going to be any detail when you’re watching this in a shitty theater that hasn’t been updated in 12 years, because they don’t make enough money? We’ll deaden the sound. We’ll do stuff like that.

That’s why those things are really important. That’s why when you see Dolby Atmos, you know you are getting a quality, standardized, and probably fairly recently updated system. If you do that, Dolby Atmos is pretty immersive, regardless of where you’re sitting in the theater. It’s different from theater to theater. It’s hard to say definitively.

**John:** My final question for you, Chris, is, Nicole Kidman in the AMC ad talks about sound you can feel. As you are mixing sound, are you only thinking about the actual sound that you’re able to project, or is there something about… Some of these theaters now actually have special extra vibrational things. Is that something you now consider with the kind of movies you’re making?

**Chris:** You will hear more and more a term, PLF, premium large format. Premium large format, there is IMAX, there’s Dolby Vision, there’s 4DX, which is what you’re talking about where it has the shaky seats, and there’s one called ScreenX, which is now they have screens on the side of the theater.

**John:** Our Koreatown theater has that, which is really cool.

**Chris:** When I first heard about it, I thought, what? Then I saw. Like 3D, it’s something where it can be done right, or the movie suits it or the movie doesn’t. Sometimes the transfer really works, and sometimes it doesn’t. It depends on how much time and work and effort they put into it. Yes, sound you could feel, absolutely. Even if I’m doing something that’s not 4DX or ScreenX, the mixes I like are mixes that you can feel. There are elements in Dead Reckoning, for instance, that you primarily feel. You’ll never experience them on home video the way that you will in a theater. You’ll hear it in home video, but in a theater you’ll actually physically feel it. It’s actually something we’ve done with a malevolent force. In our movie, we created a sound element that is as much physical as it is audible.

**John:** Awesome. Chris McQuarrie, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, Chris.

**Chris:** Thank you.

Links:

* Chris McQuarrie on [IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003160/) and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/christophermcquarrie)
* [The looming threat of AI to Hollywood, and why it should matter to you](https://www.vox.com/culture/23700519/writers-strike-ai-2023-wga) by Alissa Wilkinson for Vox
* [Anker 3-in-1 Cube with MagSafe](https://www.anker.com/products/y1811?variant=42206465327254)
* [Signal](https://signal.org/en/)
* [GoodRx](https://www.goodrx.com/)
* [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](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/) on Instagram
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Nico Mansy ([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/600v2standard.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

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

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

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

Screenwriting Q&A

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

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.