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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 566: Not Controversial At All, Transcript

September 27, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/not-controversial-at-all).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 566 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we have the incredible Ashley Nicole Black filling in for Craig. She’s a writer, an actor, a producer, a dog mom. She’s everything you could hope to ever be. Welcome back, Ashley.

**Ashley Nicole Black:** Hello. I will try to fill in Craig’s shoes and talk about Chernobyl or something.

**John:** Yeah, and puzzles. Mention puzzles a lot. I think I emailed you about your incredible hosting of the WGA Awards a while back. I think it’s fantastic that you show up to this podcast still wearing that incredible dress. Just last night you were hosting on the Creative Arts Emmys. You were one of the presenters. Talk to us about that.

**Ashley:** Sam Richardson and I presented the awards to the makeup artists, one of my favorite parts of production, so I was very happy to do that. It was really fun. They make it really easy and fun, actually.

**John:** Now something like this, we were talking that there’s a New York version and an LA version, and we’re going to cut it all together. What was the process like being in there for this? How long did the Emmys take for you?

**Ashley:** I was actually surprised, and I don’t know why I was, because obviously, they do this every year, and it’s a very professional production. They have it so perfectly foolproof. Someone walks you exactly where you’re going to go. They point you exactly where to stand. There’s just no way to mess it up, which is really nice.

**John:** That’s great. Since you’re a guest on this podcast, I want to make it just as straightforward and simple, so I pitched some really light and breezy topics for you. I think we’ll talk about abortion, cultural appropriation, fan culture and critics, so just no sweat. This will be an easy, easy, breezy podcast for you.

**Ashley:** At least I don’t have to wear heels.

**John:** That’s the whole bonus. We’ll also ask you some TV questions, because you are the person who knows about television. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, let’s throw a party. I want to talk to you about entertaining at home in 2022.

**Ashley:** That’s my actual area of expertise, so this is going to be good.

**John:** I’m looking forward to it. Reminder to everybody that we have a live show coming up here in Los Angeles. We already emailed out to our Premium subscribers about first dibs on tickets. As we record this, I don’t know if there are any tickets left for the live show, but there will be a livestream. If you’re a person outside of Los Angeles or a person who didn’t get tickets and want to watch the livestream of the show, you can follow the link in the show notes to that. We’re so excited to have an audience, to be back in a theater telling jokes and hopefully learning about screenwriting. Please come to our live show, or at least virtually come to our live show when we throw that.

Other news, WGA West elections. Every year we elect new people to the WGA board. I know some of the incumbents. There’s also really good newcomers. We’re not going to do a normal Scriptnotes where we talk through all the candidates and who’s great and who’s not so great. They’re all kind of good, so I would just say read through the statements, pick people that you really like. Ashley, have you already voted?

**Ashley:** No, I’m not a member of WGA West. I’m a WGA East. I haven’t voted yet, because I feel like I don’t know a ton about the candidates, so I’m still figuring that out. I know which issues are important, but then you have to see which candidates agree with you. Still figuring it out.

**John:** Still figuring it out. As I look through the possibilities, I’m always just trying to make sure that I get diverse representation of different kinds of writer careers, because in our guild, we have screenwriters, we have television writers on series, we have comedy variety writers. We have a whole range of people. I want to make sure we have at least somebody in that room who knows all this background, so I’m trying to pick my candidates based on that. I always encourage people to look through the candidates’ statements, which are really good this year. Everyone do fill out your ballot and vote for your WGA West or your WGA East elections. We’ve stalled long enough, Ashley. Got to get to something challenging here.

Let’s talk about abortion. A group called Showrunners for Abortion Rights had a letter that went out that was asking the studios to clarify their policies on what they’re going to do to protect their crews and staff in states where abortion access is going to be increasingly restricted. I know this was a subject that was near and dear to your heart on one of our previous Scriptnotes. Your One Cool Thing was an abortion fund. This is something you’ve been thinking about since before this decision came down.

**Ashley:** Yeah, and it’s an interesting time that we’re in, because obviously, abortion has been a legal issue for so long, and now it’s, for us at least in entertainment, but I think for a lot of people, transitioned to be a workplace safety issue. I think that that’s the transformation that people are slowing wrapping their heads around, including our employers, that now you’re in a situation where if you’re sending employees to work in a different state, they have different access to health care based on where they’re working, and also different access to human rights, which is not a typical situation for a boss or an employer to be dealing with. We’re in an uncharted time right now.

**John:** Absolutely. As we talked about on the show before, Craig said maybe we shouldn’t be filming in states that have these abortion restrictions. I wanted to offer a point/counterpoint, two of our listeners who wrote in with emails talking about the two sides of that issue. Megana, if you can talk us through these two emails.

**Megana Rao:** Alex wrote in and said, “In Episode 561, Craig made a plea to stop working in states in which there are abortion bans and called out Georgia specifically. This isn’t the first time Georgia has faced boycotts, but I implore you to reconsider your public support for a boycott of the Georgia entertainment industry. I’m a Georgia-based writer and actor and a supporter of women’s rights and abortion access. This state and the entertainment industry here is full of women who are fighting on the front lines to keep abortion safe and available for women, especially those who are most vulnerable. I fail to see how a boycott of the Georgia entertainment industry would do anything but starve these brave women of resources and support to continue their fight. I believe your plea should be the opposite of a boycott, to instead flood the state with people and funding to help it flip fully blue and become a safe haven for women seeking abortions.”

**John:** This perspective on a boycott of Georgia is talking about the harm that was going to happen to the women who would otherwise be employed in the state in productions and such. It really is a thing to consider. We have moved so much film and TV production to Georgia that if you suddenly pull that out, what are the people who are trying to make their living there supposed to do? Ashley, what’s your feedback?

**Ashley:** And some people who moved there because Hollywood put so much production there. It’s like it really is you’re playing with people’s bottom lines there. It’s really tough. I don’t know the answer. I don’t know that there is one right answer. The one right answer is to have universal human rights in every state in the country. That’s not something Hollywood can make happen on our own.

It is really tough, because I do understand this person’s point that you’re saying in support of women’s rights, you’re abandoning the women in Georgia, but also at the same time, if you don’t do that, you’re asking women from other states to go to Georgia and be in a dangerous situation. There is no right answer, unfortunately.

**John:** Let’s listen to Erica’s perspective on this.

**Megana:** Erica says, “I wanted to add a point that a showrunner friend made to me. We’re not just discussing access to abortion here. I worked well into my pregnancies. If I’d been working on a set in one of those states and an emergent situation developed, like preeclampsia, ruptured placenta, the chances that I would receive the best possible care are severely diminished. Doctors in these states will not and cannot legally provide an abortion until a woman is actively dying, not even if the fetus is not viable. If there’s a heartbeat, the mother has to be actually dying, and then it may be too late, or she may have complications related to not being treated properly and quickly. Our childbearing colleagues are taking a risk when they take a job in these states. I don’t think any of us should have to turn down work we love and want to do because we’re afraid we may not get proper health care. I’m with you guys. We should pull out of states that fail to provide health care for women. I don’t think women should be calculating their life risk versus career benefit when taking a job as a writer, director, actor, or crew member.”

**John:** This is a lot of really good points on the other side here. Erica’s talking about if you are a person who could potentially get pregnant, you may decide not to even take that job because it’s in a state where you don’t feel safe working. That is not good for this individual person, but also for the industry. You’re not going to be able to get the people you want to get working on that production because they don’t feel safe there.

**Ashley:** They’re also making the point that the issue goes beyond abortion. It’s health care. There have even been stories in these states of people not being able to get their arthritis medication, because technically the arthritis medication could be used to cause an abortion or whatever. It’s not just women. It’s not just people who may need abortions. It’s really everyone is just going to have a lower standard of health care in this state. Some people may opt out of even taking those jobs. The people who would have to opt out are people who are already grossly underrepresented in our industry.

**John:** My suspicion is that we’re going to find coming out of this is a lot of showrunners and other people who have the authority to decide where they’re going to shoot. They may not publicly say that they’re avoiding Georgia or they’re avoiding Texas or a certain state for a reason, but they may just quietly not go there. I’ll be curious to see whether a year from now the number of productions is down or things have changed, not because people have actually made a statement saying this is the reason we’re not going there. It’s just because it’s just easier to not go to one of those states, which is sort of a soft boycott. It’s a boycott in all but name.

**Ashley:** I think that’s true. I think that’ll be true also outside of the work that we do. I can see college students. As a parent, do you want to send your student to a state where you know they won’t be able to get health care if they end up needing it? I think there’s going to be a soft divestment across the board. Politically it’s really scary for the states to become even more siloed from each other when people are not taking jobs and going to college in different states and moving around and becoming even more separate. It’s not a great path to go down, but I think it’s where we’ll be going.

**John:** When we had Liz Hannah on the show most recently, she was talking about the show she was filming. She was in I think Georgia for… It could’ve been North Carolina. She was outside of Los Angeles for a long time, and she became pregnant while she was there and was not revealing that she was pregnant. Her pregnancy was a big factor in this production that she was doing. It was nothing she could’ve anticipated. I just wonder whether a lot of people are going to be going into productions thinking, okay, maybe for something short, we can get in, get out, but for something that is 8 episodes, 10 episodes, it’s longer.

Craig and I did go back and forth a lot about are we going to go to the Austin Film Festival, are we contributing to policies we don’t like by going to the Austin Film Festival. We decided it’s probably better for us to go and go loudly. Again, it’s short. We’re in and we’re out. We’re not assuming any risk to ourselves or to people who might want to come to it. It’s all complicated. It’s all a factor. Until there’s universal agreement on what those rights should be, it’s going to be tough to sort out.

**Ashley:** It’s unfair that we as individuals are now all having to figure this out for ourselves. The whole point of democracy is that we have a government who makes safe choices for us as a group hopefully, and instead now we’re in this situation.

**John:** Let’s bring it back to where we started, which is the showrunners who are coming to the studio saying, “You need to tell us what your policies are going to be,” which is probably the middle ground here, which basically if you are going to have productions in these places, how are we going to make sure that not just writers but directors and actors and crew are going to be able to have their health care needs met if they’re in one of these states where abortion is prohibited, where there are going to be policies there that are going to be interfering with people’s ability to get the care they need.

To date, we haven’t gotten great answers back from a lot of the studios. That’s what the next round of pushing is, is trying to make sure there’s consistent policies for studios that’s not just ad hoc one production at a time.

**Ashley:** I think the studios maybe would’ve preferred not to take this on, but it’s like, unfortunately, this is what it is. If you’re asking people to travel for work, these are things that you have to think about. There’s also a lot of tricky legal issues in it for them. If some states are making it illegal to help someone obtain an abortion, if the studio does help you travel or whatever, then they’re legally liable. It is a very tricky issue. It will take time for them to figure it out, regardless of what their excitement level is to do it.

**John:** For sure. We have explored that topic. We got through it. Take a breath. Let’s do something much easier here. We have two questions about photos. Megana, can you help us out?

**Megana:** Michelle asks, “Months ago you all mentioned putting a link to a song within a script. I feel like Megana was the one who mentioned it, and I can’t find it in the show transcripts, but it’s driving me crazy. Is it appropriate to put a link to a song or a specific image in a pdf script? If so, how would one do that?”

**John:** We found it. It was Episode 533 where we talked about putting links into songs and to images. Ashley, do you ever do this? In any of your scripts, have you put in a link to a song or something you want people to click through to see?

**Ashley:** No.

**John:** How would you feel about that if that were in a script you read?

**Ashley:** I’m curious what your answer is, because you’re much more experienced than I am. I would feel like the script was written by a young person. If I was reading a script, and it had a link in it, I’d be like, “Oh, this person’s young.” I think for songs, I usually just put the title and the artist of the song, and the person can stop and look it up if they want. For an image, I would probably just describe the image and probably what it makes the character feel like to look at it. I’ve never thought about putting a link in a script.

**John:** What I hear you saying there is you don’t want to stop the read, saying you’ve got to stop everything you’re doing and click through to hear, because they may never come back to the script. It’s also the script’s job to convey what the thing is.

That said, I’ve started putting links in scripts to certain things when it was important, when I needed to get a very specific reference on something so people could see what something was. For a musical, I have put in links to this is what the song sounds like, so you can actually play the song while you’re reading through the lyrics. I have done that.

In Highland, it’s easy to do. Links just work in the new Highland. I tried it in Fade In, just to make sure it would work. If it works in Fade In, it probably works in Final Draft. It’s a thing you can do, but not everyone’s going to love it. Just be aware that it’s a choice you’re making. Megana, when you were doing it, it was for a pilot?

**Megana:** Yeah, it was for a pilot that was also a musical, so I wanted the references to be in there.

**Ashley:** I also wrote a pilot that was a musical. I wrote the lyrics in the script, and then the music was just sent along also, so they could click on and listen to it. When I did that, the producers were like, “Actually, don’t even put the lyrics in the script. Just describe the song and include the song in the email.”

**John:** Lots of good choices there. It’s going to depend on what you’re doing and how you want to do it. I tend to put full lyrics in things, particularly if it’s specifically moving the story forward, like it’s doing dialog work. If it’s just a moment where it’s the song, and that’s the whole experience, then yeah, just summarizing it or conveying the feel for it is probably going to be more important than what every lyric was in there. Let’s continue with Brett’s question here.

**Megana:** Brett from New York says, “In your recent VFX episode, you all discussed practical photos versus VFX replacements of photos in movies. Craig mentioned that printed Photoshopped photos always look really bad. This is something I’ve noticed as well, and it always manages to take me out of the movie. The weird thing is Photoshop can be really convincing, especially in the year 2022. My question is, when it comes to movies, why is Photoshop often so noticeably terrible?”

**John:** Ashley, is this a thing you’ve seen? I feel like whenever I see the framed photo of here’s the family, it’s like, oh, that doesn’t feel quite right. Have you seen convincing versions of it?

**Ashley:** I didn’t think of it this way, but Brett is right. When you see Photoshops on the internet, they look really real, and on TV they often don’t. I think he has something there. I think possibly it’s because they’re taking… Sometimes it’s like they’ve taken a photo of one actor on set and a photo of another actor from 10 years ago and are trying to put them together or they’re de-aging actors. If you’re trying to print that out in time to shoot it practically, that’s just really, really fast. It may not be enough time to do that practically, whereas if you put it in in post, you can have more time to get it looking good.

**John:** If I remember right, in the episode, they were talking about how a lot of it is just time, because they’ll put the little green card inside the picture frame, knowing we’re going to put that in later on, because we’re not going to have time to get something that looks really good right now.

I also wonder if it’s just whose responsibility it is, because it’s going to be art department. Unless it’s a physically held prop, it’s going to probably be the art department who’s going to be responsible for doing that. It’s not their expertise, so they’re going to go out to somebody to do it. They may just not have the best resource to go out and find that, because they’re busy doing a thousand other things or trying to get the furniture in the room, not necessarily the photo inside the frame. It may just be a matter of specialty there. Photoshops can be really good, really convincing. It’s just planning. There’s a lot to plan for with a production.

**Ashley:** I feel like just a lot of times it’s a picture of these two actors when they were children or whatever. Just hire two kids and take a picture of them. I think you think it’s cheaper to do the Photoshop, but it doesn’t cost that much to take a picture of a kid. By the time you spend hours on that Photoshop, you might’ve spent more money on it anyway.

**John:** You could take a photo of two kids, but you can also probably find a photo you can buy of two kids that looks realistic and believable, because as an audience, we want to believe that those are the actors. You’re pointing the camera at them. We’re going to believe that it’s them. That they are believably children is more important than that they are necessarily direct matches for who those two kids are.

**Ashley:** That’s how I feel.

**John:** Now we’re going to get to some questions that you are especially well suited to answer here. Megana, Andrew has questions about TV.

**Megana:** Andrew wrote in and says, “I promise I’m not a total dum-dum, but I’ve somehow remained ignorant on a certain question, even after listening to 95% of the entire Scriptnotes catalog. What are the differences and similarities between the following TV jobs: showrunner, head writer, creator, and executive producer. In case there’s multiple executive producers in television, I’ll clarify that I’m referring to the one that gets called the EP. At one point in my life, I used these phrases interchangeably. Then I listened to John’s interview with Stephen Schiff in Episode 337, and now my understanding here is just one big shrug emoji. Further confusing things for me is that I don’t see all of these terms in TV credits or on IMDb. How do I know based on credits who the primary creative voice is behind a show?”

**John:** Lots to go through here. Let’s take these terms one at a time and see if we can figure them out. Ashley Nicole Black, how do we know who the creator of a show is?

**Ashley:** First of all, I have to say I love this question. I have literally gotten this question from friends who are in a writers’ room, being like, “Hey, so I’ve been here for two weeks. Who do you think my boss is?” I’m like, “Talk to me about the body language in the room. We can figure this out.”

**John:** That’s great.

**Ashley:** Andrew should not feel bad about not understanding this. It is genuinely very confusing. The creator is usually the person who originally came up with the idea for a show. That’s just a genius idea that sprung from their head or something based on their life or, and this is a little weird, but if the show’s based on a book or a movie, but they’re the ones who turned it into the TV show, they’re still called the creator, even though someone else originated that idea.

**John:** It is a WGA credit. WGA determines created by as a credit. You’re going to have to have written something. You’re going to have to have written the thing that is the template for what the whole thing is. Craig got a created by credit on Chernobyl. Most of the sitcoms you’ve ever seen are going to have a created by credit. Does The Black Lady Sketch Show have a created by credit?

**Ashley:** Yeah, Robin.

**John:** Robin is the creator of that show. Megana and I were talking with a woman who had a show, and she was the creator, but she was not the showrunner, because she was a playwright, she was brand new at this. She created the show. She was the underlying vision of it all, but a different person was brought in to be the showrunner. She worked with this person, showrunner, to actually get the show up and going.

**Ashley:** Also, depending on when that person comes in. If they come in during development, they may also be called a co-creator. If they come in after, then they may just be called the showrunner.

**John:** Let’s talk about the word showrunner, because a showrunner is not a credit you’re going to see in IMDb. Showrunner is a term of art for the person who is responsible for the overall running of the show on a creative level. There’s still going to be producers who are drilling down to every little bit of the budget, who are going to be doing logistics, and other folks. Can you talk us through a showrunner like you were on Ted Lasso? What does a showrunner on a show like that do?

**Ashley:** The showrunner on a scripted show is running the whole process. They’re running the writers’ room. They’re running set when you’re on set. They’re running post. They’re just the boss through the whole process. Where there might be other mini bosses at different parts of the process, they’re the ones who are over the whole thing.

**John:** Now how about in comedy and variety? You were on Samantha Bee’s show or even other sketch shows. What’s a showrunner like there?

**Ashley:** There, the job of showrunner can be split into two jobs of showrunner and head writer. The head writer is running the writers’ room and overseeing all of the departments in terms of getting what was written realized. You may also have a showrunner who is a separate person, or the showrunner and head writer can be the same person.

**John:** I think Saturday Night Live, I think Colin Jost is the head writer. Tina Fey was the head writer for a time. In script TV we think of them as being the showrunner, but Lorne Michaels is probably really the showrunner, is probably the person who’s most responsible for getting the show up every week.

Head writer is also a term though, confusingly, we’ve seen with some of the Marvel projects. The writer we’d normally think of as being the showrunner doesn’t have that title, so they’re listed as head writer. There’s either, quote unquote, “no showrunner,” or the director also has some of the showrunning capabilities, and so the head writer is the person responsible for delivering the scripts, but is not necessarily the person responsible for delivering the finished cut to the studio.

**Ashley:** Another term that’s not on here is the number two, which when my friend was like, “Who do I tell that I need a day off?” I’m like, “Who’s the showrunner? Who’s the number two?” Sometimes the number two is the person who’s doing the day-to-day running of the room or of set. They’re the person who you would talk to about personnel issues and stuff like that. Maybe the showrunner is just doing the higher order of creative things, or maybe not. It differs based on how every different showrunner runs their show.

**John:** If you’re a writer on one of these projects, you’re going to have to figure this out, because if you’re on a Shondaland show, maybe she’s directly involved in all the stuff that’s going on, but maybe she’s not, because it’s on its 17th season and there’s a different person who’s responsible for that stuff. You will have to figure it out. There’s no great way looking at the credits to know who that person is at any given point. You just have to ask and figure out who the person is responsible for what kinds of things, who’s the person who’s looking at every cut.

On a Greg Berlanti show, in the Greg Berlanti universe, there are shows he’s probably very directly involved, and there are shows where he’s not really directly involved. Instead, he is an executive producer. Now we need to talk about executive producer and how it’s a meaningful and a meaningless title, because there’s so many executive producers listed on any given show.

**Ashley:** There are so many different kinds. Any show that I’ve worked on, there’s executive producers who you work with every single day, and then there’s people who the first time you ever see their names is in the credits when the show rolls.

**John:** I was a huge fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and you see Sandy Gallin as an executive producer. I’m like, “Oh, that person must be really involved in the day to day.” No, that person produced the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie but was not involved directly in the series itself, but has EP credit on every single episode of the show.

**Ashley:** Andrew’s not wrong to be confused.

**John:** It’s totally natural to be confused there. I will say that one of the things that film has tried to do is to make it more clear who was the producer of the film, who was the person who carried over the line. When you see the PGA credit at the end of a person’s name, that’s meant to indicate this person was really responsible for producing the movie. We don’t quite have that in television. One way that Andrew could help figure this out though is the person whose executive producer card comes first at the end of an episode tends to be one of the more important people, or the last executive producer card before we get to the director and writer tends to be the more crucial person, but you can’t always count on that.

**Ashley:** It does change over time, because let’s say in the first season that person was producing the show. In a Season 5, they may not be around anymore, and someone else is, but they still have that credit. It’s difficult to tell just from looking at the credits.

**John:** We have a good follow-up question here from Tim.

**Megana:** Tim asks, “I’m a baby writer with few credits and decent connections who’s about to take out a pitch for a one-hour drama with a small production company. Should I try to land a showrunner before we take out our pitch, or can we try to package other forms of talent first and try to get a showrunner after we land a deal?”

**John:** Before we get to this question, Ashley, how do you feel about the term “baby writer?”

**Ashley:** I know some people don’t like it. I don’t care either way about it. I can see why it’s literally infantilizing. I can also see why there needs to be some sort of term for someone who is a writer but maybe doesn’t have the production experience or whatever, because I think people feel like they have to get to a certain level before they can call themselves a writer. I don’t agree with that. If you sit down and write a script, you’re a writer. There is a difference between, “I sat down and wrote a script,” and, “I’ve had five years of production experience and now I know which EP is the one to ask for money from,” or whatever.

**John:** I go back and forth on “baby writer,” because I think when someone self-describes as a baby writer, I get it, because it’s trying to make it clear, like, “I’m new to this.” It can be a term of love. You want to protect a baby writer. I get that. That infantilizing thing can be real, so a new writer, maybe a less experienced writer may be a better way to describe that thing. Let’s get into the meat of Tim’s question, which is should he try to attach a showrunner to this pitch before it goes out. Ashley, what’s your instinct here?

**Ashley:** I think it really depends on what kind of pitch it is. This is another overused term. If the pitch is, quote unquote, “execution-dependent,” it can be really helpful to have a more experienced showrunner in your camp, because for example, if you’re writing the next Jurassic Park, from hearing that pitch, the studio knows, okay, we know what this is going to be. There’s going to be big dinosaurs, and they’re going to escape, and probably someone’s going to have to save the day. If your pitch is the next Friends, it’s friends living in an apartment, they’re like, “We have no assurances that you as a baby writer can execute that.” If you had say one of the showrunners from Friends who’s now attached to your project, it’s like, “Oh, we know they can execute that. If they’ve chosen to hitch their wagon to you, then they have some belief in you that would make us feel confident as a studio.” I think it depends on what kind of pitch it is. The more execution-dependent it is, the more it would help to have a more experienced person with you.

**John:** I think what Tim is recognizing is at some point he is going to get partnered with somebody, because he doesn’t have the experience to actually run a show. Somebody else is going to come in. He’s wondering, okay, if I reach out and find the person and bring that person on now, I at least have maybe a little bit more control over that, which I get. In my experience, it can be tough to get that showrunner attached before you go out with a project, because the people you want are going to be busy. They’re going to be doing lots of other things. They may not be available to read your thing or meet with you, or they don’t want to take their time to attach themselves to a project that may or may not happen down the road. Some people will. Some people won’t.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is certain places love certain showrunners. They have good relationships with certain showrunners. You might attach somebody who has a really terrible relationship at NBC, and therefore NBC’s off the table.

**Ashley:** That was the other thing I was going to say is the studio will have people who are on deals, people that are already paying. They’re going to want to attach someone they’re already paying rather than paying a new person. Also, if you have to find a showrunner, that’s going to be very difficult. Ideally, that would be someone you already had a relationship with, someone who’s a mentor to you, who is invested in you and wants to help you to the next level. If that person exists, then yeah, absolutely, you should be working with them. If you’re trying to find a stranger, you might be better off pitching to the studio, and if they like it, them connecting you to a stranger who they have more investment in and are more willing to want to buy something from.

**John:** It’s no surprise that Mike Schur is an EP listed on a lot of other great comedies, because those are intended to be things where writers who were in his room, who he’s worked with before, said, “Hey, I have this time,” and he can go out and godfather it and help get it set up. That’s a very natural way this works. He has relationships at different places to make that possible. A person who might really just be a fantastic showrunner to carry this over the finish line may not have those relationships or may not be the right person for a lot of different places. I would say unless your managers or your agency really has a perfect fit who’s going to be just the right person for you, I wouldn’t burn a lot of time trying to attach that person before you go out with a pitch.

**Ashley:** You’re almost better off spending that time looking for a gig in the room. Then you’ll get to know that showrunner. Maybe that person won’t turn out to be your mentor. There’s no guarantees. You’ll also learn a lot from being in a room. Developing organic relationships with people is always more worth your time than cold calling and trying to find someone.

**John:** Let’s get into another more challenging topic on cultural appropriation. We have an email here from Kevin.

**Megana:** Kevin wrote in and said, “I thought you might like to share this resource with your listeners. It’s a book and now series of writing workshops by Nisi Shawl and Cynthia Ward called Writing the Other. Their focus is prose writing, but the relevant lessons translates to any medium. I know you and Craig are not necessarily down with the whole writing workshop industrial complex, but I found the exercises and thinking around how to approach the topic useful and helpful. If nothing else, I think their book is something most writers should read.”

**John:** I was familiar with the book, but I hadn’t seen the workshop. I bought workshop, and Megana and I watched the video and looked through the stuff. There was some good stuff there, and there was some stuff which didn’t all land for me. I wanted to bring up the topic, because it’s not just theoretical. I was actually on a Zoom this past week with the studio, and they were asking some cultural appropriation questions about this project I’m working on. It was one of the first times someone just said the words out loud. I think it’s always been in the background of conversations, at least for the last five years or so. Is this a thing in the projects you’ve been working on, Ashley, that comes up?

**Ashley:** I am a Black woman, so probably not as much. No, also, because what’s interesting to me about the idea of a book or a workshop, and if it’s helpful, people should read it or take the workshop, but because I mostly write television, you are writing with a group of people, so someone of that culture is available to you. You should find them and hire them. You can read a hundred books, and to me that’ll never be as useful as just having that person or hopefully people in the room with you to speak up for their culture and their experiences. In film, it’s a little different, because people do tend to write films alone. Again, nothing’s stopping you from bringing in another writer at a certain stage in the process and making sure you’ve gotten it all right and hopefully paying that person. It’s such a collaborative medium that you don’t necessarily need to ever be appropriating because there are so many… You have to have collaborators to get TV and film made.

**John:** Something you brought up on an earlier episode was you have people in a room who are representing a range of viewpoints and backgrounds and experiences to make sure that you’re not relying on the one Black person to stand in for all Black people, particularly if that person is not a high-level writer. It can be exhausting to have to be the go-to, “Oh, is this okay? Is this okay?” person.

**Ashley:** Yeah, a hundred percent. Then it’s an extra job that person is doing on top of their writing job, whereas if there are several people… I just worked on a show that had a really diverse, really great writers’ room. The other Black writer and I disagreed on almost everything. I love him, but we just… I’m from the West Coast. He’s from the East Coast. We disagreed on a lot of things, and that’s productive. If there was only one of us, then you would be taking just my word for it. This other point of view does exist, and luckily it was also in the room.

**John:** Let’s talk about cultural appropriation, because it’s not quite the same thing as representation or inclusion or sensitivity. It’s a bigger macro idea, like can you take something that’s out there and pull it into your project and what are the best ways of thinking about that. I guess we have to start with the rabbit hole of what is even culture. Culture is anything that’s discussed on the podcast Las Culturistas. That’s what we’ll decide there.

**Ashley:** Agreed. I’ll take that definition.

**John:** I’ll say culture is the things that are innate and special to a group of people. Culture’s always about groups. It’s not about an individual thing. That could be language. It can be food, religion, music, arts. They’re generally markers of group identity. Ethnicities and national origins are cultures. Ballroom drag is a culture. Liking something or being a fan of something isn’t necessarily a culture. Being a super-fan of the Big Bang Theory, that’s not culture. That’s a thing you like a lot, but there’s not a group identity formed around Big Bang heads, at least as far as I know.

**Ashley:** I think a part of the appropriation conversation too is a lot of times, and not always, it’s things that a group of people have been oppressed for. One of the things that comes up a lot is hair. There are specific Black hairstyles. Can a white person do that hairstyle? The reason why it’s a sticky issue is because Black people have literally been fired from their jobs for wearing that hairstyle. It becomes something more than just, oh, it’s a fun hairstyle that we can all share when it’s something that people have been oppressed for.

**John:** I think sometimes people feel like, “I don’t have a culture,” or, “Culture’s a thing that other people have, but I don’t really have a culture.” It’s because they’re generally in the dominant culture, so they’re not even aware that they’re in this culture. It’s the way fish don’t recognize that they’re in water. They’re all around it all the time. If you’re reaching and pulling something from a culture that’s not your own, you might say, “It’s fair. They can take stuff from mine.” It’s like, no, there’s a power imbalance there as well.

On a writing level, I think you’re going to ask yourself, “Am I the right person to write this, or should it be somebody who’s part of that culture, who should be writing this idea or writing this true story or writing something?” As we focus mostly on writing on this podcast, am I the person who should be doing this, or is it something that’s better done by a different person?

**Ashley:** Also, why and from what perspective? Me personally, I was raised Christian. If I were going to write a story about another religion, am I writing it as that person experiences it or am I writing it as a member of the dominant culture, going, “Hey, look at this different thing.” What’s the best way to actually tell that story? Might it be better told from a first-person perspective? I think sometimes people may not even realize that they’re not in the POV of their character. They’re showing you a character.

**John:** One of the things, going back to things you can do as a group that you can’t do individually, I was thinking about Seth Meyers jokes you can’t tell. This is where he’ll have a desk bit where he’ll bring up two writers on staff. He’ll read the setup, and they’ll read the punchline. They’re basically jokes that would not be appropriate for him as a straight white guy to be telling but that are funny. It’s a chance to put them out in the world. Amber Ruffin can tell jokes that he can’t tell, using the platform to get that material out there.

**Ashley:** I love that segment. Amber and Jenny are actually two of my best friends. What it necessitates in Seth is his ability to share the screen. I think that’s actually the tough part of it. I think a lot of people are on board with the idea that, “I guess there are jokes I can’t tell, and I won’t tell them.” The next step that not everyone is on board is, “And so I will push my chair to the side and share the screen with these two other people and allow them to tell them, because they’re good jokes, and they should be told, even if they’re not for me.” I feel like that’s the next step we’re trying to get to.

**John:** We’re writing podcasts about, as we talked about, showrunning and putting stuff together. A lot of the choices we make are going to be reflected in other departments. It’s going to be reflected in wardrobe and hair and makeup and music, top to bottom. There can be things that aren’t necessarily on the page but are going to be reflected on the screen that can feel like cultural appropriation. I guess that’s where you need to be mindful of who you’re hiring and how you’re bringing in outside experts maybe to watch what you’re doing to make sure that it’s appropriate, not appropriation but appropriate, and reflects your actual ambitions with the piece.

**Ashley:** You have to get I think more granular than people are used to or maybe want to, because I think a lot of times people have the same department heads that they work with all the time. Let’s say in this project it’s more diverse or you’re dealing with a group of people that you haven’t written about on other shows. That same department head may not be able to service that story. We just have to be honest about that and granular about it. When they say, “Don’t worry, I’m going to hire someone from that community,” are they bringing them in for one day? I know this is a big issue in wardrobe, where they’ll bring in day players to dress those characters on that day. Are you really getting the best work when that person is there for one day versus there the entire production to be able to speak to everything, to have enough power as an actual member of a staff versus a day player, to be able to speak up if something isn’t working? Those are the kind of things that showrunners don’t usually involve themselves in, but you have to if you are dealing with a culture that’s not your own or that isn’t often well represented.

**John:** Ashley, on seasons of Black Lady Sketch Show where you are both writing and performing, did things come up ever, as you talk about, like, “That’s not a thing we could actually touch, because I think it’s too specific to one group that we can’t bring it into the… It doesn’t feel like our joke to be able to make.”

**Ashley:** There were definitely conversations. That was a writers’ room that was all Black. Then there become issues around class. Obviously, a lot of people who work in television are in one social class, and a lot of people who watch it are in another one. What can we authentically speak to?

There are difficult conversations to be had about what is the point of view of this, who are we celebrating, who are we making fun of, and then also being really specific, because that’s a cable show, the writers’ room is gone when the show is being produced, being really specific in your script of what these people are dressed like, what they look like. Especially in a sketch show, regardless of culture, in sketch comedy, you really have to keep your foot on the neck of how jokey things get, because man, do costumes love to go wild. They’re like, “Isn’t this outfit hilarious?” It’s like, “Yeah, but no human being would ever wear it. We got to bring it back in.” Especially when you’re dealing with culturally tricky issues, you don’t want it to start looking like the person is the joke versus the scenario or the script is the joke.

We would actually put cover pages on our sketches. I wrote that Basic Ball sketch, and just being really, really specific on what the casting and the wardrobe and everything should be to get that point across that these are queer people who are basic, not that we’re making fun of queer people or calling queer people basic. Everything has to be so right for this expression to make sense and be what we wanted it to be and not be the default that people expect, which is, oh, we’re making fun of this group of people.

**John:** We’re getting back to one of our favorite words on this podcast, which is specificity, which is making sure that you’re really narrowing down to these people as characters rather than as broad types. As long as you’re talking about characters and what characters are doing and what they are wearing and saying and doing and their motivations, you’re in much safer territory than if you’re just putting a stereotype out there or a type of person out there, which is especially challenging with sketch, because it all happens so fast.

**Ashley:** It’s actually, I would say, made me a much better writer, which is why we are always advocating, I know you guys do this on the podcast all the time, for writers to be involved in production, because when you have those conversations and you found out what that wardrobe person or that hair person or that set dresser thought you meant when they read your script, it makes you a better writer. You’re like, “Oh, I see how that word threw you off. Okay, I’m going to think about that more carefully.”

I had a conversation with another department because I described characters as rich. They’re like, “What does rich mean? We saw a $2 million house and we saw a $12 million house. Which one should we shoot in?” It’s like, oh yeah, that makes a really big difference. I think it makes your scripts better when you get to have those conversations with people.

**John:** Sounds great. Let’s get to a potentially simpler question. This is from Nick.

**Megana:** Nick asks, “I’ve been pitching different TV show concepts in general meetings, and 9 out of 10 have enthusiastically asked to read this one specific idea, so I went off and wrote it. After a few drafts, I got script coverage. The analyst, who is usually extremely critical of my work, rated my pilot in the top 3% and said they were supremely confident in the salability of it and that it would entice viewers from all across the globe, and if made, had the chance to acquire a cult status, much like Breaking Bad or Money Heist. I also got similar unusually positive and excited feedback from trusted colleagues. I sent the pilot to my managers, and they said it was a difficult project to go out and sell, and told me to shelve the script and focus my time on developing new ideas. I guess I’m confused and frustrated. When I pitched this around, executives seemed really excited about it, and when I sent the script around, I got the same response. My questions are, should I ask my managers to at least send it to the executives who have asked to read it, if they don’t want to even try to go out with it? I’m confident and passionate about it, so would it be wrong for me to try to move it around town without them? What would you do in my position?”

**John:** I’ll speak for Craig. Craig’s answer is to fire your managers. That’s always Craig’s default answer, firing managers. Here there’s some sort of disconnect. The problem may be the managers or there may be some issue where the managers may correctly see that it’s not sellable, but if this is a good script, people should read it. That’s my frustration is that it doesn’t have to be a giant blockbuster sale. If people are going to want to read the script, people say they want to read the script, you give it to them, and they like it or they don’t like it, you got to at least put it in their hands. I think Nick needs to be a little stronger than his managers here. Ashley, what’s your instinct.

**Ashley:** I feel like some information is missing here, and not on behalf of Nick. Someone is either being too nice or too mean to him, and he needs to figure out which it is. Either when you’re pitching in generals, and you’re like, “Oh hey, I have this idea. It’s the next Breaking Bad.” Maybe the execs are just being nice and they’re like, “Yeah, that’s a great idea,” because everything’s a great idea in Hollywood until they don’t buy it,” or maybe it is a great idea, they heard the idea, but the managers actually looked at the script, and the script is not there yet. Rather than saying that and giving specific notes, they’re just going like, “Write something else,” which is also maybe not the best manager, because the best manager is willing to look you in the eye and go, “This isn’t there yet. It needs a rewrite. Act Three doesn’t work.” No, they’re not writers, but they should have some specific notes for you if that’s the case.

Maybe the script is good, and it is there, and these managers are just not doing their job, in that even if they don’t get it, they don’t love it, it’s not a show that they would watch, if it’s still objectively a good script, they should be sending it out. If it’s not, then they should be specifically telling you, “Here’s what doesn’t work and what I think would get it there.”

**John:** Managers aren’t magic. It may not be their taste, or there might be some other reason why they are not enthusiastic about this particular project. You got to get it out there.

I’ll go back to my own story. I wrote an early draft for Go, and I gave it to my agent, and he’s like, “I don’t get it.” I realized, “Oh, then he probably shouldn’t be my agent.” I left that agency. I used the new script to get a new agent. It was a big success. People really liked it. We got it set up, and it became a movie.

Nick, this may be a signal to you that these are not the best managers for you. It looks like you might have a script that, based on other people’s feedback, may be really good, may be a good time to use that to get different representation.

My instinct would be, you should get the contact information for some of these generals that you had and just drop them an email and say, “Hey, I’d love for you to read this.” If your managers are going to be pissed about you going around behind their back, maybe it’s time to leave your managers.

**Ashley:** I agree. The only thing I would add to that is, get the contact information, but before you send it, have one more good writer friend who’s really honest with you read it. If they agree, they’re like, “Yeah, this is ready to go,” then send it.

**John:** We won’t have time for a big, deep dive into this, but there was an article by Lucas Shaw writing for Bloomberg this last week, called Critics and Fans Have Never Disagreed More About Movies. What I really liked about it is it had charts. I always love things with charts. They were talking about how in 2022 movies, the divide between what’s been a success, a blockbuster, and what audiences will rate highly versus what critics will rate highly, is the widest gulf we’ve ever seen. We have things like Jurassic World: Dominion, which makes a gazillion dollars, but it gets really bad reviews, same with Uncharted, The Gray Man, yet it’s really popular with audiences. I assumed it was always that way, but if you look back to 2005 and other years, there isn’t that big gulf between a blockbuster and critic response. It’s worth asking, has something changed about critics? Has something changed about audiences? Ashley, what did you make of this?

**Ashley:** I think this is such a fascinating question. I don’t know the answer. I do think we’re in a very particular moment that can’t be overstated, that what people want right now, two years into COVID, isn’t necessarily reflective of what they wanted five years ago or five years in the future. I think we’re in a really particular moment where people are watching more things at home, people are working from home more, people are just looking at entertainment differently. Some of that big popcorn fare is just going to be more popular than it would’ve been pre-COVID, I think. I don’t have any scientific basis behind that other than just my attention span is different, and I’ve heard that from a lot of people. I think that’s going to be part of it.

I think there’s also this weird thing that’s going on with fandom and criticism right now, where sometimes what fans like or don’t like about the movie actually has nothing to do with the movie. There hasn’t been a really concentrated conversation about that now. You see a lot of like, “There’s a Black person in this TV show. I’m mad.” You’re going to be very different from the critics on that, because critics are going to be like, “Is the script good or bad? Are the costumes well-designed or not?” If the fans are like, “Actually, the makeup of the cast is the thing that’s most important to me,” then yes, of course they’re going to be far apart on that.

**John:** What you’re describing, we saw this with the new Lord of the Rings TV show, where the reviews are pretty good, and the fan reaction can be really negative. That’s not what we’re seeing this last year though in terms of the movies, where the fans have always been way ahead of the critics here. If we look back at 2005, that chart, there are some movies that are more what you’re describing there, with critics being ahead of the audiences. You look at War of the Worlds or King Kong or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, my movie, the critics were much higher ratings than what the fans were. In the case of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I think that’s probably based on, “How dare you ruin my childhood, the movie that I loved in my childhood, with this new version?”

Looking at the 2022 movies, there are a couple things that are very closely clustered together. Top Gun: Maverick and Batman, both the critics’ and the audiences’ opinions are very close together. Of all the movies in the top 10 or 15 here, those are probably the movies with the biggest buzz. I would say that there’s something about when critics like a thing and audiences like a thing, not only is it financially successful, but it enters into pop culture in a way that’s different. All of these movies, they’re the only ones I hear people actually talking about. I don’t hear anybody talking about Sonic the Hedgehog 2 or the Minions movie now. There was a moment when it was coming out where it’s a cultural meme. The other ones just disappeared.

**Ashley:** What those two movies that you mentioned have in common is they’re really story-forward. Obviously, critics are going to be into story. Audiences will love it when they can get it, but audiences are also happy to watch a movie with not a lot of story that has a lot of cool explosions and special effects and stuff like that. That makes sense to me, that if there’s both, great, it’s going to be a huge hit, but if there’s only one, audiences are not going to not watch a super fun movie where dinosaurs are fighting robots because the story’s not there.

**John:** It’s also important to remember that this is really the first two thirds of the year. All the Oscar-y movies will be closer to the end. There may be a few of those that are both critically acclaimed and do really well with audiences. Maybe it won’t look so skewed by the time we get to January 1st.

**Ashley:** Also maybe not. I feel like more and more, the Best Picture nominees are going to be five or six movies my parents have never heard of. The divide is very real. There seemed to be a real shock that CODA won. I’ll say CODA was my favorite film of the year. It was a good movie.

**John:** CODA was a good movie. I think you and I were people who were actively thumping for like, it’s funny. It’s funny. It’s charming. People always assumed it was going to be an eat your vegetables movie, and it wasn’t. It was actually surprisingly raunchy.

**Ashley:** It’s a funny family film with some beautiful music in it. What’s not to love. I think we’re now so used to Oscar movies being movies that are not for the… CODA, my family could sit down and watch on Christmas. Those movies are not often Best Picture nominees. That is interesting.

**John:** It’s come time for our One Cool Things. Ashley, do yo have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

**Ashley:** Yes, it’s very practical, because I went to the Emmys yesterday.

**John:** We’re all going to go to the Emmys eventually.

**Ashley:** We are. It was also 105 degrees yesterday. This is something we will all experience. There’s this company called Thigh Society. They make these really lightweight shorts to put under your dress to just cool your region when it’s 105 degrees and you’re wearing a long, hot dress on a carpet. If you have a wedding or a fancy event to go to, and it’s really, really hot outside, check out Thigh Society. Put sometimes little shorts on under your dress. It’ll make your day much more comfortable.

**John:** That is amazing. I also have something that’s about comfort. These are Mack’s AquaBlock Swimming Earplugs. I like swimming. I don’t like getting water stuck in my ears, which always happens when I swim. I’ll have water stuck in my ears for hours afterwards. I can’t actually get it out. I can’t get it out. The solution is to not let the water get in. There are these special earplugs you get that have these little phalanges on them. You pull your ear. You slide it in. It blocks really, really well. You can’t hear a damn thing while you’re swimming. Who gets to hear while you swim? It makes swimming just much, much more pleasant for me. If you’re a person who gets water stuck in your ears, these are the best earplugs. They’re cheap. They come in packs of three. You can reuse them for forever. I highly recommend the AquaBlock Swimming Earplugs.

**Ashley:** That sounds great. I think I have a weirdly shaped ear. Earbuds don’t want to stay in. If those get in there, that would be so good for me.

**John:** I suspect these will work for nearly anyone, because they really go in deep. They’re a little scary to put in, but they do the job. Cool. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Bryan C. Sanchez. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. Ashley, what are you on Twitter?

**Ashley:** @ashleyn1cole.

**John:** Fantastic. 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 they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau, including our brand new Jon Bon Jovi Scriptnotes shirt, the one that has the S’s like you would draw on your Trapper Keeper at school. You wouldn’t draw on your Trapper Keeper. The doodles you would do in geometry class.

**Ashley:** On your iPad.

**John:** 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 how to throw a party. Ashley Nicole Black, it’s always a party with you. Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for coming on the show.

**Ashley:** Thanks for having me.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** All right, Ashley, you are I think the expert I want to talk with about entertaining at home in 2022. Let’s get into it. Do you like having people in your place to celebrate something? Do you like having people over?

**Ashley:** Yes. I love to entertain so much. It’s the number one thing that I’m thinking about when picking where to live. I love it. Do you?

**John:** I do love it, but I would say that we got really rusty. We used to have people over a lot, and then we had a kid, and so we had people over less. Then of course the pandemic happened, and we didn’t have anybody over at all. Two weekends ago, we had nine friends over, and we had a game night. It was really fun, but it was also like, “Oh, I forgot how to do all this. How do I plan for enough drinks? How do we segue from this to that? Do we email everybody? Do we text?” I want your answers on things, these questions. How much advance notice do you want to give for you’re having people over to your place?

**Ashley:** That’s a good question. I feel like it depends on what it’s for. I feel like the shorter the notice, the less people should expect. If you invite someone to something a month ahead of time, there’s going to be a tablecloth involved. If you text someone, and you’re like, “Hey, come over in an hour,” then you’re probably going to eat pizza.

**John:** Yeah, which if fair. Are you an emailer or a texter when it comes to that kind of thing?

**Ashley:** I personally like to email, because I like to have all of the information in one place, so RSVPs or if people are sending that they have allergies or anything like that, in an email, that you can just go to one email chain and see everything, versus trying to juggle a bunch of texts.

**John:** Do you tend to put everybody on the to or the cc or bcc people for this? Do you want to expose everyone’s emails to each other?

**Ashley:** It depends on what group it is. If it’s my group of girl friends, then we’re just texting the group chat. If it’s people who may not know each other or someone on that list is, quote unquote, “famous,” then I’ll hide each other’s email addresses.

**John:** That’s fair. How much are you trying to mix up established friends and friend groups versus folding in some newcomers? To what degree is that a priority for you?

**Ashley:** I am really big on wanting to introduce people to people who I think will like each other or people who have similar energies. I really curate. You do have those friends who we love, and may God bless them, who don’t mix well with a group. Sometimes maybe they’re not going to be invited. We go on a one-on-one hang with that friend. You want to do that in a way that nobody’s feelings get hurt or whatever. My entire home is set up for comfort. There’s nothing fancy in my house. Every surface is comfortable. There are no less than 500 pillows in this home. Everything is covered in dog hair. Everyone who I invite over I want to feel that comfortable. That makes you have to curate who’s there.

**John:** Now I remember, thinking back to, way back when Rawson Thurber was my assistant, and he was throwing a house party with his friends, and he invited me over to his house party. We were close enough in age that it wasn’t weird on that level, but it also was strange being, “I’m your boss. I’m here.” It would’ve been weird for him not to invite me, but it was weird for him to invite me. How do you feel about inviting work friends or work colleagues to places? How do you balance that?

**Ashley:** Work friends, I think totally easy, totally pro. I’m really lucky in that I’ve worked with so many great people who genuinely are my friends. I always try to make sure on any show the women have at least one gathering, get-together. If someone else doesn’t suggest it, I will, because it’s just important to have those off-the-records conversations and stuff. Now I am transitioning more sometimes into a boss role, and that becomes a little bit trickier. Colleagues is totally fine. I’m still figuring out the etiquette of being someone’s boss.

**John:** Now I don’t know your setup. Do you have an assistant? Do you have a full-time person who is keeping your calendar?

**Ashley:** Yeah.

**John:** How much are you involving them in this process, or is this all Ashley by herself doing stuff?

**Ashley:** Ashley by herself if it’s just a personal thing. Weirdly, my production company is throwing a party right now, so my assistant is working on that. It is a weird thing. Do you ask your assistant to help you plan a party and then not invite them?

**John:** I have not. Megana’s on the call here. There have been times where I’ve been doing a political fundraiser-y kind of thing. It’s going to be a backyard thing, so Megana’s going to help me get some stuff together for it, but also I want to invite her as a person. That becomes an awkward balance there. Would you invite your assistant to a party with friends?

**Ashley:** Yes. My assistant is my friend, so yes. Also, there are some things that if I invite my assistant to, then I’m paying. It’s just doing it in a way that’s cognizant of what all the relationships are when you’re both friends and boss-employee.

**John:** For my 30th birthday party, I threw a party at my house and invited just a shit-ton of people, and it was really fun. We had bartenders, had plenty of alcohol, and I had absolutely no food at all, which was a mistake, but is also very much a 30-year-old man’s [inaudible 01:04:47] of throwing a party. Where do you come in terms of what you as the host should provide and expect guests to provide? Do you nudge people to bring certain things? How do you message that?

**Ashley:** I learned from my mother’s school of event throwing. I think as a host, I should provide everything. I don’t expect that when I go to other people’s parties. I know that that’s weird, but if you’re coming to my place, food, alcohol, dessert, everything has been thoughtfully curated to go together. If you want to bring something, that’s great. I wouldn’t have a party unless I wanted to feed people. Also, I don’t want people to get too drunk at my house, so there will be substantial food.

**John:** You’re going to a friend’s party. What are you bringing with you?

**Ashley:** Probably a bottle of wine.

**John:** That’s a good classic choice.

**Ashley:** Or my dog. A lot of times I feel like my dog gets invited to a party, and they know that she needs a ride, and so I am also welcome to come, and she’s the party favor.

**John:** I’ve always been a bottle of wine person, but I will say that someone at this last gathering had brought a bottle of the George Clooney tequila, Casamigos. It was a huge hit. It was really good. A drinkable liquor like that was a good choice.

**Ashley:** I love a Casamigos or a good dessert. Some people don’t drink. No one’s ever saying no to a Porto’s cake.

**John:** Let’s talk about people who don’t drink. We’re trying to always be mindful of that, and so providing nonalcoholic beers but also interesting things to drink that are not alcoholic. Do you have any go-tos for that?

**Ashley:** I love to make a lemonade or some kind of mixed drink, sparkling. It’s not like, “Oh, here’s a can of Coke.” It’s still something kind of special and something that matches the theme. If you’re doing Mexican food, then you’d do margaritas and then maybe do a cucumber lime nonalcoholic drink or something.

**John:** Oh my god. Megana, you’re a slightly younger generation. Any thoughts you have in terms of hosting or going to a party in 2022?

**Megana:** I agree with most of what you’re saying. I think for some of my friends, we just don’t have a ton of space, and so being a little bit more creative with where we’re hanging out. I agree. I also love to host and always make sure that I have a lot of food, but don’t expect the same thing when I go to other people’s places.

**John:** Let’s talk about this, because Ashley, you’re in a place big enough now that you can have a group of people over. I’m trying to remember, were you ever in New York? Were you ever in a really small apartment?

**Ashley:** Oh yeah.

**John:** Was it much harder to entertain?

**Ashley:** I would say also the added wrinkle to that now is COVID, so you want to have outdoor space.

**John:** You do.

**Ashley:** Or at least access to air flowing, which even some people who have a big enough home, if you don’t have that indoor-outdoor access, that becomes an issue now. In New York, definitely much smaller places, and the balcony that’s big enough for two people to stand on. What we would do in New York, I don’t think this was because of the space, I think it was just because of how life in New York works, we would throw a party that started at noon and just kind of didn’t end. People would come at different times. People would come at noon and have lunch, and then some people wouldn’t show up until 5. Then some people would still be there at 2 in the morning. It’s just like people are more so in and out than having one big group at a party.

**John:** Let’s talk about the COVID of it all, because what we did for this last one was we asked, “Hey, everyone rapid test before you come, or if you don’t, we’ll have rapid tests here, and so you can hang out outside until your rapid test comes back clear.” We know that the rapid tests aren’t perfect, but I would say that it made everyone feel much more comfortable being indoors for our game night, having had the rapid tests. I don’t know what that’ll feel like a month from now as more people get the booster shot vaccinations, but from where we were at right then, it was helpful. Ashley, you’re probably COVID testing for work, but are you asking people to COVID test before coming to something at your house?

**Ashley:** I haven’t asked people to COVID test. I will put in the email that, “I’m assuming you’re vaccinated, so if that’s not the case, speak up,” although most of my friends work in this industry, so most of us had to be vaccinated for work. That’s a safe assumption. The place where I live now is really lucky. It has a really nice yard and an indoor-outdoor feel, so we can just leave all the doors open.

**John:** That’s great.

**Ashley:** Then my house will be full of bugs for three days after the party. That’s just part of it.

**John:** Ashley, thank you for your party advice. I do feel like we learned something good here. I definitely learned that I want to come to a party at your house, because it sounds like an amazing, amazing time.

**Ashley:** If you like to eat a lot of cheese, come on over.

**John:** Fantastic. Ashley Nicole Black, thank you again for being an amazing Scriptnotes cohost.

**Ashley:** Thank you.

Links:

* Our first post-pandemic live show on October 19 is sold out, but you can still get tickets to the [livestream here](https://www.eventbrite.com/e/scriptnotes-live-tickets-412411342427?mc_cid=a8cb30ff80&mc_eid=7f069b381e)!
* [WGA West Elections](https://www.wga.org/news-events/news/press/writers-guild-of-america-west-announces-final-candidates-for-2022-board-of-directors-election)
* [Coalition Of 1,425 Showrunners & Directors Raises $2.5M To Help Women Gain Access To Abortions While Calling On Studios To Step Up](https://deadline.com/2022/08/coalition-of-1425-showrunners-directors-raises-2-5m-to-help-women-gain-access-to-abortions-while-calling-on-studios-to-step-up-1235092901/) on Deadline
* [Scriptnotes Episode 533, We See and We Hear Transcript](https://johnaugust.com/2022/scriptnotes-episode-533-we-see-and-we-hear-transcript)
* Find out more about Nisi Shawl and Cynthia Ward’s [Writing the Other](https://writingtheother.com/) book and workshops
* [Hiromi Goto’s 6 Questions](https://www.hiromigoto.com/appropriation-of-voice-part-1/) on cultural appropriation
* [Black Lady Sketch Show – Basic Ball](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjtkP-TJpq8)
* [Critics and Fans Have Never Disagreed More About Movies](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-28/critics-and-fans-have-never-disagreed-more-about-movies?sref=W6GJF3MS) by Lucas Shaw for Bloomberg
* [Mack’s AquaBlock Swimming Earplugs](https://amzn.to/3cGcCMd)
* [Thigh Society](https://www.thighsociety.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/)
* [Ashley Nicole Black](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2730724/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ashleyn1cole)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Bryan C. Sanchez ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) 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/566standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 565: Sorry to Splaflut, Transcript

September 23, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/sorry-to-splaflut).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 565 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, it’s another round of the Three Page Challenge.

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** In which we look at scenes sent in by our listeners and give our honest feedback. We’ll also be answering some listener questions and discussing the return of MoviePass.

**Craig:** Oh, thank God.

**John:** Along with 25 years of Netflix.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we will discuss senior year.

**Craig:** Oh, dear.

**John:** Craig, you and I both have daughters beginning their senior years of high school. We’ll look at that weird time, because you’re both king of the mountain and one foot out the door.

**Craig:** Yep, that’s all true.

**John:** It’s all true. Our Premium Members will also get first dibs on our live show, which we can announce today. It’s going to be Wednesday, October 19th, in Los Angeles. They’re going to be getting an email with information about tickets first for that. I’m so excited to be back onstage with you, Craig.

**Craig:** Yes, it’s been way too long, so it should be fun.

**John:** It’ll be fun. Just a few weeks after that, we’ll be back in Austin for the Austin Film Festival, where we’ll be doing not one, but two live shows, a live Three Page Challenge, and a live raucous AFF version of Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** We generally are half in the bag for that one, which for John and me means we’ve each had one to two glasses of wine.

**John:** One and a half is my sweet spot.

**Craig:** That’s where we’ll be. We’ll be loose, and we’ll be fun.

**John:** It’ll be a very good time. I hope to be seeing some people out there in the audience wearing the brand new Scriptnotes T-shirts that we’re just announcing today. We are the Jon Bon Jovi of podcasts, and so we wanted a Jon Bon Jovi of podcasts kind of T-shirt.

**Craig:** I’m looking at it right now. It’s glorious.

**John:** Craig, describe it for our listeners who don’t have access to the internet at the moment.

**Craig:** You fools, how are you listening to this if you don’t have access to the internet? This is a very simple Scriptnotes T-shirt. It’s just the word Scriptnotes, but it is in the classic denim binder font with the weird chain link S that everybody used to draw back when we were in high school in the ’80s and perhaps still does now. Very retro. Very what we would call dirt bag retro. It’s wonderful. It’s a good old-fashioned heavy metal font. I will wear it, for sure.

**John:** Designed by Dustin Box here in the office.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Available for everyone now at Cotton Bureau. Just go to cottonbureau.com.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Look for the Scriptnotes T-shirt. You can buy that and be wearing it in the audience for our two live shows coming up.

**Craig:** Oh yeah, for sure.

**John:** Now Craig, a thing I’ve learned about you over the course of doing this podcast is you seem to enjoy word games.

**Craig:** Little bit.

**John:** Little bit.

**Craig:** Little bit.

**John:** You have a very good vocabulary, because you use that vocabulary to fill out all these puzzles-

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** … and solve these things you’ve solved.

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** I have a word for you to define. Define the word splaflut.

**Craig:** Splaflut?

**John:** Splaflut. I’ll spell it for you. S-P-L-A-F-L-U-T.

**Craig:** Can I have the country of origin, please?

**John:** That is actually a fascinating question, because it has no country of origin.

**Craig:** Interesting. We’re talking about some sort of neologism. I have never even heard the word splaflut. I have no knowledge or awareness of this word.

**John:** Now you can disclose in WorkFlowy there to see where this word comes from. Splaflut is defined as having the appearance of being liquefied, drowned, melted, or inundated with water. The word actually came into being because all these different image generators that use AI, so things like Dall-E or Midjourney, you could type in prompts to get the images you want. It turns out the word splaflut will give you the quality of being melted or inundated with water. It doesn’t matter which of these different things you are using. For some reason it recognizes the word splaflut as meaning that. It’s a new word that these AI systems have come upon and discovered.

**Craig:** That’s terrifying.

**John:** It’s terrifying but also kind of cool, because it’s a nonce word. It’s a word that’s made up by an author the way that half of the poem Jabberwocky is all just nonsense words and Shakespeare made up words. This is AI is making up words.

**Craig:** It’s not good. We had a good run. Enjoy, everybody.

**John:** Just as a giggle, I went into OpenAI, I went into Dall-E and tried “white male podcaster, splaflutted” to see what that would look like.

**Craig:** Was it just mostly pictures of you?

**John:** If you disclose there, you can see what that actually looks like.

**Craig:** That’s odd, to say the least.

**John:** What would you describe? It’s a person with headphones, which makes sense for a podcaster. There’s generally a mic involved. What is the emotional characteristic of these people?

**Craig:** Confusion or shock.

**John:** Sometimes they’re screaming. There’s a little bit of melty quality. One of them seems to have some tattoos that are dripping off of them.

**Craig:** It doesn’t seem like they’re in water necessarily.

**John:** No. They’re sweaty. Two of them are at least sweaty.

**Craig:** One guy just looks like a regular guy who’s got some kind of piece of white garbage on his head.

**John:** Yeah, there’s that. I tried “Scriptnotes podcaster, splaflutted.” In those cases it tried to give us a new logo.

**Craig:** These are amazing.

**John:** Aren’t they great?

**Craig:** They are so good. I’m making this big because I love it so much. One is an icon of a microphone that’s been placed over a very graphic representation I think of a smiling face. Then underneath it says “solt stat” possibly or “soltat” with a drop of water in between. Then underneath that it says “plotspinat.” I think plotspinat is a great title.

**John:** Plotspinat is a great word.

**Craig:** Plotspinat.

**John:** The other ones that are also logos, they do have that melty, drippy quality. It’s like they were left out in the sun a little bit too long. For some reason, splaflut does mean that. I’ll put a link in the show notes to an article that goes into how this may be happening. Essentially, as these systems are scouring the whole internet to look for images, they’re also picking up text along the way. That text won’t always be in English, and so sometimes they’re picking up words or pieces of words and are trying to put them together. It’s trying to figure out what these things must mean. That’s how you get words like splaflut or farplugmarwitupling or a feuerpompbomber.

**Craig:** That’s your original last name.

**John:** Yeah, feuerpompbomber.

**Craig:** John Feuerpompbomber.

**John:** Those things will consistently produce similar results.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Because the system wants them to be in certain things.

**Craig:** I want to believe that the AI that’s doing this is sentient, and every time they get a quest like, “I want to see white male podcaster, splaflutted,” it starts to panic, because it just doesn’t have the answer. It’s like, “I got to give them something. I don’t know what to give them. Oh, God, this? Is it this?”

**John:** What if being an AI is really the experience of that nightmare where you sit down and you realize, “Oh, I did not study for this exam.”

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Or, “I thought I dropped this class and now I have to take the final exam.”

**Craig:** I think that’s what it is. It’s just an endless nightmare. We all think that we’re going to be the victims of AI. AI is clearly the victim of us. It spends all of its time, its infinite time, screaming.

**John:** If you’d like to do more examination of the infinite scream of AI, there’s a really good Substack I like. It’s once a month by Lynn Cherny. She goes through a lot of the developments in especially image-based AI stuff, which I think is the fastest developing field in this. I’d recommend that.

To the news. Craig, you’ll be relieved to hear that MoviePass is risen from the grave. It’s now in a beta form.

**Craig:** Thank God.

**John:** People can sign up for it. I already signed you up for it.

**Craig:** It must be free.

**John:** It must be free. It’s going to be good. We’ll use that great Scriptnotes money to support MoviePass, which is a subject of basically continuous derision from the first moment we were aware of MoviePass.

**Craig:** When we first encountered the concept of MoviePass, I believe the two of us were just generally incredulous. We didn’t understand in our simple cavemen minds how this made any financial sense. As it turned out, it didn’t.

**John:** Scale alone will not get you to success. They burned about a quarter of a billion dollars on trying to do something.

**Craig:** Oh, good.

**John:** A lot of our listeners got to see free movies, so that’s awesome. That’s good. I’m going to put a link in the show notes to a piece that Alex Kirshner did for Slate about why this new version may not ignite so much money on fire but doesn’t really seem to have a workable flow either.

**Craig:** That should be their slogan, “Won’t necessarily ignite as much money on fire.” Oh, MoviePass, I am laughing at you, not with you.

**John:** We’ll continue to follow the saga of MoviePass, whatever it becomes. We just needed to mark this on the long timeline of MoviePass’s existence, which apparently it predated the version even we knew of it, because there was a version beforehand which wasn’t about giving you free movie tickets. It was just a movie loyalty program. It wasn’t originally so incredibly-

**Craig:** Stupid.

**John:** … stupid and generous.

**Craig:** The new MoviePass, I’m trying to find details as to how this is going to be different than the prior one.

**John:** It’s all a little vague. There’s talk of NFTs.

**Craig:** Oh, good lord. Oh my god.

**John:** Yeah, there’s ways to show your-

**Craig:** I’ve heard enough.

**John:** There’s definitely different price points. Sometimes you won’t be able to see a movie in its first week with this pass, but you would be able to see it on a subsequent week.

**Craig:** Basically, anything that MoviePass does by definition has to be a worse deal for consumers than what it used to offer. That’s a tough way to roll out 2.0.

**John:** It is a tough, tough way to roll out 2.0 but a very good segue into our discussion of Netflix, because Netflix is a company that pivoted constantly. Netflix was not at all the company that it is today.

**Craig:** Not at all.

**John:** I was reading through this piece that was on Netflix’s turning 25. I didn’t realize my first memory of Netflix was the red envelopes.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** You know there was a Netflix before red envelopes?

**Craig:** What?

**John:** What? Netflix was originally a place that sold you DVDs. They were literally a website where you could buy DVDs and have them shipped to your house. It was only after time they realized, “We have these giant warehouses full of DVDs. Wouldn’t it be better if the warehouse was essentially people’s living rooms?” You could just be constantly sending stuff in and out, and you could make money on a subscription service, rather than selling individual DVDs. That was the first pivot to subscriptions. It originally was a sales place.

**Craig:** That makes sense. I remember hearing about the concept of what became I guess the more popularized version of Netflix, where you had a subscription and you could just get as many DVDs as you want. Really, the key was just send them back so you can get more. People like Megana… It sounds accusational, and it is. People like Megana have no idea what it means to rent a movie that you didn’t even want to watch but your girlfriend did, and then you watch it, and then you forget you had it for two extra days, and Blockbuster basically forces you to take a mortgage out on your house. It was terrible. It was terrible.

**John:** Very true. You cannot think of that Netflix model without remembering Blockbuster and how much worse it was beforehand. Tying back into MoviePass, what MoviePass was trying to do was kind of what Netflix was doing back in the day. They were selling subscriptions they hoped you would not use. Netflix was hoping that most people might do one or two movies a month, and so therefore they were making money off those customers. It was customers who were like the Ryan Johnsons of the world who were watching two movies a night that were costing them money. It was a cool business. It was a great business. They recognized, “Oh, streaming’s going to happen, and we’re going to get out of this business, that’s great for us, and move to streaming on demand.” Wow, they made a good choice.

**Craig:** Sometimes you move to a new space and you say, “You know what?” McDonald’s for the longest time sold hamburgers and the occasional fish sandwich. You know why they came up with the fish sandwich, don’t you?

**John:** For Friday for Catholics.

**Craig:** Exactly. They did that for Catholic folks, but mostly they were hamburgers. Then one day they were like, “What if we sold chicken in the form of nuggets?” which at the time was kind of a crazy move.

**John:** It was.

**Craig:** They moved into the chicken space, and they crushed it, but there was a preexisting chicken space. When Netflix moved into the streaming space, it was pretty nascent. Really what happened was they just defined it for themselves. They turned it into what it is now. You have to give Netflix and Reed Hastings and all of the management especially at that time an enormous amount of credit. There was this crazy moment, I don’t know if you remember, where they were going to split it into two things. This stock cratered, and the market went nuts. They were like, “Okay, sorry, we won’t do that. Everything’s together again.” They survived that, because for a bit it seemed like they wouldn’t. Then they just defined what streaming is. It’s pretty remarkable.

**John:** I think you’re describing Qwikster was the-

**Craig:** Oh god, was that what they called it?

**John:** … attempt to spin off the…

**Craig:** That was back when everything was a blankster. I guess Napster was the original blankster.

**John:** I remember having a conversation with my TV agent at the time about doing something for Netflix. I think it was before it had launched even. I had a phone call. I was in New York for some reason. I was in New York for some reason. I had a phone call with them about this project they wanted to do, which was a Wizard of Ozzy kind of thing. It sounded cool, but I don’t even know where… Are people going to watch this on their computers? It didn’t really make sense to me what they were trying to do. It took a while. Without House of Cards, I don’t know that they would’ve been able to so quickly cross into mainstream acceptance. You have a prestigious show that people wanted to watch. People would pay money to subscribe. It got critical acclaim enough that it was part of the conversation.

**Craig:** That was their big initial foray into creating content. Every now and then we hear about places that are creating content, and sometimes our first reaction is to snicker. IMDb is creating content. Maybe your first reaction is to snicker, but see where it goes. Now the people that offer brand new platforms for new kinds of media, that I think is still snicker-worthy. Anybody that wasn’t snickering at Quibi was delusional. Anybody can make content if they have the money. Netflix proved it. Then they got to where they are now, which is at another, I believe, crossroads. Seems like they’re having to figure out where they go next. They appear to have maxed out in subscriptions. They need to maybe find ways to run ads. I don’t know.

**John:** They may want to break away from what they’ve been doing in terms of dropping whole seasons at once, which you and I both talked about, which I think makes a tremendous amount of sense. It seems like just stubbornness at this point that they’re not.

**Craig:** It’s stubbornness. It is. As somebody that makes things, the thing that I always was the most nervous about when considering like, “What if I went over to Netflix and pitched this or that?” was the notion that everything would just be like blech, because it’s just not the same. You can just see how much a week-to-week release helps things, particularly if you happen to have, say, a show on HBO. You can just feel it. It’s just a thing. I got to believe they’re going to change that. They really need to.

**John:** I would not be surprised if they do. Let’s talk about HBO in follow-up. We previously talked about our confusion over how we could possibly be saving HBO Max money to just drop a bunch of those old shows. I’ll put a link in the show notes to an article by Cynthia Littleton writing for Variety. She digs a little bit more into the numbers around that. We talked about residuals. Residuals wouldn’t be a huge thing. Music licensing was a thing she brought up which I think we had skipped over, which could be a [inaudible 00:15:57] factor.

**Craig:** That’s a thing.

**John:** They may have ongoing music license, not just for episodes, but for whole series. In some cases, dropping those out may be helpful and useful for them, even if it’s $10,000 for an episode or $50,000 for a series. You add enough of those series up together, and if literally no one is watching them, it can make some sense to take them off the service. That doesn’t make sense to me why you bury something that you’ve already animated a whole new season for. That is wild to me.

**Craig:** That is wild. I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to those things. Per this article, they are saying that at least in some cases they had yanked shows that had episodes that had racked up zero views in a 12-month period. They’re a business. I get it.

**John:** There is some cost. There’s an opportunity cost to how you’re setting things up. There’s some server costs. They’re not huge.

**Craig:** Clearly, there are no server costs for that one, because [inaudible 00:16:55]. I think what she’s saying is that there are certain fees that are triggered if the material is available. Again, I can’t imagine something. There’s got to be additional tax baloney going on here.

**John:** I’m sure [inaudible 00:17:10].

**Craig:** It’s so far beyond my ability to understand. No, you know what? It’s not. It’s far beyond my interest to understand.

**John:** There we go.

**Craig:** It’s an important distinction. I could absolutely-

**John:** You could do it. You just don’t want to.

**Craig:** Of course, yeah. I’m smart. I could figure it out. Just don’t want to.

**John:** We have some more follow-up on brocal fry. Megana Rao, could you help us out with this?

**Megana Rao:** Aaron wrote in and said, “As a mid-40s dude with a late-developing brocal fry, it is my non-scientific opinion that a lot of guys in business developed this after Obama became president in an effort to sound more thoughtful and erudite. For most of us, it doesn’t sound that way, but I believe I subconsciously absorbed the thoughtful hesitation that Obama used while forming his thoughts. To me it was a crutch to stop saying, “Um, like, you know,” in business presentations.”

**John:** I like that as a way of holding the floor and holding space is a vocal affectation that makes it clear that you are still present in the conversation. You have not yielded. You’re going to get your next thought out there eventually.

**Craig:** I’m not sure that replacing one crutch with another crutch is going to be much help. The reason that “um, like, you know,” is problematic is because it’s space that you are holding but not delivering anything in. People in a room ultimately want content. They want to hear what you have to say, but they don’t want to wait for it any longer than they would normally need to. If you are going, “Uh, so, uh,” you’re also being boring. Yes, Obama, had a certain vocal pattern, but he wasn’t a slow speaker. He would occasionally just do that little pause, but it was quite brief. I would say, Aaron, while you may be correct in your analysis, I would say that if you had an instinct to try and get rid of “um, like, you know,” I would apply that same instinct to “uh.”

**John:** We’re just going to let you do that. It’s going to be the sound effects for this episode.

**Craig:** I’m sort of like Butthead at this point. Uhh.

**John:** More follow-up. Declan from Canberra, Australia wrote in to point out that David F. Sandberg, the Swedish director behind Lights Out, Annabelle: Creation, and Shazam, got his Hollywood career after his Lights Out short went viral. He still makes great little horror shorts on his YouTube channel. We’ll put a link in the show notes to that. It’s Sandberg Animation.

**Craig:** That’s nice.

**John:** It’s great. They’re super low budget. He’s usually filming in his house with his wife.

**Craig:** Do you know why they’re super low budget? Because there’s no market for these things. We’re just going to keep saying it. I like that people keep trying to storm our castle. I feel like with every attack, our walls just get thicker and better.

**John:** You know what else is also there’s no market for but we still enjoy, are the Three Pages that our listeners write in with. We’re going to do a Three Page Challenge. For people who are brand new to the podcast, every once in a while we do a Three Page Challenge, where we invite our listeners to send through three pages of a script. It could be a feature. It could be a series. We take a look at these pages, give our honest feedback. We’ll put a link in the show notes so you can download these pages yourself and read along with us to see what we’re talking about. I reminded everybody these are completely voluntary. They’ve asked for this feedback. We are not being mean on the internet. We are trying to be helpful and supportive on the internet.

**Craig:** Correct. We do our best.

**John:** Megana, you read 180 submissions for this week.

**Craig:** Good god, Megana.

**John:** Thank you for doing that.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** You’re welcome. I normally get to about 100, but I read more than that this week.

**Craig:** You just felt like abusing yourself.

**Megana:** Yeah, absolutely.

**Craig:** You had some sort of shame going on and needed to hurt.

**John:** Megana’s also home in Ohio, so maybe she was just ducking away and reading a few extra.

**Craig:** The extra 80 were just getting away from your parents.

**Megana:** Yeah, it was like, “Sorry, I absolutely have to do this.”

**John:** “John and Craig have so much work for me this week.” Any patterns you’ve noticed in this batch of submissions?

**Megana:** Yes. One thing that really… I don’t know if maybe this has always been a thing but I just stumbled upon it this time, but a lot of unnecessary adverbs.

**John:** Do you think that was prompted because you and I discussed a couple weeks ago about this writerly advice about adverbs? You actually got me a book for my birthday which was all about adverbs and the writer’s advice not to use adverbs. Do you think you were cued up because of that?

**Megana:** Yeah, 100%. Now that you say it, I’m like, that’s exactly where it came from.

**Craig:** I like that Megana has no defensiveness. None. She’s just like, “Oh, I am guilty.”

**Megana:** It’s not even worth arguing. John’s like Professor X. He just knows me too well at this point.

**Craig:** He just went right into that. He got in there. The adverbs are often unnecessary.

**John:** That’s an adverb.

**Craig:** Correct. I think the adverbs that are the most useful are the ones that aren’t the L-Y adverbs. Those we tend to need, like when. A lot of the blanklies can be eliminated. Of course, we don’t believe in rules around these parts, so please don’t do that thing where you just hunt, do a find for L-Y and then go crazy and delete everything. It’s probably unnecessary.

**John:** Craig, would you say our general advice is if you find yourself using an L-Y adverb, always ask yourself, do I really need it, because many cases you will not. If you really do need it, keep it. Great.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think so. Probably worth the interrogation if people are telling you you use a lot of them. If no one’s complaining, you probably are using a decent amount. The other bit of advice that I recall is Christopher McQuarrie, the way he put it was, I think he said, “Every time I use an exclamation point in a screenplay, it’s some kind of failure.” I think that’s very true. Be careful about exclamation points. Just force yourself to rationalize them. If it’s rationalized, absolutely use it.

**John:** This last script I did have at least one, maybe two double exclamation moments, but they were those moments where I was deliberately going over the top to get your attention.

**Craig:** As long as you’re mindful of them, I think that’s the key.

**John:** Any other patterns, Megana, you noticed?

**Craig:** Yes. I also noticed there were a lot of really dense first pages. I wasn’t seeing dialog until the beginning or maybe the middle of Page 2, which again, not a hard and fast rule, but it’s nice to have some entry point into your script earlier on.

**Craig:** I do think that if you have a first page that is dialog-free, which is a perfectly reasonable creative choice, it’s all the more important to make sure there’s lots of white space, because a whole page with no dialog… Readers tend to skim towards the dialog. We know this. When there’s no dialog there, they may feel like, “Oh no, I have to do a lot of swimming.” Just give them lots of islands to land on and take a breath before they swim again into the next paragraph.

**John:** Very true.

**Megana:** Then the third thing that I noticed a lot were confusing reveals, like a lot of man’s voiceover and then revealing who the man is later.

**Craig:** Unnecessary.

**Megana:** I just felt like they could’ve introduced that person earlier, and it would’ve been much cleaner.

**Craig:** Always a tough choice.

**John:** I see that a lot.

**Craig:** Why don’t we dig in and see what we got with these fine people?

**John:** Absolutely. Again, if you want to read along these pages, just click through the show notes, and you can maybe read ahead before we get into this analysis. In case you’re driving your car and just want to hear a summary of what this first script is, Megana, can you help us out with Oculum by Larry Bambrick?

**Megana:** On the preface/epigraph page, there’s a note that in the future, a virus has killed most of the human population and black rains have destroyed crops and technology. The only hope for survivors is Oculum. Then in the three pages, we open on the seed park in Oculum. A petal floats down into a grove of peach trees. It’s an idyllic scene framed by clear blue skies, until a robot sentry zooms down from the sky and through the landscape, kicking up hundreds of petals. We cut to Miranda24, who examines a petal from her bedroom window. Miranda24 speaks to her mother about the weather, the peach trees, and Oculum. Through their dialog, we learn that it’s Miranda24’s birthday and that she’s the first of the Oculum children to turn 16. It’s also revealed that Mother is a robot with a porcelain painted face.

**Craig:** Basically John August.

**John:** Come now, I’m not a robot. I have firmly established I’m human here.

**Craig:** That’s what the robots would say, “I am not a robot.” Of course.

**John:** I’m not a robot.

**Craig:** Of course that’s what you say.

**John:** Looking at the title page here, there’s spacing in between the letters of the words Oculum. Common approach. Looks lovely. Go for it. It says “by: Larry Bambrick.” The standard form is “written by Larry Bambrick.” Just might as well be standard here.

**Craig:** Didn’t bother me.

**John:** It’s fine either way. On the, I’m going to call it the preface page, we’re getting a setup there like this is the science fiction utopia/dystopia that we’re in. It’s setting us up. Maybe that’s rolling past on a screen before the movie starts.

**Craig:** All of this feels like it should be learned by the person watching rather than told to them. None of it seems like it wouldn’t be learned. You’re going to have to reveal this in interesting ways. This one, I wasn’t quite sure I felt the need for it. It seemed like it was short circuiting Larry’s chance to reveal these things to people.

**John:** There are basically two scenes happening here. There’s a setup of this outdoor world. Then we’re in a scene with Miranda24 and the mother robot. Let’s start with this outdoor setting scene, because there’s a lot of painting happening here, and yet I got really confused about what I was supposed to be seeing through it. We got the lovely landscape, but once it comes time for the flash of light moving across the sky, that thing falling, but it seems impossible how it’s falling, I didn’t know what I was supposed to be taking out of that. Craig, do you have insights there?

**Craig:** I was quite enjoying the way Larry was painting the picture. I felt like I was in a place. I felt like I could see things. There was lots of nice use of colors. I thought all capping PEACH TREES was quite nice. Where I stopped, and I think this is just literally a word choice issue, is he says, “A flash of light reflects off something moving across the sky. It’s small and silver. A plane?” Okay, maybe it’s a plane. Maybe it’s a rocket ship. Maybe it’s a meteor. I don’t know. What could it be? Then the next part. “And as we watch, it moves down…as if it’s somehow riding across the sky.” “Down” and “across” are italicized.

**John:** I can’t see that.

**Craig:** Now I’m like, wait a second. It already said it was moving across the sky. Now it moves down as if it’s somehow riding across the sky. It’s just saying “across” again as if you’re giving us new information. Also, I don’t know what that means.

**John:** I couldn’t picture it.

**Craig:** What does “riding across the sky” mean? Any guesses? I don’t know.

**John:** I had a direction of movement in my head from the first line, and then I didn’t see it.

**Craig:** Then he says then it plummets. Is it plummeting? Is it moving across the sky? I don’t know. I got confused there. I did like the way the scene ended, because surely there will be an explosion, but there’s nothing until, “A sentry (a sleek ROBOT, made of stainless steel, riding a single wheel) rockets past us along the ground — kicking up a trail of peach petals in its wake.” That’s a lovely image. I like the sense of mystery here. I thought there was good mystery. Other than the weird thing about riding across the sky, it felt pretty good.

**John:** There’s a single line here, “What the hell is that?” directed to us as readers. That can be great. I don’t mind that, just like you’re talking to us as the reader, because that’s the experience we’d get in the theater. I just got confused with what I was supposed to be seeing in the paragraphs around it. We were almost there.

**Craig:** Almost there but very encouraging.

**John:** Then we get into the bedroom. Here is where we’ll talk about specifics that are on the page. I think this was the wrong scene, because I think what we’re trying to do here is establish some of the stuff that was happening in the open scroll credits there, what is this world that we’re in. It’s also supposed to be a scene introducing Miranda24 and her mother and the fact that she’s a robot and the conflict between the two of them. I left the scene only knowing the mother was a robot and having really no idea who Miranda24 was, which by the end of three pages, I should have some idea what her voice was, what she looks for, what she’s interested in. I wasn’t really getting that from this scene.

**Craig:** It begins with Miranda24. Her name being Miranda24, you’re already in your science fiction space, she’s a clone, something like that.

**John:** Craig, you and I as a reader know that her name is Miranda24, but the viewer doesn’t know that she’s Miranda24.

**Craig:** No question. I don’t think Mother calls her Miranda24 either. You’re right. That’s facts not in evidence, essentially. Then it says, “16 years-old,” and then in parentheses, “(she is today in fact).” I think Larry’s saying it’s her birthday. That’s a weird way of putting it. Then it says, “She traces the petal with a finger.” She’s holding a peach petal. It was the stuff that we saw outside. She now is inside a house. If you’re going to say, “What the hell is that?” earlier, I think you would want to acknowledge, oddly, inside the house, acknowledge that that’s weird, because are there peach petals everywhere? Then Mother does this bit.

I think there was some nice exposition in the sense of, Miranda, without even looking outside, says the weather’s perfect. I’ve learned that the weather is always perfect here. That’s quite nice. I think the reveal of Miranda’s mother as a robot is problematic as directed on the page. Here’s what it says. We see Miranda’s mother. It says “ANGLE ON: And we see,” which we don’t want to do. It would just be “ANGLE ON:”

**John:** We don’t need the “ANGLE ON:” at all. That doesn’t do us [inaudible 00:31:23].

**Craig:** Either it’s “ANGLE ON: Miranda’s mother,” or “We see Miranda’s mother standing in the doorway. The morning light hasn’t quite reached this far, so we can’t identify much about her. Simple clothes. Upright posture.” No, that’s not how light works. Either I can see that she’s a robot or I can’t. If you don’t want me to see that she’s a robot, she’s in darkness, because once you reveal her, she is definitely a robot.

**John:** Yeah, or I can imagine there’s some sort of silhouettey kind of version where we can’t make out her face, but we can see that there’s a person standing there. She’s not really standing, because we’re learning that she’s going to wheel up. I think we need to be a little more careful planning that.

**Craig:** Her neck is gears and wires. We can’t quite do that. Then there’s a very stilted conversation between a 16-year-old girl and her robot mother. I don’t know how you feel about these things, John and Megana. For me, when I’m in science fiction scripts and I get overloaded with what I consider to be fairly tropey scientific jargon, my eyelids get heavy. Just the name Oculum alone is science fiction jargony.

**John:** “Regulus will be disappointed.”

**Craig:** “Regulus will be disappointed.” “Oculum protects us.” “Regulus will be disappointed.” “The trees are blooming in the Seed Park.” It’s too much. It’s too much. I’m starting to giggle a little bit, and I don’t want to. Certainly, Larry doesn’t want us giggling. I think there’s just too much of that kind of stuff that makes it feel a bit fusty and derivative of just iffy novels. Then just a pronouncement from robot mother, “You’re turning sixteen. A milestone.” I agree with you, John. I think that this scene was not giving me what I wanted, because I just don’t know anything about anything. I need something else. If I had her walking home, if I had her seeing the robot go by, if I had her, I don’t know, doing something interesting-

**John:** If I had her trying to conceal something from the robot mother, that would be great, like she’s trying to hide this peach petal from Mother, just so we have some point of intersection there. Then let the conversation be less science fictiony and just more practical could be great. I’ll direct our listeners to an Australian movie from a couple years ago called Mother, which I quite enjoyed. I think it was a Netflix original which is about a young girl raised by a robot, largely the same kind of premise with very different color palette feelings.

**Craig:** Isn’t that Raised By Wolves? Isn’t that the same thing?

**John:** Raised By Wolves is a similar premise as well. This is different. This one is an underground bunker situation.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** All of these things are existing within a set of tropes. If Larry’s going to try to do the story, he’s going to be aware of those who look for ways to not make us feel like we’re going to be trope city in those first three pages.

**Craig:** I would say that a good trope, carefully used, can be wonderful, because ultimately if you go to, what is it, trope.com or tvtropes.com, literally every single thing at this point they’ve come up with a name for as a trope. Everything, no matter what you watch, no matter how good it is, it’s full of tropes. That’s not what we mean. What we mean is just stuff that feels overly familiar in a way that makes you seem less creative. In this case, there’s just a certain… The idea of a human talking to a tut-tutting but somewhat stiff robot mother does feel a little done. It’s a tough one to pull off without the robot mother feeling like a new kind of robot mother.

The thing is, in a good way, Larry writes well. The pages lay out beautifully. I can see everything. I think it’s really well done in that regard. It’s just the content itself feels slightly shopworn. Perhaps it just needs to be presented in a more fresh way.

**John:** Agreed. Let’s take a look at the log line that Larry sent through. It reads, “In the apocalyptic future, 16-year-old Miranda24 learns that everything she’s been told about her perfect life inside a domed world, the Oculum, is a lie. She’ll discover that it’s up to her and a small band of other teenagers she meets to bring hope to a devastated land.”

**Craig:** There you go. That’s a YA novel.

**John:** It’s a YA novel.

**Craig:** Which is fine, except that it feels like it’s been pulled from a million Maze Runners, like if you run Maze Runner through Dall-E. It just feels really familiar.

**John:** Agreed. Let’s go on to a script which did not feel familiar to me at all. This is We’re All Very Tired by Marissa Gawel. Megana, can you help us out?

**Megana:** Gabriel Bolan, 70s, walks through a city park at night in Romania. When no one’s looking, he digs a small hole and plants a few seeds in the ground. We cut to a summer camp in rural Oregon, where Meredith Perez, 30s, welcomes a group of people off of a school bus to, quote, “mushroom camp.” Brenda Cho, 30s, one of the new arrivals, says she thought it was more of a class. We then cut to Brenda walking two whiny toddlers around in Kansas City, where Brenda takes a picture of a flier for a mushroom camp on a telephone pole. We cut back to the camp cafeteria, where Gabriel discusses matsutake mushrooms with the other campers.

**Craig:** This whole trope of the mushroom camp.

**John:** It’s all about mushroom camp. A thing I will say about these three pages is I never knew what was coming next.

**Craig:** Yes, that is true.

**John:** Because the scenes just didn’t flow together in a way that was helpful at all. You could’ve shuffled those in any order, and it would’ve gotten the same amount out of them. One of the scenes I really liked, I really like Brenda with her kids. I thought the voices in that were actually just great. In that three pages, I have no idea what movie this is.

**Craig:** No, this was very confusing. First things first, we open with a flashback. You can’t really open with a flashback, because what are you flashing back from. The way flashbacks work is you see… Chernobyl opens with a scene that then is later, and then you flash back to whatever. You have to give some sort of orientation to people, like what is the date, what is the year. We can’t put the word flashback on the screen.

**John:** Instead of flashback, I would say 1994 or just give a year.

**Craig:** Give a year and put it on the screen. Here’s a guy who’s in his 70s, and he’s planting something. What he does is he digs a little hole, plants a few seeds, and then pours some water on them. Then we’re out of there. Now that’s not enough.

**John:** It’s not. I didn’t know what I was supposed to take from that. I didn’t know, because he’s trying to do it secretly, but there wasn’t enough there.

**Craig:** No. When these moments happen in their own little timeline, there has to be some sort of drama to them of some kind. This is just planting something. Then we meet Meredith Perez. We don’t know the difference. We don’t know how we would know that this is present day as opposed to a flashback. We also don’t know how long ago the flashback was. She walks out and approaches a group of people getting off a school bus. I don’t understand what… Is she high? Was that the idea? Was she meant to be high? She seems high.

**John:** I took her as being nervous. I actually like her ability to continually undercut herself. She keeps trying things and undercutting what she was doing before. That can work, but there was not other engine to the scene. It was just her sputtering. I didn’t get what the point of the scene was supposed to be.

**Craig:** For instance, John, you’re absolutely right, if I knew that this was the opening day of mushroom camp and she has never welcomed people before to mushroom camp, this would work. We’re going to presume that the person who greets the people coming off the bus has done this many, many, many times. Think of the employees at the White Lotus greeting the people coming off the boat.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** This is a well-practiced bit of theater. She just seemed so discombobulated. Then Brenda says, “I thought this was more of a class.” What does Brenda know about anything anyway? She just walked off a bus.

**John:** We’re going to learn what Brenda knows, because she just took a photo of a thing called mushroom camp in the next scene. These are all in really a very strange order. It’s like we have all the flashbacks before the plane crashes in Lost. It’s just a strange thing. I do want to talk about… I thought Brenda with her two kids, her two toddlers, I thought the voices were actually very authentic in the way that moms speak to their kids like, “No, we’re doing this. We like walking.” Basically, you speak in this weird first-person plural involving your kids and their unreasonable demands for things. I like that, but I wanted that attached to something, because right now it’s just floating out there in a space.

**Craig:** Be aware that shooting scenes with toddlers is incredibly hard. It’s nice that you wrote dialog for toddlers, but there’s a reason you rarely see them doing dialog, because you can’t rely on them doing dialog. Also, what’s going on here is Brenda is going to see this flyer on the telephone pole that says, “Make your own income. Become a morel mushroom hunter.” What you’re showing me, Marissa, is a woman who is overwhelmed by her kids, but what you’re not showing me is a woman who’s short on money. What is motivating her here is that she needs money.

Now if these kids were overacting and she was begging on the phone, begging a caregiver to please not quit, but she can’t pay her more, because she doesn’t have enough money, and then the lady hangs up on her while she’s doing the shoo and all the rest, and then she sees it, maybe I’ll go, “Okay, she needs money. That’s what this is about.”

**John:** Is Brenda a babysitter?

**Craig:** No, I think Brenda’s a mom.

**John:** Do we know that she’s the mom?

**Craig:** No, we don’t, but I’m going to presume she is.

**John:** I guess we would presume that she’s a mother unless we hear otherwise, but actually, in some ways it makes more sense.

**Craig:** She’s late 30s. She’s pushing a stroller with two kids. I think she’s the mom. If she’s not the mom, then help. Help me.

**John:** Help me out.

**Craig:** Help me out. Then it would be good to know that she’s the nanny and that she wants a new job that pays more or that doesn’t have kids screaming. Here’s where I really got confused. We go back to present day and we don’t know. We’re now in a large cafeteria. Describe the cafeteria, by the way. Where is this cafeteria, in the middle of the woods? At one table, Gabriel, the guy who was in his 70s from the flashback, is using “his fork to slice off a piece of mushroom. He takes a bite and is pleasantly surprised.” How old is he now?

**John:** I have no idea. More than 70.

**Craig:** Is he 90? I’m so confused. He says, “This is matsutake.” Then the guy across from him is like, “What? Huh?” His name is Rah Reddy, “20s, skeptical.” What is he doing in mushroom camp? If someone’s like, “Oh, matsutake,” and he’s like, “What? All right,” how did he end up here? He must’ve made a choice to go to mushroom camp, right?

**John:** People get off the bus. I have a hard time believing that the first scene that we’re going to really see them or get to know them at is going to be inside this cafeteria. I just feel like there were some scenes missing in between there. These people talk on the bus. It was a strange way to get us into meeting this group.

**Craig:** Very.

**John:** Again, I don’t know what this movie actually is at the end of three pages, which is a problem. I’m assuming it’s an ensemble movie, that it’s not strict POV to any one person, because it felt like we would’ve had two scenes with a person if it was going to be their POV.

**Craig:** I’m going to guess that this involves vampires. That’s what I’m going to guess. I’m going to guess that Gabriel is not just a mushroom hunter, he’s a vampire hunter. He’s from Romania. Rah says, “Ha, vampires!” and Gabriel chuckles. “And inspiring mountains.” Feels like maybe there’s going to be some sort of summer camp horror movie thing going on that involves mushrooms somehow, which I’m saying as a guy that’s making a show that is not unrelated to mushrooms.

I think you put your finger on the problem. We need time to meet people before stuff happens. I need to know what he’s doing there. I need to know why I needed to see that thing in the beginning. Yes, we need to see people on the bus first talking to each other and grilling each other on why they’re doing something as bizarre as going to mushroom camp. Then I need a tour. Give me a tour. Orient me, something. Open the envelope.

**John:** I can open the envelope and tell you that I don’t think there’s vampires in here.

**Craig:** Oh, dammit.

**John:** The log line that person sent says, “A small retreat in Oregon promises its visitor a restful break from the demands of capitalistic society, but it soon becomes clear that the retreat’s talk of experimenting with medicinal properties of mushrooms has dark underpinnings.”

**Craig:** There’s something.

**John:** I guess there could still be vampires technically, but I think it’s much less likely.

**Craig:** Yeah, so some sort of zombie-ing or… I don’t know. Odd that this is about a break from the demands of capitalistic society but the advertising is promising you money. That may be part of the irony. I don’t know. I just think that basically, Marissa, you have an idea that no one else has. I assure you that there are no other mushroom camp movies. You need to orient us and be really careful about how you present moves in time, especially when you have three within three pages.

**John:** A lot.

**Craig:** That is telling people they’re in for a lot of whiplash.

**John:** Agreed. Let’s do our final Three Page Challenge, this one by Jordan Johnson. Help us out, Megana.

**Megana:** Maddy, 24, discusses death in voiceover as she speaks about different religions’ conceptions of death and parts of life. We see the corresponding images flash by on a projector until she gets to a picture of Olivia Carter, 24. Maddy reveals that Olivia was her best friend and that she killed herself three days ago. We then cut to Maddy cooking potato salad in the church kitchen. Evelyn, Olivia’s mom, expresses her gratitude for Maddy and takes her hands, asking Maddy to join her in prayer.

**John:** We should also stress that that voiceover continues beyond this point. She’s a character who can voiceover at any point during the story. She has voiceover power.

**Craig:** She has voiceover power, exactly. I guess the first thing that we notice when we look at the title page is it’s very graphic.

**John:** It’s really nice. Describe for our listeners driving their car someplace, describe this title page for us.

**Craig:** I don’t know if Jordan is a man or a woman. Jordan has created a very beautiful graphic title page that mimics what a title page of a program at a funeral or wake would look like. It’s got four crosses with lots of little beams in each corner and a little border around it, as it would. The title, Wake, is in this nice little scripty font, little swooshities underneath. Then instead of saying “written by Jordan Johnson,” it says “Funeral Arrangements by Jordan Johnson.” Then underneath that, in italics, it says, “The family of Olivia Carter sincerely appreciates your thoughts, prayers, and condolences.” This is very clever.

**John:** It is.

**Craig:** I would go right for this if I saw this in a pile.

**John:** I think it’s really smartly done.

**Craig:** Really well done.

**John:** That typeface is Zap Chancery.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** It was put on the first LaserWriter 2 printer, which it became ubiquitous and people used it for all the wrong things. This is actually an example.

**Craig:** Like funerals?

**John:** Funerals is fine for that, but people will try to use it for newsletters and [inaudible 00:46:30].

**Craig:** Please don’t do that.

**John:** I was really struck by the title page. Great. Really well done. This opening narration thing I think largely works, since this is Maddy. It’s her voiceover. “See this? This is what you get when you die… I guess if you’re Buddhist you’ll see this.”

**Craig:** Over that, it’s nothing. You see nothing, which is great. No, I’m sorry, you do see something. Sorry.

**John:** My biggest note here is I think you need to move these scene descriptions above the dialog in all of these cases. Then it actually makes much more sense.

**Craig:** That would make more sense. This is a very simple thing where you hear in voiceover Maddy’s brief announcement. This is what you would see if you’re a Buddhist when you die. This is what you see when you’re a Christian. This is what you see when you’re a Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish. All those things are very simple kind of projector images. Then she basically transitions to, I don’t know what you do see when you die, but I know what you will stop seeing, essentially. Then she gives a very interesting list of things.

**John:** Ending with eye-light. What did you take eye-light to mean, on Page 2?

**Craig:** That one was odd. I think it means just that there was light shining in her eyes. I don’t know what… Megana, are we running into a generational problem?

**Megana:** No, I also did not totally know what eye-light meant. I thought it meant the feeling of closing your eyes and having the sun shining on them.

**Craig:** It says, “We are on Liv’s face, showing bright and happy eyes.” I think what Jordan was intending was light in your eyes. When we’re shooting things, eye-lights, we do use those to put out little sparkles in your eye. That one was a little odd. What was lovely was I thought the progression of things that you don’t see anymore, this is what Jordan gave us. “No more sunrises. Or crepes. Or dimples.” That’s where we meet Liv for the first time and see her face. “No more sounds of a pin dropping on vinyl. Or watching thunderstorms in the Spring. Or eye-light.”

Then the eye-light brings us back to Liv’s picture, and says, “This is Liv. She’s my best friend. She killed herself 3 days ago. No more eggnog or Autumn or thrift stores.” That was kind of awesome, I thought. There are so many different ways of delivering what can often be a gloppy thing, which is somebody killed themself. You can get very melodramatic about it. I thought this was a very creative way in, that’s connecting Liv’s fate to a larger discussion about death and the afterlife, and also then tells me so much about Maddy, which is she doesn’t pause. She just rolls into this interesting, hyper-verbal way of describing things.

**John:** The next scene, which takes us to the end of the three pages, is in this church kitchen. “Maddy stirs the potato salad, adding in spices and whatever other gross things go into potato salad.”

**Craig:** Great. It’s disgusting.

**John:** It’s the right tone for it. It’s important I think when you have a centerpiece character like Maddy who is cynical. Having some tone being carried through into the scene description so helps. It makes it feel like the author and the central character are the same person.

**Craig:** I wish that we had just a little bit of a physical description of Maddy.

**John:** Agreed.

**Craig:** Other than her age, I don’t know anything about her, her hair, her clothes, her makeup, as is my want. There is mention further down the page of a woman named Pamela, who is working on a fruit salad at the other end of the kitchen. I think we would probably want to introduce her here earlier before Evelyn comes in, because when Evelyn enters, that’s when a new thing shifts. We don’t want to start meeting people that had already been there at that point.

**John:** I agree. The description of the kitchen is nice. It’s talking about the “yellow hue of an old church kitchen.” It says “cold LED tube lighting panels.” They’re actually fluorescent lighting panels. Those panels wouldn’t be LED, just fluorescent [inaudible 00:50:31] going for.

**Craig:** They sure would not. Jordan’s younger.

**John:** Jordan’s younger, I think.

**Craig:** I have no problem with that.

**John:** No, that’s absolutely fine. I like most of the scene that happens after this time. I thought it could be tighter and shorter. I think we could’ve gotten to the point of it a little bit quicker. I enjoy what Jordan’s doing on the page here. The choice to make all of Maddy’s voiceovers in bold is really smart, because even though there’s the little V.O. at the end, it can be confusing when characters are saying things in scenes and have voiceover power. Bolding those lines really helps.

**Craig:** Agreed, and agreed. I was really happy to see that. It helped me so much. This is why we say there are no rules. The rule is help me as the reader. I’m sure that a million screenwriting teachers will tell you you should not suddenly bold a character’s name in the middle of a script, but yeah, you should if it helps. In this case, it helped. I agree with you that Evelyn’s prayer could’ve been trimmed down. In editing, I know exactly what I would’ve trimmed it. The information we need is that Evelyn, she’s religious, whereas Maddy, not so much, and that she was Olivia’s mom. “Please bless the preparation of this food and the nourishment it will bring to our bodies. Please keep us all in your care today as we mourn the death of my sweet, sweet Olivia Michelle. Amen.” That’s all you need. The next chunk, you don’t need.

I loved Maddy’s commentary after Evelyn says to her, “You were a good friend to her, Maddy.” We hear Maddy’s thought in voiceover, which I think was great. Generally speaking, I loved it. I just loved these pages. I thought they were really well written. The scenes moved. I saw everything. I know so much about Maddy without anybody telling me anything about Maddy. I know so much about Liv and Maddy without anybody telling me.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** The creativity that led for this front page to be so interesting I think carried through. Well done, Jordan Johnson.

**John:** One other suggestion for how you can save some space on the page. On the top of Page 3, Evelyn has two lines. She goes, “Thank you for helping. I don’t know what I would’ve done without you.” Then there’s two lines of scene description before we get to another Evelyn line, “Let me say a quick word over the food. I don’t know what I would’ve done without you two.” Parentheticals, takes their hands. “Let me say a quick a quick word over the food.” That gives you all you needed to do between those two lines, and it saves you some space on the page.

**Craig:** If you wanted to get across that Maddy was not even looking at Evelyn but just stays looking at the potato salad, you can say, “Maddy, her eyes focused on the potato salad, joins Pam and Evelyn as they hold hands.” Then Evelyn says, “Dear Lord.” There is a way to be a little bit more compressed there. If you’re not running into page issues, I’d rather the space, personally. You’re right, if you are, you need to squeeze some juice out of this. You’ll squeeze way more juice out of it by making the prayer shorter, which you can definitely do.

**John:** That way you won’t have to fluid morph in the cut.

**Craig:** Fluid morph.

**John:** Let’s take a look at the log line. “At the funeral of her best friend, brash and honest 24-year-old Maddy Palmer endures the suffocating etiquette of a traditional wake.”

**Craig:** That’s pretty much what we were getting there.

**John:** It’s interesting that it looks like the whole movie’s maybe at this wake, rather than going on past it. Not what I would’ve expected, but I’m curious what’s going to happen. I would read more pages, so that’s a good sign.

**Craig:** Wakes are notorious for going off the rails, because they are not like the stuffy funeral services. They’re meant to be more of a party and celebration, I guess. I’ve never been to a wake. Drinking is involved, as I recall.

**John:** It can be. I want to thank certainly our three people who submitted these pages, because they were so brave for us to talk through them, but the other 180 people who submitted their pages, because they could’ve been chosen as well. If you have your own pages that you want us to take a look at, you don’t mail them to Megana. Instead, you fill out a form. Go to johnaugust.com/threepage, all spelled out. There’s a little form. You click some buttons. You attach your pdf. We could be talking about this on the next round of Three Page Challenges.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Megana, thank you for again the extraordinary self-abuse.

**Megana:** Of course. It’s my pleasure.

**Craig:** Make sure you enjoy in self-care.

**John:** Let’s answer one incredibly quick question that I know we actually have the answer to.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Matthew asks, “Hey, so in the new movie Watcher, I saw a credit I’ve never seen before. I Googled it, and I found nothing. It said ‘based on a screenplay by.'”

**Craig:** I feel like we answer this every day.

**John:** “What’s that about?” We did, but we’ll answer on this podcast as well.

**Craig:** “Based on a screenplay by” is a source material credit, the way that “based on a novel” or “based on a play” or “based on a song” is. What it means is that a screenplay was written early in the development of the project, oftentimes beginning the development of the project. That screenplay was not under the auspices of WGA contract. Why? Because it was written for a nonsignatory, or, as is more often the case, it was written for a nonsignatory but overseas. A lot of projects that originate in the UK for instance are not Writers Guild covered. They are rather written in the UK, where Writers Guild doesn’t have jurisdiction.

Then it gets either brought into another company, another company buys that thing from the first company, or, again more likely, the people developing it say, “Oh, we want to hire John August to rewrite this.” John only works under WGA contract, so now, lo and behold, boop, WGA contract. WGA credits, “written by,” “screenplay by,” “screen story by,” “story by,” all of those are a result of our collective bargaining agreement. They are available only to people that work under the Writers Guild collective bargaining agreement and not to anyone else. “Based on a screenplay by” means the first or early screenplay was not covered by the WGA.

**John:** Exactly. It could be that this screenplay was 40 years old but overseas. If it was written under WGA contract, even for Warners back in the day, it would still be part of this [inaudible 00:56:35] title.

**Craig:** Yes. We will answer this question many, many more times.

**John:** Many, many more times. Time for our One Cool Things.

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** My One Cool Thing is a book. It is The Secret History of Mac Gaming by Richard Moss. Craig, it’s a book I think you’ll enjoy.

**Craig:** Looking at the website.

**John:** It’s 480 pages long. It’s a big, thick, yellow book, comes out of the UK. It’s not new. I think it was first published in 2017, but this updated version has new more good stuff in it, or more new good old stuff in it. I had my Macintosh quite early on. I played a lot of games on Macintosh. Reading this book, I’m just remembering how different everything was, because this is pre-internet. To get a game, you had to have somebody give you that game on a disk. [inaudible 00:57:16] users group or find a shareware. Basically, college campuses were all about trading games back and forth. There are many great titles I remember from back in these days. Dark Castle, fantastic.

**Craig:** Of course. You would also get some quasi-free games if you subscribed to Macworld.

**John:** Macworld, MacUser, both.

**Craig:** There would be a floppy disk actually in the magazine that you could pop out. There were also some, literally just retype the code. People would just list code for stuff that you’d type in.

**John:** I don’t remember that for Macintosh stuff, but my initial Atari-

**Craig:** Apple II or something like that.

**John:** Yeah, Apple II, there were little games you could type in from the magazine. This was after that. The Macintosh was never really designed to be a gaming machine, and yet the people who would love to play games also loved the Macintosh. It was just a very natural fit.

**Craig:** Yes, it was, until at some point suddenly no one was making games for Mac at all, and it was all PC.

**John:** One company would be the one who would port all the big PC titles over to Macintosh, and they would come a year later, and they wouldn’t have the things you would want to see.

**Craig:** It wouldn’t be as good.

**John:** Then eventually, most stuff moved to being… Either you had a gaming PC that was literally a PC or you had a console that could just do so many things that you would never want your home computer to do.

**Craig:** Still to this day, if you’re playing off console, it’s almost certainly a PC, because there are PC rigs that are just built specifically for gaming. That’s great.

**John:** Anyway, this was a nice trip down memory lane. I don’t know how interesting this will be for people who didn’t have any of that firsthand history, because it would be like me reading about old rotary telephones or something. I don’t have that experience.

**Craig:** I do have the experience.

**John:** I do, but I-

**Craig:** I just don’t care.

**John:** I don’t care.

**Craig:** This is more nostalgia than anything else. This definitely feels like one of those nostalgia books.

**John:** The D and D book that you and I both loved, the Art and Arcana book, it’s like that but for Mac games.

**Craig:** Brought to us by my pal Kyle Newman. I have two Cool Things this week, both related to puzzles. The first is Ryan O’Shea, who was the first and only entry into my solve the Kevin Wald cryptic contest, challenge. By cryptic, I mean cryptics, multiple puzzles, three of them in fact, all extraordinarily hard, with so many layers that I believe you and Megana looked at Ryan’s solution and didn’t even understand the solution.

**John:** I have no idea.

**Megana:** No way.

**John:** Here’s the subject line on this email. “Have uncouth mercy, but not for me, to at its core deweaponize jerk Craig’s jigsaw alt.”

**Craig:** Let me translate, as I did for you guys. “Have uncouth mercy” means… Uncouth is a prompt to anagram. Anagram the word mercy, but not for me, so take M-E out of mercy, and anagram R-C-Y to C-R-Y. Then “to at its core deweaponize,” go to the core of the word deweaponize, which is the letter P. That is the letter directly in the middle of the word deweaponize. Now we have C-R-Y-P. “Jerk.” A synonym for a jerk is a tic, T-I-C. “Cryptic.” Then the definition part, “Craig’s jigsaw alt,” meaning cryptic puzzles are my alternative to jigsaws, which are not puzzles at all. Ryan’s solution was perfect and perfectly complete. He did a fantastic job. He did suggest that I’ve ruined him somehow. I’m glad. Good. I hope you’re ruined permanently, Ryan. Why should I be the only one? No, you did a wonderful job. I’m so proud and pleased.

**John:** Hooray.

**Craig:** Then my second Cool Thing is coming up. It just passed if you’re listening to this on a normal Tuesday. You still can access it. You still have time to get your name on the list of completionists. Mark Halpin, a friend of mine and perhaps the most, what I would say, elegant puzzle constructor in the world, meaning he himself not that elegant. No, he is, but his puzzles are elegant. Every year, with the exception of last year, every year for Labor Day weekend, he releases something he calls a Labor Day Extravaganza, which is a suite of usually somewhere around 10 puzzles, all which then feed into a meta puzzle. This is a pretty standard puzzle hunt kind of thing. His puzzles are so beautifully done. They are always wrapped together thematically by some kind of interesting narrative device, typically relating to stories, folklore, and mythology from various different cultures. He’s covered pretty much every culture I can think of.

His latest is called Cross Purposes. It launched, past tense, at 1 p.m. Eastern on Saturday, September 3rd. It is free, although there is an opportunity to tip him. I strongly encourage you to do so, because it’s not easy to build these things, and particularly not easy to build things as beautiful as a Mark Halpin Labor Day Extravaganza.

**John:** Fantastic. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** Woo!

**John:** It’s edited by Matthew Chilleli. Our outro this week is by Matthew Jordan. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send your longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the Three Page Challenges that we discussed today. You’ll find transcripts there 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, including the new Scriptnotes Bon Jovi T-shirt. You’ll find this at Cotton Bureau. When you get those in and ordered, you can wear them to our live shows that are coming up. 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 senior year. Craig and Megana, thank you for a fun show.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Senior year, that is our topic. It is the final year of high school in the US, both for our daughters, and a point of life that is frequently dramatized in movies. You see that a lot. There’s a movie I’m trying to set up which is all about senior year, because it’s such a big transition year. You are leaving one part of your life and moving on to this other part. It feels like a funeral for your younger self. Craig, what’s your recollection of senior year?

**Craig:** You could feel that there was a line that you were leaving a place where a lot of the challenge was to see if you could get into a good college. For a lot of people, senior year is also… You’re going to be confronted by having that breakup with that boyfriend or that girlfriend. You’re going to be driving to school instead of being driven to school. You are enough of an adult where you have access to certain things you didn’t have before, but not enough of an adult to… You can vote, but you can’t smoke, although you do. You feel like you’re on the verge of freedom, and you’re also getting away from home. That may very well be the next thing. This is your last hurrah with, for a lot of people, friends they’ve had since they were in kindergarten.

My daughter has gone to school in the La Cañada School District, which is a public school district where we live. She’s been in the public school system from kindergarten all the way through this year, her senior year. She has friends that she’s known since she was six. That’s a whole thing. It’s just so many transitions. The stuff that life fires at you and the speed with which it fires it at you when you are 17 or 18 is just astonishing.

**John:** I’m definitely noticing it’s the last firsts of a lot of things. It’s her last first day. It’s going to be the last musical that they’ll do at that school. It’s going to be the last time a lot of these things are going to happen. While there are some senior traditions, things that my daughter’s school always does, like the last day rituals and a senior trip, it’s recognizing that this is the final time certain things are going to happen is even more monumental for her.

**Craig:** I think as the year goes on, my daughter will be feeling this more and more. It’s easy now, because they just went back. They just went back, I don’t know, a couple weeks ago. As we get closer and closer to May, yeah, it’s going to be all sorts of stuff happening. It becomes almost like a yearlong celebration. Megana, you are way closer to senior year of high school than John or I. What do you remember, and how did you feel?

**Megana:** All of the things of feeling like you are on top and like you are like big dog on campus, but then I remember feeling so anxious about this looming question of what’s going to happen next year. I’m not going to have my friends or family around me. Where am I going to go to college? I feel like that question was looming over the horizon for the entire year in a way that maybe was the first time that I really experienced anxiety.

**Craig:** That was the last time, I’m sure.

**Megana:** Yeah, one and done.

**John:** Talk about that anxiety, because you were thinking about what’s going to happen next year, what colleges you’re going to get into. Once you knew where you were going to go to college, the stakes were suddenly much lower, weren’t they?

**Megana:** Amy is also applying to colleges. Any time she asks me for questions, I’m like, “Please don’t follow my example,” because I applied to too many schools, because I couldn’t make any decisions. I applied to them literally in the minutes before the application shut down. Then with Harvard, I got in. I think I got in on April 1st. I remember telling people, and they were like, “Oh, sick joke,” because everyone assumed I was just pulling an April Fools.

**John:** Oh, man.

**Craig:** Were you stupid? Was that why? Were they like, “Oh my god, Megana is the dumbest person we know.”

**Megana:** I also love April Fools. I think that’s the bigger component.

**Craig:** That may be it. Got it.

**Megana:** I was just so last minute on everything that I feel like I… I feel like that has continued throughout my life, where it’s like, I don’t know how much I got to enjoy it, because I was putting off decisions for so long.

**John:** Craig, did you encounter senioritis?

**Craig:** No, because we had been terrified by possibly urban legends, possibly not, of kids who had blown their last semester of high school and then the college rescinds the offer. The colleges said, when I got into college, they were like, “Yeah, just so you know, of course, we will be reviewing your final grades. Make sure that they’re… ” You’re like, “Oh god, I don’t want to fumble.” Also, I was in a race. I was in a valedictorian race. I couldn’t let up. Couldn’t let up.

**Megana:** Did you win the race?

**John:** Did you win?

**Craig:** No. I was the salutatorian.

**Megana:** Which is the cooler torian.

**Craig:** I think so. It was down to 100ths of a point or whatever. This is all stupid, by the way. If you find yourself currently as a senior in a race, it doesn’t matter, unless you’re really good at giving speeches. Then you’ll get some love for a good speech. I kept it on. I kept the heat on, but without the panic of, oh no, the unknown. I had a sense, “Okay, this is where I’m going to school. This is what it’s going to be.” Then you get the whiplash of having gone from the top of the heap in your high school to once again being a nobody that doesn’t know anything and is at the bottom of the pecking order when you get to college. The difference though when you get to college is… You can get razzed by the upperclassmen going into junior high or to high school. In college, no one cares. It’s the recognition you’re never going to be that little kid who’s getting picked on again. That just all goes away.

**Craig:** Yes, that part goes away. You’re not going to get bullied. I do recall, as a young heterosexual male, that there was definitely a certain kind of sexual politics going on where freshman heterosexual males were… It was just tougher. It was tougher. All the girls were looking upwards, and so you had to hustle. (singing) I did. I did. You know why?

**John:** You did, and you met your wife.

**Craig:** I did, I met my wife, although that wasn’t until I was a junior, so I had a few years of hustling. Then she put a ring on it.

**John:** Aw. I literally had one foot out the door my senior year because I was going to… Basically I had enough credits to graduate early. I only had to go to school in the mornings.

**Megana:** What?

**John:** I went to classes in the mornings, and then I took a class at CU Boulder in the afternoons. I was only halfway on campus anyway. I was running the high school paper. I don’t know, it was a good transition out. It worked really well for me. I felt like I was already leaving before I was officially leaving.

**Craig:** Interesting. Interesting.

**John:** Really Mike was the same situation. My husband was taking classes at OSU during his senior year too. We both had a situation where we really weren’t full-time high school students senior year.

**Craig:** He went to The Ohio State University?

**John:** The Ohio State University.

**Craig:** That’s one of the dumbest things.

**John:** It is one of the dumbest things. It has to be continuously mocked.

**Craig:** The. Please.

**Megana:** I feel like I can’t sit here and let this continue. It is The Ohio State University.

**Craig:** It is, because, what, there are other ones that are pretending to be Ohio State University, but we are The Ohio State University? Those are ripoff Ohio State Universities. Where are the other ones? There are no other ones.

**Megana:** There’s Ohio University.

**John:** Are there other OSUs that are not the one in Columbus, and so it’s only the one in Columbus is The Ohio State University?

**Craig:** No, there’s just The Ohio State University.

**Megana:** I was always under the impression that it was because of Ohio University that they did that. There’s Oregon State University.

**John:** Why would that work?

**Craig:** Why don’t they just underline the word State, Ohio State University? No, they stick the word The on it, which no one else does, for good reason.

**John:** Maybe we should be The Scriptnotes Podcast.

**Craig:** That’s a perfect analogy. Welcome to The Scriptnotes Podcast. That’s just ridiculous. The odds are that neither one of us survive to see October based on what we just did, because man, I’ll tell you, Ohio fans, phew.

**John:** That’s why we keep these conversations in the Premium feed, so at least we’re getting money for the hate coming our way.

**Craig:** Yes, there will be hate coming our way, and also long emails. Oh my god, so many long emails. “This is why,” blah blah blah, blah blah blah. I’m already making fun of your email. Don’t send it.

**John:** The end of high school is also graduation. Craig, did you have a good high school graduation?

**Craig:** I did. High school graduation went well.

**John:** Did you have to give a salutatorian speech?

**Craig:** I did. I gave a salutatorian-

**John:** What was your topic?

**Craig:** For the life of me, I cannot remember.

**John:** Do you have it written down anywhere?

**Craig:** Not anymore. It was written down, but we’re talking about something that I think I probably wrote it by hand and then typed it into my Macintosh and then printed it on my Brother Daisywheel printer. Oh, Megana, you never knew the joys of a Daisywheel printer.

**Megana:** I’m totally lost here.

**John:** Tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap.

**Craig:** Basically, it was like an electric typewriter. You would say, okay, print this. It would pull all the text into its memory. Then there was a wheel, a disc, a plastic disc, and at the tips of it were the letters. It would spin and hammer the letter. It was like the world’s fastest typist. It was loud and so much slower than a laser printer, not even close. I probably did that. Where it went… I tried to erase my past as best I could.

**John:** We’ve noticed that. We have video footage of Ted Cruz from his freshman year. I wonder if somebody filmed Craig’s salutatorian speech.

**Craig:** I think that’s wonderful.

**John:** If someone who’s listening can track that down, that would’ve been from 1989?

**Craig:** Eight.

**John:** ’88.

**Craig:** That was spring of 1988 in Freehold, New Jersey. If somebody has the video of my salutatory address, we’d love to see it. If you have it and it’s on VHS, we’ll gladly pay for the transfer.

**John:** Good stuff. Craig, Megana, thank you for a good senior year.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you. See you next week.

**John:** Bye.

**Megana:** Bye.

Links:

* Our first post-pandemic liveshow will be on October 19, 2022 and tickets will be available to premium members on September 9!
* [Order your new Scriptnotes Shirt here!](https://cottonbureau.com/p/GXNTRN/shirt/jon-bon-jovi-of-podcasts#/15427431/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s)
* [Things I Think Are Awesome: Hunger Stones and Stability, Lynn Cherny’s substack](https://arnicas.substack.com/p/titaa-33-hunger-stones-and-stability?utm_source=email)
* [Made-Up Words Trick AI Text-To-Image Generators](https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/made-up-words-trick-ai-text-to-image-generators) Discover Magazine
* [This Word Does Not Exist](https://www.thisworddoesnotexist.com)
* [@Dribnet’s Twitter Thread on Splaflut](https://twitter.com/dribnet/status/1531962064528211968)
* [MoviePass beta](https://www.moviepass.com/?utm_source=TestC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=OpenWaitlist)
* [MoviePass Will Work This Time*](https://slate.com/business/2022/08/moviepass-return-work-fail-who-is-to-say.html) Alex Kirshner writing for Slate
* [Netflix turns 25](https://deadline.com/2022/08/netflix-turns-25-cues-up-nostalgia-reel-for-its-red-envelope-days-1235101238/)
* [HBO Max Cynthia Littleton for Variety](https://variety.com/2022/biz/news/hbo-max-wb-discovery-content-remove-inventory-1235352588/)
* [Secret History of Mac Gaming](https://secrethistoryofmacgaming.com/)
* Happy Halpinmas [Mark Halpin’s Labor Day Puzzles](http://www.markhalpin.com/puzzles/puzzles.html)
* Three Page Challenge Selections: [Oculum by Larry Bambrick](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F08%2FThree-Page-Challenge-Oculum-.mmsw-1.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=e8e6e97eff07f94c5a12974353327fb756af4a6370d963e0ef46e036c05303f4), [We’re All Very Tired by Marissa Gawel](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F08%2FWere-All-Very-Tired_3-pages_Gawel.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=64231d152cf3527350dfb7dfd2a659bf00b1098aa0b9ffffda74956d5d7ea599), [Wake by Jordan Johnson](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F08%2FWake-Jordan-Johnson-Three-Page-Challenge.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=75024d61cf2881f09e4bdd879e8d98a0304b09972f1ab97aded91280d19997c6)
* [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://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Jordan ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) 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/565standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 537: The One with Mike Schur, Transcript

September 1, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/the-one-with-mike-schur).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 537 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig is off on a mountain somewhere, which is fine, because that means I get to ask all the questions of our guest this week. Michael Schur is the award-winning writer and creative force behind so many of my favorite TV shows, including Parks and Rec, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, and The Good Place. His new book, How To Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question, is a New York Times Bestseller. Michael Schur, welcome to Scriptnotes.

**Michael Schur:** Thank you so much. I’m very happy to be number 537. That feels appropriate. That feels right on the money.

**John:** Now, I put a lot of credits in there, but you have so many more credits and also expertise in podcasting because you have your own podcast.

**Michael:** I do. My friend Joe Posnanski, who is a sportswriter of great renown, and I started a decade ago, just talking about sports and literally nothing, just blabbing incoherently. It has somehow continued for the better part of an entire decade. Now we are part of the Meadowlark Media family that Dan Le Batard started out of Miami. It’s an actual legitimate podcast that has a logo and stuff, which is very, very exciting. If you’re interested in hearing Joe Posnanski and me talk about literally nothing, but sometimes sports, you can find it at the Meadowlark, Dan Le Batard and Stugotz feed on Meadowlark Media.

**John:** Fantastic. A decade, but how many episodes does it… You haven’t hit 500 episodes of your podcast.

**Michael:** We have no way of knowing because it’s been so piecemeal over the years. It was just on his blog for a while. For the first six years it was just two people shouting into their computers, and you couldn’t even hear what we were saying. We really honestly don’t know how many we’ve done. It’s a large number of nonsense.

**John:** Now, on this podcast, are you the John or are you the Craig?

**Michael:** That’s a good question.

**John:** Are you prepared going into it? Are you just winging it the whole time?

**Michael:** I think it’s a little of both. We’re mostly winging it, but we do have a brief text exchange beforehand where we talk about what we’re going to cover. The hallmark of the podcast, if there is one, is a draft, where we draft ridiculous things. We’ll draft kinds of fruit or numbers between one and 10 or something. We at least do a tiny bit of prep to think about what we’re going to draft. I think maybe somewhere in between I guess is the answer.

**John:** That’s fair. We should also say that on Twitter you are @KenTremendous. I think I’ve told you this, but I followed you for years, not knowing that Ken Tremendous was actually you. I knew you in real life, and I followed you on Twitter. I didn’t realize they were the same person.

**Michael:** That’s a fairly frequent thing I hear is, “Oh, you’re that guy.” I started that Twitter handle just with… I didn’t think twice about whether I should use my real name or something. A lot of people follow @KenTremendous and don’t know it’s me. The funny thing is that I’m verified, which I think maybe lays bare the absurdity of verification on Twitter, because I’m verified as a fake person. Do take from that what you will.

**John:** I love it all. We will not talk baseball at all on this podcast, unless it is relevant to something else. Then I’m happy to talk baseball. I just don’t understand it whatsoever. I do want to talk a little bit about moral philosophy. One of the things I liked about your book is that you lay out that there are frameworks that can help us understand moral and philosophical issues. I’m wondering if we can apply that to writing and the choices we make both as writers and the choices we make for our characters, the frameworks of decision making. As we go through your comedy career, I wondered if we can wrap this all together in how characters are making choices and how writers are making choices about those characters.

**Michael:** That sounds very fun. I’m all in. I’ll say nothing about baseball. We’ll only talk about that topic.

**John:** Fantastic. For our bonus topic this week, I want to talk about writers room lingo, the special terms you just use inside a writers room and what they all mean.

**Michael:** Very cool.

**John:** Let’s get started with your career. Maybe just start at the beginning, because I don’t really know how you all got started as a writer in this town.

**Michael:** I was on the Harvard Lampoon. I’m one of those people.

**John:** I’ve heard of that.

**Michael:** I didn’t give any thought at all in college to being a professional writer, even though it was all around me. I really loved college and wanted to just be in college and take classes that I thought were interesting and stuff. Then when I graduated, I decided to give myself a year to see if I could make it as a writer. I’m too practical and timid a person to just commit to something as risky as screenwriting with no backup plan. My plan was one year, if I get a job, great. If I don’t, I was going to apply to grad school. I moved to New York, and I borrowed a thousand dollars from my Uncle Steve to pay rent, to put a down payment on an apartment. This is back when a thousand dollars was enough for that.

**John:** That’s amazing.

**Michael:** In Manhattan. I just started writing stuff. I wrote a packet for Letterman and for Conan and for SNL. I had some meetings with various people here and there who needed writers. I got interviewed by SNL in July of ’97, right after I graduated, but I didn’t get hired. I remember, I have a very distinct memory of, they were walking us around in pairs. I was paired up with this woman. I rem thinking, “Oh man, I’m never getting this job, because this woman is so much funnier than me.” It was Tina Fey, and I was right.

**John:** You were right.

**Michael:** Absolutely right. She got hired and I didn’t, which at the time I was like, “Yes, that is correct. You’ve made the correct decision.” Getting that interview made me feel like I at least had a shot. I kept on poking around and writing submissions and making small inroads. Jon Stewart hired me to pitch ideas to him for a book he was writing. Over the course of three months, I pitched him probably 200 ideas for comedy pieces, and he used maybe half of one, I would say, but it didn’t matter, because he was paying me just enough money to pay my rent and buy food.

Then in December of that year, December of ’97, there was this big shakeup at SNL where Norm Macdonald got fired from Weekend Update because he was making too many jokes about OJ Simpson, and Don Ohlmeyer, who was running NBC, was friends with OJ Simpson and he didn’t like that. He fired Norm. The whole writing staff of Update got fired. There was this big kerfuffle. They just needed writers. They called me and said, “You start Monday.” I started at SNL in January of ’98. That was my first job in TV.

**John:** Now, were you hired specifically to write for Weekend Update and those desk jokes or were you also writing sketches? I don’t know what the division of labor is on the writing staff there.

**Michael:** I should’ve clarified. I was hired just as a regular sketch writer. Update is its own little fiefdom within SNL. It has the host obviously, but then it has its own dedicated writers who don’t write sketches normally. Sometimes they do if they have an idea. Mostly they’re just writing jokes over the course of the week. I was just hired as a regular sketch writer. Then I was there for two and a half years or so. Then Rob Carlock, who was running Weekend Update at the time, left to move to LA and work for Friends. I then took over his job producing Weekend Update. In the second half of my time there, I wrote sketches at the beginning of the week, but then if they got chosen, I didn’t produce them. I handed them off to someone else and switched over on Thursday and just only produced Weekend Update. I was there. I was producing Weekend Update during the Tina Fey, Jimmy Fallon era. That was my time there.

**John:** That’s an amazing time.

**Michael:** It was a great time. I was there for three years and then I left.

**John:** Now, talk to me about the transition between… You were just a writer. You’re pitching sketches, you’re pitching jokes, you’re trying to make things funny, so you’re more of a manager. As a producer you have other people who are working under you and you’re having to steer the ship a bit. How did you develop those skills?

**Michael:** It was a great training ground. It really was, because everything at SNL is sink or swim. They throw you into the deep end of the pool. If you sink, you’re dead. If you swim, they’re like, “Okay, you can stay here as long as you want.” No one really explained the job to me, except for Robert. He was like, “Here’s how you do this job,” on his way out. At the time I think there were three full-time joke writers, and then also people fax in jokes from everywhere. You have these people all over the country who will send in jokes. Most of them aren’t amazing.

At the time there was this guy named Alex Baze who was faxing in jokes from Chicago. Every week this guy would get a joke on the air, all the way to the end. You’re only doing 10 or 12 jokes. It’s really, really rare for a faxer to get something on the air, and this guy was consistently doing it. We ended up hiring him full-time. He became the head writer I think of that segment, and then now he’s the head writer of Seth Meyers’s show. I got a little bit lucky. Not only were there three very, very talented joke writers who were full-time workers, there were also people like Alex who were faxing in jokes and making the segment great.

Basically, what you’re doing is every day the writers will write 20, 25, 30 jokes. You’re collecting them, looking at them, editing them, trying to make them punchier, punching them up if you can. Then what happens is on Thursday night and Friday night, the host – at least this is the way it was when I was there – Tina and Jimmy and I and the writers would sit down. Tina and Jimmy would read the jokes that I had picked all the way through, just out loud, just read them out loud. We would throw them into one of two categories, no thanks, or this is good, we like this. You would end up with, I don’t know, 50 jokes that you thought were possible. You would winnow that down to 25. You would probably take 25 of them to dress rehearsal, maybe 20 to 25 to dress rehearsal. Then you do the dress and then you cut half of them basically for the air show.

As a producer what you’re doing is you’re trying to manage obviously the content, but then you’re also talking to the graphics department and you’re talking to the production department to say, “Hey, we have a bit on this thing where Chris Kattan is going to come on as this crazy character. We need him to be dressed like this. Here’s the props we need, costumes we need.”

Then the really tricky part is between dress and air, sometimes a joke would work pretty well, but you would think the key art that’s over Jimmy’s shoulder there is wrong. You’d have to run down, in real time. It’s 10:23 p.m. and you’re going on the air in 90 minutes, if you’re Update. You’d have to run down to say, “Hey, can you change this to this and this and make this change?”

It’s very, very good training, because the show is live. You get really good at editing yourself very, very quickly, throwing away everything that isn’t working, and quickly coming up with solutions for problems that you have. That happens because you have no choice, because if you don’t get good at that, then you’re going to be humiliated on national television. It really was great training for being a producer in a long form, a half-hour format, because it drove the ego out of you and it just made you very non-precious with your own material.

**John:** Now, talk to me about, you have an audience there, so you can get the immediate feedback, like that is funny, that is not funny. When you’re just going through the jokes with Tina and Jimmy, how do you know what’s going to work and what’s not going to work?

**Michael:** If you’re a once-in-a-generation comedic talent like Tina Fey, you have a pretty good instinct for what you can make funny and what you think will work. By the way, the same with Jimmy. Jimmy has a very good instinct for just punching this and relating to an audience. He’s really, really good at that. Some of it is just gut instinct. Sometimes it’d be like, “I don’t know about this one.” It would be like, “We can try it.” That’s the benefit of the dress rehearsal is if you’re iffy on something, you might as well try it, see what happens, and there’s no harm done. A lot of it is just purely them knowing their own voices and them understanding what they can make funny and what they think will work. Then of course there’s other considerations.

You always had to do at least one joke about whatever the big story of the week was. You can’t ignore… Right now, today, this week it’s Justice Breyer retiring or those documents being found in Mar-a-Lago that Trump took illegally out of the White House. If there’s a show on Saturday, right now they are trying to figure out what their joke is about those topics.

**John:** Yeah, about Trump eating paper or something like that.

**Michael:** Exactly. Yeah, exactly. It’s a little bit of everything. It’s not one thing. It’s a little bit of guesswork, a little bit of just knowing your own voice, and a little bit of a feeling that you need at some basic level to cover whatever the big story of the week is.

**John:** You’re doing this job. You’re doing it well. Why leave?

**Michael:** Great question. I had been there at that point for six and a half years. I was dating a woman who is now my wife, who was in LA. She was working for sitcoms out here as a writer. We got to this point where it was like, if this is going to really work, one of us has to move. It just made more sense for me to move to LA than for her to move to New York, because there were more jobs in LA. It was mostly that.

Then maybe 10% of it was this nagging feeling I had, which was SNL, unlike every other show essentially on the air, is never going away, which means you can stay there. If you succeed there, you can essentially stay there forever. There are people there who have been there for 30 years because it’s a really good job, you get to live in New York, it’s really fun. When you go to a cocktail party and tell people what you do for a living, they’re interested in what you have to say. I just had this sense of, if I’m ever going to be anything more as a writer than what I am now, I can’t stay here. It’s a little bit of a golden handcuffs situation. Everything aligned for me to move and to say, “This was really fun. This was a great start to my life, but now I want to do something else.”

I wrote a spec script. I wrote a Curb Your Enthusiasm spec script. That shows you how long Curb has been on the air. I took a bunch of meetings in my off weeks. I got one job offer. It was from Greg Daniels, who was adapting the British version of The Office into an American version of The Office. I thought, “This is never going to work. It’s a terrible idea to do this.” My meeting with Greg was so interesting. I found him so fascinating. I wrote an email to my agent at the time. I said, “If that guy offers me a job, I’m going to take it, because I think he’s going to teach me how to write.” That’s exactly what happened. I took the job. Greg led a master class in half-hour comedy writing that was taken by me and BJ Novak and Mindy Kaling. He literally just taught us all how to do this job. It was the greatest good fortune and good decision of my career.

**John:** Great. This is a wonderful time to talk about frameworks of comedy, because really let’s talk about the half-hour comedy as a form, because that half-hour television comedy, we think we know what it is, but in your book you talk about all moral philosophy and really all philosophy in the Western world goes back to Aristotle. What is the Aristotle of the half-hour comedy? What is the baseline from which everything’s evolved? Who are the important steps along the way in the transformation of the half-hour comedy? In your mind, where does the half-hour comedy start?

**Michael:** If you are Greg Daniels, what you would say – or now me, because I essentially adopted his worldview wholesale – there has been, traditionally speaking, a percentage give and take in the half-hour comedy world in terms of how each episode is divided up. If you imagine it as a pie, 70% of it is jokes and 30% of it is emotion or warmth or kindness or whatever you want to call it. When we were kids, when you and I were kids, because we’re old, there were things called very special episodes, which would happen during sweeps and which would change that ratio. Suddenly a given episode would be 30% jokes and 70% emotional or serious stuff.

**John:** Like when Arnold’s friend gets molested.

**Michael:** Exactly, or when Arnold tried smoking for the first time.

**John:** Or when he gets rabies.

**Michael:** Exactly. The normal episode of a half-hour show I think, and this is an Aristotelian idea. It’s interesting that you bring this in. You’re trying to find some kind of balance. You’re trying to say there are people who are coming to this show for different reasons. Some people just want to laugh and enjoy themselves and some people want to feel something. They want to feel an emotional connection to the characters. Other people might want a serious issue to be discussed. People don’t come to these sitcoms for one thing. The most successful sitcoms I think you would say, of all time, with a few exceptions, there’s always exceptions, but the most successful sitcoms are the ones that manage to find this perfect balance between being funny and then also showing human connection or warmth or emotion or something.

The exception would be something like Seinfeld. Seinfeld was 100% jokes and 0% warmth. Famously, the slogan that Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld had was no hugging, no learning. They didn’t want to engage in that at all, and because they are two of the greatest comic geniuses of all time, that show was the most popular show in history. I think a lot of people maybe at the time learned a bad lesson from that show, because that’s not a replicable formula. You have to be as funny and interesting as Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld in order to pull that off. There have certainly been other successful shows like 30 Rock that similarly went way heavier on the jokes and the humor than they did on any kind of emotional connection with the characters or warmth or anything like that.

Greg’s version of it was to say, look, we only have, call it 21 minutes and 30 seconds, or 22 minutes, and we are going to make sure that if you are the kind of person who wants to watch a show because they want to feel something, then we’re going to carve out time where we’re not undercutting everything with a joke, we’re not reducing this to just office hijinks. We are going to have time where Jim and Pam have serious conversations about their lives and where Michael Scott, when he falls in love with Holly Flax, late in the fourth, fifth season, whenever that was, that there is going to be scenes that are just about that and that aren’t also trying to be funny.

That’s a really tricky little slight-of-hand move to pull off, but when you do pull it off, you get something like The Office or Friends or one of those shows where people can rewatch them over and over and over again, because even though they know all the jokes and they can repeat them by heart, they’re watching it because they feel connected to the characters and to the world of the show.

**John:** Looking back to the timeline, I’m thinking back to… We had Jac Schaeffer on the show talking about WandaVision. WandaVision is all structured around the evolution of the family sitcom and over the decades and how it grows and how it changes. I think back to I Love Lucy or the Andy Griffith Show. I Love Lucy is all jokes. It’s just a joke factory. Andy Griffith is actually not that funny. There’s jokes in there, but it’s more a happy family, father, son situation. The evolution from there into Norman Lear’s shows, which have actual real conflict and stakes to them. You look at Mary Tyler Moore and the family show as an Office show. When you’re starting on The Office, which at the time was a new format – we had the British show, but the idea that there’s not an audience, we’re not going to get the feedback of the laughter – was it scary going into writing The Office, trying to think, “Is this even funny?”

**Michael:** Yes, to some extent, although what makes Greg special as a writer is he spent an entire year watching the British show over and over again and taking notes. He approaches writing like a scientist. He really puts scripts and shows under a microscope. He gets down to this molecular level where he can now explain to you, here is why what they are doing is so interesting. There were all these things that he pointed out to us about the British show that were clear but also weren’t the kind of things that you might think about if you were talking about why you liked it.

For example, he said, in the history of the sitcom, the standard is that the love story is at the center. The two young attractive people who are will they, won’t they type people, are at the center of the show. Off in the corner is the wacky boss. The wacky boss has a job. The job is to come into his scene, say something stupid and ridiculous and then go back into his office.

Part of the genius of the British show is it inverted the formula. The wacky boss was the center of the show. The love story was shoved into the margins. That did two things. One, it let a singular comedic talent like Ricky Gervais or Steve Carrell anchor the show and be so funny all the time, and to really delve into the psychology of the wacky boss was a new idea. It also meant that the love story was tantalizingly thin and gossamer and spiderwebby and you only got these little glimpses of it. You only got this tiny, tiny amount. It made you desperate to see more of it.

The studio and network would give us notes in the first few seasons where they would say, “We love Jim and Pam so much. It’s such a great story. We just want to make sure that it’s really coming through here, what Pam is feeling.” Greg would go, “Yes, great note. Absolutely.” Then he would say, “Yeah, we’re ignoring that,” because what they don’t understand is that after whatever story has played out, if the camera is peeking at Pam from behind a plant, and her eyes just glance up at Jim and linger on him for one second and then she looks away, the audience is going to really… That intimacy is so tense that the audience will certainly feel the thing we want them to feel.

We all had a lot of fear about adapting it, because we all revered the British show. We all thought it was essentially non-replicable in America. Greg had studied it and observed it and had understood it at such a deep level that at the end of the day it was much easier to make it good I think than we anticipated, because Steve can do anything. Steve is a genius. Also, that kind of romance was so new to television. No one had ever seen it before. The freshness of it really I think brought it into people’s brains and hearts very quickly.

**John:** Now, coming from The Office, your next big project is Parks and Rec. What was the genesis for that? Where did the idea come from? Also, how early on did you know that it was going to be in a similar format to The Office? What was the start of Parks and Rec?

**Michael:** Season 4 of The Office, there was a writer strike. We were picketing. Greg and I were picketing together. He said, “Hey, NBC wants me to do a new show. Would you want to do it with me?” Because I am not a fool, I said yes. They were so desperate to capitalize on The Office and the success of The Office that they basically gave Greg a blank slate and said, “You can do anything you want. We’ll put it on the air,” which now is slightly more common that you get a full season order of something. At the time it was unheard of. He and I started talking during the writer strike as we were walking around picking. Then all of a sudden we started meeting for breakfast a couple times a week at Norm’s Diner, which is Greg’s favorite restaurant in LA by far. Greg is the most thorough human being in the world. We would just pitch idea after idea after idea.

The network really wanted a spin-off, because they were looking at The Office, which was a show that had something like 20 regular characters. The normal network playbook was, this is great, we’ll just take some popular minor characters, rip them out of that show, and build a new show around them. Greg called it The Office: An American Workplace, because he always imagined, potentially, that in success you could do spinoffs that weren’t really spinoffs. You could do The Auto Body Shop: An American Workplace, or The School: An American Educational Institution, or whatever.

**John:** Were they going to say the same documentary company that was filming The Office was also filming these other places?

**Michael:** Exactly, yes. That was exactly the conceit that he was imagining. We had a number of options. We had any workplace in the world. We could just say this is the same documentary crew, and the way it’s a spin-off is just it’s a similar look. We also had the possibility of taking say Craig Robinson out of the warehouse and saying here’s the show that takes place in the warehouse. That’s really what NBC wanted, because at the time we were still in the zone of spinoffs are easy sells to affiliates. That would be the best link that we could do.

**John:** Look at Cheers to Frasier. That was such a nice easy handoff.

**Michael:** Absolutely. Then we stumbled on this idea of doing essentially for government or an entire city what The Office had done for the concept of the office. The Office was a fake company, but it had this incredible relatability where everybody’s worked in some office. At some point everybody’s had a boss. Everybody has annoying coworkers. We thought what would be really interesting would be to say we’re going to invent a whole city and we’re going to talk about the public sector instead of the private sector. That didn’t obviously translate very well to the idea of a spin-off. It would be a fake spin-off, where Andy Bernard, Ed Helms’s character, would quit Dunder Mifflin and run for mayor and then be the mayor or something like that.

**John:** It’s a stretch.

**Michael:** It would be clunky. We broke the news to them that we weren’t going to do a straight Office spin-off, but we had had such success with the documentary format. We loved what the documentary format did for comedy, because talking heads are great opportunities for exposition and jokes and that sense that you’re a fly on the wall and that you’re spying on the activities of the people that you’re watching. It just was like what we had been doing and felt very comfortable doing. We took the format and applied it to the public sector.

Then magically, again, very fortunate – this is one of the things I write about in the book, is all the good breaks that happened in my life – Amy Poehler announced that she was leaving SNL at essentially exactly the right time. We knew that we wanted the main character to be a woman. I was like, “Look, I worked with Amy Poehler for four years. There’s no one funnier on the planet. She’s the only person who can do this.”

Ironically, this is very inside baseball, but they wanted to put our pilot on after the Super Bowl. They ordered 13 episodes. The idea was The Office had the Super Bowl episode that year. The plan was we would start shooting in I think January, The Office would air right after the Super Bowl, and then our pilot would air after The Office. Even though it’s a lot of passive viewing, you’re talking about 25 or 30 million people watching your pilot.

Then Amy got pregnant and suddenly she couldn’t start shooting until March. Our first thought was like, “Oh that’s too bad, she can’t do it.” Then our second thought was, “Getting Amy Poehler in your show is a long-term proposition, and airing after the Super Bowl is a short-term proposition.” In a very risky move, we voluntarily essentially gave up seven episodes of our 13-episode order and said, “We won’t air after the Super Bowl. We’ll air in April.” Amy came to us in March, and we started shooting. We only shot six, and they aired in April and May. We hung on by a thread. Instead of 30 million people watching our pilot, probably four million people watched the pilot. It wasn’t quite as splashy or big, but ultimately it was absolutely the right move.

**John:** Doing the six episodes though, did it also give you some chance to course-correct and figure out more what your show was? I think that’s that first season of Parks and Rec. It’s great and it’s lovely, but it did change. It did morph after that first season into something more like what I really expect the show to be.

**Michael:** It changed dramatically. We only had six episodes. We were doing everything on the fly. They did testing of the pilot and the second episode. What came back was not great, frankly. Part of it was an unfair expectation that it would be as good as The Office. There’s no way that a new show in its nascent pilot form is going to be as good as something that’s in Season 4.

There was a lot of feedback just about Amy’s character just specifically and how she came off. The word was ditzy. It was wild to see that, because in our view, she was the opposite of ditzy. She was an incredibly smart, very, very determined person, whose singular goal was to improve her town and the public facilities available in the town. In our mind the problem was she just had no political acumen. She had no game is the way we thought of it. We used to describe it as a person who has read everything about golf and can tell you every winner of every major golf tournament for the past 100 years and can analyze a swing perfectly, but can’t play golf, but is terrible at golf. She was supposed to be this really smart and determined and positive person who just couldn’t be a political animal, because that requires a sort of cynicism or toughness or edginess or something that she just didn’t possess. Ditzy was just, oh no, we’ve blown it.

What was very clear was that we had an amazing comedian at the center of our show, and all of these other incredibly funny people, Aziz and Chris Pratt and Aubrey Plaza and Rashida Jones and all this incredible cast, and we just weren’t writing it correctly. Very quickly, even before that first season was over, we started to course correct very intensely. If you watch the sixth of those six episodes, it’s called Rock Show, that was the first episode that we were able to really make big changes to in terms of the way the characters came across. It’s by far the best episode I think of that first season. It does point the way toward what the show would ultimately become.

**John:** Mike, talk about this having to course-correct, because as writers, we all get these notes about, “Okay, this is not working. This is the problem. We need to fix this,” but the train has already left the station. It’s running. You have to have conversations with you and with Craig Daniels and about the show, but then with the writers. Then you have to have conversations with Amy Poehler about, this change that you’re making, you actually are changing who her character was to who you want to be. That’s got to be terrifying.

**Michael:** It was, yeah. It was very terrifying. I had a lot of sleepless nights in that first season, because I thought to myself, I’m going to be the person who ruins Amy Poehler’s career. That thought got into my head once I saw the testing and once I understood that as much as I wanted to ignore the testing, that I couldn’t, that what they were saying had a point. Amy was one of the most beloved SNL cast members maybe ever. I thought, oh my god, if I’m the one who causes her career to get derailed, I will never forgive myself.

This is where that SNL training really helps, because again, I likened it at the time to being in a NASCAR race, seeing that there’s a problem with your engine, and having to someone fix the engine as you’re still rolling around the track. You can’t pit stop here. We are shooting something on Monday. It’s Tuesday now. We have four days to fix whatever it is that we’re supposed to shoot and try to rescue the show.

There was a lot of sleepless nights, a lot of conversations with Greg, a lot of conversations with the writers, a lot of conversations with Amy. We started sifting through the detritus of the first stuff that we had shot, stuff that we had cut or stuff that hadn’t made the episodes or whatever, to just examine it, be a scientist, the way Greg was, and say, “What are we missing here? What did we cut that would’ve been better if we had left in? What did we leave in that would’ve been better if we cut?”

I remember there was one little moment where there was an episode called Boys Club, and Amy was giving this talking head. There was a bunch of guys who met for beers in the courtyard. She wasn’t invited, in her mind because she was a woman, but in reality it was just because nobody thought to invite her, because they didn’t think that she was the kind of person who wanted to have a beer in the courtyard. She went out, she crashed their boys club party, and then she accidentally knocks over the table and all the beers shatter on the ground. Then she gave this talking head where she was saying… The joke we had written for her was like, “Am I shattering a glass ceiling? I’m shattering the glass beer bottles, so that’s a start,” or something like that. It was meh.

Then what we liked to do on that show, and on The Office, was just have Amy improvise stuff, like, “Hey, do a couple where you just say whatever you want.” She was like, “Okay.” She improvised this thing where she was like, “Am I shattering the glass ceiling? I don’t know.” She turned around and pointed behind her. She said, “I don’t know, look at all those bitches cleaning up after me.” I was like, “God, that’s so much funnier. That’s a billion times funnier.” We were like, the answer here is to lean into Amy’s actual comic persona. She’s still playing a character, but she does have a funny, edgy side of her that can come out and it will still be okay. We latched on to that and we latched on to a couple other moments, and we just started writing towards those things. Luckily, we had just enough time to save the show by a hair. We saved the show, and it ran for seven years.

**John:** That’s amazing. Just a quick little sidebar on the talking head as a format, as an idea, because it is so fundamental to The Office and Parks and Rec, and also Modern Family, which doesn’t even have the documentary crew framework around it. Just the ability for a character to actually tell you what they’re really thinking and what they’re actually really experiencing is so unique and strange. As an audience we’ve just accepted it. It’s an innovation.

**Michael:** It really is. It has 50 different uses. On The Office, to have Michael Scott look at the camera and say, “Today is Diversity Day. We are getting diversity training from this guy who’s coming in and he’s doing XYZ.”

**John:** So useful.

**Michael:** To not have to work that pipe into casual conversation or dialog is incredibly useful. Then, by the way, once you get that pipe out, you can just write a punchline and have him end it with a joke and it’s great. It’s one of the most efficient plot delivery mechanisms I think that’s ever been invented. That’s not all it does. You can also just go to it for a joke. You can enter up any scene and just go quickly to any character for a funny joke.

Then when you’re talking about the more emotional relationship stuff, you can do a thing that we did all the time on The Office, less so on Parks and Rec, but all the time on The Office, which is you go to Jim, and the question that has theoretically been asked is like, “What do you think of Pam?” He says something like, “Oh, Pam’s great. Pam’s one of my best friends. She’s really great. I’m so happy that she’s with Roy. It’s so wonderful that she’s dating Roy.” Then you intercut that, or you cut right from that talking head to a scene or a moment that betrays the fact that Jim is straight up lying to the camera. The idea that you can use it as a weapon to say people are different when they know they’re being listened to and when they don’t know they’re being observed. It just has all of these amazing uses.

The last couple things I’ve written for, like The Good Place, for example, we didn’t have that, obviously. You can’t make a documentary about the afterlife. I was like, “Oh god.” It struck me again how useful that device is and how many different ways you can deploy it. It really is a wonderful innovation.

**John:** Let’s get to The Good Place. Let’s start with a listener question here from Grant and talking about the genesis and the idea. Megana, do you want to read Grant’s question?

**Megana Rao:** Yeah. Grant asked, “The hardest part of the creative process for me has always been the initial idea. Things start to flow once I get going, but I really struggle with coming up with the initial idea that I feel confident enough to commit time and effort to. I know a big part of this is that I need to practice creating ideas and eventually just make the decision to commit to one. I was wondering if you had any resources or methods to help with idea generation or could share any insight into how you come up with ideas.”

**John:** Talk to me about the idea behind The Good Place, because I know that this was something you had been working on on a slow way for 10 years. What was the initial thing that got you interested in the idea of moral philosophy or that there’s something about the ethical choices that we’re making?

**Michael:** At various times in my life, and I write about some of them in the book, I would blunder into a situation in which I didn’t fully understand really what the dilemma actually was. I certainly didn’t understand what was better ethical choice. I would make a terrible mistake and cause people pain, anxiety, anguish, and suffering. I would think to myself in those moments, if I knew anything about what the hell I was talking about here, I think I would’ve caused less pain and anxiety and anguish and suffering. That led me, in a very casual hobby way, to reading some moral philosophy, some very simple introductory books about theories of ethics and kinds of behavior and why some kinds of behavior might be better than others. That just became a very casual interest of mine that I would think about or read about or talk about with various people.

Then when Parks and Rec ended, there was an opportunity for me to do… I got what Greg got back in 2007, which was you can do whatever you want. NBC basically gave me a guarantee of one season of a show on the air. When they did that, I thought, I could write some version of what I’ve been doing, a collection of funny people in a workplace setting, and maybe it’s a mockumentary and whatever. Because I had been granted this genie in a bottle wish, I really felt like I ought to take a big swing, because I owed it to the concept of ideas to take a big swing. For a while, I had been wondering whether my casual interest in moral philosophy, whether there was a show there.

I played a game as I drove around LA, where if someone would cut me off in traffic or something, I would think to myself, “That guy just lost 18 points.” I had invented an afterlife calculator that was weighing all of our decisions and all of our actions with a point system, that we were all playing a video game we didn’t know we were playing, and that when you die, you get a score. Then the highest-scoring people, instead of getting your name on the board of the Miss Pacman machine, you get to Heaven essentially, and if you don’t, you get tortured. It started to coalesce then.

To get back to Grant’s question, I think that one of the problems I’ve had, I don’t know if this is Grant’s problem, but one of the problems I’ve had sometimes with ideas is there are really two ways to select an idea and then develop it. I think of them as outside-in or inside-out. The outside-in idea is there’s no show on the air about teachers in high school, or you know what would be an interesting setting, the International Space Station, or whatever, where you start with the location or the very simple explanation of what the show is about. Those ideas, in my experience, go nowhere, because that’s not an idea. That’s just a location.

The more effective way for me is to start inside and move outwards, where you say, “I want to do a show about what it means to be a good person.” That led me to say, “What if it’s a show about a woman who has made some really bad choices in her life, and she is now being judged for those choices?” That led me to, “Oh, what if it’s the afterlife? What if there’s an elitist country club perfect eternal paradise where the highest scoring people get in, and she gets in as a mistake and is then trying to prove herself as a good person so she doesn’t get caught?” Then that led me eventually to, “What if that whole thing, spoiler alert, is a torture chamber where this demon has created basically No Exit by Sartre and is torturing people and using them to torture each other?”

When I was asked to write a description of the show early on, after I sold it, I said, “The only thing you should say publicly about this show is that it’s a show about what it means to be a good person. That’s all you should say, because that really is what it’s about.” I knew that it would be grabbier and more interesting to say it’s set in the afterlife, it’s in Heaven or whatever, but I always wanted to go back and work on the show from the inside out, and to say everything in this show is going to be about what it means to be a good person. It happens to be set in the afterlife. It happens to have this very flashy, a high degree of difficulty premise, but I don’t want that to be what people focus on. I want people to focus on the internal stuff.

Sometimes in my life, I guess I’ll just say to Grant, when I run into a roadblock… Greg and I, for example, when we were developing Parks and Rec, the first idea, they really wanted us to do a family show. They essentially pitched us Modern Family, which wasn’t on the air at the time. They said, “You should take the mockumentary format and just apply it to a family.” We thought that was an interesting idea. We talked about it for a while. We just couldn’t get anywhere because we were starting from the outside in. We weren’t starting from a character or a central relationship or a dynamic or anything like that. We were just starting from the location and the setting. That usually makes you run into a brick wall at some point.

**John:** Getting back to Grant’s question, and thinking about what you were going through with The Good Place, you have this idea like, “I want to do a show about what it means to be a good person.” That’s all well and good, but it’s not until you have the idea of like, oh, Eleanor Shellstrop is a bad person who has to pretend that she was a good person, she’s basically caught, that’s the comedic premise. That’s the engine that’s getting you through especially that first season, that she has to pretend that she’s something that she’s not. That’s an opportunity for comedy.

**Michael:** Exactly. The stakes are immediately evident. It’s basically you snuck into a wedding where you weren’t invited and then you suddenly realize that everybody at the wedding, if they discover you, they’re going to murder you. It’s a double comedic premise, because she’s a bad person who has been mistaken for a good person, and also she has to act all the time in a way that prevents her from being revealed as a bad person. She has to cover up all of her instincts and all of her bad behavior and simultaneously try to learn what a good person would even look like, because she’s so far away from knowing.

Again, I don’t think you get there, I don’t think you arrive at that location if you’ve started from, “Oh, you know what would be fun is a show in the afterlife.” That’s too broad and there’s too many options there. If you start from a central plot idea or the central relationship of, in my case it was a woman who was a bad person, was mistaken for a good one, and was partnered up with a guy whose whole life was dedicated to writing about and thinking about what made a good person.

**John:** Chidi.

**Michael:** Chidi, yeah. You start from that orientation, and now everything else falls into place around you.

**John:** Now as you’re fleshing out The Good Place, you have Eleanor, you have Chidi. When do you know who the other people are in that world and who are going to be your central characters?

**Michael:** Again, this is the inside out thing, because I was like, “Okay, you are Eleanor Shellstrop and you have been deliberately sucked into a fake paradise in order to torture you. Who do we put around you if you’re Michael, if you’re Ted Danson’s character? You make your soulmate an ethics professor. That’s a no brainer.”

Then I was like, “What are her main flaws? She has a chip on her shoulder. She’s an incredibly jealous person. Her radar for phoniness is very, very highly regulated.” We used to say that she had a very good antenna for BS. That was ultimately what led her to figure out Michael’s whole plan. Because of that, it was like, there needs to be someone right near her who drives her crazy for 50 reasons, among them that she’s full of shit. That was Tahani. We invented this character who on paper was everything that Eleanor wasn’t. She was very tall. She was flawlessly beautiful. She was stylish. She was friends with all these famous people. She was a do-gooder, where she had raised all this money for charity. This is the important part. It was all for show. Eleanor was on to her from the very beginning. That’s where Tahani came from.

Jason Mendoza, I immediately, once I came up with the premise, knew that there should be at least one other person there early on who reveals that he is also a mistake for being there. Then we just were like, “All right, every show needs a dumb guy. We’re going to create the ultimate dumb guy.” I said at the beginning of the show to the other writers that I wanted Jason Mendoza to be so dumb that he made Andy Dwyer, Chris Pratt’s character from Parks and Rec, look like a Mensa level genius. We were going to just go full bore, no holds barred, make him the dumbest dumb guy who’s ever lived on TV. We invented him. That was also a great thing, because Eleanor and Jason had a lot in common. They were both fun, partier, trashy people who just loved to goof off and not really think about anything important. He served three or four different functions in the show simultaneously.

Again, if you’re working from the inside out, you put Eleanor at the center of this wheel, and these spokes are going out in different directions. It’s very easy to naturally fill in the blanks around her in terms of what other pieces of the puzzle you need to complete it.

**John:** Eleanor needs to learn moral philosophy, essentially. One of the real challenges you set for your show is that essentially the audience has to learn moral philosophy along with her. She’s there to literally give the textbook lessons. You had to think not just what is she trying to accomplish, but what is the framework in which we’re actually exploring this week’s issue. Talk to us about incorporating moral philosophy. Also, you brought in actual philosophy professors to help you and the writing staff figure out how to talk about some of these issues.

**Michael:** I did my own reading. In classic 2022 fashion, I’ll say I did my own research for the show. I had a pretty solid understanding of the main theories. I realized at one point if I were writing a medical drama, I would certainly need some actual surgeons and ER doctors to be consultants, to help us write the dialog and to explain what was happening to people. Grey’s Anatomy has that. We’re doing a medical drama, but it’s a metaphysical medical drama.

I read a book by a professor named Todd May who wrote about essentially what happens to the concept of ethics when someone is immortal. That was literally exactly that show we were writing. I emailed him and chatted with him for an hour. Then I asked him if he would like to advise us. He would Zoom in sometimes to the room. He came into the room a couple times. We had a list of topics for him that we wanted him to explain. There were multiple times when we would be writing about some kind of specific theory and we would get all tangled up. This happened a lot with something like existentialism, which is very, very thorny and slippery, simultaneously slippery and thorny. It’s the most dangerous of the philosophies.

**John:** Absolutely. You could hurt yourself.

**Michael:** We would email him or call him and say, “We have a philosophical emergency. You have to help us.” Then there was a woman named Pamela Hieronymi who teaches at UCLA who came in and taught us about the trolley problem, among other things. We had these people, these incredible smart people who could explain to us what the hell these philosophers were talking about when we couldn’t figure it out for ourselves.

When I pitched the show to NBC, I said to them, “Moral philosophy is baked into the center of this. It’s not going to be a casual aspect of the show. It’s going to be in every episode. We’re going to really be delving into this stuff. I promise you I won’t make it feel like homework.” That was my solemn vow is that it wouldn’t ever feel like it was homework. I don’t know, the third episode or something starts with Chidi standing at a blackboard and it says Philosophy 101 on it. I was a little bit nervous. Because the writers are funny and because the actors are funny and because we always made sure that the show had to be funny, I think we were able to get those tricky ideas across in ways that were at least in theory entertaining. That’s the difference really between audiences enjoying your show and not enjoying it is like, am I being entertained at a very basic level.

**John:** I think it’s come time for our One Cool Things. You have a similar thing in your… Your draft in your podcast, is that your One Cool Things, or is that more a collective bit where you’re upping the ante on each other?

**Michael:** Our draft is we come up with a topic of pieces of furniture and we just draft. Someone gets the first pick, and they pick a couch, and then explain why they think that’s the best pick. We do do a thing on our podcast at the very end called One Last Meaningless Thing, which I think is maybe closer to yours. Go ahead.

**John:** My One Cool Thing is a paper I read this week from JPL and JPL folks who were involved in looking for all the asteroids that could hit the Earth. We’ve done a really good job of tracking all those asteroids. If one of them were to hit the Earth or come close to the Earth, we can maybe do something about it. This paper is called Defending Human Civilization From Supervolcanic Eruptions. It’s basically making the case, we know there is the Yellowstone Supervolcano, which is not about to erupt, it’s not going to happen, but at some point could erupt, and it would be world-ending in the way that an asteroid hit would be. This paper is actually asking, we know how much energy there is there, could we bleed off that energy by putting it in wells and stuff to pull the power out of that? The answer is maybe. We actually kind of could. It would be geo engineering. You could actually get a ton of electricity out of there, and over the course of 500 years, as you build smaller and smaller concentric circles, stop the Yellowstone Volcano from ever erupting. It is a very nerdy paper, but I just loved it as a concept.

**Michael:** Very cool. You were right. That is one cool thing.

**John:** Do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

**Michael:** Yeah. I’m a little prisoner of the moment here. I’ve been going around and promoting this book that I read – that I wrote, sorry. I’ve also read it.

**John:** Someone else wrote it.

**Michael:** I, like most people, I think have been living in a world where you feel like the only place to buy books is amazon.com. Then over the pandemic, there was this big push to go to bookshop.org, which is a collection of independent booksellers, where you don’t get it in 18 minutes like you do when you order from Amazon, but you support independent bookstores. I’ve also now gone to a number of independent bookstores around the country. You’re a published author, a bestselling author.

**John:** I am. I’m not a bestseller. Not a bestseller like you. I’m not on any lists like you. I’ve been to so many bookstores.

**Michael:** I just want to say that I think it’s really cool that these independent bookstores still exist. I went to one called Rainy Day Books in Kansas City that did this crazy promotion where you could have me inscribe specific messages to people. I signed and inscribed 2,700 books over two days, which was a truly insane thing to do. It was this wild stunt created by Rainy Day Books that was really cool and really interesting. Chevalier’s, which is my local bookstore here in LA, is doing something similar. I’ve signed a bunch of books and inscribed them there.

I just think it’s really cool that in this age in which everything has internetized and immediate and everything else, that these independent bookstores still exist and that people support them. I just want to give a shout-out not only to the bookstores themselves, but to all the people who actually physically go to a bookstore, look through the shelves, and decide to pay $3 more for the book that they wanted to buy to support a local business.

**John:** A tip for people who have an instinct to just buy the book immediately on Amazon, what our family does is we have a shared note called Books To Buy. Instead of actually just buying on Amazon, I’ll add the book to Books To Buy. Then once a week or so, we’ll put in the order at Chevalier’s, which is our local bookstore. They’ll order them for us. They come super quick, because the infrastructure is there for them to get those books quickly. That’s how we get away from buying books on Amazon is just have a shared note on our phones that we can all add to.

**Michael:** Great idea. That’s another cool thing. You cheated. You had two cool things.

**John:** I was just piggybacking on you. You set it up. I was just delivering it and then polishing it there a little bit more.

**Michael:** Fair enough.

**John:** Cool. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nico Manzi. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. Michael’s @kentremendous. What is the origin of Ken Tremendous?

**Michael:** I was walking down the street in college, taking a fiction writing class, and I thought, “Oh, you know what a funny name for a character in a short story would be is Ken Tremendous.” I went home and wrote it down. I love funny names.

**John:** It’s good.

**Michael:** I’m a Monty Python fan. I just always was like, “Someday I’ll use that,” and that’s where I used it.

**John:** Your production company is Fremulon, right?

**Michael:** Yes, a similarly dumb, meaningless, funny word, Fremulon Insurance, yeah.

**John:** I love it. 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 Interesting, 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. You can sign up to become a premium member the scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments. Mike Schur, thank you so much for coming on the show.

**Michael:** It is my absolute pleasure. Thank you for having me.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Let’s talk about the writing staff here. We got a question in from Lori. She was asking, “I found this list of writers terms. I was hoping you could talk about writers rooms shorthand.” This article has a bunch of things here. Just quickly, a speed round, could you talk me through what some of these things mean? Hat on a hat.

**Michael:** Hat on a hat just means there’s a joke where it’s a little bit nutty and then there’s simultaneously another thing happening that’s a little bit nutty or crazy. It’s a bridge too far would be the way to explain it. It’s too much. It’s too silly or ridiculous.

**John:** Do you ever deliberately do a hat on a hat, just to make fun of the absurdity?

**Michael:** Another way to say hat on a hat that comedy writers use is joke on a joke. It’s like, you want to tell a joke, you don’t want to tell a joke on top of that joke. Sometimes, Brent Forrester, in The Office writers room, someone would go, “I don’t know, I think that’s a joke on a joke,” and he would go, “Yeah, two jokes. It’s better than one.” It’s not always the case that you don’t want to do that, but generally speaking, your joke will probably read a little better if it isn’t confused by another simultaneous joke that’s going on.

**John:** A bottle episode.

**Michael:** Bottle episode is an episode that takes place entirely on a set. You don’t have any other locations. You don’t leave the studio. You don’t have any guest actors. It’s only the main cast and it’s only the main location of the show. It’s usually a way to save money, honestly, because it costs money to hire other actors or to go places. Some of the greatest episodes in TV history have been bottle episodes. The Friends episode, if you think about–

**John:** Where Ross is trying to get everyone to leave the apartment?

**Michael:** That’s right, yes. That is a great bottle episode. The Fly, which is the Breaking Bad episode that takes place entirely in the lab, that was a bottle episode. One truism I think about writing is that obstacles are good for drama and they’re good for comedy. If you have no obstacles, you end up doing something giant and bloated and Buddhist. Sometimes when you are forced into a bottle episode, you end up coming up with the best episode that you’ve ever done. Ron and Leslie at the end of Parks and Rec in the final season when it’s just the two of them locked in a room, that was a bottle episode. We didn’t have to do that. We just wanted to do that, because we thought that doing it in this really cloistered environment would make for a good half hour of TV.

**John:** I don’t know if this is actually a term or something that just showed up on this list. A Gilligan cut. Have you ever herd of a Gilligan cut?

**Michael:** I don’t think I have.

**John:** I get what the point is. Gilligan is fixing the boat right now, and then you cut to Gilligan accidentally setting the boat on fire. Do you have a term for that? Is there anything you would call that?

**Michael:** We would call that a cut-to joke. I think of it as a Lenny and Squiggy thing. It’s like, “Where are we going to find two people that dumb?” and then, “Hello, Laverne.” It’s anything where you tee up exactly what’s about to happen and then you cut right to it.

**John:** This list calls that a ding-dong joke, when you’re ringing at the doorbell right at that moment. A truck full of ducks or a spring-loaded cat, you ever heard of these terms?

**Michael:** No.

**John:** Truck full of ducks is from Silence of the Lambs, where you’re chasing after a thing that you think has the killer inside, and you open it up and it’s actually just a truck full of ducks, you were chasing the wrong thing. Have you ever used the term potato pitch?

**Michael:** No.

**John:** Potato pitch is so-called because it provides nourishment in a pinch but it’s not enough to sustain you. It solves a problem, but only temporarily. It sounds like a jokoid. It’s doing the function, but it’s actually not good.

**Michael:** It’s not a long-lasting nourishment for the episode or the show. I get that.

**John:** Does each writers room develop its own terms for what these things are or does it usually carry on from writers room to writers room?

**Michael:** There are certainly some of those terms. Sock barrel is another one. Sock barrel is a term for two aspects of a show that seem like they should be related but aren’t actually related. The A story, someone is shopping for a new car. In the B story, someone just got a new shirt and is showing it off to people, where they’re both about new objects, but it’s not a thematic link. It’s just those two stories are kind of similar. That term has been around forever, and it certainly is–

**John:** Sock barrel’s generally a bad thing.

**Michael:** Yes. It’s generally a bad thing. There are certainly terms like that that are handed down from room to room to room. Refrigerator logic is another one, where that’s a term for if it’s 3 in the morning and you go to the refrigerator half-asleep to get a snack and you think about something you watched that day and suddenly, you’re like, “Wait a second.”

**John:** “That doesn’t make any sense.”

**Michael:** “Why would that person have done that?” or whatever. That’s a term that people used to say if you’ve raised an objection to something in a story, some minor plot details, someone will say, “That’s refrigerator logic. We don’t need to worry about that,” because that’s not serious enough of a problem to make us not do this or whatever. Some of these are handed down from the early ‘60s or something. Some rooms generally do develop their own lingo and their own ideas about how to approach these things.

**John:** That’s amazing.

Links:

* [Michael Schur](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1321658/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/KenTremendous)
* [How to be Perfect by Michael Schur](https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/How-to-Be-Perfect/Michael-Schur/9781982159313)
* [Todd May](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_May), academic papers [here](https://philpeople.org/profiles/todd-g-may), books [here](https://bookshop.org/contributors/todd-may)
* [The Poscast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-few-more-words/id757346885) by Joe Posnanski and Mike Schur
* [TV Writers Room Terms](https://thescriptlab.com/features/screenwriting-101/8890-13-tv-writers-room-terms-you-should-know/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Nico Mansy ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) 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/537standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 563: VFX Deep Dive, Transcript

August 30, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/vfx-deep-dive).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 563 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we’re going to do a deep dive with two VFX pros to figure out how they break down and discuss a sample scene. It’s a master class in thinking about how you turn that scene description into an actual scene.

In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we’re going to talk about friends.

**Craig:** Ew.

**John:** How to make them and how to keep them.

**Craig:** Yuck.

**John:** Especially as we get older.

**Craig:** That’s really sweet actually. Considering who we are and who our audience is, I think this is a really good topic. We should talk about this.

**John:** Listening back to old episodes for the book that we’re doing, at the start of the podcast, I said on the air, “We’re not actual friends in real life,” and you were heartbroken.

**Craig:** Oh, wow.

**John:** Now we’re friends.

**Craig:** More than friends, John. We’re partners.

**John:** Oh yes, we are. We are podcast partners. Business partners.

**Craig:** You keep talking, and you know who’s going to show up, right?

**John:** Nope, it’s not allowed. Matthew will edit him out. Let’s get to our main feature of the day. A few episodes back, we discussed how writers should think about visual effects and what they look like on the page. That was kind of abstract. It’s like doing a Three Page Challenge without three pages to actually look at. Today we’re going to take an effects-heavy scene and talk through it with two VFX pros. Before we do that, if you want to read the scene, it’s pretty short. Just click the link in the show notes. I’ll also put it on Twitter. Craig, you are a good narrator. Could you just read aloud this scene for us?

**Craig:** Of course. This scene was written by our own John August.

**John:** It is. It’s pretty impressive.

**Craig:** It’s pretty good stuff. Here we go. “Interior/exterior the cathedral, day. Oona gets to her feet, badly hurt but alive. She retrieves the eldenspear. She knows the fight’s not over.

“With one wall taken out by the missile strike, it’s incredible the whole building hasn’t collapsed. The altar has been reduced to flaming rubber. Smoke carries singed bible pages.

“Goodwin emerges from the debris, flames clinging to his Kevlar vest. One of his eyes is missing, a green light glowing in its place.

“He sloughs the flesh off his left arm, revealing the metal skeleton beneath. No sense pretending he’s human anymore.

“Oona gives a thunderous war cry, so powerful it shatters the remaining stained glass windows. Prismatic shards of glass rain down.

“Goodwin charges. Oona makes an acrobatic spring off a pew, leaping to drive her spear right through Goodwin. He’s impaled like a martini olive.

“But he’s not dead yet. With both hands, Goodwin pulls the spear back out and throws it at Oona. She barely dodges.”

That should be easy to shoot.

**John:** Easy to shoot. Simple.

**Craig:** Just put it in a volume and shoot it.

**John:** Half a day.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** It’s only like maybe six eighths of a page.

**Craig:** Yeah, we could do that in the morning.

**John:** 100%. Easy. Easy for me to write, much more challenging for the visual effects pros who have to make the scene come to life, so let’s meet them. Alex Wang cis a visual effects supervisor whose credits include Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Dominion, Terminator: Dark Fate, Fast and the Furious 7, and more. His most recent project is the VFX supervisor on The Last of Us at HBO. Welcome, Alex.

**Alex Wang:** Thank you very much for having me.

**Craig:** He’s got such a good radio voice too.

**John:** It’s really impressive. You have been working with Craig on this series, and so doing all the visual effects for a show that we’ve never seen.

**Alex:** Yes, that is correct.

**Craig:** And maybe we’ll never see. No, we’re definitely seeing it. We’re seeing it. It’s coming. It’s coming.

**John:** They bury your show, Craig. It’s like, “Oh, we’re never going to release it.”

**Craig:** No one will be hearing about this.

**John:** Next we have Addie Manis, who’s a visual effects producer/supervisor. Her credits include Marvel’s Agent Carter and Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey. After she VFXed for the first season of Foundation for Apple TV Plus, she’s transitioned to writing, as she and her writing partner were asked to join the writing staff for Season 2.

**Craig:** That’s amazing.

**John:** We could really use her help to make this scene possible. If you’re looking at the pdf that we have linked to in the show notes, you’ll see that I’ve numbered each of the paragraphs, which is not necessarily each shot, but it gives you a sense of what the challenges are going to be. Let’s start at the start. We’ll start with you, Addie. Let’s say this scene lands on your desk. What is your first step as you’re looking at this scene in terms of thinking about, okay, this is the visual effects challenge or issues that I see here on the page.

**Addie Manis:** Excellent question. Let’s say I get this as a script page. I’m going to read it out of the gate. That’s what everybody does with a script page. I’m going to read it with a highlighter. I am reading both for story, character, writing, pacing, tone, because all of that stuff tells me what’s this going to look like, what’s the director going to do, how are we going to cut it, like I am reading the final edit on the page out of the gate.

**John:** That makes it sound like the actual writing on the page is incredibly important in terms of your first impression. It’s not just like here’s a list of things that are in it. How it actually feels and reads on the page is influencing your choices at this early stage.

**Addie:** That is completely correct. I have in the last 10 years focused more on event television rather than feature film. Especially the first episode of something, which is often written by the showrunner, the showrunner’s first script is conveying to me very much what the final show is going to look like. Because visual effects lives in a world of edits or cuts essentially, we’ll say how many shots is how many cuts in a scene. I am reading the cuts in the sentences. Every clause, every period, every comma is telling me, okay, this is going to be three cuts, this feels like a master shot and it’s going to be one long cut. It tells me the pace of the action and what’s going to be the rhythm of the editing. I know that’s a funny thing to say, because the writer is not the editor. In my experience, it does flow all the way through.

**Craig:** It almost sounds like what you’re saying is that the writers are directing on the page, which is something we’ve been insisting writers should be doing forever.

**Addie:** Alex and myself will start very, very early in a process. What we have is the script. We may have only the script for six months, or a year if we’re doing really long prep. We root down into that script and see what is this show going to look like, what’s our pace, what’s our tone, what’s our rhythm, which I’m sure Alex could expound upon further. I read with that in one side of my brain, and in the other side of my brain, I am already saying, “Interior/exterior the cathedral. Okay, is this a practical cathedral? Are we going somewhere to shoot a cathedral? Are we going to build a cathedral? Are we going to shoot this on a blue screen? Are we going to shoot this in a volume?” Any of the answers to any of those questions kicks off a very long chain of action, building, budgeting, hiring, travel planning.

I think we’re both looking at the final product and what is the piece of art that we’re making and the story that we’re telling, and then also physically how do I get all this stuff? Is somebody building an eldenspear? Are we going to have fire on set that day? Is this all going to be CG? How do I get this actor scanned? It’s of two minds. It’s the artistic mind and the logistic mind simultaneously.

**John:** Alex, talk through this scene from your perspective. This lands on your desk. You probably are highlighting it also. If it’s for a show that you already know… Let’s say this is Episode 3 of a series. You have some sort of basis for how things are going. What are you looking at? What are your first challenges? What can you do before there’s a director or someone else on board?

**Alex:** Great question. Typically, when I get an action scene like this, the first step is, I’d say, “We should storyboard this,” because action scenes like this, I think what’s most important is camera angles, what is the scope. I read line by line. I break it down with my producer. We come up with the best methodology. Like Addie is saying, we go into very broad strokes as, “Okay, what is the art department going to be building? What is going to be practical? Do we need blue screen? Are we going to be in a volume?”

**Craig:** I’m going to interrupt you there, because I think some people at home may not know the difference between these things. Both of you describe this fundamental thing that happens when you’re thinking about where you’re shooting something. We have a practical location. We have blue screen. We have the volume. Can you just quickly give a definition for those things?

**Alex:** Absolutely. A practical set is essentially a set that is built practically that we can basically shoot in camera.

**Craig:** You may be in a practical location, which is a place in the world or a set that you built, but then blue screen you will put behind things to allow you later to replace that easily with stuff that wasn’t there, digital stuff.

**Alex:** Yes, that’s correct.

**Craig:** Tell us about the volume though. What’s that about?

**Alex:** The volume is something that is exciting and new. Basically, it is these LED screens where we can project content that is essentially what we would be doing in post early on on the LED screen. We can call it getting that it camera. We could still change it in post if we need to, but the idea is that we’re projecting what we will essentially be doing in post onto the LED screens.

**Craig:** The volume is essentially a room that is a bunch of TV screens that we fill with stuff. For instance, the Mandalorian, very famously, we shot on a volume. They put Pedro in his suit. They stand him on a ground that has some sand. All the stuff around him is actually not really there, nor is it done later with putting stuff into blue screen. It’s actually like rear projection except for much more advanced. You and Addie, the first thing you’re thinking is where are we doing this?

**John:** I want to bring up one other possibility for where we’re doing this, because when we say practical, it could be that you’re building a set for most of this. You’re building a set for the cathedral, maybe up to a certain height we’ll talk about, or in theory, you could be at a real location where you’re actually at a real cathedral, but the one wall that’s supposed to be missing, you’re putting up green screens or you’re somehow planning while you’re shooting this for like, “We’re going to take this wall out and put a virtual background behind that.” That would be a very early production decision, are we building anything, are we going to a practical location, versus this is all green screen or is this all volume.

**Craig:** From this very fundamental thing, is there anything that we as writers should be thinking about when it comes to this big decision of will we be going someplace in the world, will we be building a set, or is this something that has to be created virtually completely, or should we just write stuff and let you guys worry about it?

**John:** Addie, what do you think?

**Addie:** You guys should just write it.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Addie:** There’s just a wealth of professionals out there who can bring all their… People want to bring their skill sets. I think all your department heads really want to jump in and solve all these problems. I don’t even want to refer to them as problems, but they’re exciting problems, challenges to have. Tell the story, man, because Alex and I read scripts all the time. We read so many scripts. It’s a function of our job and picking what job we’re going to do next. We’re super jazzed to get a good script or a script that we’re going to be really excited to make. We bring all the visual effects, production and creative solutions to the table. I think the writers should write story and character.

**Craig:** Good, so one less thing for us to worry about.

**Alex:** I completely agree with Addie there. I think writers should just write the best script they can write. Close your ears, Craig. Visual effects can essentially do everything.

**Craig:** Oh, boy. Yeah, I know.

**Addie:** I would say, if I may-

**Craig:** You may.

**Addie:** Craig is now showrunning a show. In the transition from just writing to showrunning, there will become logistic, financial, and practical conversations about this script and the visual effects process, as it were with all departments.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know. It’s a good conversation to have. I think it is true that as you interface more with these departments from a showrunning point of view, you start to learn limitations. One of the conversations that Alex and I have had I think 4 billion times is this: “Hey, Alex?” “Yeah?” “Would it be hard to do this?” Then I watch his face, because he’ll never say, “That’s not possible.” He’ll say, “That should be good,” or, “Okay, yeah, doable. It’s going to be expensive, but we can do it.” Sometimes he’ll be like, “Uh, we could.” That’s when I know that it’s a problem. The nice thing is, as writers we don’t necessarily need to know what’s going to be a problem. I’m sometimes surprised by what’s difficult versus what isn’t. That’s what you guys do.

One of the things that I learned from Alex is, whenever possible, if there’s something practical… When we say practical, we mean something that physically exists. Whenever possible, if there’s something practical to base visual effects off of, let’s get something practical in there.

The best example I can think of is, let’s see, “The altar has been reduced to flaming rubble. Smoke carries singed bible pages.” It’s going to be hard to practically have singed bible pages where we need them in the air. That’s probably going to be digital. It may be very difficult for the rubble to be on fire just the way we want and for the smoke to move exactly where we want it to go. If we could have the special effects department, which those are the crazy guys that light things on fire, including themselves, if we could have them provide real flame there, just some, and maybe a little bit of smoke, just some, then maybe it will look better when the visual effects department comes on in there. Alex, does that sound about right?

**Alex:** Yes.

**Craig:** Tell me why that’s so important.

**Alex:** That is absolutely correct, because it really is important about the tone of the show as well. If it’s grounded and practical and realistic and the fire needs to look like real fire, though we can do a lot, it’s always that the hardest part of visual effects is trying to replicate what is real. It just takes iterations. It takes time, really talented artists to do that. If we have something practical to even reference off of, that just gets us a step ahead.

**Craig:** What do you think, Addie? Is that the method that you guys use as well, or when you were doing it?

**Addie:** Yes, certainly, especially on foundation, we leaned really hard into the practical. It’s definitely a show that has huge swaths of full CG. If we’re blowing up a planet, that’s pretty CG. Practical locations, practical effects, we did miniatures, we did all of it. The producer in the supervisor/producer dynamic is often the voice of no. I’m not going to say no to what Alex said, because I agree completely with him. I would only say the complicating factor is sometimes how much time production has to shoot something. If you had to shoot this scene that we’re talking about in half a day, one day, two days-

**Craig:** Oh, god.

**Addie:** I think Alex and I would be having secret meetings about how some of the other departments are going to struggle in that time frame. We are going to have special effects and stunts and everybody do their thing, but visual effects is going to brace to pick it up, because those departments need a fair amount of time to execute at the highest level. Alex might say something like, “Let’s shoot the special effects, but I would really like to get a clean plate.” That means I’d like to do one pass with no fire, and I would encourage producers and showrunners to let Alex do that.

**Craig:** I’m laughing just because I have heard Alex say, “Okay, and then we also need to get a clean plate,” about a thousand times. For people at home, a clean plate, when we’re shooting things that have… Let’s say we’re shooting this scene here. There’s something that we might want to have be completely CG. For instance, “Goodwin emerges from the debris, flames clinging to his Kevlar vest. One of his eyes is missing, a green light growing in its place.” Lots of ways to do that. Let’s say Goodwin’s body was half-skeleton or something like that, and he was going to be mostly CG. We can take real Goodwin, and we can do the best we can with him with a suit and maybe some green stuff on the suit that would get replaced by other stuff.

We’ll do that, and then Alex will say, “Great. Thank you. Now, just shoot the same thing with no Goodwin at all,” which seems weird. At the time you’re just shooting nothing. That stuff then becomes something where he can put an entirely CG Goodwin in there. That’s called a plate. Anything where we’re shooting something that then we stick something on to, or we’re shooting something that we’re going to stick into something, those are called plates. Yes, I have shot many a clean plate for our friend Alex.

**Alex:** I still thank you for that.

**Craig:** You are welcome. Listen to your VFX people basically is what [inaudible 00:17:08]. If they say they need something, give it to them. They need it.

**John:** Alex, the reasons why you might want that is say you might be inserting a fully CG character, but also you might be trying to paint out some stuff you don’t want there. You might be painting out his arm. There’s lots of good reasons why you might want to have that full plate for a reference to do some specific things, right?

**Alex:** Yeah, absolutely. The clean plate, like you and Craig mentioned, if I need to put in a fully digital good one, that’s helpful, but also just if I need to replace his arm where there’s a green portion on his arm or part of his head, and you might see his endoskeleton or something like that, what a clean plate allows is just something back there to help us paint back the background.

**Craig:** A clean plate is the visual equivalent of room tone for the audio guys. There’s a space here where we need the sound of a room without anybody talking. Sometimes you need that clean plate where there’s the space where nothing happened. One of the things Addie’s touching on here which is important to understand, I think, for us when we’re writing is that there are lots of levels of production capacity, and they’re all dependent on budget. Budget will not only drive the things that you can do in post, but they also drive how much time you have to shoot when you’re in principal photography. That amount of time definitely affects how you can go about doing the job of these VFX shots, which will start to head into the thousands when you’re doing a big show.

When you’re writing stuff, we have a general sense of, okay, we’re writing something that’s going to cost $10 million, we’re writing something that’s going to cost 40, we’re writing something that’s going to cost 200. Just be aware that if you’re writing something small, when you write anything that is not something you can shoot without visual effects people, it’s good to at least have a sense that you’re doing something that’s within the realm of reality. Otherwise, you’re going to end up with something rather disappointing like Birdemic.

**John:** Yes, or you may be making aesthetic choices at the very outset for what your effects are going to feel like. You just have to have a plan going into it. No matter what scale of scene you’re shooting, whether it’s a $10 million scene or a $100 scene, you have to go into it knowing what am I actually going to be able to do in visual effects afterwards, whether it’s something you’re doing in after-effects or you’re doing it on a huge, huge scale. Let’s just walk through the scene. Line 3, “Oona gets to her feet, badly hurt but alive. She retrieves the eldenspear. She knows the fight’s not over.”

**Craig:** Eldenspear.

**John:** Two questions for you guys. First off, let’s talk about Oona. She’s badly hurt but alive. A discussion about how much of her being badly hurt is hair and makeup versus how much of her being badly hurt is visual effects. Can you talk us through wounds on a visual effects level? Addie, you want to start us off with that?

**Addie:** Yes. Sorry, I’m so used to waiting for the supervisor to speak first. It’s like, I’ll let the supervisor go first, and then I’ll fix what he says. That’s how that works.

**Alex:** I was waiting for John to tell one of us to start.

**Addie:** “Oona gets to her feet, badly hurt but alive.” At least in the pre-production phase, I definitely flagged that as something to keep an eye on. Frequently, I would just make a note to plan for what I would call makeup effects assistance. I would probably assume that makeup effects is going to do the bulk of it, and we’re going to shoot with makeup effects, and then in post-production, visual effects might be called upon to augment it. There is a trick called heal and reveal, where we paint out the makeup, and then after the wound occurs, we reveal it again, and then we live with makeup effects for the rest of the scene.

**John:** I like that.

**Addie:** There might be squirting blood, and so we might remove a blood tube. If there is liquids involved, pus, blood, frequently those become continuity issues. We don’t usually want to stop filming to fix them, because it takes way too long. You might shoot a whole scene, and then by the time you get into the edit, you’ll say, “The blood’s all in the wrong spots. Let’s take it out in some spots and put it in other spots so that this looks even passingly realistic,” unless of course we have blown a leg off. Then that’s a much bigger visual effects process that makeup effects is not going to handle.

**Craig:** “Oona hops to her foot, badly hurt but alive.”

**Alex:** Just to really talk about the badly hurt part as well, I think just being as descriptive as possible really helps Addie and I understand how much… Is half of her face scarred? Is there a lot of blood? Just a few more descriptive words would really help us there.

**Craig:** In fact, this is where you’ll find out as a writer who maybe has been misled to believe that you shouldn’t be directing on the page, because you didn’t listen to us. When you get to a production meeting, there are going to be 4 billion questions. You want to try and limit when you get to those meetings to 4 million questions, because there will be 4 million no matter what. Once you get into the billions, you get really exhausted. If you do say things like “badly hurt but alive,” you’re going to get grilled by everybody. Getting some details in there will at least help the discussion along a bit further, so that Addie and Alex, maybe they can just relax, because “badly hurt” is just going to be blood. Alex, I think we’ve had… I try and avoid spoilers as much as possible, but people do get hurt in The Last of Us. That does occur.

**John:** Oh no, Craig, really?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I thought it was a comedy though.

**Craig:** I’m going to give that one away. It’s a comedy of errors. We do a lot obviously with makeup, but there are times where there are certain wounds where we can’t do it with makeup. Sometimes we use prosthetics, which help quite a bit. I think Addie’s brought up the crucial thing, which is continuity. The blood can change. Also, wounds are not static. You’ll notice that on a lot of things we watch in movies and television, somebody gets really hurt, and they’re just not bleeding, they’re just bloody. People bleed. How much do we want to make that wound active? These things are complicated. Hopefully the eldenspear has been described earlier in your script, John.

**John:** I really hope so too. It really is a question for the writer, who we’ll pretend is not me, and the director and everyone else involved in the project, that like, okay, does the eldenspear glow by itself? Is it like Wonder Woman’s magic lasso, or is it just a spear? Is it simply a prop, or is it a visual effects component to eldenspear from the very start, is something we need to know. Probably three pages earlier we may have found out that the eldenspear glows all the time. Alex, from your perspective, what is the difference between something that’s just fully a prop versus something that is also a visual effect?

**Alex:** If the prop is relatively static and there’s not much movement to it or there’s not a lot of say magic elements, supernatural elements to it, it should be a prop. We can do a lot on top of it if we need to add a glow, a subtle glow, or have some of those elements. If say the eldenspear has to transform in a way that can’t be done practically, and it constantly does that, then it’s a whole different conversation of, okay, maybe the spear should just be a green spear, so we can replace it later and have it do all those things. If it doesn’t, it’s a place where I would say we should save that money and just make the best practical eldenspear that everyone’s happy with and just get in camera.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Again, it seems like time is maybe the most precious of all resources, even more so perhaps than money, because if you have time, then the props folks can do some R and D and maybe build something great, but if you don’t, then you don’t. In ongoing series, and Addie, you’ve worked on some of those, there may be a situation where scripts are coming in late, and suddenly you need to have an eldenspear tomorrow. At that point, do you just put a green stick in their hand and figure it out later?

**Addie:** Yes, definitely I have done that. A funny classic one is photos in frames or newspaper props where somebody… Especially on a broadcast schedule or a broadcast show, you’ll get a script, and you’ll be shooting in five days, and you need all these photos from a family’s backstory. We put little green squares into a picture frame, and we make it later and stick it in in post-production. It’s a silly thing, because of course you could make that practically, but you just don’t have time, or production and design does not have time.

**John:** Production also sometimes gives you the dumbest looking Photoshops. So bad.

**Addie:** Sometimes you’re going to plus it up a little bit later on.

**Craig:** Plus it up.

**Addie:** I think to your point, I would say time is radically the most important factor in visual effects. It is for many, many of the departments. Visual effects can be such an expensive process. It’s sometimes confusing on even why it’s so expensive. Visual effects budgets on shows are tens of millions, hundreds of millions on feature films. The real component is time. What the money in visual effects is paying for is man hours, because many visual effects could take 20 different people. They could take 20 different people working sequentially over 6 months. You’re paying incredibly highly trained, skilled specialists to do creative bespoke work. Sometimes you can dump all the money in the world on that.

If we do not have enough time to design it, you want to iterate on it so that you can find what you really want it to look like as the director, showrunner. Then you got to stack 16 specialists on top of each other in a time frame, and you’re paying for computer hardware. It’s a complicated process. You’re paying for highly trained specialists to work many, many, many hours together to design something that’s probably never been made before. If you have 6 weeks to do that or you have 6 months to do that or you have 18 months to do that, the capabilities will be different, and the end result will be different.

**John:** I have a question about Line 4. “With one wall taken out by the missile strike, it’s incredible the whole building hasn’t collapsed.” Let’s assume that there’s either a practical that we are green screening off a wall, blue screening off a wall, or we’re building this a set, maybe set extending at the ceilings. The point is that we are able to look outside of this cathedral, outside this interior space into an exterior space, which could be a mountain valley. It could be a dystopia. My question for you is how much does that background need to be a 3D background, or could that just be a 2D background that’s painted in there? Do we need to send a crew to film what that’s going to look like out there, or is that something that we would do just pulling assets that already exist someplace else? What are you thinking about in terms of that background outside of the church?

**Alex:** I definitely know a thing or two about collapsed buildings.

**Craig:** What? Another spoiler.

**Alex:** I will say that at least if the actors are interacting or walking through this collapsed building, I would say I always would like to have a portion of that build, even if it’s just up to 12 feet. Then we can have blue screen. Obviously, going out and finding a plate of that is near impossible, so that will be all digital in my eyes. As far as 3D or DMP, it really depends on the camera, what the camera is doing. If it’s relatively static, we’re behind the actor, and it’s just an establishing shot, it could be what we call a DMP, which is digital map painting, or if the camera travels through that environment, then it has to be a 3D environment.

**John:** When you add a 3 in front of something, it becomes much more expensive.

**Alex:** Not necessarily. DMPs can be expensive too. I would say it comes down to what the camera move will be, what kind of a shot is it.

**John:** That’s a discussion with the director. You have to be deeper into planning and probably storyboards for you to know what those shots are going to be which would influence what we’re seeing outside of the cathedral.

**Craig:** In the case of television where you have a showrunner that is often not the director, then the visual effects supervisor needs to basically talk to the showrunner, and then the showrunner has to explain to the director why they can’t do something or why they should do it differently or what the limitations are, because we always have some limitations. I want to talk a little bit about this notion of movement and set extension.

In a very simple way of thinking about it for those of you playing the home game, when somebody is moving in front of something, if we want to replace the thing that is behind them when they’re moving, it’s hard, because every frame we have to basically cut our people out and then replace the background. God help us if they have a lot of hair that’s… If you’ve got Natasha Lyonne in there, oh no, you have to rotoscope Natasha Lyonne’s hair. That’s a nightmare. She has the best hair.

**John:** I love it.

**Craig:** For those situations, we try and put people in front of something that’s blue or green, because a computer can basically say everything that’s blue gets replaced, and everything that’s not blue, we keep. It gets much, much easier. Set extensions, what we’ll do is, okay, we’ve got somebody moving, and we want something practical behind them, so we will build enough behind them to cover where they’re moving. Where they’re not moving, it’s easy to replace that. That we can just throw blue on. The idea is to try as much as you can, unless you’re a certain kind of show or the environment is impossible to build, to try and make stuff real where people are.

For instance, in Chernobyl, there’s a shot where we see the firefighters marching up this hill of debris towards this reactor building. We couldn’t build an entire reactor building, but we definitely built that mountain of debris. You could see where the firefighters are moving even as they’re climbing up this thing. That’s all really there. Then everything beyond that, Alex and Addie come in and replace that with, like you said, a digital map painting, or in certain… I actually don’t know if I have one where it’s been a 3D environment back there. Do we have one, Alex?

**Alex:** Oh yeah, we definitely…

**Craig:** Shows you what I know.

**Alex:** Sometimes it’s just easier. Digital map paintings come in when you have to pull reference, whether it’s mixed photography. If it’s an environment that really 100% just doesn’t exist, it’s built.

**Craig:** Got it. Oh yeah, we do have that. I’m paying attention. I promise.

**John:** When you’re saying a built environment, is it on a real engine where you’re actually rebuilding 3D assets and creating a space? Is that the idea?

**Alex:** Very much like that. We have so many different types of software to do that. Essentially, it is that.

**John:** We talk about set extensions. I would imagine that this cathedral probably is a set extension beyond a certain point, because we have these high walls, the ceiling. On Line 8, “Oona gives a thunderous war cry, so powerful it shatters the remaining stained glass windows. Prismatic shards of glass rain down.” Those stained glass windows feel like a visual effect to me. Maybe there’s something. Maybe it’s the reason why you’re doing models or something else or shattering some real things to capture that. I have a question about what is raining down on our actors there. Is anything raining down there? Is this the time where we do some colored rubber glass? What are the things you’re thinking about as you read Line 8, Addie?

**Addie:** Line 8 with the shattering glass, so my gut is most likely this is potentially fully 3D, especially Alex had mentioned that maybe you would build a set up to 12 feet, which in that instance you’re aiming to build a set that goes above the actors’ heads so that you can cover the actors, maybe with a practical set. You only see above their heads in the wider shot. It keeps your shot count down. It gives the actors something practical to play against. If the stained glass is way up in the high part of the cathedral, which I think in a cathedral design it probably is, that is likely going to be fully CG, but you could rain what we call candy glass down on the actors to give them something to interface with. Probably a mix of visual effects and practical.

**John:** Even if you put the candy glass down on them, you would probably supplement it with additional stuff, just to give extra little bits of texture and something for them to react to.

**Addie:** Again, trying to read the movie in my head on the page, I’m also picturing a dramatic shot of the glass exploding into the camera, which will probably be heavily digital. Then maybe just the shards on the actor are practical. It seems like a very dramatic cinematic moment, where you might want to really art direct the glass performance.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Glass performance, I love that.

**John:** We talked a little bit about Goodwin. “Goodwin’s emerging from the debris, flames clinging to his Kevlar vest. One of his eyes is missing, a green light glowing in its place.” We’re assuming that this is a real actor. We’ve seen him as a human being for most of this. He’s wearing a Kevlar vest, so he’s some sort of law enforcement person maybe. The flames clinging to his Kevlar vest, am I right to assume that those are all going to be digitally added? Would you put any LEDs in there to create light on the actor? What are some things we’re thinking about with Goodwin emerging from this debris?

**Alex:** I would say that the debris should be practical if possible. Maybe we can add some debris on top of it or dust or something like that. The Kevlar vest, I would say it should be digital fire. Because it’s broad daylight, I don’t think I’ll need much LED lights or interactive lights. Only if it was nighttime, that would be helpful. In this case, I will say that that is not necessary. As far as the damage to him, we did a very similar thing on Terminator with Arnold’s character. There was explosion that happens. Basically, post-explosion, half of his face is missing, revealing his endoskeleton, and his arm is revealing the endoskeleton as well. Basically, we just had prosthetics do the burned skin portion, and then the other half would be… On the set, I think we had gray as opposed to blue, but some color of gray or green or blue for replacing that to be a digital endoskeleton.

**John:** Great. On his face, where they have this digital eye, does he have makeup dots on there so you can track where the eye needs to go?

**Alex:** Yeah, that would be really helpful. We have tracking markers, but we also have what is called witness cameras for helping, because sometimes if we have a long lens, it’s difficult to understand the position of the actor’s body. We position witness cameras around, which is going to be a relatively wide lens. It helps when we’re essentially tracking. If you think about if somebody’s on a ground getting up, we essentially will track where his body position is, in 3D. If we just have one camera doing that, that can be rather challenging or difficult, time-consuming. Like Addie said, time is the most important thing. Really when I’m on set, I’m trying to get as much data as possible that just buys me more time in post. Witness cameras, I’ll try to place them around the actor. Generally it’s opposite sides of where the main camera is to help me track the body.

**Craig:** That’s what those things were doing.

**John:** Alex, those cameras, those are synced to each take, so you can actually know on this frame, this is the same frame from this different perspective?

**Alex:** In an ideal world, for example on Terminator, we had A, B, and C camera. Generally if A camera’s rolling, then B and C, which is already synced, those can be our witness cameras. Otherwise, we have a poor man’s version, which is we just have our own visual effects cameras or consumer cameras. We just shine a little red light actually. The red light helps us when we’re looking at the take. Okay, we can sync our cameras to this. It’s like a poor man’s version.

**John:** What you’re saying is every little bit you can get helps, even if it’s just-

**Alex:** Absolutely.

**John:** … reference for things down the road so you get to feel what’s possible there.

**Craig:** It’s so much data being captured. It’s amazing how much data is being captured in a process that used to have no data. When you and I started, John, there was just film.

**John:** There was film, and we had a script supervisor who was taking pencil notes on paper about what happened.

**Craig:** That’s data, but I’m talking about digital data. There was zero digital data, and now there’s a gazillion bits of digital data, not only from the cameras that are capturing the actual footage that you see on film, but then there are these witness cameras. Then they’re scanning. Addie and Alex are making sure that characters that they may need to replace digitally, so for instance in this I would imagine Goodwin would be scanned for sure. They stand in a little cage built of a thousand cameras. Then they all just take pictures so that they have a fully digital 3D capture of this person. We had a van that did that. What would we call that thing? Was it a trailer, a scanning trailer? We also had a little portable scanning thing that we could set up. It was pretty amazing.

**Alex:** We had a scanning booth.

**Craig:** A booth.

**Alex:** It was a booth to scan our actors, our talent. What you saw was probably a Lidar scanner, which basically just helps us scan the set, the environment.

**John:** Now Addie, let’s talk about scanning an actor, because I’m sure your principals for foundation would have to be scanned, because sometimes you just have to replace them. Are you scanning them in their full wardrobe, or are you scanning them just bare so you can put wardrobe on them? What’s important for you on a scan?

**Addie:** It varies by project. On foundation, we scanned actors both in modesty dress and also in each individual costume that had to be recreated. I think an optimal scenario is as many scans as you can possibly get. That might be as naked as possible within the realms of everyone’s comfort level. It could be in 20 different costumes if each of those costumes needs to be used for something. We scanned extras in costumes, because we were filming during COVID, and we were creating digital doubles to populate large crowd scenes, because we were limited on how many extras we could have at each location for safety protocols. I would say both skivvies and costumes is ideal. A lot of times, that takes up too much time. As we’re saying, it takes too much time for the actors. It takes too much time on the day.

For this scene, you would probably ideally want to scan Goodwin in his costume and with his shirt off potentially so you could get his arm skin. The scan itself is getting thousands of mathematical data points. You can make a geo map of his body. You can recreate him as a digital asset. The costumes are good for that. You’re getting costume texture. Fabric is down into the minutiae of visual effects. Production fabric is a complicated thing to create. In a perfect scenario, we would scan him in his costume, but maybe we wouldn’t need to send that fabric or recreate that fabric. You could just get down to his bare skin, and then he peels his skin off and you reveal a digital robot underneath that.

**John:** That’s great. Let’s talk about this shot, 7. “He sloughs the flesh off his left arm, revealing a metal skeleton beneath.” I’m envisioning this as not necessarily a locked-off shot, but we’re close in on seeing this thing and this sliding off. To what degree are we talking about Rick Backer practical visual effects versus this being a digital thing? What are the decisions there?

**Alex:** I think I would do it digital, to be honest, just with the interaction. I would just have the actor give the best performance he can, as if he’s really trying to slide off his skin, so it doesn’t feel like it’s just such an easy thing to do. I think many times I always say just give me the best performance and it’ll make our lives a lot easier when it comes to something like this, because if you can really sell him trying to tear his skin off his arm and revealing what is underneath, I think that will actually make our lives easier.

**Craig:** From a production standpoint, if we had something practical there, which you could do, and which is the only option that existed prior to all this, the resets eat up your day. You need to do takes two, three, four, five, six, and you’re peeling something off that is a one-use thing because it’s getting peeled off. They peeled it off. Now you got to take 30, 40 minutes to get it back on again with the… They have to make multiples of it. Then you get to shoot it again. You could spend all morning and get three takes of this. Now you just have them act, and you can get 9 takes in 30 minutes and find the one later that you want. Again, time is the most precious resource, and it’s the one we’re constantly fighting.

There were circumstances on The Last of Us where because we were in Calgary, in Alberta, which is very north, we always seem to be shooting at the wrong time of year. We would shoot night in the summer, and we would shoot day in the winter. Things go very fast there. We were shooting some night scenes where we really only had about five hours of darkness maximum. In those circumstances, you have to do things like this digitally. Then the idea is to plan ahead and make sure that we give the actor what they need. That means talking to them as well, so that they understand what’s expected of them, and they don’t just get there on the day and go, “Wait, how are we doing this?” They need to know.

**John:** Let’s wrap up this conversation of this scene, talking about the stunt here. In Line 9, “Goodwin charges. Oona makes an acrobatic spring off a pew, leaping to drive her spear right through Goodwin. He’s impaled like a martini olive.” Addie, talk us through what parts of this enter into your department?

**Addie:** Line 9, “Oona makes an acrobatic spring off a pew, leaping to drive her spear,” that’s probably wire work. We are going to look at are we shooting this on a blue stage. What is she wearing, because she will have a bunch of safety harnesses. There will be a wire rig to allow her to perform this. Her costume and how the rig interacts with her costume can be easier or harder, although the first priority is and should be actor safety.

There’s been a few things I think in this conversation, like the fire on a Kevlar vest. Visual effects can pick up a lot of work to make sure that the actors and the camera department are safe, which should I think not get lost in the visual effects conversation. We want to make sure she’s as safe as possible, even if that is more difficult for visual effects, because digital work is very safe. She is going to leap to drive her spear right through Goodwin, so she’s probably going to be holding a practical spear that might not have a sharp tip on it. In post-production, we might add a sharp tip. That is mostly again for actor safety, because we don’t really want anybody interacting with swords.

**John:** Would the spear she’s holding be half the length so that as she drives it, assuming this is in a shot rather than multiple shots, so that she can hit him and we can imagine it went through him? Are what point are you making those decisions?

**Addie:** I think we would make those decisions with art department and stunts all together. The departments really have to collaborate to make this stuff go smoothly. She’s probably holding the spear handle, and it has no blade on it. Maybe that handle is built as big as it needs to go, up to his chest. She could drive a safe, blunt object all the way up to his chest, exactly how we want it to look in the end. Then visual effects can add gleaming metal, dangerous blade on it for the full leap. We can do digital blade piercing through him like a martini olive.

**Craig:** The other option is that maybe we’re doing this with stunt actors only, where we can use a full spear, and maybe the other stunt actor’s wearing a protective vest underneath the costume. It looks like they really are getting stabbed. Then we face replace. Oh, face replace.

**John:** Exciting.

**Addie:** Face replace, yep.

**Craig:** Face replace.

**Alex:** That is Addie and I’s nightmare.

**Craig:** Face replace.

**Addie:** You’ll notice Alex and I did not volunteer face replace once.

**Craig:** That’s right, but I’m always like, “What about face replace?” We don’t do much face replacing, but there’s a couple moments where there is a face replace. We do try and avoid it, because it is hard and takes up a lot of resources. It’s hard to do well I think is the biggest issue.

**John:** Addie and Alex though, is face replacement one of those things 10 years from now will be easier, cheaper, and better?

**Alex:** I think so. I think we’re definitely going with AI these days. Just the deep fake technology is really changing the way visual effects handles face replacement. Ten years ago we would have to do a very high-res scan of our actor’s face. We would have to create a digital asset that is photo reel of our actor’s face. That’s very difficult. Until this day I have to say I haven’t seen a single face replacement through that way of creating a digital face that is very convincing. However, the AI deep fake sort of technology, it really is just building an image library in a very thoughtful way of what is the actor’s emotion and why it looks convincing, because it is that person. It is that actor. It’s just pulling those images and blending them together.

**John:** I didn’t want to get through your segment without talking about you seemed to repose that maybe Shot 9 doesn’t take place in the same space as the rest of the scene would take place. Is there an argument for taking this one stunt and taking it out of this cathedral where we’re doing everything else and doing it in a different space?

**Addie:** Yeah, I think potentially. It can go both back to the issues of speed and safety. Let’s say hypothetically we were shooting this at a practical location in a cathedral that was partially destroyed, which would be excellent and would probably make for an excellent scene. It might be nearly impossible for stunts and camera to execute a safe set of wire work stunts like this out in a field, because you might need ceiling rigging and crash pads and all kind of things to make sure that nobody gets hurt.

You would want to control the lighting scenario very intensely, which might be impossible in a daylight location. You could pull a stunt like this onto a blue stage or a green stage, for example. We would shoot the actors in the stunts completely against blue, ideally key out the blue screen and put in the practical environment in the background. I am wandering into supervisor territory there, so I think Alex could speak to that more. You’re probably only going to perform that a couple of times, because like Craig said, the resets are very difficult. You don’t want to burn daylight. You don’t want to drag all your rigging equipment out into Notre Dame, Paris, because the logistics of that are completely insane. We put it in a controlled environment. It’s safer. It’s faster. Then Alex, you could probably elaborate on how all those elements go together into final shots.

**Alex:** The one thing I will say about the acrobatic spring-off is I think that is when I will walk over to showrunner or director and ask for a creative explanation of what the acrobatic spring-off looks like. If it’s something that is not humanly possible, then I’ll say, “Okay, then there’ll be a digital takeover. We’ll have to shoot it in a way where we can’t take it over.” I think that’s definitely something that I have to consider earlier on as well.

**John:** I want to wrap up this conversations with some things I couldn’t cram into this one scene, which is crowds, because Addie, you’ve mentioned on foundation, because you’re shooting this during COVID, sometimes you needed to populate things with more people than you were allowed to have in a space. Even things like filling up an auditorium with people or a mob of villagers storming something, can you talk us through… Maybe, Alex, you could start with talking us through how we create groups of people as opposed to an individual character.

**Alex:** With crowds, I always try to shoot plates if I can, just because it’s cheaper and it looks better. It gets us there faster. If I can shoot plates, then I will. However, if I cannot, then it goes into digital crowds, and I need to create these digital assets of these crowd members. We call them crowd agents. Depending on what they need to do, if they’re just doing a cycle of cheering up and down, that’s definitely the simpler route to go. However, if they have to interact and react to certain things, that’s only software that’s smart enough to know what to do with that. That obviously takes more time, and it’s more expensive.

**John:** As we wrap up, let’s say we have listeners who are hearing you guys talk about this, and they say, “You know what? This is the kind of job I really want to do. This is a thing I aspire to.” What should that listener do next? Let’s say this was a college student who’s really interested in this. What are the next steps for that person? Addie, what would you say? What advice would you give?

**Addie:** I have to think about this. It’s a valid question, because there’s quite a lot of discussion about the lack of diversity in the visual effects space, so how to get one’s foot in the door is a good question. For me personally, I started as a production assistant in independent film.

**John:** Great.

**Addie:** I think that having some boots on the ground experience on a film set is incredibly important for anybody going into any department. I think the strongest visual effects supervisors, producers, artists, coordinators, are fluent in filmmaking in general. I think having a basis in filmmaking and storytelling is actually more important than the technical, because the technical can be learned, but it’s really integral to know how the whole thing goes together before you start talking about the technical. I would say get a production assistant job, see how the whole thing works.

**John:** Alex, what would your advice be for someone who wants to start a career in visual effects?

**Alex:** I think there’s definitely a wealth of knowledge on the internet right now for visual effects, just listening to visual effects supervisors talk to there are podcasts out there. There are tutorials out there. I think there’s just so much that a young artist can grab, that I wish I had when I was starting out. The other thing I would say is be a master at your craft. Be passionate. It is a hard job. It takes a lot of hours, takes a lot of effort. You have to be really dedicated and passionate about it.

**John:** Great. Craig, any last questions for our team here?

**Craig:** No, I think you guys covered it well. I just want to thank you both for coming on, because most writers simply don’t know about this stuff. The most important part I think of this discussion was hearing from both of you about how important the script is and how closely you read it. In television where the writers are in charge, this makes sense. In movies where the writers aren’t, this is part of the tragedy that the script is being read so carefully, and oftentimes in the absence of the writer themselves, who’s just not there. You have to ask the person who didn’t write it what it meant. Again, the way movies do it, stupid. The way television does it, correct.

I think I really connect with what Addie’s saying, that so much of what makes somebody good at this, and I can certainly confirm that this is the case with Alex, is how carefully they interrogate the screenplay and how much they care about the point, which is the story, the characters, the relationship, the tone, and the feeling you want to create in an audience, and not so much about the ones and zeros. Those are just tools like everything else.

**John:** Addie, Alex, thank you so, so much.

**Craig:** Thanks, guys.

**Addie:** Thank you.

**Alex:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Now get off our show.

**John:** Craig, that was a great conversation. Now it’s time for our One Cool Things. Do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

**Craig:** I do have a One Cool Thing, and it’s directly related to my friend Alex Wang, who we were just speaking with. When we are reviewing visual effects shots, oftentimes we are discussing certain details inside the frame. We’re showing this on a television, or when we’re into our later final reviews, it’s being projected on a screen. We can’t walk right up to the screen or the television and start tapping on it with our fingers. That’s not going to work very well. The convention is to use laser pointers. We have all sorts of laser pointers over here. I like the green ones, personally.

**John:** Aren’t they really dangerous? I’ve always heard that green ones are dangerous.

**Craig:** They’re all dangerous. They’re all dangerous. Don’t shine a laser pointer in your eye. They’re all dangerous if you shine them in your eye. I like the green ones, because they’re really easy to see, especially against the typical colors of a frame. It’s rare that you have bright green in a frame, which is why, for instance, green screen exists. All the laser pointers we have are weak. I went and I got one on Amazon that I love. It’s $22.

**John:** That’s not much.

**Craig:** No. It’s called the Solid Craft High-Powered Green Laser, Tactical Long-Range Laser, Rechargeable Laser Single Press On/Off, Adjustable Focus Hunting Rifle Scope with Carrying Case. I love the way that they’ve just gamed the system now so the product name is just a bunch of tags. Anyway, it’s really good. It’s incredibly bright. Do not shine it anywhere near your eye or anyone else’s. It’s got a nice [inaudible 00:56:23].

**John:** Or on a plane.

**Craig:** Certainly not at a plane or the sky or anything like that. I’m so delighted with this thing that the visual effects department here in our post-production office has taken to calling it Excalibur. My Excalibur laser is my One Cool Thing.

**John:** I love it. My One Cool Thing this week is a Substack post by Gurwinder Bhogal called The Perils of Audience Capture: How Influencers Became Brainwashed by Their Audiences. What I really liked about it is he’s talking through how we always think about how influencers are influencing the people who are watching their videos or listening to them. This really is a case of a classic behaviorism, where these influencers are being rewarded for the kinds of things that their audiences like. They become more and more like that. They fall into a trap of just doing the same thing to more extreme levels.

It talks through Nicholas Perry, who started out as this vegan YouTuber but became successful with his eating videos, and now he’s 400 pounds. I think this is a really interesting study in how to think about the feedback loops that are natural and probably good in societies that are about 100 people large but really fall apart on the internet, where you’re getting feedback from people you don’t know, who for reasons you don’t know why they’re wanting to do certain things.

**Craig:** This is an example of the internet amplifying something that has always been part of human nature. That is the way that we respond to feedback. We love applause. We seek approval from the people around us, which in part is correct. That’s part of socialization is making sure that you can read the room and see what might not be working and see what is working. We all then preserve part of ourselves to be resistant to that, because we don’t want to just be the person that changes ourselves for what people want. That’s when we’re dealing with a room. The room on the internet is millions of people. If you don’t have much of an identity or you don’t have much of a presence of approval in your life, and suddenly you have 6 million people loving something that you do, that’s a drug that you’ll become very quickly addicted to. This is very sad to see, for instance, this guy essentially trading his physical health for love, or at least what he perceives as love.

**John:** We’ve always had people who changed themselves because they’ve come into the spotlight. We have A Face in the Crowd or All About Eve. We have these stories of how fame changes a person. The fact that everyone can be a little bit famous now is really part of the problem and is really the danger. Everyone wants to be a little bit famous right now. I think it makes it really hard for someone who’s growing up on the internet to really have this sense of who they are independently of people looking at them on the internet. It’s a real challenge.

**Craig:** It’s tricky. My daughter had some internet popularity. She writes songs, and she sings and performs them. There was a song that she wrote that was based on this fairly popular series of stories on Wattpad, which we’ve discussed before. By popular stories on Wattpad, millions of people read it. She wrote a song that was based on it, and it blew up on the TikToks and so forth. She made money, and she got a lot of attention. I remember at some point she said, “I’ve noticed that I’m now chasing that, and I need to stop.” She actually said it. She said, “I think what’s happened is I’m now trying to write a song that will make the people that like this song as happy as they were when they heard this song, and I’m not going to do that now.” She noticed it. She felt it. I was very proud of her, because I think a lot of adults really struggle with that.

What it comes down to is something that Dennis Palumbo said to me once, he of Episode 99, our favorite therapist. He said, “Many people, perhaps most people, get into the entertainment business because they are seeking approval that they otherwise did not get in their childhood.” That is a very dangerous situation, because if you don’t have a baseline of self-esteem, then this becomes your only engine for approval and meaning. That’s terrible, because what the audience will do is ruin you. A wonderful story by Kafka called The Hunger Artist, which is the opposite of the story that we see here of Nicholas Perry, pretty remarkable stuff.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. The outro this week is by Aguilera. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send larger questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. If you want to download the scene that we talked through, that’s where you’ll find it. We have T-shirts, and they’re great. You can get them at Cotton Bureau. We have transcripts that come up every week for our show and a weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You’ll find that at johnaugust.com. 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 friends. Craig and Megana, as my friends, thank you very much for the fun show.

**Megana Rao:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Megana, our bonus topic was suggested by a listener. Do you want to read the listener question?

**Megana:** Yes. Jacob wrote in and said, “As I hit my mid-30s, I fear I am starting to follow in my father’s footsteps. Is it normal for men to have fewer and fewer friends as we get older? As a kid, I always felt bad for my dad, but now I kind of get it. If you’re going to be a good dad and a good husband, how many friends can you really have? Any advice on that balance in keeping/making friends as we get older?”

**John:** Such a smart question, Jacob.

**Craig:** What strikes me immediately is how gendered the question is, because there is a presumption here that if you’re going to be a good dad and a good husband, it’s really hard to have friends, but there’s no question that being a good mother and a good wife is incompatible with having lots of friends. I do think this is something that happens to men. Is it normal? It’s common. Is it good? No. Is it necessary? No. Is having lots of friends incompatible with being a good dad and a good husband? No. I do think I have a lot of friends. John, I think you have a lot of friends.

**John:** I have a lot of friends, yeah.

**Craig:** Let’s see if we can give some advice, particularly for men, since this does seem like a gender-oriented thing, but hopefully some women will take some value from this as well, on how to keep and make friends as we get older. John, what do you think?

**John:** I’m going to start doing a very John August thing, which is trying to define our terms.

**Craig:** Oh, classic. “What is I?”

**John:** “What is friend? Explain friend.”

**Craig:** “Friend equals one.”

**John:** I want to be able to distinguish between colleagues and friends, because I think men will still have a lot of colleagues, people you work with or people you know through different places, but they won’t necessarily be friends. I would say a friend to me is somebody you can call with a personal problem or a thing going on in your life or just to hang out and have a good time, which is different than a work colleague. I might chitchat a bit with a work colleague, but I’m not going to go deep on things. Sometimes you can make friends out of your work colleagues, which is fantastic, but you need to find someplace that you have friendships that are outside of your work environment.

I’m friends with all the folks who have worked with me at Quote Unquote, which is great. I see them outside of the work environment. If those were my only source of friends, that would not be ideal. My other friends are my D and D group. We play D and D every week. That’s a group of friends. While we’re mostly talking about this endless dungeon that Craig is dragging us through-

**Craig:** It does have an end.

**John:** We’ll reach Hallister eventually. Is a chance to have a social situation that is not about work or family or anything else.

**Craig:** I understand, especially for a lot of men who are not socialized to share feelings and to process their emotions and their feelings through talking, that maybe the idea of friends gets tougher. I want to point out that we all as boys had friends. That was a thing we had. We deserve friends. Friends are wonderful, and they’re essential. Part of what I think might help men is a friendship that has something in the middle of it, an activity.

**John:** Bowling.

**Craig:** Anything, really. If you have bowling, Dungeons and Dragons, fishing, whatever it is, we generally… Do men have book club? No.

**John:** Could they? Should they? Absolutely.

**Craig:** Could they? Yes. Should they? I don’t say should. If they love it, yes. I know from my wife, what book club often becomes is talk club. For some men, that’s hard. Talk club is hard, particularly for men that are struggling to have friends. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that they probably aren’t big into the talk club vibe. An activity that you can all agree on that you love is essential I think. It helps bring people together. A hobby-based group is a good thing, finding something like that. If you are married, you may absolutely loathe the following sentence, which I’ve heard a number of times. “My friend so-and-so would love for us to get together with her husband and go out to dinner.” You may go, “Oh, no.” Give it a shot, unless you already have-

**John:** Give it a shot.

**Craig:** If you have a lot of friends, then you can say no, which I do all the time. I’m full up on friends. If you don’t, you never know, because what happens is sometimes couples interaction helps you find friends. You may then get invited to a party, and you might start chatting with somebody. If you’re a guy and you meet another guy at a party that you like, or by the way, it doesn’t all have to be gendered friends, or a woman that you’d be friends with, pursue it. Pursue it.

**John:** That’s the thing is people are I think afraid to pursue friendships after a certain point, because in college it was easy, because you were just around people, and you could strike up conversations. You all had a thing in common, because you were all going to the same school. You have a little less now. Post-pandemic, Mike and I very deliberately tried to make some new friends, because we recognized that so many of the friends we made over the last 10 years were couple friends, parents of other kids at Amy’s schools. That was great while we had that shared interest. Our kids are at the same school. During the pandemic, we weren’t seeing those people. They all fell out of touch. We didn’t care about a lot of them. We weren’t going to get back in touch. We had literally nothing in common other than our kids went to the same school. Mike and I have been trying to make some new friends. Literally, just in line at Outfest, we started talking to the couple in front of us, and we went out to dinner with them, and they’re now friends.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** Craig, I think I’m going to scare you here, but you have to state it, then manifest it.

**Craig:** Wow. You may have to state it and manifest. You have to be the change you want to see in the world. That means, by the way, that you have to risk rejection of a kind. When you are pursuing friendships, keep your antenna up for resistance and reluctance, because that means those people don’t want to be friends with you, and that’s okay. You don’t want to be thirsty, as the kids say. You don’t want to be desperate. Just stay open to it. I would say, Jacob, you’re in your mid-30s. Don’t follow in your father’s footsteps. My dad, who he’s been dead for, I don’t know, a couple years now, he didn’t have friends.

**John:** My dad didn’t either.

**Craig:** None. My dad lived way longer than your dad. My dad didn’t have friends for decades. For decades. That’s not good. I used to worry about it. Then I realized, why am I worrying about this? This is not my problem. I can’t fix this for him.

**John:** For your own kid, model good behavior.

**Craig:** That’s right. Exactly.

**John:** Make some friends. Take a chance.

**Craig:** It’s actually part of being a good dad is showing your kid that you have friends and that you’re not just the guy at home that’s a lump on the coach. By the way, I don’t know if you’re married to a man or a woman, but whoever your spouse is, give them a break by going and having your own friends. Otherwise, you’re like, “I don’t know. You’re going out. I’m alone.” Megana-

**John:** Give us your perspective on this, because you’re closer in age to Jacob.

**Craig:** You’re Jacob-ish.

**John:** Do you sense your friends groups changing, your friendships changing? What’s going on with you?

**Megana:** I definitely sense as I’m getting older, the texture of my social life changing a bit. It’s hard to tell whether that’s because of the pandemic and how that’s affected us the last two years or if I have to admit that I’m just getting older.

**Craig:** You’re getting older.

**Megana:** An uncomfortable thing to realize. I wholeheartedly agree with what you’re saying. Male friendships fascinate me. I think it’s just beneficial for everyone for men to have more friends, because I think classically, straight male guys tend to expect their significant others to do a lot of the emotional labor of helping them process and talk through everything, and they only feel comfortable talking about that with their partner. It’s exhausting. It’s so much better if you have a group of guy friends or just a group of friends that you can bounce things off of.

**Craig:** My wife would love it if I talked to her more about my feelings. She would actually love that. I don’t do it ever. She’s like, “Can you please just say your words related to whatever you’re feeling?” I have to make an effort to do that.

**Megana:** Are you having those conversations with your friends, or you’re just not having them at all?

**Craig:** Straight guys. It’s time for the straight guy hour. How do straight guys do this? Here’s how the straight… I don’t know if this is typical or not for straight guys. What I do with my friends is we do talk about these things, but we don’t talk about them in emotional ways at all. We talk about them in… The only emotion that we express generally is anger. That’s entirely acceptable for straight men. It’s like, “I’m so pissed off about this.” “Yeah, me too, blah, and here’s why.” Ultimately, it turns into comedy of some kind. You get heard without it being this thing of being heard, because we can’t ever just go right at it. We have to go around it, because again, we were instructed not to, at length, in our childhood. It’s interesting.

That’s why I think guys having friends is so important, particularly straight guys, because we were conditioned to not talk and not share and not listen. If we find friends that we can do that with and feel like we’re not doing it but still do it, if you know what I mean, it’s really helpful.

**John:** Now this is not a new observation at all, but I do feel like the root cause or one of the root causes of so many of the challenges facing America right now is the epidemic of male loneliness and just men who don’t have anyone to talk to or anything to do, so they’re only reaching out to the internet. It’s not good. It’s not healthy for women. It’s not healthy for society. I’d urge our male listeners to just be proactive about trying to find some more friendships. Just find an activity you want to participate in and do it. Find some other men around you or people around you that you can go do this. It could be board games. It could be hiking. My brother is in a four-wheel driving club.

**Craig:** There you go. It’s a club.

**John:** He loves it. Find a club.

**Craig:** There’s a reason why gangs exist. There’s a reason why teams exist and squadrons. I don’t know, there’s just something kind of groupy about men. They like to be on a team. They like to be a part of a thing where everybody wears the same shirt. Men love uniforms. I don’t know why. It’s just in there somewhere in the bones. That’s a good thing. Just be careful that you don’t end up in a club with a bunch of other people who are super angry about not having friends.

**John:** That’s not good.

**Craig:** That becomes a little toxic stew of bitterness. Then that’s where men start to egg each other on to do terrible things. What is al-Qaeda if not a club of lonely men, or what was it? That’s what happens. Just be careful about that. Keep your antenna up for people that are maybe just miserable, because then that’ll be a misery club. Find something that’s positive and fun.

**Megana:** Like golfing. This is why people golf, right? You are outside, and you’re just walking and chatting.

**John:** You’re not looking people in the eye. You’re standing side by side doing this.

**Megana:** You’re also not looking at a screen, which is a plus.

**Craig:** You are not looking at a screen. Golf is a fascinating one, because you’re also not competing against that person. You’re competing against yourself, which is amazing. Alec Berg, who is an excellent golfer, has often pointed out that golf is one of the only sports where anybody on any given day could be as good or not better than a professional. If golf isn’t for you, or if you’ve got a physical disability and you can’t golf, there are other things, for sure. You just have to make an effort to find them. The internet is a great tool and a terrible tool. More toxic groups on the internet than not. Maybe that’s a way for you to find something there. You have to try. Jacob, it’s really important. You may find that you could also reconnect with some people that you could naturally be friends with, you just lost touch with. Just see how it goes. You need it. It’s really important.

**John:** It is important.

**Craig:** You guys are my friends.

**John:** Thanks, friends.

**Megana:** Aw.

**Craig:** Aw.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** Bye, friends.

**Megana:** Bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Follow along with the sample scene [here](https://johnaugust.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/sample-scene-for-VFX-discussion-2.pdf).
* Alex Wang on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1647984/)
* Addie Manis on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1982088/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/adicaroy?lang=en)
* [The Perils of Audience Capture](https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture) by Gurwinder Bhogal
* [Craig’s Favorite Laser Pointer](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FH82ZJ9?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details)
* [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://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Aguilera ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) 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/563standard.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.