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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 547: Good Energy, Transcript

June 1, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 547 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting screenwriters.

Today on the show, we live on a planet experiencing climate change, yet the stories we tell tend to ignore this uncomfortable fact. We’ll look at ways writers can address that with two of the folks behind a new campaign to put some good energy out there. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we’ll talk about how you ask for money, be that for making a movie or for launching a campaign to save the planet.

First, producer Megana Rao is here, and we have some follow-up to get through. Megana, what stuff has come in through the mailbox that we need to address on this podcast?

**Megana Rao:** Tony wrote in regarding Episode 545, the nuclear episode. He recommended this great film about Stanislav Petrov, The Man Who Saved the World. I’ll include a link in the show notes.

**John:** This had come up as like, oh, someone should make a movie about Stanislav Petrov, who’s the Russian who did not start a nuclear war. I said on the thing, “We don’t do movies about people who didn’t do things.”

**Megana:** Exactly.

**John:** Who stood in the way of things. I looked through the trailer of it, because it says, oh, all these famous people are in this. Wow. How did I never hear about this? It’s a documentary that has reenactment footage in it. It’s a hybrid in between, but it’s not a full-on normal feature.

**Megana:** Scripted, exactly.

**John:** We’ll put a link in the show notes for that. What else have we got?

**Megana:** In Episode 530, Jack Thorne introduced us to the 1in4 Coalition, which is an organization that focuses on accommodations for disabilities in the UK entertainment industry.

**John:** That’s right. He was talking to us about simple things like bathrooms that are accessible for everybody and making sure that there’s a person on set whose responsibility it is to really focus on making sure that people can do their jobs and that there’s nothing holding them back because of accessibility issues. They’ve made some good progress in the UK based on his speeches and other people doing work on the ground.

**Megana:** Absolutely. Then the Inevitable Foundation, which is the American equivalent of that 1in4 Coalition, just released an accommodations report this week. They created a calculator to look at the cost of what it would actually cost production to have X percentage of disabled people on their sets or in their writers room. One of their missions is that they want to close the disability gap between real life and film and television, because disabled people make up over 20% of the population, but represent less than 1% of writers behind the screen. They mostly focus on mid-level screenwriters. In this project they looked at two budgets. One was for a 24-week writers room. They looked at the cost if there were 25% disabled writers versus 100% disabled writers. Then they looked at a 20-week budget for a 10-episode show and then did the same thing and calculated the cost there.

**John:** Great. We’ll put a link in the show notes and to the report, and also to this Hollywood Reporter article which does a good job of walking through it. This is Richie Siegel and Marisa, who you and I had actually spoken with before, because I did a little thing with them for the Inevitable Foundation.

One of the things that’s interesting is they’re putting some real numbers on what those costs would be, because I think sometimes you’re scared to walk into those conversations. It’s like, “Oh my god, it’s going to be so expensive.” What I like about the report is they’re focusing on some of the really small things. It could just be adjustable chairs for different height people. That is a simple thing. Some things are more expensive like ASL interpreters for a thing. Also, it scales differently with how many people need that thing on your set. If you need an ASL interpreter for one person, that can scale up to more than that one person. It helps the whole production when you have that stuff figured out in advance. Some of the costs really weren’t that big. I think the percentage cost for those writer rooms, it was sometimes 1% to 12%, but it wasn’t a crazy, crazy number. Compared to the things we spend money on in Hollywood, it was not a huge number.

**Megana:** Totally. They break down all of the costs in this really easy-to-read way that feels so obvious, like some of the things that they’re asking for are $4. It also brings up that I think when you are someone who is lower level on a production or it’s your first day at work, you’re like, “Who do I ask for these things?” It can be so uncomfortable to ask for really small things that might make going to the bathroom easier.

**John:** That’s what I think Jack Thorne was really emphasizing, I think, in their report. They were talking about having trained disability coordinator people, so that you know there’s a person you can go to to ask for that thing, so you’re not the person who has to go ask the producer for the thing. You can go to the specific person, just the same way we have a COVID testing coordinator and we have intimacy coordinators. There’s a person whose job it is to really think about that for the production, and so it doesn’t fall on the line producer or some other job.

**Megana:** In the report they survey 35 artists, writers, directors, showrunners, actors, and the combined projects that those people have worked on are 600 productions. Something that I was so struck by is that productions are spending money on accommodations to make things more accessible, but it seems like the people that they’re trying to help are being left out of those conversations. In one example, the production had hired an ASL interpreter, but this person actually didn’t-

**John:** They learned ASL on YouTube. They were not actually qualified to be doing the job that they were trying to do.

**Megana:** Someone had Celiac’s disease and someone gave them a gluten-filled doughnut and lied to them about it. I was so surprised by, and I guess it makes sense, that it seems like the discomfort around dealing with people who are differently abled is preventing any sort of communication from happening, whereas it’s very normal for us to now ask, “Do you have any dietary restrictions?” I think it’s just a new way of framing how we approach people and set expectations before going into things.

**John:** That’s actually a good segue to framing expectations about how we are going to be working on sets and telling our stories as we transition to talking about climate. Maybe we’ll introduce our guests for this week. First, I’m going to introduce Anna Jane Joyner. She has been working for over 15 years in climate communication strategy and campaigning. Her work has been featured in Rolling Stone, Glamor, MTV, the Associated Press, New York Times, and more. Most recently, Anna Jane is the founder and director of Good Energy, which has released a playbook for how film and TV can welcome feature storylines on climate issues. Welcome, Anna Jane.

**Anna Jane Joyner:** Thank you so much for having me.

**John:** An absolute pleasure to be here. I saw you first at a presentation that happened this last week where you’re rolling out this big playbook, which is a big, giant event at the Academy Theater. I want to get into how this all came to be and where you’re at. Where are you at at this very moment? Just this past week, are you on a high? Are you trying to get your energy back? How are you feeling?

**Anna Jane:** Yeah, a combination. We’ve been working on the overall project for about three years, but on the playbook itself for a year. It was a whirlwind year. It felt very surreal to see it actually come to life and be out there in the world and have this great reception, both at the event at the Academy Museum, but also a lot of press around it and just general excitement, so definitely on a cloud.

**John:** We’re going to be putting a link so people can read it, but I really want to talk through some of the workable ideas from it on this podcast. To help us out with that, Quinn Emmett is a screenwriter, investor, father of three small humans. He also created Important, Not Important: Science for People Who Give A Shit, which is both a podcast and a newsletter. It covers science news, from climate to COVID, heat to hunger, agriculture to AI ethics. Quinn Emmett, I can’t believe you’re finally on the show. Welcome.

**Quinn Emmett:** I know. I was wondering how many times my wife would make the cut before I did. Then every time I think about that, I think you should just keep having my wife on the show probably.

**John:** Quinn’s wife is Dana Fox Emmett, who is one of my favorite humans in the world. I got to see her married off to you at a great celebration in Virginia many years ago.

**Quinn:** So long ago. So long ago. Thank you for having me. You are a mentor to me. I’m delighted to be here and to help Anna Jane any way I can.

**John:** The hook for this episode really is that this thing has just come out. Can you tell us what the playbook is, Anna Jane?

**Anna Jane:** It’s a playbook for screenwriting in the age of climate change, which is really just an array of both inspiration and information. It has all the classic things you would think of, information on impacts, the science, solutions, but all of it ties back to story itself, in screenwriting in particular. Then it has a lot of fun sections on characters and a cheat sheet, a lot on climate psychology, because obviously that’s very related to character development. It’s really just an array of both great information and tips, but also a lot of just inspiration and ideas that we hope people steal.

**John:** Now when Quinn first described it to me, I was expecting it to be a book or a pdf, some sort of physical printed document. While there is a small version of that, it’s mostly a website. If you go to goodenergystories.com, you’ll see all the stuff that you have built out. It’s a very elaborate array of… I think it’s designed so you can just fall into it and spend hours inside it, looking through stuff. Quinn, you’ve been writing about climate issues for all these years for Important, Not Important. How’d you get involved with it, and what was the hook for you?

**Quinn:** Time is a flat circle, and I don’t remember much. I don’t remember how I got roped into this/inserted myself, but I have been aware and so impressed by Anna Jane’s journey over the past decade and all the contributions she’s made to the movement, from her personal story to her greater effect in climate communications. I got into this because I was screenwriting, and mostly sci-fi and tech and things like that. I devised this fire hose of, hey, what’s the latest in science and tech and medicine and things like that. I realized a lot of my friends weren’t seeing that same news, folks who were interested in it. They were getting their news from Facebook, which turns out, not so great for everyone. That’s just what it’s been. It’s been this journey of, hey, how do I help people keep up with these things, but do something about it?

What Anna Jane was working on was such a bizarre intersection of my two jobs, which was it’s very difficult to keep up with what’s happening with this stuff to truly try and understand it, to decipher disinformation from what really matters, and if at all possible, to guess where we’re going, but more importantly, to really identify with the folks who were already being affected, whether by choice or not, and the folks that are working, as I like to say, on the front lines of the future, to do something about this, whether through mitigation or adaptation. There’s a million different ways. That’s people and stories and characters and struggles. Anna Jane said, “We need to build something so that the folks in Hollywood who have a hard enough time making movies and TV and all that can find ways to build the most important story of our time into the most prolific storytelling mediums of our time. I feel like what you built is just an incredible version of that.

**John:** Quinn, you’re trying to distinguish between news, which is information and facts, it’s a kind of storytelling, but it’s not the kind of storytelling that involves characters. Anna Jane, we often do a segment on this show called How Would This Be A Movie. Imagining you as a protagonist who’s building this organization, what is your character origin story? What gets you into doing this kind of work for 15 years?

**Anna Jane:** It’s a journey. I grew up in a conservative, evangelical community. My dad is a megachurch pastor, so definitely not who most people think of becoming a climate activist and communications guru. I went to UNC Chapel Hill, and I took environmental science, because it was supposed to be the easy science class, and learned about climate change. For me, the actual entry point was mountaintop removal coal mining, which is this kind of coal mining where they blow the tops off of mountains in Appalachia. I grew up in western North Carolina in the mountains, and then on the summers on the gulf coast of Alabama. That hit me in a very visceral, emotional, personal way just imagining the mountains near me being blown up and those communities being impacted. That’s what really got me into working on coal and environmental activism and climate.

A few years later, when I was the campaign director for a regional nonprofit in North Carolina, I was approached by Years of Living Dangerously, which is a Showtime documentary series on climate. They wanted to follow me trying to convince my dad that climate change is real for a year. We had a celebrity cohost, Ian Somerhalder. We spent a year trying to convince my dad, by introducing him to faith leaders who are climate leaders, but also some of the best climate scientists in the world. I intellectually understood the climate crisis and how severe it was, but when I did that, I was like, “Okay, I really need to read up on all of this and really immerse myself in the latest climate news.”

I was just listening to a TED Talk by David Roberts, who’s an amazing journalist. He just went through it in such a simple way, the climate crisis and the impacts. It just hit me. I just had this moment, I remember, where I was driving, where I really emotionally understood what we were up against, and from that moment on, knew that there was never anything else I could do. Also, working on Years of Living Dangerously introduced me to just the power of cinematic storytelling and the fact that we don’t have enough of it. That is what really turned me more. I was also passionate about climate stories. Growing up in religion is a masterclass in storytelling, so I knew the power of it. That’s what really got me into TV and film and thinking about how to portray it on screen.

**John:** Thinking about you as a protagonist, we always talk about a protagonist has to leave home and go on a journey and be transformed in this. Was it that speech that was the transforming moment or was it the first class that transformed you? What are the moments along the way that made you feel like, oh, this is what I meant to do, this is what scares me, maybe this is the cave I fear to enter that I must enter? What were those moments?

**Anna Jane:** That was definitely a big one, David Roberts. It showed you, if we’re at two degrees, this is the world, and six degrees, and just in this powerful, simple way, and that just showed how terrifying it was, frankly. It was a bet that somebody on Twitter had waged at him that he couldn’t talk about climate change in 11 minutes or explain it in 11 minutes. At the end he just said, “Your job, anyone who knows this, is to make the impossible possible. That is what we are up against. That’s all of our roles.” I really took that to heart. There’s that car moment listening to a TED Talk.

Then I would say the other piece is, so about six years ago I was working in New York for a company that was a B corporation, had a nonprofit climate arm, and we had a creative agency in-house. I got to do a bunch of my own documentaries and short films and work with a really amazing creative team. I decided to move back to the Gulf Coast of Alabama, which is where my mom’s family’s from. I had this romantic idea of, I’m going to move back to this place that my family’s been for five generations, that’s very sacred to me, that’s beautiful. It’s right on the water and is also on the front lines of climate change. My little town of 500 people is a peninsula, and it’s been called one of the most vulnerable places in the country to climate.

When I got down there, I was not anticipating the real trauma and stress of living on the front lines of climate changes. It’s now six months a year of hurricane season. It’s just every couple weeks, one of these starts forming, and you just have to stop everything you’re doing and prepare. It’s traumatic. It’s also morally complex, because you’re praying that it doesn’t hit you, but that means that it hits somebody else. Being down on the Gulf Coast has certainly brought climate home to me in a very, very personal way. I already had a lot of emotions and feelings about it, but it certainly upped that experience of just really profound grief and anxiety about how this is already impacting us.

**John:** Let’s talk about the emotions, because you said grief and anxiety, but also it sounds like this initial TED Talk was fear. Basically, they’re showing there’s a monster there and we have to fight this monster, yet the storytelling can’t only be about fear and grief and anxiety. There has to be positive things to talk about there as well, and hope and optimism and courage. As you’re trying to develop this playbook for people to be telling the stories in the space, how do you find those other emotions? I feel like the movies we’ve seen have always been about just doom. How do you key into those other things?

**Anna Jane:** I think you’re right. The tropes that we do see are the apocalypse and doom, or they’re a character who’s shaming another character about their plastic straws or SUV or what you, or they’re ecoterrorists. There’s a lot of those too. We would love to see some more versions of climate stories, which is really the purpose of the playbook is to expand that, and then you have possibilities. I have two feelings about it.

Dr. Britt Wray, who’s an expert on climate psychology and mental health, has this great line of thinking or quote that grief and anxiety isn’t inherently bad and hope isn’t inherently good. Grief and anxiety are pointing you toward something. She says this: climate, it’s not a pathology to feel anxiety about it. There’s a reason we feel anxiety about it. If you can really process that and turn towards doing something that this anxiety is pointing you towards doing, that is a really amazing transformation. Seeing characters go through that and really reckon with their difficult emotions around climate can very much not only help the writer process their own difficult emotions, but the audience as well. I really love those stories where the emotions show up and it’s hard and you see how people work through them and reckon with them. That’s a form of finding courage. A lot of great stories are that dark night and then you come out of it and then you find courage to go up against the impossible odds. I think that that’s huge.

Dr. Kate Marvel, who’s a climate scientist and was one of our advisors and wrote the climate science section. She’s also a beautiful essayist and storyteller. She has this great quote that we need courage, not hope to fight climate change. Re-framing it that way for me was just so powerful, because there are moments where it’s hard to find hope. It is a really big challenge. Even just what we’re already seeing with Hurricane Ida when it hit New Orleans last years, I just cried for two days. The Gulf Coast is going to change. There’s nothing we can do. For me, it’s more about finding courage, like how do we face this thing, which is such a lot of what stories are about. Everything from Star Wars to Lord of the Rings to the Jesus story is about going up against really big odds. I do think you can find hope. There’s definitely still hope. We can still avoid the apocalypse outcome for our children. No matter what direction we’re going toward scientifically, we can build a society that can actually take care of each other, so that as we’re going through these impacts and transformations of our physical world, we can still take care of each other.

**John:** Now, obviously, the actual changes need to happen. There are some individual changes, but there’s more societal changes, political changes. Those are the wheels that need to turn. You’re focusing on what Hollywood’s role is and what the storytelling can be. I want to take a moment to think back about what impact has Hollywood actually had over the years in social issues, and to what degree is it just reflecting things or to what degree is it actually moving the needle. At our meeting we were talking through trying to brainstorm what are examples of situations where Hollywood and film and TV actually did have an impact. One of the things I was thinking about was smoking. People used to smoke on screen. You just don’t see smoking on screen. Smoking numbers have gone down. I think that is related. I think there’s less smoking and it’s not perceived as being cool anymore. That’s an example.

A negative example, we see the CSI effect. Because everyone watches CSI shows, in which there’s perfect crime forensics, the expectation for juries is that there should be perfect crime forensics. It should be fast and easy, and there should be DNA tests for everything. It should be easy and infallible. There’s definitely an impact that Hollywood can have in terms of what Americans think is normal. I think you’re trying to move the needle in terms of what Americans are thinking about in terms of climate.

**Anna Jane:** Absolutely.

**John:** Quinn, help me think through some of these other examples of bigger issues. Designated drivers, that’s a thing that I think I see in movies a lot now and in TV shows. It’s not okay to be driving drunk. That’s one. Other examples that you can think of?

**Quinn:** You guys have covered… I don’t remember, it was sometime in the last 100 episodes. You talked about the portrayal of dark government and those sort of things and realizing, hey, it might not be okay to keep showing these sort of things with how little we trust institutions these days, for better or worse.

Also, the goal of this isn’t to put the onus completely on Hollywood. I think one of the things Anna Jane and I talked about a lot is it was really important, in the language and the tone and the vernacular, to not say, “You’re not doing a good enough job.” It was important for us to say, “We need you. You’re the best in the world at this. If there’s anything you can get out of this, if one line prompts you to include one line in your movie or TV or you have an entire show, entire movie, entire series you want to bring out of this, that’s great too,” because as Anna Jane was alluding to, 30,000 feet to come on down.

In the past 15 years or so, as we’ve scaled up solar and wind and batteries and things like that, we’ve actually gotten rid of a lot of the worst-case scenarios with these eight degrees of warming, seven, six, five, four. Just this week there’s a big article in Nature saying if every government fulfilled just their current pledges, which to be clear, aren’t that great, we can keep it under two degrees. Of course, that’s a big ask. That’s actually enormous. Every tenth of a degree really does matter. When you ask the question, okay, what is it going to require for those governments to do that, it’s going to require the kitchen sink, just like defeating smoking wasn’t just not showing people smoking on TV and movies anymore. It was the warning labels we put onto the packages. It was all the lawsuits. It was all those things. It was banning it in restaurants and all these different places.

The answer, and where I work a lot, is people saying, okay, this is all great, but what can I do? The best answer to that, usually, whether it’s COVID or climate or whatever it might be, is what can you do, John? What is the intersection of your interests and your skills, and then I’ll give you 70 different ways that are very measurable where you can have an impact. What Hollywood screenwriters, or if you live in the UK, wherever it might be, Bollywood, wherever it might be, what you do is so impactful and has such reach and can have such exponential impact. Any publicity is good publicity. Look what happened with Don’t Look Up. That matters so much.

Again, the onus isn’t you’re not doing well enough. It’s we need you because you do this one thing so well, while people like Kate Marvel, who’s again an incredible essayist but also one of our most impactful atmospheric scientists, all of these people are going to make a difference, and the impact that screenwriters can have, and showrunners and story editors and people who work below the line to build these worlds that writers imagine. Everyone can have such a substantial impact. If we can provide a tool for people to answer that question of what can I do, then that’s the least we can do. It just will help move the needle so much. The answer is we’ve made a lot of progress, and we can make so much more, but we need everybody on board.

**John:** Let’s focus on some of the smaller things and bigger things in terms of what screenwriters and TV writers can do to show impact of climate change and solutions to climate change on screen. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the page we’re talking through. This is Climate Solutions On-Screen. Anna Jane, can you talk us through just some of the simple things? Then we can also get into the bigger things. I know Norman Lear is involved in this organization as well. I think what he did with The Jeffersons, which was portraying a successful Black family on screen, and putting it in everyone’s living rooms, did have an impact. There could be as big a thing about a climate-centered series like Scott Burns is doing, or we also had Gloria Calderon Kellett on the show to talk about One Day At A Time and how she did little small things on the show, like if they’re on the roof, they’re going to show some solar panels. There’s bigger things and smaller things. Can you give us a sense, from this playbook of these smaller things that we could be looking at for our characters in existing shows or movies?

**Anna Jane:** Definitely. Lynn and Norman Lear have been great champions of seeing more climate on screen. You’re exactly right. We talk about it as a spectrum. On the smaller things are almost more the set dressing. If you’re showing a roof, show solar panels on it. If you have a kitchen scene, show an electric stove, not a gas stove. If you have a car scene, have an EV. When on set, don’t have single-use plastic in your scenes. Have a water bottle. Those are just the really easy things that almost any production could do.

**John:** Those are things you’re not even really acknowledging in the course of the scene. It’s just normal to see that there.

**Anna Jane:** We know that that works, because it’s worked with smoking and it’s worked with other issues and it normalizes these behaviors and makes them sexy, depending on the context. Of course, that’s what we want. We want to make these things really desirable and sexy. Then I think from there it’s talking about it just in passing. You’re seeing that show up more, just in shows where it’s an ongoing story that isn’t about climate, but the character brings it up in passing conversation. We know that that is powerful, because again, it normalizes talking about it.

There’s this really strange dynamic that’s happening in the country where now according to Yale’s most recent research, 75% of American adults are concerned about climate change, everything from cautious to deeply alarmed. The deeply alarmed is now the biggest American audience of all the audiences they study. It’s a really small percentage of people who ever talk about it in their normal, day-to-day lives. It’s creating this sensation of feeling very isolated and also like you’re being gaslit by the world, which how the characters in Don’t Look Up felt, like there’s a meteor headed towards us and nobody seems to care. We also consistently, according to research, underestimate how much those around us care about it. We think that we care more than the other people around us, but that’s not true.

Just having it come up in passing conversation for a character that you’re already attached to and a story that you’re already attached to is really, really powerful. Then I think we see the more in-depth engagements with shows like Years and Years, where it’s not focused on climate, but it’s a consistent theme that impacts the family and the story because it’s set in the future.

**John:** Let’s go back and take a look at that middle ground thing where it’s not just set dressing, but it’s coming up in conversation, because I think the classic example you go back to in terms of one character makes a comment and that changes the whole industry is Merlot. In the movie Sideways, Paul Giamatti has his tirade against Merlot, and it actually has a demonstrable impact on Merlot sales for decades afterwards. It literally changed what grapes are planted in California based on the result of that movie and people not buying Merlot. If you have characters you care about, who you believe would be saying this thing, but are voicing a concern about this thing or that thing or a preference of this over that, that could have a real impact if it’s the right show, the right message, the right timing of it. It’s being judicious when you’re doing that.

**Anna Jane:** It’s huge. Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, another amazing climate scientist, says that the number one thing that anyone can do about it is talk about it, is really being honest about the fact that this is impacting our lives and our psychology and our mental health and our physical environment. Having your characters do that I think also is just an honest portrayal of the world we’re living in now. If these characters were out there in the real world, it would be impacting their lives, and they would be thinking about it. Also, just for the impact on the audience, it really does a lot to normalize people’s own concerns and courage and thinking about it and saying it’s okay to be worried. These characters are also worried.

**John:** Choices in transportation feel like a really natural way to do that, because the choice of whether to get that bigger car, to get the smaller car, or to not get a car and use public transportation, those are things that are moments we can see on screen where characters are making choices. We can think about like, oh, what choice would I make if I were in that situation. You might make a different choice. Just because you see a bunch of big trucks around you, you might be the person who doesn’t get the big truck because of something that you saw on screen or a choice that someone else made that was different, because of a show you saw or a movie you saw.

**Quinn:** Going from the ground level back up, there’s some fascinating research that says the single most influential lever for why someone might get solar panels is whether their neighbor has them. That’s been measured a thousand times. We know that the biggest levers to pull, no question, are elections, legislation, and candidates who might be able to win races, that will vote for that sort of legislation that pulls a lever. We also know that that really doesn’t usually happen until it’s swelled from the ground up, until social norms have been changed, so when there’s been a paradigm shift.

If TV is like the friends that are in your living room every week or you’re binging them or whatever it might be or these big impactful movies, if we’re able to show those things more and more, whether it’s solar panels or a smaller car or it’s water issues or whatever it might be, that’s going to help build that. That’s going to help build it up to the point where it’s really tough for the folks who are in charge, who are able to have the biggest impact to ignore. Again, there’s a million different roles that people can play. When you ask, what can I do, it’s the same thing.

I reread Anne Lamott’s book Bird By Bird recently, which I love and I’ve dogeared a thousand times. It’s just these wonderful character questions like what do they dream about and what are they scared of and all this. It’s the same thing, just looking at your characters and going, “What can they do? How can they get involved in some way, whether it’s subtle or not?” The more you see that, the more you go, “That’s a job I didn’t know existed.”

**Anna Jane:** I think the way that we talk about it in the playbook is a climate lens, which is also just another generative, creative opportunity, thinking through how would this be impacting my story world, and my characters can open up all these new possibilities around plot and character development. I think that that’s exactly right. It’s just thinking through, if this character was alive in our world today, what would they be dreaming about, and how might they be engaging or thinking about this. Then I think Gloria Calderon Kellett at the event did such a good job of showing what that looks like in her show, where it’s a sitcom. It’s not about climate change, but one of the characters is really passionate about social justice issues. It was very natural to have that character dress up as Greta Thunberg for Halloween. There were some great jokes. It was funny. It totally worked for their characters and their story.

Then also talked to Scott Z. Burns, who just created an Apple Plus show that will come out I think next year, that’s heavily focused on climate. His co-showrunner and writer Dorothy Fortenberry has this great line that if climate isn’t in your story, then it’s science fiction. I think that that’s going to continue to be the case. In 10 years, if your characters aren’t acknowledging climate, it’s going to feel so outdated, because that is just going to increasingly impact our real lives and our real world.

**Quinn:** Now when I watch any show that is about an oncoming pandemic or something, or I see medical situations where people aren’t wearing masks, I’m like, “Put on your mask!” It feels really crazy. I love love love the show Station Eleven, but it started to be filmed before our pandemic. We see all these medical situations, and there’s a pandemic coming. I’m like, “Where are your masks?” It does feel like some sort of weird alt timeline universe that people are not acknowledging what we all know to be true.

**Anna Jane:** That was one of my favorite shows recently, because obviously it’s not a climate show but it does show how do these characters find beauty and joy in the midst of pretty harrowing circumstances. I think we need a lot more stories about that, around climate. That stuff can’t go away, as things continue to get more intense. We’re humans. We need stories. We need art. We need joy and beauty. Also, on the flip side, I was like, “This is set 15 years in the future. There’s a lot of climate change happening. They just don’t talk about it.” It would be so easy to just have thrown a little bit in there to acknowledge that their world is very changed.

**John:** We’d be focusing on the little things we can do or how the characters talk about it. Let’s zoom back out. There’s a page in your playbook called the Cheat sheet, which is bigger, broader things to be thinking about. One of the big frameworks you have for it is the climate crisis is here now. I think so often we talk about it as the day after tomorrow. We’re always jumping ahead 10 years like, “Oh, this is how bad it’s going to be,” and not acknowledging what you’re experiencing on the Gulf Coast, which is that it’s happening to you every day. There’s constant problems. The wolf’s not at the door. The wolf’s in the house. We have to deal with the wolf that’s in front of us.

Let’s talk through some of the other things in this cheat sheet, because there are things you might skip past but I think are important for us to be looking at. One of them is your idea of no shame, because I think so often it’s easy to think about, oh, they’re saying that, but then they’re also flying someplace, so they’re hypocrites. You have a quote there from Bill McKibben that says, “Everyone’s a climate hypocrite. The hypocrisy is the price of admission in this battle.” You to be doing this, you had to fly here to Los Angeles to do this presentation. You have an impact as well. That doesn’t negate the good that you’re doing.

**Anna Jane:** Yeah, it’s really huge. I think it’s actually an intentional narrative that’s been seeded by the fossil fuel industry, who very much understands the power of storytelling. They commissioned a movie glorifying oil in the 1950s. It’s intentional. BP actually coined the term carbon footprint, and it was very much to put the onus of guilt and shame on the individual instead of the systemic problems, the fossil fuel industry, the governments that are allowing this to happen.

I think that when we do shame each other over flying, plastic straws, what have you… In the Deep South some people need trucks. EV trucks haven’t become affordable. Shame is a very good emotion for shutting you down. It doesn’t provide a psychological mindset for moving into a place of agency and action. That’s a very intentional thing that was done by the fossil fuel industry. I encourage people not to play into that. It’s easy to fall into. It also tends to set up the character who does care as the nag, like a lot of the annoying neighbor bitching at you about your recycling. We want to show characters who care who you like, or you don’t like, but they’re somebody who’s fascinating and not just bitching at you, ideally.

**John:** I think one of the other tropes and expectations we get to is that character, that nag, is a white person who is going after you. One of the things that I see you doing in this is that you’re trying to really center Black and indigenous people in this conversation. You had Reverend Lennox Yearwood Jr., and one of the lines he said that I thought was so smartly crafted was, “From the front line to the fence line,” and really focusing on communities that are impacted by these things and centering them in the solution to it, and not just the victim of the problem.

**Anna Jane:** It’s huge. I think it’s very in line with a lot of representation and diversity conversations already happening in Hollywood. When it comes to climate, historically marginalized communities, largely BIPOC, are the ones who are near the fossil fuel industries that are poisoning air and water, Cancer Alley in Louisiana, largely Black communities. They’re also in the front lines. We see Standing Rock and all kinds of pipeline fights and fights against different fossil fuel infrastructure led by Black and indigenous leaders. It’s really important when we’re telling climate stories, those people are leading on the stories that they’re in.

**John:** There’s not a white savior who comes in-

**Anna Jane:** Exactly.

**John:** …just to solve the problem for them.

**Anna Jane:** They’re a part of the actual storytelling process, because they are largely the ones who are experiencing it first and worst.

**John:** Let’s try to wrap this up with some action steps, because this feels very much like a Quinn newsletter thing, like here’s what you can do. Obviously, any of our listeners can go to the climate playbook right now. It’s goodenergystories.com, and take a look at those things. What are some steps that you’d like people to take this week, this month, in terms of if you were a showrunner working on a show, what are some practical things they could do to start having these conversations in the room? What would you like them to do?

**Anna Jane:** Certainly reading it, but also sharing it with your writers and making sure that other people have access to it and are aware of it. We’re definitely trying to distribute it far and wide. The more that folks can do that, the better. We’re also offering workshops, and we’re happy to come into writers rooms and bring it to life off the page. Happy to do that. Definitely reach out to me if you’re interested in that. It’s like climate change, just talking about it, sharing it.

**John:** Great. How will you know if what you’re doing is successful. How will you know whether this good energy playbook has had the impact that you want to have? I know you have people involved who are data folks. Will you have a sense of whether this has worked?

**Anna Jane:** Yeah. We worked with USC’s Media Impact Project to study how often climate and any adjacent conversation is showing up in TV and film. It’s 2.8% between 2016 and 2020 showed up in scripted entertainment. We are going to continue measuring that to see how it’s going up. That was before Don’t Look Up. I’m curious how much that impacted audiences. Just looking, definitely going to study how does this change over time, and not only just the frequency, but how are the stories showing up. What are the narratives that are showing up?

**John:** Small sidebar. You don’t have to weigh in on this. I fully respect Don’t Look Up, and I’m so happy Don’t Look Up happened, but I do worry that it’s going to feel like that’s how you make a climate change movie. I don’t know that you’re going to have the impact you’re going to have, because I do worry that those people involved telling that story has just made it feel like it’s a Hollywood movie about this thing that’s really… It’s a metaphor. The meteor’s a metaphor for something else. I don’t know that it’s going to connect the dots in the ways that it all could. I’m happy that movie exists, but I think we could do so much more granular work to actually get some stuff happening.

**Anna Jane:** On Don’t Look Up, I do think that it opened a lot of doors by having a successful movie that was a metaphor, also for climate explicitly. They were very clear about that. Definitely want to see climate show up more in non-analogies, in real ways. One of the movies that I just loved that did that was First Reformed. I just re-watched it, because we do a bunch of case studies in the playbook. It’s just so beautifully written. I just feel like anyone who says that you can’t write climate without being preachy or didactic or boring or too technical, that movie just to me completely debunks that, because it’s just gorgeously written. That’s a lot of faith and climate intersections too, which I always find fascinating. I really love that one. It’s dark, but it ends on this moment of possibility and expansiveness. I really love those stories, where it’s helping you to befriend uncertainty but also letting you imagine something that happens.

**Quinn:** I always try to take the perspective of we’ll take whatever we can get here. One of the things I tried to emphasize as Anna and her team constructed this incredible tool, is we always have to remember how difficult it is for anyone at any stage in their career in Hollywood to get anything made. I watch my wife, who is the most hardworking, incredible human, and about as successful as it gets, struggle to get things made. One of our goals was literally anything you can get out of this, great, we’ll take it, because that 3% number can only go up. If you skim one page and you grab one thing, that’s something else, and that starts to change that social norm. We’ll take whatever we can get. Don’t Look Up felt the same way, whether it’s something more fantastical like Beasts of the Southern Wild about the Gulf Coast or it’s First Reformed or whatever it might be, the movie about the big forest fire last year.

**John:** Angelina Jolie?

**Quinn:** Yes. The point is, if you think there’s a limited number of stories to tell, you are just incredibly off base, because the folks that are already being affected by this have such a wide, beautiful variety of lived experiences who have stories to tell, who are already contributing, because their answer to what can I do is, it’s what I have to do. I have to make sure that my frontline community is getting the money or is electrifying buildings or whatever it might be. We’ll take any of these stories, because all of them make a difference.

**John:** They do. The other thing I would just stress is that you don’t necessarily have to announce your intentions. You don’t have to say, “Oh, we’re going to put a climate change story into this episode.” No, just do those little, small things. The network, or the studio, they’re not even necessarily going to notice that you did it. You’re making choices for your story that are the right choices, but also help tell the message.

**Quinn:** This’ll date me. It doesn’t need to say, “A very special episode of Parks and Rec.” We don’t need that. Just make it part of the world, and people will identify with it so much more.

**Anna Jane:** I really love it when it shows up very authentically. I think that’s really powerful. I do think people love the drama of my story, like the climate activist goes up against climate denier megachurch pastor father. All of us have fascinating stories. All of us are experiencing this in unique ways. There are literally billions of climate stories, because every single person in this world is affected, and every person to come will be affected.

**John:** Cool. It has come time for our One Cool Things, where we share something with our audience. I’ll start off. I’m going to start with Redactle, which is a new daily game, in the tradition of Wordle, because now there has to be a daily everything, a place you go to. Redactle is really tough. What it does is it takes an article on Wikipedia, one of the top 10,000 articles, so not something super obscure, but then it redacts almost all the worlds. Then you plug in words to uncover what it is. You have to figure out what is this actual article about. It’s really hard, but really challenging. If you’re a puzzley kind of person, you’re just trying to figure out what this could possibly be. I spent about a half an hour yesterday trying to figure out what an inclined plane article was, also known as a ramp. It’s rewarding. You do feel that sense of accomplishment when you actually have uncovered the thing. Redactle will be my One Cool Thing for this week. Quinn, why don’t you go next. What do you have for yours?

**Quinn:** I’m going to cheat. My One Cool Thing is my wife.

**John:** Aw.

**Quinn:** Besides just being an incredible human on her own, I was privileged enough to choose to do this work. She has been supportive in 10,000 different ways, including there’s really no way to get into this work without having some dark moments, even if you’re as privileged as I am. I deal with air pollution a lot less, now that I left California. I don’t want for clean water and food and things like that. The scope of it and what’s here and what’s coming can be very difficult. She’s found me under a blanket on the couch some nights, going, “Oh boy.” She’s the most incredible human alive. On the other hand, if you want to laugh with everything that’s going on, her new movie is fantastic. It’s a blast. It’s a throwback. It’s a delight.

**John:** That would be The Lost City. You have to actually name the movie.

**Quinn:** Yeah, The Lost City.

**John:** The Lost City.

**Quinn:** Yeah, that’s helpful. Sorry. It’s been so long. We’re so in it. Lost City, Sandra Bullock, Channing Tatum. He takes off his pants. I don’t know what else to tell you.

**John:** Good stuff. Anna Jane, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

**Anna Jane:** I’m going to go with Russian Doll Season 2.

**John:** I’m excited to watch it. Are you enjoying it?

**Anna Jane:** I loved it. I binged it. It was my treat after launch. We launched on Tuesday. I was bringing on Wednesday. I’m like, “The universe gave me Russian Doll Season 2 as a gift.” The first season was really profoundly moving to me.

**John:** I watched it twice.

**Anna Jane:** I think I watched if four times. Just personally, I was going through stuff that it really helped with. On a global scale, working on climate can feel like you’re in this crazy death loop and like you’re going a little crazy, especially the first 10 years. Now everybody else is waking up too, which is great. This season goes back into her story. She is working through trauma from her family and history. I have a lot to do with that as well. I hear rumors that if they get a next season they might jump into the future. If you want to talk about climate, reach out to me. That show has just been profoundly life-changing for me.

**John:** Fantastic. Great. 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 Jade Carta. 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. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. Anna Jane, are you on Twitter? Are you a Twitter person?

**Anna Jane:** I am. I’m @annajanejoyner.

**John:** Fantastic. We can also follow, is it @goodenergy?

**Anna Jane:** It’s @goodenergystory.

**John:** @goodenergystory. You can follow their Twitter account as well. Quinn Emmett, you are on Twitter? I don’t remember now.

**Quinn:** I am, yeah. Yes, when I’m not dealing with my children. It’s @quinnemmett.

**John:** Fantastic. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. While you’re signing up for newsletters, you should also sign up for Quinn’s newsletter and podcast. Quinn, plug away.

**Quinn:** You can find that newsletter at newsletter.importantnotimportant.com. You can find the podcast there as well. It’s weekly. It’s free. I don’t know. A lot of folks find some value in it.

**John:** Of course, goodenergystories.com is the place where you can get the playbook and find all that information there. If you would like a T-shirt, we have T-shirts. They are great. They’re available at Cotton Bureau. We have hoodies like the one I’m wearing. They’re very comfortable. Are you wearing a Scriptnotes T-shirt at this moment, Quinn?

**Quinn:** No, I should’ve. That was a real mistake, because I have a closet full of them.

**John:** Yes, we all have our closets full. 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 asking people for money. Anna Jane and Quinn, thank you so much for coming on the show.

**Quinn:** Thanks, John.

**Anna Jane:** It’s been such a pleasure. Thank you.
[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Anna Jane, to do this work, you had a vision, you had a goal, but again, we talk about you as a protagonist. At some point you, to enact this vision, had to get people to give you money to do this thing. Can you talk to me about how you approach people and say, “Hey, would you give me money to do this thing, this vision that I have for this organization?”

**Anna Jane:** I would say I’m still learning the art form, but I have been pretty successful with this particular project. I basically had the idea after consulting on Madam Secretary, on a storyline that was loosely based off of my story, but was like, why aren’t we seeing this show up more, and just started a personal… It really came from a very personal passion. I love TV and film. I’ve been a book nerd since I was little. It was very much like you follow your personal passion, and that opens up doors. I just started talking to as many writers as possible to figure out how we could help, what was going on.

From there, I went to the Sierra Club, who was my first climate home. I’ve worked with them off and on over the years a lot. I was like, “I think this is an opportunity that nobody seems to be looking at.” I think just the uniqueness and the fact that it intersected with what felt like we were craving more and more, that certainly opened up doors. The art of going out and dancing in front of billionaires to get money for work that you care about, I just… I think stories are powerful. We worked with a story scientist as an advisor, and just learning with him about the psychological reasons that stories impact you so much more than facts or data and can lead to action as a result of that. Not only was it just a vision for something that was missing, we really did the deep work of making the case from a just practical, psychological space that was really needed.

**John:** Vision is great, but at some point you are probably writing things. You can talk to us about writing podcasts. Talk to us about what you were writing and meeting with and slides. What was the work from, “Okay, we have this vague vision.” You went to the Sierra Club. With Sierra Club, did you go in and have a meeting? Did you have a pitch deck? Did you have a written document? What were you going into them with? When did you have the name Good Energy? How does all that stuff come together?

**Anna Jane:** That was in the spring of 2019. They were fairly easy, just because I already had a relationship with them. They could pretty quickly see the vision. Certainly in working with Bloomberg Philanthropies, who was our next big partner that came on, we had to be really intentional about piloting. That’s what we did with the Sierra Club was we talked to so many writers. We did two events. We really made the case that there was an opening for this and there was an appetite for it, but also practical things. Our creative director is a magician. All of our materials, including our pitch deck-

**John:** Your materials look great.

**Anna Jane:** It’s beautiful. I think we just created… It wasn’t just a vision. It was how we packaged it. We’ve tried, and some things didn’t work, and we learned from it and we tried again. Definitely when you’re doing something that hasn’t been done before, there’s a lot of trial and error. Certainly, I think not only leaning into the vision and getting evidence, scientific evidence and also just qualitative evidence based on interests, but also really packaging it in a super beautiful way.

**John:** Sierra Club is seed money to get you started and do some little small events that are test of concept, proof of concept for a thing. Then you’re going to Bloomberg. Also I see you have Annenberg. You had that USC connection, because they could do some researchy stuff for you. It feels like there’s places out there that want to do things, that they want someone to come to them saying, “This is how we do the thing.” Is that what your function is?

**Anna Jane:** Yeah, I definitely think people, including foundations, have this esoteric, like storytelling matters, but doing research on other organizations who do this… Define American was a huge inspiration for us.

**John:** I don’t know what that is.

**Anna Jane:** Sorry. It’s very similar. They do story consulting for immigration storylines. They’ve done research on the impact. It’s very significant. Looking at other organizations who do similar things, adopting it for climate, and showing that there’s this very practical model really helped. We took this esoteric vision and we brought it down to what does this actually look like.

**John:** Talk to us about going into a Bloomberg, going into a big foundation. How do you get the first meeting? What’s the process for going in there to ask for money? Do you know what dollars you’re asking for when you go into those things where you’re just saying, “Hey, please be a partner.” What’s that like?

**Anna Jane:** I want to acknowledge that there’s a lot of privilege inherent in this. I had been working in the climate space for a long time and I had a reputable name. I’d done work that had done well before. I just knew a lot of people. I met the woman at Bloomberg, Lindsay Firestone, who’s been just pivotal not only for getting us money, but also just helping us really think through the model and grow it. Bloomberg is very data-driven. That is their thing. We really had to show that we could measure this, we could measure the impact, in addition to presenting the vision and really the practical steps for what this could look like. That continues. We’re getting better and better at it. We’re getting more evidence. We’re getting more data that shows that this is possible to do. It’s like Hollywood. A lot of it is relationships. That has to be combined with something, a really solid idea, and that’s packaged very well.

**John:** Now, as I went to this event, I noticed that there were a bunch of other organizations that were part of it. Bloomberg is obviously writing big checks, but you clearly partnered with a bunch of other organizations who are doing related things. Are they advisors? When did those people come on board with the process?

**Anna Jane:** Absolutely. Our other big funder is Walton Family Foundation and Doc Society. Then we have a bunch of great funders at smaller levels. Our network of partners is so critical for just bringing diversity of voices and a lot of stories. A lot of these organizations work with people on the ground. A lot of them work with BIPOC communities, so access to character inspirations and stories. Hip Hop Caucus is one of our partners who does incredible work not only on climate justice, but also on racial justice. They’ve worked with a lot of musicians in the hip-hop community. They really get the impact of culture work. Now they’re doing more and more storytelling work as well.

Then Center for Cultural Power is our anchor partner. They’ve done a lot of amazing work at the intersection of art and story and climate, but also gender justice and racial justice. They’ve just been pivotal. They were editors on the playbook, advisors. Then the Sierra Club. CA Foundation, the Writers Guild East has really helped us. Both of those organizations really helped us think through the audience. What really helped too is that my two co-writers on the playbook were TV writers, or are TV writers. That’s Carmiel Banasky and Rae Binstock. We not only were connecting with advisors who were writers the entire process, we actually brought in writers to help us craft it. That was hugely important. Writers Guild East also just really helped us think through.

**John:** Just going back to the writing again, so when we say writing, are you guys writing in Microsoft Word? Are these Google Docs? How are you putting together this very complicated site? How are you gathering all of this material and making sure it all feels like it has a consistent editorial voice?

**Anna Jane:** It was a herculean effort. It was a huge Google Doc that we were inputting into. We had a ton of guest writers. We also brought in Kate Marvel. One of my favorite sections is we worked with a consultant to Marvel’s world-building empire, and then also climate scientist Dr. Pete Kalmus. They really took the science and worked to project what these two worlds that we’re heading towards, one or the other or somewhere in between, would look like. We follow a character who’s born today and grows up in the best-case scenario, which is honest. It’s still harrowing. It does get worse. There’s nothing we can do to avoid that. It’s a lot better than the scenario we’re headed towards right now, which is more three degrees. You get to see what do these two different worlds look like at 2050 and then towards the end of the century. We brought in just a lot of amazing guest writers and also worked with TV… It was really intentional and important to us that the tone was… Fun is a weird word when it’s coming to climate, but there are moments of humor in there.

**John:** It’s inviting and it’s engaging. You’re not screaming as you’re going through it.

**Anna Jane:** Not too technical. We wanted it to be very accessible to storytellers and writers. It was important to us that the writing was really good, because our audience was writers. We also worked with a really amazing copywriter. We were intentional the entire time about making sure the writing was really solid.

**John:** Quinn, you got cut out of that whole segment. Anything you want to say?

**Quinn:** That’s the way it should be. Are you kidding me? I’m just a paperweight here.

**Anna Jane:** Quinn was an amazing advisor throughout the entire process.

**Quinn:** Anna’s amazing. Every time I read something new, it was just like, oh man. It’s incredible. My whole goal was just trying to always come back to the measurable outcome, which was is this section designed so that a screenwriter can easily and understandably get something practical out of it. It wasn’t, hey, let’s write 100 pages on all the climate science. That’s not going to be as helpful. It was always with that goal in mind. What’s out there is just so helpful. Again, it’s one of those things that seems so obvious once you have it. It’s because of course, this is a tool for these people to use. It just didn’t exist.

**John:** When you see it at the final product, of course that’s how it was going to be, and then you don’t see all the process that got you to that point. At what point did you know it was a website and not a printed thing?

**Anna Jane:** I have to shout out the Walton Family Foundation who made that possible, as well as the research. Originally, we only had funding for a pdf version. When we got maybe a third of the way in, we were just like, “This has to be a website.” Also, we talked to over 100 TV and film writers to inform the playbook and just realized through those conversations that it would be way more accessible on a website, so we shifted maybe four months in and were like, “We’ve got to figure this out.” We raised more money so that we can make it a website.

**John:** Great. Again, thank you very much for coming on the show and talking through this whole plan, and especially that’s how we raise money to make these things happen.

**Quinn:** Absolutely.

**Anna Jane:** It’s an art form. Still learning.

**Quinn:** Thanks for having us, John.

**John:** Cool. Thanks.

**Anna Jane:** Thank you so much.

Links:

* [Stanislav Petrov, The Man Who Saved the World](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2277106/) Documentary
* [Download The Cost of Accommodations Report](https://inevitable.foundation/cost-of-accommodations/download) from the Inevitable Foundation and read more on [The Hollywood Reporter](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/the-inevitable-foundation-disability-accommodations-cost-study-movies-tv-1235131680/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz–L2n-kjr_qiSGqFieZri6yrMikpnCpb_V7he_SrT2rQcnerEPKQAfUJHYpZkE3lJxquHEz)
* [Good Energy Stories Playbook](https://www.goodenergystories.com/playbook)
* [David Robert Ted Talk on Climate Change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90)
* [Years of Living Dangerously Clip with Anna and her Dad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0d09DIv8vY)
* [Subscribe to Important, Not Important](https://www.importantnotimportant.com/)
* [Dana Fox](https://twitter.com/inthehenhouse) on Twitter and checkout [The Lost City](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfKO9rYDmE8) Movie
* [Russian Doll Season 2](https://www.netflix.com/title/80211627?source=35)
* [Redactle Game](https://www.redactle.com/#)
* [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/)
* [Anna Jane Joyner](https://twitter.com/annajanejoyner) on Twitter
* [Quinn Emmett](https://twitter.com/quinnemmett) on Twitter
* [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 Jade Carda ([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/547standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 548: Made for Streaming, Transcript

June 1, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August. This is Episode 548 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, films may have returned to theaters, but many of them are still being made exclusively for streamers. We’ll talk about the pros and cons of going straight to streaming, with the writers of two upcoming films.

First off, we have the writing team of Dan Gregor and Doug Mand, whose credits include How I Met Your Mother, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Most Likely To Murder, Pretty Smart, and the upcoming Chip ’n’ Dale: Rescue Rangers, debuting later this month on Disney Plus. Dan and Doug, it’s a pleasure to have you on the show.

Doug Mand: Thank you.

Dan Gregor: Excited to be here. Thank you for having us in your upstairs backroom.

John: Which of you is Chip and which of you is Dale?

Dan: I guess I was accused of being Dale. We did early recordings for temp voice. I was Dale and Doug was-

Doug: Chip.

Dan: We got dropped very quickly.

Doug: Emotionally, because it is a movie about friendship and partnership.

Dan: Through long-term Hollywood careers.

John: The people actually playing your roles in the movie, they’re newcomers, right? They’re no one you’ve ever heard of.

Dan: Nobody you’ve ever heard of. The character inspired by me is played by a young upstart named Andy Samberg.

Doug: The character inspired by me is a little whippersnapper named John Mulaney, who we all have high hopes for, but you never know in this business.

John: Things could turn on a dime.

Doug: Oh my gosh. We’re pulling for him though.

John: We are so excited to welcome our very own Aline Brosh McKenna, who’s recording… You’re going to be in the editing room for your upcoming Netflix feature, but now I see a library behind you, so you’re back at home, correct, Aline?

Aline Brosh McKenna: Indeed. We turned in a cut yesterday. We’re getting towards the end.

John: This would be a cut of Your Place Or Mine, her feature for Netflix. We’re so excited to see it. Do we have a release date for your film yet?

Aline: We do not.

John: Soon. I want soon.

Aline: It’s up to the folks who decide those sorts of things.

John: On this podcast we’re going to be discussing movies made for streamers and the uncertainty of when do our movies come out. We’ll also talk in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members about getting work done when you have a newborn, because Doug and Dan, you both have really young kids. I want to talk to you about that and the strategies you’re employing for actually getting things done when you have a small, screaming infant in your house.

Doug: Work a lot less.

Dan: Whoop, sorry, Premium.

John: A very short segment. First, we have some follow-up. Megana, can you help us out with some follow-up from previous episodes?

Megana Rao: In Episode 545 we spoke with Elizabeth Meriwether and Liz Hannah about How Would This Be A Movie. One of our topics was MacKenzie Scott. We talked about what a limited series about MacKenzie Scott would be like. Teresa tweeted at us, saying, “FYI, there is a TV comedy inspired by MacKenzie Scott, sort of, coming out on Apple TV Plus. It’s a Matthew Hubbard, Alan Yang show, and it stars Maya Rudolph.”

John: The combination of these people, Aline and I know. Maya Rudolph is incredibly funny. This would be inspired by MacKenzie Scott, but not really… Doug, I see a puzzled look on your face.

Doug: That’s just my resting face, but yeah, go ahead.

John: MacKenzie Scott was Jeff Bezos’s ex-wife who’s now giving away all this money. I looked at the show description for this new show. “Rudolph will star as Molly, a woman whose seemingly perfect life is upended when her husband leaves her with nothing but $87 billion.”

Doug: That’s great. That’s a very funny line.

John: That’s a good premise. When people talk about how do you write a good log line, that’s it. That’s a [crosstalk 00:03:25].

Doug: That’s a great log line. That’s fantastic.

Dan: That sounds great.

John: Kudos to Matthew Hubbard and Alan Yang for a very funny log line. May the show live up to it.

Dan: I think it’s really smart. I was listening to that episode, and I also was like, don’t get caught up in all the nonsense of how they met and their relationship. I just want to see-

Doug: Get right to it.

Dan: What’s it like to be a regular lady with $87 billion?

Doug: I don’t need the first episode to be like, “We met and it was all so great and he was just a regular guy.” I don’t care.

Dan: It’s really a funny premise.

Doug: Go spend that money. Let’s get to Brewster’s millions.

John: We like it. Now, Megana, you and I had a Bonus Segment a couple weeks back talking about murder houses and murder house architecture. We got some follow-up from Penelope about this.

Megana: Penelope from Melbourne said, “I was listening to your segment on murder house architecture, and it made me think of Tom Anderson’s brilliant essay film, Los Angeles Plays Itself, released in 2003. He explores in detail why modernist architecture is so often used as the headquarters of villains in movies and TV. It’s such a great documentary, well worth a look if you haven’t seen it yet.”

John: We’ll look at the trailer. I’ll link to the trailer in the show notes. I really liked this. It did really strike to me, if you see a modernist house in a movie, it’s almost always the villain who lives there. Even Charlie’s Angels, the villain lives in the Chemosphere, the most haunted modernist house of all time. In this trailer, I was looking, even LA Confidential, which I think of as being such a period movie, it was a period movie in a modernist era, and the bad guys live there.

Dan: Did you see Westworld?

John: Oh yeah.

Dan: It’s the deep future, and they mostly take place in the Old West. Still, when they ever leave, the villains are still living in the exact same evil modernist houses.

John: Frank Lloyd Wright’s-

Doug: Exactly.

John: …[inaudible 00:05:09] house.

Dan: Exactly. It’s 2030000 and we can’t ever have our mean people live anywhere but Frank Lloyd Wright.

Doug: It was wild that when CAA moved, also they moved to what looks like a large spaceship that’s ready to be sent off into the atmosphere.

Dan: Into the core of the earth.

Doug: There is an evil feeling when you roll in there. I love the CAA. It was just so perfect, it felt villainous, just their new location.

John: Now, Aline, in your film, do you have your characters living in modernist architecture or more traditional? Your film is set in Los Angeles, correct?

Aline: It is set in New York and Los Angeles. We have a little spin on that trope, which is that the person who needs to explore emotional growth lives in a rather modern, arid environment. The person who also needs to experience emotional growth but is a little bit more female, for starters, lives in a more cluttered, craftsman-y, Echo Park, not modern home. I guess I’m using those tropes as well, in a different format.

John: We love it. Last bit of follow-up. We had something from Adam in Brighton, England. Megana, help us out.

Megana: Adam wrote in and said, “On your last episode, I think it was Liz Hannah who said that six-episode seasons struggle to make a profit. As someone who often feels that shows are stretched too thin, I’ve long wondered if the problem is driven by business needs. Do you have any insight that you could share?

John: I have no insight, but we have a lot of people who have made a lot of TV here. Dan, help us out. Talk to us about shorter seasons and the economics and why you don’t see really short seasons.

Dan: The thing that seems pretty clear is that it’s amortized costs. If you have to build a set, all of a sudden that set for a couple episodes is very expensive, but if you’re doing it for a bunch of episodes, it’s expensive. Same thing with basically all of your contracts. Doug had a show that was a 10-episode order. I’m sure you had a sense of what… What would happen if you pushed it more or less?

Doug: I listened to that episode as well. I was like, “Oh, that is interesting,” because I had not had the six-episode discussion. Once you’re up and running, it’s a lot less money to do it, especially a show like Pretty Smart, which was a multi-cam, so the set’s built and you have everything in place. That’s the most I know about it. I didn’t know about the model for six to eight episodes, six episodes being a cutoff. I did not know about that. Neither of us have ever pitched something that would be that long.

John: Aline, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend obviously was… You were 13 episodes and then even longer I think at some times. What was the decision process for like… Originally you were a Showtime show, and then you went to CBS. How did the number of episodes factor into the budget?

Aline: They told us how many episodes to make. It was not our choice. We made 2 18-episode seasons and 2 13-episode seasons. It was based on the network studio and their needs. We ended up making 62 episodes. That would’ve been maybe five, six episodes of streaming or cable. We just made them in the overlapping network system, where everything was happening at the same time. We weren’t able to separate out the phases of production. That made it especially taxing and complicated, but it also allowed us to compress a lot of stuff into a relatively short amount of time.

John: You were able to do 18 episodes of a season within just a course of a calendar year, which as opposed to some of these limited series streaming things, it’s dragged out over 2 years just to do 6 or 8 episodes which is allotted.

Aline: I Love Lucy did 50.

Dan: A season?

Aline: Something like that.

Dan: Oh my god. How I Met Your Mother was a 22, 24, 25 one year, a season kind of show. They were talking about the creative problem of all that, which is you have these middles of the season where you’re like, “We’ve just got to keep these characters in a stasis for a chunk of time so that we can keep our plot endgame primed for where we wanted to go at the end.” You just don’t want to burn out. One of the things we learned on those shows was, man, every meaningful plot point is so priceless. You just don’t want to over-dole them out too quickly, because you really need them to last. The short episode orders are a joy for like, “No, just do it, do it, do it.” That’s why it’s great.

John: Now, Aline, also, you have a TV development deal. In shows that you’re developing, how early on in the conversation do you know how many episodes they want the show to be? If you’re setting up a pilot, do they already have a discussion of like, “Okay, this needs to be at least eight episodes. It needs to be at least 10.” When does that conversation happen?

Aline: That’s interesting. We have a couple pilots that are moving down the highway at some degree of velocity. We haven’t totally nailed it down yet. I think it might also have to do, at this point, with actors and how much time they want off and need off, and the idea now that actors really do go back and forth between not just TV and film, but multiple TV series, and so setting it up so that the actors… If you get a very famous actor and they have a specific number of episodes that they do or don’t want to do, I imagine that that would factor into it.

I’m interested in the idea, from a crafty point, of how much story you eat, because sometimes you can feel that deliberate slowing of the story eating, because creators don’t want to burn too much, because if you burn too much, you get into soap territory very quickly. One of the mini-series I have most admired recently, and by admired I mean was obsessed with, The Dropout. In The Dropout they eat a tremendous amount of story in the pilot. At the end of that pilot, you think, my god, I have been through so much already. I admire that, because it’s giving you the amount of story that you might get in a movie really at that point. Then I think we’ve all gotten to the place where we are accustomed to those episodes, which as Dan said, are between Episodes 4 and 7, where it seems like we’re going to do a flashback episode about the first time this person learned how to use a payphone. That’s going to be the whole episode.

John: We’ve been talking about TV, but I really want to focus on features this time, because you guys are both in the middle of making features for screenwriters. We’ll start with Doug and Dan. Chip ‘n’ Dale: Rescue Rangers, this was obviously a passion project from a very young age. You always dreamed of making a Chip ‘n’ Dale.

Doug: It actually was. It was my favorite cartoon. I have drawings from my childhood that my parents dug up of me cosplaying the Rescue Rangers in different outfits.

John: That’s amazing. Rescue Rangers is not even something that’s on my radar at all. It was very specific. You were just the right age for the Rescue Rangers to be a thing.

Doug: It’s an old, mid-old millennial kind of niche. All of those cartoons aired on the Disney afternoon, which was right when you’d come home from school. They were on repeat. You’d see these episodes hundreds of times, and so you memorized them.

John: It wasn’t the kind of IP where it was like everyone in the world was like, “Oh my god, we have to make a Rescue Rangers movie.”

Dan: That’s why they came to us.

Doug: Exactly.

John: When did they come to you, Doug, to do this?

Doug: I just did a timeline, just because it’s coming out and I just wanted to look at it. They came to us in I guess maybe the beginning of 2015. They were like, “We’re thinking about doing this.”

John: Who is they that came to you?

Doug: It was Louie Provost over at Disney, who is still there, which is a miracle that we had the same executive, and Mandeville Pictures. We had done some work with both of them. We had had meetings with them. They were like, “We think you guys would be great for this.” Our initial response was, “Why? Maybe not.”

Dan: What you’re saying exactly, which is like, does anyone even know who they are? It’s so niche. Even to me, who was obsessed with it for a little period of time, it was again the fourth-most important out of four cartoons. It’s really not a big deal.

Doug: It was, I think, a big deal in our career too. We weren’t getting a lot of IP brought to us. To Disney’s credit and to Mandeville’s credit, they were very much like, “Come to us with anything, any version of it.” Dan and I started talking about it. We took the essence of the why even do this and put that within the picture of the film.

Dan: The original title of the movie was The Chip ‘n’ Dale’s Reboot That Nobody Asked For.

John: How many years ago was this?

Doug: 2015 was our first pitch.

John: This is way before Disney Plus.

Doug: This was sold as a feature.

John: A Disney feature film.

Doug: Exactly. We were both scratching our heads. We pitched this movie that was a noir and had elements of LA Confidential in it.

Dan: Just to give the premise of it really quickly, it’s basically Chip and Dale are these two chipmunks, who in the early ’90s, this Disney afternoon, they would basically do what’s happening right now, which is they would repurpose old Disney characters, put them in new outfits, new adventures, give them new personalities. This was one of them. Chip and Dale were Donald Duck’s foils in the ’50s, ’60s. They were just nonspeaking chipmunks who ate peanut butter.

Doug: They were background actors or secondary actors. We play them as actors who played these roles.

Dan: They basically get put into… The concept is that they are the actors who played the Rescue Rangers in this early ‘90s sitcom. Now it is 30 years later. They are washed up actors, over the hill. In a Tropic Thunder, Three Amigos kind of storyline, they get embroiled in a real world mystery plot, very reminiscent of a Roger Rabbit kind of world.

John: Great. There’s some animation, but it’s mostly a live action feature.

Dan: It’s live action hybrid. It’s as much as it could be a hybrid as possible, because it’s as if cartoons are real people who live in real Hollywood and the real world, like Roger Rabbit.

John: Roger Rabbit rules.

Dan: Exactly.

John: Fantastic. You have this idea. You’re pitching it to Disney. They’re saying, “Fantastic. That’s great.” The feature version of that is incredibly expensive, the theatrical feature, not only to make it, but also to release it. What happens?

Dan: There are so few slots. We’re writing this, and we’re like, “They’re not going to make this movie.”

John: Yeah, because there’s always going to be a princess movie to make.

Doug: There’s a princess movie, and then there’s the Marvel movies that you have to contend with.

Doug: Star Wars, all of it.

Dan: Again, this is a movie that like, do people really need to see… Are people clamoring to see this, when they have four Thors to make? We’re writing it and we’re really enjoying it, and the response is really positive. That’s not always the case, even when you’re proud of something. Eventually it gets to the place of-

Dan: It just peters out, because they’re trying to figure out how could this be a much bigger four-quadrant movie. We’re like, “That’s just not what this is. It’s a weird offbeat comedy wrapped in a mystery.” Then it just peters out and it just sits dormant.

John: It becomes dormant and eventually gets [crosstalk 00:16:16].

Dan: It gets put on the shelf, but to their credit, which you don’t always get, our producers at Mandeville were big fans. Somewhere they met Akiva Schaffer…

Doug: Akiva Schaffer.

Dan: …who’s wildly funny and a great director…

Doug: From the Lonely Island.

Dan: …from the Lonely Island. They were like, “He might be good for this.” They show him the script. He laughs at the title, The Rescue Rangers Reboot That No One Wants. He reads it and he’s like, “I do like this.” At this point, Disney Plus exists now. The combination of those two things gave it new life. Akiva was like, “I’m interested in this.” Disney was excited about him and the idea that maybe you could make a movie that doesn’t have to be-

John: The pressure’s off of it, because it doesn’t have to open on a weekend and make $8 million.j

Doug: It doesn’t have to be a four-quadrant, like Dan is saying, in the same way.

John: Aline, I want to talk to you about your film, because talk about movies they don’t make anymore or movies that’d be hard to make. What was the origin story for Your Place Or Mine? It feels like the kind of romantic comedy that used to be made theatrically a lot, and now it’s harder to make. How did this movie get set up?

Aline: The origin story was that in 2010 when we were making Morning Glory, I needed a place to stay in New York because my per diem wasn’t really covering all of it. Our friend Ted Griffin had a lovely apartment in New York I knew that he wasn’t using full-time, so I asked him if I could stay there. He was living such a bachelor life at the time, that I really enjoyed being a mom in a bachelor space. I thought it would be funny to do a movie about two friends, where the mom is living in the bachelor’s space, and the bachelor is living in the mom’s space. I had that idea for a long time. A lot of the ideas that I’ve ended up doing, I carried around in my brain for a long time. Crazy Ex was one too. What I do is I cradle these little puppies in my arms, and then I wait for someone that I want to raise the puppy with.

My old friend Michael Costigan partnered with Jason Bateman. They had a deal with Netflix, which I think originated around the Ozark series. I had breakfast with them at John Benny’s. It was similar to when I met Rachel and as I was talking to Rachel I went, “You know what? Crazy Ex, she’s going to dig it.” At this breakfast I said to Jason and Michael… I pitched them the idea. They really loved it. The setting up process was, because they had this relationship with Netflix, we just went to Netflix and told the story to our exec at the time, Sarah Bowen, who’s no longer there. It was really easy and straightforward. I didn’t do what I normally have done with pitches, which is to go everywhere and sit in a million rooms. That was a great relief. The development process, the style of development was very different. I don’t actually know to what… I know that part of that is the culture of these streamers. Part of it is the individuals that I was working with. It was a more straightforward, business-like process in an interesting way.

John: Did you feel like when you made your deal at Netflix that it was a deal to develop a script or basically like, “We’re going to have you write the script and we’re probably going to make it.”

Aline: It did feel more like that. We who have been doing this screenwriting gig for a long time have sold in a number of different configurations. Sometimes you’re pitching stuff and everyone’s going, “I don’t know. We’ll give this a shot. Let’s see what happens.” Sometimes you’re writing in a situation where they have an actor, they’re in a rush. They need to do it. You think it might get made. It’s your football to drop. In this case, there was a feeling that they wanted to do romantic comedies that were with stars, maybe bigger stars on the platform. That was the design of it. I felt like that was something that they had identified a need for. As a writer, that’s always the best situation to be in.

What Dan and Doug are describing is you’re making a dish that wasn’t necessarily ordered, in which case the dish has to be that much better. When you’re making a dish that has been ordered, with Devil Wears Prada, not only had that dish been ordered, but people were banging on the table saying, “Where is it?” There’s a relationship between your product and your project and their appetite, but a really great script can overcome what might be a natural disinclination towards the project, which is what Dan and Doug overcame with the inventiveness of their writing.

John: Dan and Doug, it sounds like, holding this metaphor of the dish no one ordered, it was like, “Oh, this is really, really good. We have nothing we can do with it.” Then the world changed, and suddenly, oh, there’s actually a place that this would be perfect for. It sounds like the kinds of movies that Aline likes to make and this idea that she had… Aline, your movie would’ve been hard to set up at a conventional studio, unless you’d actually already had those big actors attached, correct?

Aline: That’s correct. Even then, because it was a star-dependent movie, we had to then get stars. One of the things about being a writer is it’s a fast-moving river. It’s always been. It is now more than ever. The number of buyers, who’s buying, what they’re looking for, it changes really quickly. It’s also interesting, as I said, for John and I, who came up in a quite calcified system where there were only certain types of jobs. I know that people are bemoaning the lack of predictability and consistency in the marketplace right now, but I think there’s a way to look at that as opportunities. When there is this transitional stuff happening, there are people who need certain kind of content. If you can identify who’s looking for what, then you can figure out who wants to buy your particular brand of pierogis.

Dan: Also, something you were saying about cradling your puppies, even more so, nothing’s ever really dead. That’s the other part that is… It’s heartbreaking when things seem like they go away or they die, but they never really do. They’re always gestating in your mind. They’re gestating in the larger business. There very well might be another time where it just makes sense to come back to life in a totally different iteration or a different concept.

John: We’re going to have a question later on that’s really about that, when do ideas actually just come back, or do you just wait for the right time for that idea to come back. Let’s talk about, in addition to the studio features we’ve made, you’ve also made indie features. I’m thinking about Most Likely To Murder, which to me feels like a movie that if it had come out in a streaming time, probably would’ve gone to streaming and it would have had a better home.

Dan: That was a movie that we… I wish that it got more clear traction. I think if it had been made for a Netflix, it would’ve been something that made a lot of sense. We made it. We did it for Lionsgate, but without a clear plan. They were just launching a thing called Studio L, a wisp in the wind, that no one really has any idea what the hell that is anymore. For a moment they were like, “We’re going to make digital movies.” Also they were trying to make straight-to-video comedies. That was not what we were making. It didn’t even really fit in their business model. We ended up selling it as part of a deal to Hulu, but it didn’t get the launch that I think it would’ve gotten if it was something that-

John: My movie The Nines, we debuted at Sundance, had a big debut there, sold off of that. It went to theatrical, but it was just like it never found that home. Two years later, if it had gone to Sundance, a streamer would’ve bought and it would’ve showed up on a streamer, and I could say, “Oh, it’s on Netflix,” or I could point to where they could see it. People tweet at me now, it’s like, “Where can I see your movie?” You could download it on iTunes. It’s frustrating.

Doug: You can buy it on Amazon, which is sort of something, but it’s not-

Dan: The deal with Hulu just ran out, so we’re [crosstalk 00:24:01].

Aline: Side note is that Doug Mand delivers an incredibly hilarious performance in that movie. If you want to see Doug Mand on screen in a film, he’s really funny.

Dan: With one of the more egregiously terrible facial hair performances in history.

Doug: It’s more my facial hair that’s doing the performance and I’m just along for the ride.

John: Dan, you brought up straight-to-video. I had forgotten that term, weirdly, because it just-

Dan: It doesn’t mean anything anymore.

John: That was the equivalent I think of what we’re talking about with streamers, like different genres there. You could make a movie for theatrical or you could make a movie for straight-to-video. There was a pejorative quality saying something goes straight to video. There were things that that was the right place to put that genre of film.

Dan: There’s something great about, again, the marketplace of content now, where yeah, if you want to make a small movie for a particular audience, then great, that’s fine. That’s part of the market.

John: I want to wrap up this part of the conversation by talking about a thing that is different about the actual features or straight to video is really the back end, because there was a clear model for what the back end was going to be like for movies that were made for the actual release or made for home video, because there were residuals. There was ways that you could make your money out of these things. We can share as much as we want to share about what are deals are looking like for this. Aline, for your movie, I hope it’s a huge, ginormous success. I hope that Netflix takes out those little ads saying how big it is, like how Ryan Reynolds’s movies are so big. That won’t impact your financials very much at all. I see you shaking your head. As you are making your deal going into it, are you trying to account for that? How are you thinking about that?

Aline: They gave me an opportunity to direct a movie with big stars and adequate resources. I think in the long run that will benefit me, if you’re looking at the bottom line, which I don’t tend to do that much, but it will benefit me that way. That’s really how I think about that one. With Cruella, it was an outgrowth of the pandemic that it got released day and date during the pandemic. I ended up getting the best upfront definition, because it was on whatever you call pan-demand, which is our best definition. It was day and date with the release. Obviously, the release was depressed by the pandemic. That ended up having a backend that I just didn’t expect.

I think that that’s going to change and evolve and will probably be driven somewhat by actors, because I think the upfront money might evolve as these companies have more data about what the revenue is actually accruing to them from these packages, because right now it’s guesswork. The actors have been, as with Scarlett and Disney, the actors have been on the forefront of trying to figure out exactly how much money these folks are making and trying to draft off of that. My personal thing didn’t impact me that much, but I can see coming up Prada and 27 Dresses happened to come out in the middle of the DVD boom.

John: Your residuals on those movies but be absurd.

Doug: God bless.

Dan: Oh boy.

Doug: Just make it public, Aline. Let’s open the books up.

Dan: Just write it down and show us.

John: I don’t want to nail you down to a dollar figure, but [crosstalk 00:27:16].

Aline: It’s a lot.

John: Millions of dollars.

Aline: They were right in that zone. Really what money means for a writer is time to do stuff you love. Those were so meaningful to me early in my career in terms of, hey, I’m going to take a break and do Crazy Ex, which was a pay cut for me in certain respects, because I have a pretty steady residual stream. All these new models are going to affect writers in terms of the kinds of choices they can make. I will say that the opportunities that streamers have almost everyone that came up in my generation to do things that they’d always wanted to do, that there wasn’t necessarily outlets to make in either the network television or the traditional studio, which seemed to take turns being the sausage factory. It used to be that TV was grinding out mid-range hot dogs and then it was features that were doing that and then the TV became fancy and now it feels like there’s a little bit of a shift going underway. All of those changes that you have to track as a writer, in my particular case I was balancing the fact that they were giving me a great opportunity with I wouldn’t get the backend.

Dan: Rescue Rangers, we signed the deal as a theatrical and so there was no discussion of it whatsoever. There’s a writing credit.

Doug: The writing credit bonus.

Dan: The writing credit bonus…

Doug: [Inaudible 00:28:42].

Dan: …that we’ll get when this comes out. I don’t know when we’ll actually get it. Even all that stuff, the movie was in this weird little flux where it was all of a sudden going well, and then there was a moment where they were discussing, “Maybe we will switch it to theatrical.” Then COVID happened. Then they were like, “Nobody’s ever going to go to the movies again.” They started just assuming it was going to be Disney Plus again. Then they started signing all of the actors to Disney Plus, to streaming-only contracts. All of a sudden they got to a point where they’re like, “Oh, we’re back in a world where there is theatrical.” Now we couldn’t even switch back to theatrical if they wanted, because they can’t renegotiate the contract now.

John: It’s a weird time.

Aline: I know some people who made movies just pre-streamer to be in either independent films or festival films and then tried desperately to sell them to a streamer, and in certain instances it was too complicated to do that. They had to watch their movies come out and plunge like zeppelins that’d been stabbed with a pencil. I think streamers are really great for getting movies out there that are just not being made in any other way. I guess that’s probably the most banal statement I could possibly make. There’s just such a huge menu, budget range of things that are being made. It’s almost more like silent films, where they were cranking out, we’re going to make a Tom mix, we’re going to make a romance, we’re going to adapt Lady Chatterley’s Lover, we’re going to do a whole mix of things. John and I will tell you, features for a good 8 to 10 years were not that. It was a very, very limited menu and a very limited genre area that we were given to work in.

John: Let’s transition back to TV, because we have some questions from our listeners that you guys are incredibly well suited to answer. Megana, can you help us out with Christopher’s question here.

Megana: Christopher asks, “A recent deadline article on the 2022 pilot season cited networks as increasingly opting for, quote, ‘presentations’ instead of filming pilots. I’m familiar with this practice for unscripted shows, and to a lesser extent, one-hour dramas, but I’ve never encountered it before for sitcoms. I know John has some experience with the mechanics of a presentation from his DC show with the WB, but I can’t find anything about what a presentation would look like for a sitcom, especially a network sitcom which is already only around 22 minutes long.”

John: Doug, can you talk to us about… Didn’t you do a presentation for your show?

Doug: We did not. That show Pretty Smart for Netflix was a pitch. They saw a place for it. It made sense for their schedule.

John: Did you shoot a pilot or you shot series?

Doug: We went right to series.

Aline: Weirdly enough, I’ve done one.

John: Talk about presentation, Aline.

Aline: I did a presentation, I’m going to say 20 years ago, or maybe even more. It’s a fancy word for no money, to make a scratch track. It’s a bummer. It’s really hard.

Dan: It goes right in the trash. That’s the worst part is you make it, and it’s usually under different contracts, or a lot of the time it’s just different crews. It doesn’t even look the way that the show would look. It’s just a proof of concept.

Doug: This is how we got our break really. It’s where I think presentation should be, which is myself, Dan, and Adam Pally, all best friends, still are, and we had an idea for a sitcom, and then we went out with our own money, none of us had representation, and shot a cold open for the show and an opening credit sequence at under a thousand dollars and then sent it to everyone we knew. That was a proof of concept. I think that’s what presentation should be, as opposed to doing 22 minutes. Better to do like, give me that money and let me show you an example of, for a sitcom, what the comedy feels like, what these characters are like.

Dan: Our next one, we paired with a producer who financed a presentation. They financed maybe a 12-minute presentation for a half-hour sitcom. It was one of those things where again it was super useful. We still ended up selling it to the CW. Before, they were looking to only do dramas, but then Crazy Ex broke that cycle. It was super helpful. They’re great. It’s a lot of work and a lot of money.

Doug: You can’t say that this is what 22 minutes is going to look like, because you’re asking me to do it at a third of the cost, maybe even less. I don’t like the idea of them shifting to that, because that’s just saying let’s just squeeze out as much money as we can. I’d rather say give me that budget and let us do six minutes of the show.

John: It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, that was famously a presentation where they shot it themselves. It was a proof of concept for, this is the chemistry between these guys, this is the idea, and that could change everything, as opposed to DC, when I taught that presentation, the idea was that it was a cheaper pilot, so basically you had your pilot script and then you would pick certain screens from that pilot script and have only those. We were shooting things that had to fit back into the original pilot. It was the worst of both worlds. The only thing I would say was helpful for that-

Doug: Wait, I’m sorry, so like Scene 1, Scene 5, Scene 12.

John: Yeah.

Dan: They wanted to use it. If they were going to make a show, they were like, we’re not going back and shooting this.

John: There you go.

Doug: That’s even more make-believe, isn’t it?

Dan: That is all the [crosstalk 00:34:02].

Aline: It’s such a vote of semi-confidence too. It’s like you match with someone on Hinge, and instead of going to dinner with them, you’re like, “I’ll meet you for coffee 15 minutes at 9 a.m.” They’re not going into it with… It’s such a meh. It’s so hard to make things even when everyone is so enthusiastic. When we did it, it just also allowed them to change things and give crazy notes. We ended up with an 11-minute presentation that is one of the craziest documents in my career everywhere. It’s somewhere in there, that closet, on a VCR cassette. It was bonkers. It’s in a weird way better to wait until people really care about what you’re doing and can give you a little support. It also strikes me as hilarious. You know how you can never explain to your parents what you do?

Doug: Oh, god.

Aline: Try explaining a pilot presentation to your parents.

Dan: I will say I think for corporations, shifting the development process towards that is stupid and ridiculous and it’s just a weird way to not pay as much money. I will say this forever. If you can get a little bit of your own money together to make your own pilot presentation, I do think a well-made piece of film can go much farther than a script can sometimes for someone on the come-up.

Doug: Especially if you’re not established.

John: [inaudible 00:35:25] Adam Pally on it. That can show his-

Doug: Exactly. We had an unknown Ellie Kemper in that presentation, at the time, she hadn’t booked anything at that point, and a bunch of people who ended up doing great things. This is always the advice we give to up-and-coming writers is to go out, find your community, and shoot things. It’s hard to get people to read your writing if know one knows you.

Aline: Now you can put them on TikTok. TikToks can go up to five minutes now.

John: There you go.

Dan: Basically a feature.

Aline: You can make something great with your friends and put it on TikTok.

John: Megana, what else do you have for us?

Megana: Jeffery asks about writing gender-agnostic characters. He says, “In my work in progress, my two main characters are women, and I want to encourage gender-neutral casting for everyone else. When describing what these characters do, I’m toying with the idea of using they pronouns for them. For example, Senator McMartin rushes in late for the news conference. They step to the mic, only to spot their former business partner in the front row. Do you think this would be a good general approach to avoid using a default he/she, or do I risk getting a reader who thinks I don’t know how to write? Would this be worth using a reader’s note before the script begins?”

John: Before we discuss this, I want us each to vote, good idea or bad idea. Dan, good idea, bad idea?

Dan: Bad idea.

John: Doug?

Doug: I lean towards bad idea.

John: Aline?

Aline: I lean towards an explanatory note.

Doug: Didn’t vote, Aline. I would’ve leaned towards that too if I knew that was an option, Aline.

Aline: Really political over here today.

John: I’m going to vote bad idea. I’ll give my context and then everyone can weigh in. I totally respect what Jeffery’s trying to do, but I also think that in 2022 they/them pronouns is for characters who identify as not being on the gender binary. To throw up your hands like, “I don’t care,” is actually worse in some ways. I think as a writer you’re making a choice about who you’re putting in there. You cannot be as specific as you want to be if you’re not actually even deciding with the gender of this character is. That’s my instinct here.

Dan: Thank you for taking the lead on that, John.

Aline: Sorry, the question is how do I leave it open to as many types… You can say Officer Rao, and then in parentheses you can say male, female, or nonbinary, parentheses. Then you can say, “I will be using he,” so that they know that… I’m assuming they’re trying to keep it open, not write a nonbinary character, because obviously those would be different things. If you want to encourage them to keep it open, you can give them a gender-neutral name and then note that it could be played by…

Dan: I also want to know when I’m reading someone, especially I haven’t read before, what they envision the character to be. I think that’s okay to do. Then when casting discussions come around, you can always pull back and go, “You know what? This could actually be XYZ and I didn’t think about that.” I think specificity helps. You’re painting a picture for these people with your words.

Doug: Specificity’s everything. It’s everything.

Dan: It becomes more obtuse and more like, okay. It’s a choose your own adventure of like, oh, this is who I’m going to imagine then.

John: Exactly. It’s hard to put that scene in your head if you don’t know what am I even looking at, who is this person. A line is going to read differently from this character versus that character.

Dan: Completely. It’s a non-decision in your script.

Aline: I disagree. I think there’s a lot of times, especially when you’re writing a smaller part, that you can write parentheses, any gender, or parentheses, any ethnicity, so that you’re leaving it open. We’ve done that. We did that a lot.

John: Certainly for characters that basically have essentially no lines, and they’re purely functional, sure, great. You’re doing that sporadically. As Jeffery’s describing, encourage gender-neutral casting for everyone else, you can encourage that when you hand in the script, but you cannot just write that in on the page.

Dan: It’s fine to put a note that says, “Hey, whoever finances and makes this project, please cast openly with gender-neutral casting as much as possible.” It just seems a little cart before the horse. It doesn’t belong in the body of the script in my mind.

John: Also, generally, I think by choosing not to make a choice, if you have a social goal in mind for this, you could make some choices to make some of these roles female that would not always be female, or could be nonbinary that would not otherwise be. Specificity there can actually push your gender forward. Megana, what else do you have for us?

Megana: Great. Margaret asks about page density. She says, “I have a rom-com that is currently 104 dense pages. I snipped and squooshed and killed orphans to get to that svelte size, but now I’m wondering if more white space would make it a more enjoyable read. Do you think slenderness in the hand, measured by number of pages, or ease of quick reading is more important? If the latter, do you have any thoughts about how to put a dense script on a white-space-expanding diet? Where would the extra space be most useful, margins or between lines or everywhere? Nowhere do I have more than four lines of action or description or dialog, but still it looks dense.”

Aline: I’m going to quote Craig Mazin here, which is the return key is your friend. I never do a line of description more than… Rarely more than two, but definitely not more than three.

John: If you read through a bunch of scripts, there’s a wide range of stuff. There’s not one perfect thing to do for this. Judy Kay, don’t change the margins. Don’t try to make your margins bigger. That’s not going to help anybody. Also look at maybe what kind of script are you writing? If you’re writing a script with a lot of dialog, there’s going to be some natural white space there anyway, just because the margins have set in for that. I worry you may be worrying about the wrong things.

Dan: Look, my feeling on page stuff is that it’s purely a psychological tool for the person who’s receiving the script. We’ve all made enough scripts to know that the page count is functionally meaningless. Our shooting script for Rescue Rangers was 175 pages. The actual practical thing, when they re-transcribe the thing you’ve actually put on screen, every little um, eh, huh, it becomes 175 pages, but the movie’s 90 minutes. It doesn’t mean anything, the page count really. It’s just the way that people will receive it in development. Do they feel like it moves? Do they feel like it flows? Does it feel too heavy in their hand? It’s just that dumb stuff. I go home on my weekend read and they have a pile of six screenplays. They’re going to go to the thinnest one first, because they don’t want to take more time.

Aline: It’s a sales document, you’re right. If you open it and you see big, chunky, 10-line paragraphs, you’re like, “No, I’m not in the mood for that.”

John: 100%.

Doug: I don’t want to be prescriptive on it either, but I do think that first page… If I see a first page that is all scene direction, and I like reading… If there’s anything, I’d be like, look at those first couple pages and see what can you thin out to draw the reader in.

Dan: There’s nothing worse than the actions… We’ve done a lot of action movies, a lot of action movie rewrites. When you come in on an action movie where you’re seeing just pages and pages of the action described, you’re telling me the kind of machine gun they’re using, I don’t care. It’s a slog of a read. It’s not particularly interesting. It’s never character-forwarding. That’s probably the biggest thing is that it’s very-

Doug: Character or story.

Dan: Exactly. It just becomes meaningless details. It’s not fun. It’s not a good read.

Aline: I think from a writing standpoint, don’t you guys also think that most of the mistakes people make is too much stuff, not not enough stuff? A lot of times when you’re reading it, it’s like, she’s got a purple T-shirt and a button-down and Levis, and she walks over to the car and she opens it with her right hand. You’re like, which of those things do I care about? Which one of those are you pointing out? You can figure out what color the car is and what shoes they’re wearing later if the important thing is that she’s right-handed because later someone’s going to get stabbed with a left-handed knife or something. That’s what you have to highlight. I think beginning writers often, and I would include myself as a beginning writer for sure, there’s just a tonnage of extraneous detail, because you’re trying to show how beautifully and exquisitely you’ve imagined everything. You can’t do that. It’s like lighting. You’re trying to direct everyone’s attention to exactly where you want it to be.

Dan: You just said it. It’s directing. When you get late in a process and you’re having production meetings and you need to get every single detail in someone’s head, that’s the time to really get granular. Most of that stuff doesn’t need to be in there. You’re just trying to give a vibe a lot of the time.

Doug: You have to ask yourself what matters, I guess. If you’re telling me about the clothing, this is a person who just wears yellow, or you’re telling me what hand they use to open the door, do they have a broken right arm so they have to use their left. I think you have to ask yourself those questions of does this really affect the story, the character. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t need to be there, most likely.

John: Megana, another question for us?

Megana: JJ asks, “On a recent episode, John mentioned how near impossible it is to get a musical going at the moment. I have a musical out to buyers right now, and it’s been a lot of passes so far. The feedback has all been positive. People love the script, but more than a handful of buyers have said they simply can’t get a musical across the line right now. I wrote it in 2019 before the unsuccessful theatrical runs of a few notable musicals changed the landscape. My question is, what do you do when a script that excited agents, producers, and the director at the time it was written is ready to hit the market at a less than friendly time for the genre? Is a second chance possible a few years down the road? Is it dead? I’m very bummed at the moment and not too optimistic about the remaining places we are out to. Has this ever happened to either of you before?”

John: Yeah, this just happened to be. JJ could basically be just me writing. I did take a musical out. We basically went to all the streamers. Going into it, I’d heard musicals are really tough because of Dear Evan Hansen, because of West Side Story not working, but also just a whole slew of things, and so that certain streamers are saying no. They didn’t want to hear a pitch, because they said no. Other places, like, “Oh, we’re excited to hear the pitch.” I go in, it’s like, “It’s just so good. No, we can’t do a musical. I can’t get this approved,” which is heartbreaking but it feels [crosstalk 00:45:40].

Doug: You told me this the other day, and my heart sunk, because I am in the thick of a musical that I sold with Rachel Bloom to Amazon. On the other part of the subject, this is a movie that Rachel and I had developed a handful of years ago, took it out to all the places that do this stuff, all nos. We were like, “All right, it’s dead.” Then several years later, there was an executive shakeup at Amazon. The junior exec who loved it got promoted. His boss left. He had a new boss. He was like, “I have different directives. I’ve been thinking about this movie for years. Are you guys still open to do it with me?” We were like, “Yeah.” It again came back to life in this way that we had totally put it to bed. We’re in the thick of developing a musical for Amazon. I hope that all these things are conditional, because I would like for it to be a real movie.

John: It sounds like your movie’s already a little bit set up at a place. That definitely helps. It’s already in the track. Whether it’ll get that green light is the question.

Doug: Exactly.

John: You also have the track record of you and Rachel working on it. It also reminds me of Rescue Rangers, which is basically like there was a moment in which this was the way, the place that we could make it, and then it just goes away again. With musicals, we are just putting a pin in it. We will revisit after… There’s musicals that are in the pipe right now that could be huge hits.

Aline: It’s original musicals that are the problem, because Mamma Mia, Glee, things that draw on existing songs do way, way better. Having backed ourselves against the wall with this, with Crazy Ex, the thing I will share, when we were testing the Crazy Ex pilot, Rachel starts singing 10 minutes in. When you test TV, you have dials. The episode starts, and people are into it. People always responded extremely well to Rachel. People are enjoying the pilot. You can see the enjoyment line going up, up, up, up, up. There’s a scene she quits her job. Then the second she starts singing, when I’m telling you nosedive, it was as if everyone in the testing had just yanked their dial to zero. I remember turning to Rachel and saying, “That’s a traditional show tune, so maybe that’s why.” Then later in the episode there’s an R and B song with a rap solo in it, which has Rachel in her underwear for most of it. Same thing, they’re loving it, the dial’s really high. The second people start singing, the whole audience cranks it to the left.

If you looked at it, audiences have an innate allergy to songs they haven’t heard before in that format. I’m not sure why that is. It is a humongous overcome. If you’re doing Bohemian Rhapsody or the Elton John movie or Mamma Mia, people get excited when they hear those songs. I wonder if there’s ever a world where you take the Olivia Rodrigo album, and before you even release it as an album, you already have some sort of script ready to go so that once that becomes a hit, you have something that you can put into production with existing songs that are already a hit. It has to be a hit somewhere else in order to live in a comfortable… It’s very, very difficult. While our show had a certain cult status, we were for many, many months the lowest rated show on network television.

Doug: I don’t know if we were going to get to this before. I think it’s all connected in terms of when you let go of a project after you’ve made it and maybe it has been passed on. To talk about Rescue Rangers for a second, something that Dan and I actually haven’t spoken about that much is the idea of open writing assignments and doing free work. We were brought in on a different open writing assignment and asked to do free work, being like, “What’s your take on this property?” We spent a lot of time breaking out a take. We were like, “Why would we do this? This is such a long shot anyway.” We really liked the take. Then they passed on it. Then when Rescue Rangers came around, we were like, “There are some parts of this that are helpful.”

I think that it just goes to show that… There was a feeling of like, all that work was for absolutely nothing. I don’t think that’s ever the case. That’s the bit of silver lining in it. This is not to tell people to go out and do free work ad nauseum. There is an aspect of like, oh, that came back. That’s not done. It doesn’t have to be someone else green-lighting the same, exact thing. There were elements of it that we were like, “Let’s look back at that,” and be like, “There are elements that we can pitch for the Rescue Rangers and create around them.” That was very rewarding, because we’ve done so much. We all have done pitching on things that never went anywhere, never got paid to do. That time spent developing an idea is not a wasted time.

John: I’ll say that this musical that I wasn’t able to get set up, I did have 12 good meetings with places, and I have relationships with those places that I didn’t before. I didn’t get the thing going, but at least I know which of those executives I like. I definitely know which executives I will never, ever, ever work with. There’s a list of two or three people I kept telling my agents, “I will never work with her.”

Doug: Great.

John: That was good too.

Doug: Also, there’ll be a hit musical in five years.

John: Exactly.

Doug: All of a sudden there’ll be a boom for musicals, and then this’ll come back to life.

John: The two things that are in production right now that will come out soon. There’s 13 at Netflix, which could be great, but no one knows the songs. Then Ryan Reynolds and Will Ferrell have a movie for Apple TV Plus, a Christmas Carol story, which is-

Aline: The two-part Wicked movie.

John: The two-part Wicked movie will also happen. That’s already known properties. On the animation side, I have Toto, which is a musical, but it’s also animation, which has special rules.

Aline: It has special rules. With respect to the projects, you have that, you own that. That’s in your computer and in your brain. My company is called Lean Machine, but I often had this joke that I was going to call it Dead Horse Productions because if I believe in it, I will drag it around indefinitely. A lot of the things that I’ve gotten made are things that I just would not give up on. Crazy Ex was one of those. Every single television network that you’ve ever heard of has passed on it multiple times. I am a big believer, it’s a good idea… John, you’ll be sitting at [inaudible 00:52:10] with someone and they’ll say, “I’m looking for this.” You’ll say, “That’s funny, because I happen to have one of those.”

John: It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a television show which I loved when it came out. My daughter had never seen it. We watched the pilot to Lost this past week.

Doug: Oh my god, [crosstalk 00:52:27]. We got to talk about this.

Dan: We were just talking about it.

Doug: I actually have this debate constantly. I’m sorry to interrupt your One Cool Thing.

John: I believe the pilot to Lost holds up remarkably well, incredibly well. I’m going to put a link in the show notes to the pilot script for it, which I never actually read. It’s very, very dense on the page. It’s not what I would normally like to read. It’s so good. It includes a bunch of scenes that are dropped out of the show. As I was watching it, I was just noting the act breaks in it and how long before we get to that first act being done. It’s just a genius thing. I feel like in many ways, the same… Aliens was the script that I always kept going back to to look at how you write action. I feel like people should need to look at the Lost pilot script again just in terms of how you do that show, because I’ve seen so many versions of that show that are trying to be the Lost pilot. The Lost pilot is just so much better, so smartly done.

Dan: The Lost pilot is spectacular. There’s so many episodes of that show that are spectacular. Can you divorce the ending from any other part of it? This is my fear and feeling, that the ending abandons so many of the things that were needed and asked of the audience that I don’t think it’s a fair ask to start it.

John: To start watching Lost?

Dan: I don’t think it’s appropriate.

John: Oh my gosh. I think Lost is an absolute delight. I encourage people to watch Lost. You cannot watch Lost without watching the Lost pilot. Really, what I’m encouraging everyone to do is just watch the Lost pilot. It’s on Hulu right now.

Dan: It’s a great pilot. It’s going nowhere, guys.

Doug: It goes somewhere for a very long time.

Dan: It leads to nothing.

Doug: I don’t completely agree with that.

Dan: It’s a winding road down into a dirt pit.

Doug: You might be sending your daughter down a path that will be ultimately depressing and unsatisfying, but that journey is fantastic.

John: I had David Lindelof on the show. One of the things he says is the the experience of people who watch Lost all at once is so different than the experience that we had watching it week after week. Things like when there’s two characters who get trapped in a jail thing for six weeks or something, six episodes I think, it’s excruciating, but the people who watched those episodes all together, it was like, oh, that actually tracks and makes a lot of sense. I do feel like a person who’s watching Lost now is getting a very different experience than we did having it strung out over the course of-

Dan: Also, they have access to all the spoilers immediately. Maybe that’s to the benefit, where the what’s in the box question isn’t as loaded, because they know where this is going. They’re signing up for it.

John: The single best cold open ever on an episode was when you get inside the hatch for the first time.

Dan: Oh my god, I think about that all the time. It’s seared into my brain. I’m like, “We’re going in. We’re going in.”

Doug: I sing that song to myself all the time.

Dan: Exactly. Again, I was just so obsessed with that show, to the point where it was actually one of the things that I started really connecting with my wife about when we started dating. We went to a Lost exhibit, where they showed us all of the props from the show. I was so deeply, deeply in love. We were getting into all the weird Fibonacci math equation mysteries. Megana remembers that.

Doug: You guys were made for each other.

Dan: There’s a personal aspect to this.

John: Doug, do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

Doug: Yeah, I actually do. It is music-related. It is an app that’s been around I think for a while, but no one ever seems to know it when I talk about it. It’s called Radioooo with four O’s. It’s world music that is really fun. The music is curated by country and decade. You just go on and you can either let them pick randomly for you… This morning, I was driving my daughter to school. We were listening to music from Angola in the 1980s, and she loved it. You’re discovering things that you’re not getting on your Discover Weekly. It goes all the way from 1900 to 2020. It covers almost every single country in the world. It’s really, really great.

Dan: That’s awesome.

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

Dan: Aline knows that the pandemic, I became a real sauce boy. I love condiments.

Doug: I think he was always a sauce boy.

Aline: Gregor and I were threatening during the pandemic to start an Instagram account called Condimentally Yours.

Doug: We were like, “Wait, is this a full TV show?”

Dan: Condiments, spices, sauces are really my obsession right now. My favorite one-stop shop for Middle Eastern spices, because that’s my favorite cuisine, is New York Shuk.

John: It’s an online store or LA?

Dan: I think it has a brick and mortar in New York, but it’s an online store. It goes all over the world. It’s beautiful packaging, great website. You get your preserved lemons there, your harissa, get your hawaij, get your za’atar. Get all the stuff, baharat, a lot of really important things.

Doug: All things you didn’t know you needed.

Dan: Exactly. A lot of important secondary stuff.

Aline: Gregor and I are both children of sabras, so we have that Middle Eastern stuff in common.

Dan: Exactly. You can even get a harissa spice and just put harissa spice in stuff without the sauce.

John: Harissa’s great.

Dan: Harissa’s great.

John: That’s great.

Dan: I highly recommend you go to New York Shuk, S-H-U-K, and buy their stuff. I’m not being paid.

Doug: You should be.

Dan: I love them.

John: Aline, you have a One Cool Thing for us?

Aline: I do have a One Cool Thing. My One Cool Thing is Megana, because I’ve been listening to… I listened to the 20 questions episodes. I find that I have a little leap of joy in my heart when I know Megana’s going to be on an episode, because I really enjoy hearing from younger writers, and especially younger women. I think there is lots to learn from writers that are older, but I honestly learn so much from not just writers but executives, the people at my company who are younger. I love to hear about what they’re experiencing and what the market looks like for them and how they’re breaking in. I love Megana and Craig. That’s one of my favorite duos. Then Megana and John have their own special magic. I really enjoy it when I have that little leap that you have when you are watching an episode of your favorite TV show and you see that Reese Witherspoon is guest starring on Friends or something. I think Megana is a rather modest person, but she’s actually, I think, inviting a lot of people into Scriptnotes. She works her butt off. Megana, you are my One Cool Thing.

Doug: Wow. What a voice too.

Megana: Oh my gosh. I’m sorry, I have to go. I have to go lie down. I don’t know how to process how happy I am. That’s so nice. Thank you.

Doug: No, we need you. That’s the whole point. We need your voice.

Megana: Thank you so much. That’s so kind, Aline.

Aline: I love it. I wish there had been someone like that when I was a young writer. I wish there had been someone that I could listen to who was also trying to figure out how to put all these pieces together. You’re trying to figure out an entire industry and your own voice at the same time. I was cleaning out some cabinets. I came across a file that I had of original ideas that I was going to pitch. Oh my god. It was so scattershot. I was trying to work in every genre and tone imaginable. They’re insane. I love that period of your life when you’re trying to synthesize all these things. I have kids who are on their way to being grown. My son is graduating from college. I think embracing that time in your life when you’re on the on-ramp… I really love to hear from people like that. It’s been a nice addition to Scriptnotes and the Gen X codgers that we are.

John: That was our show for this week. We are still trying to sort out our schedule. Next week is likely to be a best of episode as we get back onto our normal Tuesday schedule. Scriptnotes is always produced by our amazing Megana Rao, our One Cool Thing Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Pedro Aguilera. 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. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust as long as I stay on Twitter. Dan, Doug, are you guys on Twitter?

Dan: Yeah, @gregorcorp, C-O-R-P.

Doug: I’m @thedougmand, M-A-N-D.

John: @thedougmand. Aline, you’re using Twitter right now?

Aline: I’m @alinebmckenna.

John: Fantastic.

Aline: You’ll find important things like what is the best Kansas song. I’ve got important things on my Twitter. I really do.

John: Stuff you’d need to know. We have T-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the ones we’re about to record on having a newborn in the house. Aline, Doug, Dan, thank you so much for coming on.

Dan: Thank you.

Doug: Thank you. This was great.

Aline: Woot woot.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Doug and Dan, you have very young kids. Dan, I know your baby was born at the very start of the pandemic.

Dan: Yeah, March 20th.

John: Wow, that’s just right in the heart of it.

Dan: Right at the start.

John: Doug, one kid, two kids? Where are you?

Doug: One child, born end of 2017.

John: A little more experience then on this. You had to be doing a lot of writing work while this new life was living in your house. I want to talk a little bit about becoming a new parent and trying to maintain your career and trying to maintain your life, because I remember when I had our daughter, that first month was just so, so, so bleak. Then the moments where I would try to sneak away and actually write, I felt guilty for abandoning my other half and my child. What are some strategies that, Dan, you’re implementing right now with your kid?

Dan: Honestly, this is a very ritzy strategy, but I have an office in my house. I had the place I would go and work. At a certain point, my daughter turned a cognition corner and no longer lost track of me when I closed a door.

John: Object permanence happened.

Dan: Exactly. She would just bang on the door, just completely just bang until I’d come back out. Working at home became actually impossible. Me and my wife rented a little studio apartment down the street. We’d just walk down the street to go write in this little studio apartment.

John: You throw some goldfish on the floor for your daughter.

Dan: Exactly.

Doug: A big jug of water.

Dan: We put her in a bubble and just let her roll around the house with some water and goldfish. Just a little bit of private space has been by far the thing that has enabled it. I know that’s not necessarily available to everyone. That’s my first advice. Doug, do you have any particulars?

Doug: I do think a room of one’s own is really important to get out. Right before the pandemic, a year before… I have an office as well. My wife is a writer. I would go to a workspace. I loved it. I just loved writing from there. Then coming back home, it was really hard when the pandemic hit, because the guilt is what I felt. I have a garage where I can work out of. The bathroom was inside. I would go in. I’d be like, “No, dad’s not home right now. I’m just here.” There was a guilt. It’s like, you’re home, why aren’t you with your daughter? These are amazing, precious moments. I think if you can create a space, even if that’s, now that the pandemic is not as intense… It’s still quite real. Go somewhere to work. I think that’s helpful.

Also, just be vigilant with your scheduling, just being like, “This is the time that I write.” I think we all waste probably a lot of time not writing when we say we’re writing. If you have an hour, write for an hour. You’ll probably find that you’re getting more done in that time. Don’t beat yourself up for that. Then when you’re with your child, I would say whenever you can not bring your phone in, that’s been a big thing. Your child can sense when you’re not there emotionally. You’re looking at your phone. I try to give my daughter at least 20, 25 minutes where my phone is in another room and I’m just there with her. That makes me feel like not such an absentee father.

John: We’re recording this in the space over my garage. It was an absolute godsend when we had a kid. We would just make a show like, “Papa’s going off to work, bye.” I would walk up the stairs.

Doug: Close the window blinds so she can’t see you.

John: My former assistant, Stuart, was working downstairs. At a certain point she became mobile, and she would come in and talk to Stuart, but she had no idea that I worked upstairs.

Doug: Oh my gosh.

Dan: Oh my gosh.

John: I’d just be very, very quiet. Then eventually she started to wonder, “Why is Papa’s car still here?” It was like, “Oh, he must’ve walked to work.” Not technically a lie. I did walk to work.

Doug: Yes, you did.

John: Eventually, when it became clear, like, “Does Papa work upstairs?” we had a conversation about, “This is workspace. This is home space. You’re basically not allowed up there.”

Dan: The sneaking around my child is the most ludicrous thing. If I have to stop back in during the middle of the day, I will use the backdoor, I will tiptoe. I will pray to God that I am getting out of her line of vision so that she doesn’t see me, because if she sees me in the middle of the day then it’s like, I got put in a half hour.

Doug: At what age did you tell your daughter? Was there any-

John: Blow-back?

Doug: “That’s what’s been going on this whole time.”

John: She was either four or five before she really understood that-

Doug: She still doesn’t know [crosstalk 01:06:14].

John: Then at a certain point, they stop caring completely. Aline, we should talk about… We have older kids now.

Aline: I’m on the other end of it, because my kids are 19 and 22. In case anybody is feeling really guilty about it, I left… A friend of mine gave me an office in his office when my Charlie, my older son, was 18 months old. I always had an office outside the house after that. I have neurotically asked my children many, many times if they felt deprived by having a parent, specifically a mother who was working. They insist that it was fine and they actually liked it. That’s either what they’re saying to me so that I can continue paying their rent or they actually believe that. If you’re used to writing and you’re used to expressing yourself and that makes you happy, in whatever way writing can make you happy, but if that is a form of self-care, just remember that a happy, fulfilled parent is a wonderful thing. Specifically, I hope that moms don’t beat themselves up about finding a workspace for themselves.

Doug: It’s a great thing for your child to see.

Aline: Yeah, is that you’re being productive.

Doug: Yeah, this is Mom working, this is Dad working. It’s also part of life.

Aline: Definitely. One of the things that August and I have in common is a deep love of babies. Man, I love a baby.

John: Oh god, I love babies so much.

Aline: I spend so much time trying to spend time with Gregor and Rachel’s baby, especially during the pandemic, I was getting tested as much as I could so I could go and see her and see them. One time Dan said to Rachel, “Aline does know that this is just a baby, right, and it’s not her baby?”

Dan: I just want to make sure you know.

John: [crosstalk 01:07:55] those contracts like all output isn’t shared.

Dan: Exactly.

John: You’re writing partners.

Dan: Exactly.

Aline: Man, I loved it. It’s nice also, you get to work and you get to go home and have this most magnificent thing to interact with that takes your mind off of work and who doesn’t care that you got notes about you need to dig deeper.

Dan: Doug said this, but a writing day for me, my writing process truly was like, ease in around 11, and then do nothing for 6 hours. Then in my mind I was like, I’m only good at writing for a really intense burst from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. That’s how I lived my whole life. I was like, “I’m a late-night writer.” Boy, that went out the window with a kid. To Doug’s point, it’s just like, no, I’m clocking in. It just got me much better at the idea of clocking in, clocking out. These are my work hours, and I need to be able to make this a functional day job in a very real sense, where it’s like I need to be home by 5:30 to start doing bedtime kid stuff.

Aline: That’s why we did the Crazy Ex room the way we did. We had so many parents. My kids were 10-ish and 13-ish. I’d just want to get out of there. We had a lot of parents in that room. As the show went on, we had more and more. I had learned from my kids being little, yeah, you become much more efficient, and you want to get the eff out of there. We also didn’t do a lot of post-room lingering. It does make you more focused and efficient.

Doug: I would also say, if you don’t have the means, also I really like writing in a library. I had been doing that a lot. There’s something about being around other people working. If it’s not a workspace, there are wonderful libraries in most cities and towns. You really feel like you’re clocking in. I like that feeling of… It’s work that I enjoy. In there you’re really like, “I don’t want to be here all day. I’m going to do an hour and a half, two hours.”

Dan: I don’t want to go the bathroom.

Doug: Yeah, don’t want to go the bathroom and I don’t want to look at… Looking at websites and browsing the internet in the library is a very just gross feeling. You’re just like, “Just let’s write. Let’s just do it.” That’s a resource that a lot of people don’t use.

John: One challenge with being gone for most of the day and coming back at 5, 5:30, that’s often the absolute worst time of day for a kid. That’s often the time when they’re most upset. I think sometimes a vicious cycle happens where you feel bad for being gone all day, but your kid feels bad because it’s 5:30 and they’re hitting unhappy hour, and so you’re the bad parent who’s returned. You may need to adjust your schedules a little bit just so you can get a little bit more happy time with your kid too.

Dan: I haven’t had that yet. Thankfully, she’s still pretty decent at that hour. I’m sure it’ll get worse.

John: It’ll get worse. Thank you guys so much again for this conversation about parenthood.

Doug: Thank you.

Dan: Thank you. Thanks, Aline.

Aline: Thanks, Scriptnotes peeps.

Links:

  • Chip ’n Dale: Rescue Rangers May 20th on Disney+
  • Your Place or Mine coming soon!
  • Los Angeles Plays Itself
  • Presentations versus Pilots
  • New York Shuk for Saucy Boys
  • Radiooooo App
  • Lost Pilot read the script here.
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Dan Gregor on Twitter
  • Doug Mand on Twitter
  • Aline Brosh Mckenna on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Pedro Aguilera (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes Episode 544: 20 Questions with Craig, Transcript

April 25, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/20-questions-with-craig).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 544 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Last week, Megana and I answered 20 listener questions without Craig. This week he’s doing the same without me, because I am not here. This introduction is prerecorded and the show is completely in the hands of Craig and producer Megana Rao, so God help us all. I now turn over hosting duties to them.

**Craig:** Hosting duties belong to us. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, Megana and I will finally have a chance to discuss millennial stuff. Megana, welcome to our show.

**Megana Rao:** Thank you, Craig. Thank you for having me.

**Craig:** We both feel a little bit naughty right now. I think that would be fair to say, right?

**Megana:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You mentioned that we felt a little bit like perhaps when the teacher leaves the classroom and we’re put in charge of the class but we’re not really in charge of the class, or like if our dad owned a store and he left and we had to work the cash register.

**Megana:** It’s like, what amount of freedom do I have but I still care about the store?

**Craig:** Because you’re the good kid, and I’m the kid that clearly doesn’t care. If something goes wrong, ultimately you’ll be held responsible, not only by our parent, but by your own overactive conscience. You also love me, so you’re really torn here. You’re in a tough spot. All we can do is talk about keyboards. Logitech K860 does have Bluetooth, Megana. Are you aware of this?

**Megana:** Yes.

**Craig:** We’re getting into follow-up here. This is what John would normally structure for us. I’m going to read this. Joseph wrote in regarding the keyboard discussion. He went through the same journey that I did, from Microsoft Sculpt to Logitech K860. He knows that he’s never been tempted by John’s crazy, inverted thing, and neither has anyone else.

**Megana:** Have you ever tried using it?

**Craig:** Yeah, I did. I think at his house I sat down and did it for a minute and went, “Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.”

**Megana:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Joseph was saying while the Logitech does work with Logitech dongles, it also works with regular Bluetooth. What? What? I’m going to have to try that shortly. That’s exciting. I’m into that. Oh my god. Then apparently you and John took a typing test.

**Megana:** In Episode 543 that John and I recorded, we followed up on the touch typing conversation you guys had, because I was feeling very insecure that I didn’t know what touch typing was, and that maybe I didn’t know how to type properly, but turns out I do.

**Craig:** Oh, Megana.

**Megana:** I took a typing test.

**Craig:** This is so good.

**Megana:** I got 81 words per minute and 100% accuracy.

**Craig:** I think anyone over 70 I think is starting to get into really good territory. Once you hit 100, you’re getting into zip zip, and then anything over that, you’re talking about professional stenographers and so forth. 81 words a minute is terrific. It’s terrific.

**Megana:** Thank you. Thank you. John got a 62 on his stand-up keyboard.

**Craig:** Which means probably on a regular keyboard he would be 4,000 words a minute.

**Megana:** Exactly, in the hundreds for sure.

**Craig:** It sounds like I’m going to have to take this one. Once we finish recording here, I’ll sit down and bang this out and report back dutifully.

**Megana:** Perfect.

**Craig:** How I do. Megana, for the love of God, just honestly. Apparently, there’s a bonus question here.

**Megana:** Yes. Today we’re going to get into 20 questions that listeners have wrote in for you.

**Craig:** Oh, my. Oh, my.

**Megana:** There was one question that came in through Twitter that asked, “Did Megana take Craig’s advice to watch Barton Fink?” As follow-up, we’re going to answer that here. I have watched Barton Fink now. I really enjoyed it. I understand why you recommended it to me.

**Craig:** I’m glad that you liked it. Obviously, a lot of Barton Fink is somewhat obtuse by design, but it’s an incredible view of the screenwriter, both as victim and also as wretch. Dig in a little bit. Tell me what struck you about it. I’m curious.

**Megana:** First of all, absolutely unexpected turn of events in it. Brilliantly executed and very satisfying by the end. As I was watching it, I was like, “Where could this possibly go?” I’m not sure that I had any of my questions really answered, but I felt very pleased by the end.

**Craig:** That’s great.

**Megana:** Barton Fink as a character was so painful to watch, perhaps because of some self-loathing, him talking over John Goodman’s character about how much he wants to be the voice of the common man and never lets him speak.

**Craig:** The common man. “You don’t listen!”

**Megana:** When he’s talking about how much he envies John Goodman because he leads the life of the mind, oh god, it was –

**Craig:** “I’ll show you the life of the mind.” One of the things about Barton Fink that I love so much is that in addition to the kind of baked-in inauthenticity of the writer, I guess the Coen brothers turning the lens back on themselves in a fascinating way. It also is a pretty disturbing examination of writer’s block and the weird, creepy decay that can happen in your own brain where things are just melting inside your mind. The entire hotel that they’re staying in begins to melt.

**Megana:** The wallpaper.

**Craig:** The wallpaper. The paste that comes out the wallpaper is the same as this infectious ooze coming out of Madman Mundt’s ear. It’s all this creepy connection. I have all these deep theories about Barton Fink and what I think about it.

I was lucky enough to work on a movie that John Goodman was in. He is lovely, such a sweet guy, very quiet. I wouldn’t say shy. Maybe a little bit. A little bit shy in his own way. I walked over to him at one point when he was alone, and I said, “This is a wonderful moment for me because I’m such a fan and also I get to ask you about Barton Fink, because I have all these theories. I would just be fascinated to know what you thought.” He said, “I have no idea what it means.” He said, “Those guys are geniuses. My job, as far as I could tell, was to make sure that I knew my lines on the day. On the day, I really worked hard to make sure I knew my lines and was able to say them the way they wrote them. I have no idea what it means.” I was like, “That is the greatest thing I’ve ever heard in my life.” In my life. We did talk about the scene where he’s running down the hallway and how they did the fire, so it was fun. Anyway, point is, John Goodman doesn’t know what it means, so I think you’re allowed to think it means whatever you want it to be. I’m glad you liked it, at the very least.

**Megana:** I did like it. I love the Hollywood of it. I love the head of the studio. It was so fun. It’s like, yes, I know that Michael Lerner’s character flipped so quickly, but what a joy to be on that ride while you are.

**Craig:** I’ve been there. As awful as they were and continue to be, there’s something of the Weinsteins in there. When they wanted to charm you, boy did they go all the way. Everybody comes here and imagines a moment where somebody who runs a studio, who’s famous and powerful, tells you to your face that you’re a genius. When it happens, it flips switches in you you didn’t realize you had. Then later, boy when you fall down or when they throw you down, boy does it hurt. When I watch that, I’m like, oh man, I know exactly how that feels. I’ve been in that meeting. I’ve been in both of those meetings. The berating of the underling is something incredibly familiar to me as well.

**Megana:** Oof, yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah, oof.

**Megana:** We need an episode that’s a guide of how to deal with that narcissistic charm, because it is…

**Craig:** Oh boy. Yeah. We do. There’ll be a lot of therapy in that episode. A lot, because ultimately, you can’t do anything about them. You can’t. All you can do is identify the breaks in your own system that they are sneaking through.

**Megana:** Correct.

**Craig:** In this way, they illuminate for you. They give you a little bit of a gift. They shine a light on things that need to be fixed. You just need to know when it’s happening.

**Megana:** It’s like a pressure test of…

**Craig:** It’s a pressure test, because they are there to find their way in through the breaks and gaps and lean on the parts of you that hate yourself and need approval. They find them. They’re so good at finding them. You don’t realize it’s happening until it’s too late. Each time it happens you get a little bit smarter, you get a little bit better.

**Megana:** Are you ready to get into the 20 questions?

**Craig:** Yeah. The deal is I got to answer all 20 of these, right?

**Megana:** Oh gosh, I haven’t thought of what the alternative would be.

**Craig:** I’m going to do it. You know what? I’m going to do it.

**Megana:** You’re going to do it.

**Craig:** Let’s do it. We’re going to do it.

**Megana:** Our first question came from Julien, who asked, “My script’s been professionally read a couple of times and is heavily based on true events. However, the notes say I should weave real moments throughout the script, which I already did, a lot. How do I notate reality? Is it kosher to have an explanation page at the end, or footnotes?”

**Craig:** What Julien’s saying is that people don’t seem to be recognizing the real moments throughout his script, which I think is not going to be helped by an explanation page or perhaps Julien saying, “No, but I did.” The whole thing with notes is they’re just being the audience. If people in the audience don’t get that you are being real, it doesn’t matter if you’re being real. You actually have to be aware how that’s coming across.

What I would say probably is, “Okay, thank you for that note. Here are a number of real moments. Did they feel real? Did you think they weren’t real? That’s something that we can address or talk about, where are we losing a sense of authenticity.” It could be possible that they just don’t know at all. If you put it in the form of a question, you’ll be better off. If you say, “Dear idiots, here are 12 places I put true events,” you’re probably not going to last. If you say, “Okay, that’s really valuable. Here are 12 places where there were real events, but it seems like it’s not coming across as real events, so let’s have that discussion and figure out maybe how we could do better at that together,” because they may go, “Oh, good lord, we didn’t know. Okay, thank you.”

I’m not sure what the story is. Sometimes when real stories have very wild elements, you have to be aware of that and figure out how to ground them so that people actually believe it could possibly be true. Sounds like you just need to have another conversation with people. When it’s been professionally read, I’m just wondering who are these professionals, what does that mean, and can you get some follow-up from them.

**Megana:** With Chernobyl, you had a podcast where you did notate reality. You were talking about the events that were real. Most of them were the decisions that you made behind that. I guess I’m curious, is that something that you wanted to do so that people would buy into the show more?

**Craig:** No, the opposite. I wanted to make sure people knew what we had made up. I remember having this discussion with HBO, because at first they were like, “A podcast? Why? What are you talking about?” They thought I meant a marketing thing. I was like, “This has nothing to do with marketing,” because of course nobody was going to watch Chernobyl or listen to the podcast. I really was like, “This is just because we live in a time when everyone scrutinizes everything. I know they’re going to be scrutinizing this show. If we put stuff out there and don’t acknowledge that we’ve made certain changes to history, people are going to point their fingers back at us and say, ‘You guys made a show about lies and you lied,'” which would be true. If you can be transparent about where you had to dramatize or adjust to fit years of reality into five hours, then it’s much harder for people to point fingers at you, which is why I insisted that each episode of the podcast appear literally 12 seconds after each episode initially aired, so there was no gap. It was like, there you go, no waiting.

There were a lot of moments when I was writing Chernobyl where I was concerned that people just would think, “That’s not real. You just made that up,” because people made crazy decisions that were hard to understand. It was important to me that I present them in a way where the audience could at least say, “Okay, I kind of understand.”

There’s a moment in the first episode where Dyatlov is thinking, and then he’s just like, “The tank. That tank. It’s big enough to have caused this explosion,” because he’s come up with a theory of why it exploded. It felt like I needed a moment where I saw him convincing himself, because otherwise I would be wondering, why would a person just leap to that conclusion and then never question it in any way. There’s moments like that to just help people understand the reality of the human foibles behind the bad decisions.

**Megana:** That’s so interesting. I’m watching The Dropout that’s about Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. I find myself asking, because there’s a lot of really specific beautiful details that are in there, and I’m constantly asking was that real, where did that come from. I just don’t know if that’s a helpful question for me to be asking as an audience member.

**Craig:** Probably not. I think if you’re watching a documentary, it’s always a good thing to ask, what is the perspective involved here, is there an agenda, because editing is a wonderful, powerful thing. Documentaries are questionable, should be questioned, should be interrogated and held to task if they distort. Drama is drama. The point of drama, even when it’s based on reality, is not to journal, but rather to instruct in some manner of humanity. Dramatic instruction. What are we going to learn from the character? What are we going to learn about human behavior and nature? It is not there to be a full book report on a nonfiction event. Some events I think it’s best to be as accurate as you can be. I tried to be with Chernobyl, because I thought actually the beauty was in the specifics, and in a way in the journalism of it.

There’s been a terrific documentary about Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, so probably not much of a need to be perfectly documentarian again with the drama. Can you do the voice, by the way? Can you do the voice? Can you do it?

**Megana:** We’re hoping to change the world.

**Craig:** That’s great. That was great. Wow. Someone said once that–

**Megana:** There you go, that’s it.

**Craig:** That Elizabeth Holmes’s voice was just the voice that women do when they’re doing an impression of a dumb man.

**Megana:** You know what? That does feel right, because as I accessed it, I was like, this feels familiar, this feels like a pathway that I’ve used before.

**Craig:** Maybe it was Aline who said that. I can’t remember who said it. Maybe it was Aline. I just thought that was the funniest thing in the world. Anyway, great job. That character should come back, like Sexy Craig, every now and again. Theranos Megana.

**Megana:** That’s really helpful advice just for writers, dramatizing real events, that you’re not writing a documentary.

**Craig:** You’re not doing a book report. You get to decide how close or how far you want to be.

**Megana:** Next question. Andreas writes, “I wanted to ask how you approach writing jobs where you’re brought in quite late and asked to make the dialog funnier, touch up specific storylines, scenes, characters, or make cultural references more specific, etc. How do you curb your writerly instincts that you yourself would tell the story in an entirely different way and just focus on the job at hand? How much feedback on the overall story is expected of you?”

**Craig:** That’s a great question. So far I have not been called in for cultural references, weirdly. They made a whole movie about Staten Island, never called me. I was shocked. I do get called in from time to time, quite late, later than you would ever imagine, to make dialog funnier or touch up specific storylines, scenes, or characters. Yes, this happens all the time. It takes a certain kind of writer to do it. Not everybody can do that, because you are in a very different mode. You’re in a problem solving mode.

You need to understand production. I think that’s really important, because that’s what you’re writing for at that point, production, almost always. That means you need to understand scheduling, you need to understand who the actors are. Oftentimes you’re being put on the phone with them, because they’re upset about things. I can’t tell you how many times I have sat and been a therapist for famous people because they’re unhappy with the script. Partly, I have to just listen and hear what they need and then come back to everybody else and say, “Look, whether you agree or not, this is what they need. They can’t do it unless they get what they need. I’m going to give them what they need, but I now have to do it in a way that also gives you what you need,” because what they need is more action, or this scene needs to be better.

Sometimes what I suggest is that they have put their fingers on the exact right problem, all of their solutions are wrong. We should not do any of those things. I’m not going to do the seven things you asked me to do. I’m going to do these four things I think you ought to do instead. Oftentimes, and I’m not patting myself on the back as much as just pointing out that I have a job to do and they have their job to do, I’m right, because that’s my job. That’s what I do. Their job is different. In a good way, they’re trying. They’re trying to say, look, we know what a problem is and we have a suggestion of how to fix it, but they are not going to think of the things outside the box. Sometimes, you have to just go outside of what exists and say what we need is actually an entirely different scene in a different spot that is going to solve these 12 problems in one fell swoop.

You have to be a problem solver. You need a lot of experience. It takes time. Nobody who is a fairly new writer to business is going to be pulled in for stuff like that or relied on in that kind of way because they just haven’t done it enough. It’s very specific work. Very specific work.

**Megana:** Getting back to our screenwriting RPG framework, that seems like a very specific instance where you need a lot of wisdom and confidence.

**Craig:** Yeah, you need a tremendous amount of wisdom there, because there’s no way to survive that whole thing. Everyone is upset. When you walk into those situations, there’s tension. Everyone’s scared. They’re scared not only because they’re in a scary situation. They’re also scared of you, because they don’t know what you’re going to do. Everyone is quietly lobbying you to not mess everything up, meaning we’re going to call you in here and we’re going to tell you that we have some problems. Please do not tell us that we have 29 problems. Please do not tell us that we actually have six other problems that we don’t think are problems. Please don’t make our director leave. Please don’t make our actors angry. Please don’t make us upset.

You just have to listen really carefully and then understand that what everyone wants, what they’re dreaming of is that you’re going to sit down and go, “I have the solution. The solution will not upturn the apple card. It’s going to answer everyone’s questions. It’s not going to upset anyone. It’s not going to set you back in a huge way. We’re not going to tear all the stuff down. we’re just going to do this fairly easy series of things, and it will be much, much better.” That’s what they want and that’s in fact exactly what you have to deliver. It has to be effective. Not easy, but they do pay you a lot, so there’s that. Best money in Hollywood. Weekly production rewrites.

**Megana:** Speaking of money, I think this is going to be a question you’ll like, Please Convince Me to Drop Out of Film School wrote in and said, “I’m 23 and wrote my first screenplay in 2020 and got good scores on the Blacklist and met a director hoping to make it. He’s been taking the script around trying to get us a deal. He’s had it read by Paramount, HBO, etc. The most exciting news he told me was that Paramount liked it so much that they recommended it to their team.

“With my very first script already having made it as far as it has, it’s given me a lot more confidence in my ability to turn this passion into something real. Now, the problem is, I haven’t written a second script. I have the idea. I’ve slowly been mapping it out, but working part-time and going to school full-time has left me with virtually zero space to fit in my just-for-fun hobby. Obviously, I can’t quit working, but at this point it’s starting to feel like school not only isn’t benefiting me anymore, but that it’s actually holding me back from jump-starting my career. On the other hand, I’m four years into it, and I would only have about two terms left to finish my degree. It feels like either option I choose results in a waste of my time, either finish the degree and waste the next year of my life getting something that I don’t think will help me instead of actually writing, or I drop out and have the last four years of my effort and money be for nothing.”

**Craig:** Sunken costs fallacy here, writ large. It comes down to this. We struggle with the notion that we’ve wasted time and money. We struggle with it so much that we insist on finishing something that is a waste of time and money, which means spending some more time and money. What will that degree get you? I don’t know. As far as I can tell, nothing. We were on set just yesterday and I turned to Bo and I said, “Did you learn any of this at NYU, any of this?” She said no in such a hard way. It was the hardest no I’ve ever heard.

**Megana:** I don’t know that Bo has any soft no’s though.

**Craig:** This was one of the harder… It was like a no and not even close. It was sort of like she went to school and she was supposed to study how to make television and movies, and then when she arrived in Hollywood and saw how we made television and movies, it seemed like what she had really been studying was veterinary medicine and they just called it television and film studies because it had nothing to do with what we do. Nothing.

If Please Convince Me to Drop Out of Film School is 23, he’s already young, he’s getting some interest, he’s just starting. 23 is a fantastic age to be starting, because you have lots of energy. You have lots of enthusiasm. Everything is still exciting. You have lots of scripts ahead of you. You don’t theoretically have a family. As John and I pointed out, children are not zapping your life away. You can really make inroads.

As he points out, he’s just languishing in this school to get a piece of paper that no one will ever ask for. Ever. The only paper anyone’s ever going to ask to see is a script, if that’s what he wants to do. Furthermore, the degree will not get him anything anywhere else. In fact, all it’ll get him, and I think this is something else Bo and I were talking about, is that he will qualify to teach at film schools. That’s what those degrees give you, as far as I can tell.

He can finish it another time. It’s not like they go, “All that time is gone.” You can always come back and finish, I think. Take a year off. Take two years off. You don’t have to decide right now whether or not you’re going to flush the prior four years. Take a couple years off. Work on your career. If it happens, don’t go back. If it doesn’t happen, and you want to go back and complete it to get the paper and do something else, do it. Seems to me like you don’t have to make this choice right now. You can punt. I would punt. I would take the two years. I would take some time off, write some scripts, get some work, and see how this actually functions instead of whatever film school is teaching you.

**Megana:** I do agree with a lot of that, but I just worry that that piece of paper would get him a foot in the door or some entry level jobs and it would help him as his resume is being screened through a job at a big agency or something, that he has a completed degree. Not that I agree with that, but I wonder if that would help him to have that.

**Craig:** I don’t know where he’s going to film school. If he’s not going to NYU or USC, I’m not sure what networking there is available. Film schools are barfing out humans at a remarkable rate every year. They’re not all getting jobs because they went to a film school. What if he just went to a temp agency and got placed and started working at a company somewhere? Paramount’s looking for people to be assistants. You don’t need to have a film school degree to get those jobs, do you?

**Megana:** I think that you might. That’s what I’m worried about is I feel like even those jobs are so competitive. I’m very bad at rationalizing with the sunk cost fallacy, so I know this is a weak point of mine. He’s so close.

**Craig:** I think we’re getting to the real of it. I can hear your parents talking through you.

**Megana:** It’s like just do the two more terms and then do whatever you want. Become the doctor and then become a writer.

**Craig:** Become the doctor and then become the writer. This is your parents, and by the way, a useful voice to have. The internalized parental voices are important to an extent. We don’t want to nourish them too much. If we don’t have them at all, then we theoretically might head down sociopath lane. Don’t you agree, or perhaps I shouldn’t lead the question, do you agree that he can take a break, see how it goes, and then come back?

**Megana:** Yes, I do think that he can take a break. I am a huge advocate for taking time off before or during while you’re getting higher education, because it is such a privilege to be able to take classes and to spend time learning. I think you want to set yourself up in a way that you are getting the most from that experience that you can.

**Craig:** I think it’s a privilege to not go to film school. Anyway. Sounds like at least we agree on this. You can take some time, punt on the decision, see what happens. If it doesn’t work out, then you got an option to finish it and do what Megana’s parents would want you to do.

**Megana:** Correct. I hope Please Convince Me to Drop Out of Film School writes back and lets us know what he does do.

**Craig:** Yes, please. Yes, please do, Please.

**Megana:** No Context asks, “What tools do you use to keep track of notes and ideas that happen when you’re not at your desk, visual or analog?”

**Craig:** Here’s where John and I probably diverge. I have no doubt that John has an entire team of people working on a perfected software application to do precisely this. In the meantime he has six or seven different integrated processes.

Here’s what I do. I email myself. That’s it. It’s pathetic. On a given day of writing, I will typically think about what I’m writing that day in the morning, walk around, take a long shower, whatever it is, and then I know what it is. I don’t need to write it down. It’s in my head. It’s the scene of the day. I can do it. Sometimes when I’m thinking ahead about things that are coming or moments, as I walk around I will stop and go, “Okay, there’s actually a specific way I just said that line of dialog in my head that I want to make sure for this flow of lines that this leads to this leads to this interesting twist of line. I’m going to just quickly tap this out to an email to myself,” and I send it and then I have it and then I refer to it. That is as analog as digital gets, I suspect.

**Megana:** John’s answer was actually surprisingly more analog. He just uses index cards.

**Craig:** What?

**Megana:** He has stacks of index cards around the house.

**Craig:** What? When you say index cards, you mean individual miniature iPads of his own manufacture that are in the shape of an index card, that synchronize to some Cloud-based–

**Megana:** No, I mean paper and pens, pens with ink. I don’t know. Who’s the robot here?

**Craig:** Megana, I feel like I’m going to cry. Oh my god, never meet your heroes. Never meet your heroes. Oh, man. Wow. You rocked my world there.

**Megana:** Paul asks, “Will Zoom pitches still play a big role in post-pandemic life or will this all go back to in the room?”

**Craig:** Zoom pitches are here to stay. It’s not that we will eschew the room completely, as we did when we were in lockdown. Of course there will be in-room meetings. Inevitably, the Zoom pitch is here to stay because people’s schedules are tight, because they are all over the place. They’re traveling all the time. They’re in different spots, because of convenience, because a lot of people now have home offices that are just as comfortable and obviously more convenient than the at-office offices. While I don’t think the room is gone, the Zoom room I do believe is here to stay. What do you think?

**Megana:** It makes so many of the logistics of my life easier that I imagine that that’s probably true for everyone.

**Craig:** Certainly if you’re the kind of person who is going to a meeting as opposed to a person who’s receiving a meeting, way easier to do Zoom. When I started working on The Last of Us with Neil Druckmann, we had a series of early story sessions. Because he was still hard at work on The Last of Us 2, I would go to the Naughty Dog offices in Santa Monica. Driving to Santa Monica for me is–

**Megana:** From Pasadena?

**Craig:** That’s right. Essentially I said, “I can meet you roughly between 11:30 and then I’m leaving by 2. That’s it. I’m going to be nowhere near the edges of the day.” We would never do that now. We talk to each other all the time. I’m in Canada right now. He’s in Santa Monica. By the way, not that much further than Pasadena. It may actually be faster, because I could fly and land at LAX and get to Santa Monica faster.

**Megana:** 100%.

**Craig:** We Zoom all the time, and we will continue to, and we’ve all become incredibly used to it. If one thing the pandemic achieved, other than a horrifying death toll, is it normalized video conferencing, which prior to the pandemic, people forget, everyone was like, “Eh.” Even Google couldn’t get us to do it. We were like, “Eh. FaceTime, ew.” Then suddenly–

**Megana:** Google had Google Meet, but yes.

**Craig:** They had it, but nobody liked it.

**Megana:** Yes, but coming from working at Google, I used it all the time.

**Craig:** Of course. Of course. That’s like, “Coming from a cattle prod factory, I did occasionally use a cattle prod. I didn’t like the feeling of being cattle prodded.” It was not and continues to be not a good solution. Google does a lot of things brilliantly well. Google’s social, what was it called, Google Circles or something?

**Megana:** Oh gosh. Google Plus.

**Craig:** Google Plus. Google Minus.

**Megana:** That was tough. Speaking of The Last of Us, Matt asks, “When you have a project to write where you’re the main stakeholder, do you subconsciously change your style? John and Craig talked before about Ryan Johnson’s scripts being for himself to direct, so he can do what he likes with regard to the rules. Basically I’m wondering if Craig has so much to write for The Last of Us in such a short amount of time that he’s going gonzo freestyle.”

**Craig:** Oh no, I don’t have a gonzo freestyle. Hopefully, people don’t think that I wrote all The Last of Us in a short time. The Last of Us, which is entirely written and we just have a little bit more to shoot, was written over the course of essentially two years. I’m a very deliberate writer. For the scripts that I was writing while we were still in production early on, because the production of this is rather lengthy, they were so well outlined and thought through. I mean thoroughly outlined. I’m not praising myself. The writing of the script was not ever going to be anything approaching gonzo freestyle. I don’t know how to write gonzo freestyle. The only things I write gonzo freestyle are birthday cards. Even those sometimes I deliberate.

The fact that I am over-empowered and have too much authority has not made me any less fastidious or nervous, because ultimately, you can say you’re the main stakeholder, you’re in charge, you’re the boss, the audience is waiting. If there’s one thing that people who wrote comedy features know, it’s that they’re out there with their knives and you are going to have to face the music sooner or later, so do what you can to get it right and never just think, “Oh, I’m in charge. I can do whatever I want.” You’re not in charge. The audience is in charge.

**Megana:** There are so many other departments that you have to communicate with. It’s not just about shorthand between you and the director.

**Craig:** Oh, certainly. In this case it’s me and the directors, because we have quite a few, because there are 10 episodes. You’re putting your finger on something huge. Every department has 4,000 questions. You are accountable to them as well. The one thing I can never do is say to our special effects team or our costume team, “Oh, that’s an interesting question. I don’t know. I don’t know.” Ever. I am not allowed to say that. I have to know. I can’t make it up in the moment either. I have to pre-know what I mean and what I want, because they will say… Look, in good ways, they want to make sure that I’m getting what I want. They will say, “Here’s what we’re planning for this.” Sometimes I go, “Oh my god, nailed it, perfect.” Sometimes I say, “180 from what I want. That’s okay. I see why you did that. Here’s what I want instead.” What I can’t do is go, “Oh. Huh. Maybe.” They’re like, “What would you want different?” “Hm. Oh, I don’t know. Do other things and let me see them,” which maybe other people get away with, but we have too much to do.

I am accountable to everybody that’s working around me. They need fast answers because we’re on a schedule over here. This train don’t stop. I am accountable to HBO. I am accountable to my creative partners, my other producers. I’m accountable to my actors, because on the day, if they go, “What does this mean?” and I go, “I don’t know,” that’s not good.

Then ultimately, I’m accountable to the audience, which is why editors are a good early punch in the face. Editors represent the audience. They advocate for the audience. They don’t know how hard it was to write that line or how hard it was to get that day shooting. They don’t know about the weather. They don’t know if the actor is cranky. They don’t care. They just look at the footage and they’re like, “This is bad, so I think I’ll do this instead.” They don’t care. That’s actually quite refreshing, because once shooting is over, you get to shake it off like a wet dog, take a breath, and then say, all of the creation, the raw creation, is completed. This is what we have. Now, let us begin the final act of creation, which is narrowed into this world of finite possibilities, as opposed to that world of infinite possibilities. No gonzo freestyle for me. Sorry, Matt, or you’re welcome, Matt, if you’re not a gonzo freestyle guy.

**Megana:** Sort of a follow-up question to that, because how you got to where you are now, Cat asks, “How did you find your voice and what are some steps to produce your own if you’re having a hard time finding it?”

**Craig:** I have no idea. There you go. I have to gonzo freestyle that one. I don’t know. Someone, maybe it was Scott Frank, he said he doesn’t like to delve too deep into the how did you get your voice question out of terrible fear that it will make him self-conscious about something he didn’t realize was just his voice. It’s a little bit like if somebody ever says back to you, they’re like, “Oh my god, you have this interesting vocal affectation that you say this thing all the time.” You’ll suddenly realize that you say it all the time and you’ll say it less.

Neil Druckmann, the other day, not the other day, it was a couple months ago, I asked him a question and he went, “Correct.” He went, “By the way, that’s what you say all the time. You know that?” I said, “What?” He goes, “Yeah. Instead of saying yes, you go, ‘Correct,’ just like that. ‘Correct.'” He’s like, “Correct.” I’m like, “Oh.” Then I was like, “I don’t know if I do that.” Then seven minutes later I heard myself do it and I went, “Oh, no.” Now I don’t do it as much because he ruined it.

I don’t want to stare too much at this other than to say I don’t know, but that is a metaphor. Don’t get too tripped up, because I think maybe voice is just a small word for confidence in your own mind’s organization of words, thoughts, and feelings. You have a point of view. You have thoughts. You have a way of saying things. Whether you realize it or not, you have your own quirky bits. If you become confident that your quirky bits and your way of presenting things are interesting to other people and you continue to invest in that, other people might point at it and say that’s your voice. Thinking about what your voice is and trying to find it is counterproductive, because that’s calculated and it will never work. You want other people to tell you afterwards about it. What’s your voice?

**Megana:** That’s really helpful. If you define it too much, then you also somehow limit yourself and limit the potential of what it could be.

**Craig:** You can’t hear it. You can’t hear your own voice the way other people do. Even the sound of your own voice physically sounds different. Really what you’re saying is how did you find the way to do things that create the following impression in other people and how can I do that. I don’t know. Megana, you have a voice. You have a very specific way of thinking and talking and presenting things. If I heard 12 people and all the voices physically were turned into the same pitch, I think I could still pick you out.

**Megana:** Aw.

**Craig:** Because it’s about your mind.

**Megana:** Friendship.

**Craig:** It’s about the way your mind works. Friendship. Is that a millennial thing to just go, “Friendship.”

**Megana:** No, that’s just me.

**Craig:** That’s just you. See, you have a voice. You have a voice.

**Megana:** Oh gosh. We can’t talk about it too much, because then it’ll go away.

**Craig:** I know. I’m ruining it. I’m ruining it. Next question.

**Megana:** We’re going to do some quick ones. Christopher asks, “What’s the best way to format a quick flash of memory three seconds long or a quick image? Do you simply write it in description or add a CUT TO?”

**Craig:** Oh, easy. I usually will just, in an action line, all caps, say FLASH TO: colon and then return and then write the little bit that I’m flashing to or even keep it on the same line with the colon. I might put the stuff that I’m flashing to in Italics. I may say FLASH BACK TO: or MEMORY FLASH: or something like that. I don’t add CUT TO’s. I just write it into description and then flow. Basically, I’m just including it the way you would experience it watching the movie.

**Megana:** Another craft question. Brilland asks, “Purposeful pauses, beats. When should silence carry a scene?”

**Craig:** Constantly. Constantly. Here’s a quirk of mine. Okay, Cat, I’ll give you a little piece of the voice. I know, because I feel myself doing it and I don’t care, I write the following thing, I don’t know, at least 12 times a script: “They sit quietly, then,” or, “There’s a moment, then.” I’m writing that all the time, because I believe that people pause. There are moments when people stop because they don’t know what to say. The importance of those moments is that they inform how the next line must be, because when you break a silence, you break it in a certain way. You don’t break it without deliberation. What you say next has been considered, because that’s what was happening in the wait. Somebody didn’t want to say something, made a choice to say it, thought about how to say it, and then they said it. I think this is incredibly valuable, because most of the time when we’re talking it’s extemporaneous, it’s flowing, it is impulsive. We make mistakes. It’s clumsy. It’s not well thought of.

I like movies where people speak brilliantly and quickly, like Sorkin or Tarantino, but it is mannered. It is not meant to be a reflection of how humans actually speak with each other. They don’t do it that way. That is more of a stylized presentation of reality, which is wonderful. Those guys are excellent at it. It’s not my jam. I’m not excellent at that. I like clumsiness. I guess I just dig a little bit more in drama work into the authenticity of how people speak to each other. Pauses are a huge part of it. Do not be afraid of silence. Embrace the silence, for in the silence is great opportunity. Just like we just had.

**Megana:** I was trying to hold for silence for a bit, but I am conscious of your time.

**Craig:** We did it. We did it.

**Megana:** Hannah from Minneapolis asks, “How important do you think reading classics/popular literature is for both improving your writing and for social capital and respect within the TV/film writing industry? Do other writers expect that of you?”

**Craig:** This is such a good question, Hannah. When I first started, I would go on these meetings, and for whatever reason, I don’t know what it was at the time, but in 1994 when I was having these meetings initially with producers and so forth, and I was working in comedy, they would reference the Peter Sellers film The Party all the time. They would talk about The Party. I had never seen The Party. I had seen The Pink Panther. That was when I was a kid, because my dad made me. I hadn’t seen The Party. I would just go, “Oh yeah,” because they would never say, “Have you ever seen The Party?” They would be like, “It’s like The Party. If we can aim for The Party but do this or this or this.” I’m like, “Oh, absolutely. Yeah, that’s great.”

The funny thing is, in 1994 watching a movie that was slightly obscure was actually hard to do. You had to find it somewhere and rent it. I was just like, “I got to go and rent The Party at some point.” I finally did and I watched it and I was like, no offense to Party fans, like, “Wah? Wah?” I guess when I was done, I thought like, oh, I think what they mean is cheap. I think they mean a comedy that’s mostly in one building that there’s a party in. That’s the whole movie. I don’t know.

Anyway, it is a little important. Try and keep up as best you can. At some point, it will be impossible, and that’s okay, because you’ll be old, Hannah. When you’re old, nobody expects you to know anything other than old stuff. They think it’s adorable when you know new stuff. When you are young, yeah, you do need to be plugged into what’s going around. You should be, because that’s the time of your life when you would be. It is helpful to know what the hell is out there, and look, too much for everybody to watch. Do you feel a pressure, Megana, to keep up?

**Megana:** I do feel a pressure. It’s also a desire. I want to see what’s out there and what’s going on. I love television and film, so that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing. Her question asks, “Reading classic/popular literature, how important is it for improving your writing and for social capital?” I think that a lot of the writers that I talk to, I’m not talking to them about classic literature. I think that’s something that they probably have read. A lot of my writer friends have lots of references, whether that’s a very random nonfiction interest that they have or a specific genre of television shows that they watch or types of books that they like.

**Craig:** By the way, you don’t have to be. You could also be just really into what you’re into, and people know that one of your quirks/voice is that you don’t know what the hell is on TV right now, but you are a master of 1960s action films, and that’s okay, as long as there’s apparently some interest.

What will happen, Hannah, is if you start doing well in this business, then the reference that you’re most familiar with, the TV show or the film that you’re most familiar with is the one you’re making. Then that’s the only one in the world. There’s only one television show I really care about right now, and that’s The Last of Us. That’s all I work on. That’s all I think about. That’s my job. The fact that I haven’t seen 12 other things that have come out in the last month, no problem, because no one needs me to. They just need me to make the thing that they want me to make, and hopefully they’re happy with it. Then in the in-betweens I catch up a little bit, as best I can with some things, but the truth is, I feel like it’s more important when you’re in your early stage, your young years in the business.

**Megana:** I agree with that. I also think agents and producers tend to be really plugged in. It’s incredibly important for them, with good reason.

**Craig:** That’s their deal is they need to know everybody and everything, because that’s their trade. They’re not sitting down and writing stuff. They’re watching and reading, watching, reading, watching, reading. They have to know everything. I could certainly see where your fancy boss mentioned something and you haven’t heard of it, then they’ll throw a stapler at your head.

**Megana:** The classic Hollywood punishment.

**Craig:** Classic.

**Megana:** Anders asks, “What are some important questions to ask oneself during the pre-writing phase?”

**Craig:** What is this about? What is the point? Why would anyone care? Would anyone want to watch this? Why would they want to watch this? If I create it in such a way that they feel compelled to watch it, why will they keep watching it? How will they feel at the end? What is the purpose and point of all of this? Then get into the rest of the stuff. I think that people forget to ask that first. Why? Why should this exist? There’s a lot of television. There are a lot of movies. There are a lot of books. There are a lot of songs. Why should this one exist and why would people care? It’s not about being cruel to yourself. It’s just about, again, respecting your ultimate boss, the audience.

**Megana:** I guess going back to what Hannah’s question, what you were saying about that, is that it is important to be plugged in culturally so that your writing is responding to the moment.

**Craig:** Yes, and not only to the moment as you see it, but the audience consists of people much younger than you, when you are old. When you’re young, it doesn’t, unless you’re writing for children’s television. If you’re in your 20s and your 30s, you’re probably writing comfortably for people in their 20s and 30s, and that’s no problem. Most stuff is aimed in that, whatever, 18 to 45. That’s the big classic TV demo. If you’re in your 30s, yeah, of course you’re writing for people between the ages of 18 and 45. You are between the ages of 18 and 45.

As you get older, you may forget or discount what 20-year-olds might be interested in, and you will certainly, certainly, you will overestimate how important things that are important to you are to others. In Hollywood right now, I’m sure there are people that are trying to remake things that people really enjoyed in the ’80s, but no one in their 20s cares because the ’80s is 5,000 years ago to them. When I started out early on, so again, let’s go back to 1994, and Disney was attempting to do a film adaptation of My Favorite Martian. Have you ever heard of My Favorite Martian?

**Megana:** I have.

**Craig:** What is your awareness of it?

**Megana:** I think it’s a show.

**Craig:** Go on.

**Megana:** Was it on Nick At Nite or Turner Classic Media?

**Craig:** Yeah. I’ll get you off the hook. They did make a movie. They did it. They made a movie. I did not write it. They made it in 1999. The movie My Favorite Martian was based on a television show that aired on CBS from September 29th, 1963 to May 1st, 1966. Now you can imagine that I, who had been born in 1971, and who felt that things from the early ’60s were essentially from the Stone Age, how I felt hearing that Disney wanted to make a live-action movie of this that no one would care about, because they were overestimating how beloved the things that were beloved to them were, because the people who made it were children who watched that show and loved it. Right now there are things that children are watching and loving that eventually they’re going to want to make a movie of and people are going to be like, eh, because we don’t care. We just don’t care.

Part of this whole thing is just making sure that… Just ask yourself, okay, what would people not like me think? What would people who are not my race, my gender, my age, my orientation, what would people not like me think of this? Are they going to roll their eyes hard? Because man, in 1999 when they put My Favorite Martian out, I’m sure a lot of people went, “Okay, whatever,” but they did it to themselves. Everyone’s going to do it online right now and in your face and they’re going to make fun of you. Just interrogate yourself before you start writing.

**Megana:** Fair. Leah asks, “Do you have tips on simplifying a complex world for an audience? Any other exemplary scenes like Minority Report’s PreCrime Unit or Chernobyl’s courtroom reactor explanation?”

**Craig:** Thank you for putting me in there with Scott Frank’s excellent script. The tips are that you need to be a teacher. Again, you’re thinking about other people. You don’t want to bore people. No one likes homework. No one likes sitting in a classroom. Whatever it is about your complex world that thrills you, that makes you passionate, that excites you, hold onto those bits and relay those bits and build your case carefully and always with an eye at keeping them interested. Take breaks.

You notice the courtroom, one of the reasons I structured that the way it was was, A, I just didn’t want to do the usual, okay, episode 1 is a sunny day and then it ends with something exploding. The other reason was because I knew that when it was time to walk people through what happened and solve the mystery, that I wanted to give them breaks. Otherwise, it would’ve just been awful. You may enjoy those scenes as they exist, but if it was just 40 minutes straight of that stuff, you would pass out, because you just can’t. You’re stuck in a room for too long. Give them breaks. Structure it. Make it interesting. Teach them carefully and use what makes you excited as a signifier for where you ought to put your sign posts along the way.

**Megana:** Super helpful. We’re going to do another little lightning round. Adrian asks, “In what part of writing the script do you think about music? Not like the movie Yesterday where the plot revolves around the music. I’m particularly curious about music rights you don’t own.”

**Craig:** I don’t think about it much, only when I think to myself, oh, a song would really add something here, hearing vocals and pulling people out of the reality for a bit and hearing something. Then I think about it. Then I do a little research. I also remind myself, I don’t need to solve that now unless I’m literally seeing somebody singing it on screen. Yes, I think if you’re making Baby Driver and you’re Edgar Wright, it’s incredibly important to think about that. That would be more like the movie Yesterday. The plot revolves around it, but also I think somebody like Edgar also really does key in how he writes and creates scenes to pre-imagine songs that have to go there and function like that. I don’t, for what I do. I would say just listen to yourself and ask that question. Don’t get too bogged down in it if it’s not crucial to what you’re doing.

**Megana:** David asks, “Should the writer acknowledge in a note that they are aware that something a character says is insensitive or ignorant if that detail will be confronted later in the series?”

**Craig:** Oh wow, that’s a really interesting thought. It’s a pretty rare circumstance, I would imagine, where you’re writing something that’s going to be in a series. Maybe if it’s a pilot, then yes. I think if it’s a pilot, so that script exists on its own, and if somebody says something like that, I think it’s fair to acknowledge on page 38 someone says something that is insensitive and ignorant and upsetting, it will be confronted later in the series, to let people know you are aware of that, so you don’t just get this note back like, “What’s wrong with you? Do you not live in the world right now? Do you not see how people are functioning?” Yeah, that’s perfectly reasonable to do.

If you are in a flow of a season, that means the show’s already running. There’s probably a room or at least there’s a showrunner or other people, so people will be able to just pick up the phone and discuss it. When I say pick up the phone, I mean text each other. I guess if you were doing a pilot where that would be coming back around, and you don’t have the opportunity to address it right then and there, it’s not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all.

**Megana:** I wasn’t expecting you to say that.

**Craig:** Oh, what’d you think I was going to say? “No! Wrong!”

**Megana:** No, just to have good faith that it would be resolved or addressed later.

**Craig:** I don’t have that faith. I got to be honest. People surprise me all the time. They really do. They surprise me, because when you’re like, “Do you not know how that’s going to… You don’t get how that’s going to come off, really? You’re not on Twitter? You don’t read?” Let’s put it this way. If I saw that in a pilot script, I would not go, “I hate that.” I would think that’s reasonable, you’re taking care of me.

I wouldn’t spell it out, other than to say there is a moment. You don’t even have to say on what page, because they might flip right to that page. You might just say there is a moment in the script where someone says something that is insensitive and ignorant, it will be confronted later in the series. Perfectly fine. Smart.

**Megana:** Cool. Tom in LA asks, “I have a script that’s been optioned and reoptioned, two times, different 18-month options. During that time I was paid to do a rewrite. Then another writer was brought on to do a pass. The option has just lapsed, and I was wondering what happens now. My agent says that it’s not as simple as just getting my original script back, since the production company did spend money on development. I’ve had many producers hit me up for the rights, but my agent said any new producer might have to repay the original producer. My hope is to get rid of all the changes and start with a script that I originally had.”

**Craig:** Here’s what I think is happening. Tom writes a screenplay. It is optioned and reoptioned. It is not purchased outright. The rights to the screenplay belong to Tom. The producers have paid him some money to have the exclusive right to develop that at this point, meaning he can’t sell it to someone else. They then pay him to do a rewrite. Kind of curious why they didn’t just buy the script at this point, but okay. They pay him to do a rewrite. Now what that means is that’s a work for hire. The rewrite is something they do own.

Now, at this point I’m very confused, because I as Tom’s agent never would’ve allowed this. The reason why is, they’ve created… I don’t know how this works. In their agreement, they must have created them in such a way where they own this, regardless of whether or not they own the underlying rights, because he’s granted them the… I don’t understand how this functions, because essentially, they’re… If they don’t have the ability to properly own that rewrite, which they would, as work for hire, because he says it’s WGA, once the option lapses, that rewrite doesn’t have any value to them at all. Meanwhile, Tom’s problem is, if he goes to sell the script that has reverted [unclear 00:57:50] the original script to somebody else, he obviously can’t sell those rewrites, because somebody else owns the rewrites. What his agent is pointing out is, anybody else buying this thing knows that the other company’s out there with the rewrites. Any rewrites they ask for, if they come even close to what was in the rewrites the other company owns, they’re going to have to buy those out from the other company or they’re going to get sued.

This is a mess. I don’t see why this went down this way. I would say you can say your hope is to get rid of all the changes, Tom, but the problem is, other people might ask for the same damn changes. Now what do you do? Do you write them? Do you say, “Oh, I can’t do that. I can’t do that change because I did it once before for someone else, or I can do it, but I can’t do it the way I would normally do it.” It’s a mess. If this is going to go somewhere else, I suspect your agent’s right about this, new producer would just have to repay the original producer and then some to buy out those things. Why was this done this way? I don’t know.

If you’re going to option something, you’re holding back the big, valuable thing, which is copyright. If they want you to do a rewrite, don’t sell it. You do the rewrite and it’s for you. You’re doing it for you. It’s your rewrite too. You own that also. It’s like I own a house, but I’m going to let you come and own the first floor. I will own the foundation and the second floor. What am I supposed to do with the foundation and the second floor, without the first floor? It doesn’t function. Confused about how this went down. Would not recommend that method. Yes, I think your agent is right that it is not as simple as just getting the original script back.

**Megana:** Oh man, that’s so tricky. Poor Tom probably hasn’t been paid. Two times 18-month options for three years on this?

**Craig:** He got paid to do a rewrite, so he was paid. That’s the problem. In a way, you just have to understand, if you’re going to sell it, sell it. There’s nothing wrong with selling. That’s what we do. We’re professional writers. Brush off anyone that calls you a sellout, because that’s a feature, not a bug. You’re a professional. You get paid. If you’re going to sell out, sell out. Don’t rent out and sell out at the same time. You’re going to do worse than you would’ve otherwise. Otherwise, you took a little bit of short-term money and you, I think, muddied the water on something that could’ve been more valuable if it had been kept intact.

**Megana:** Got it. I guess I feel for Tom, because I can understand how in his position he would want to get paid, but your advice is…

**Craig:** Absolutely, without question. This is why I’m just wondering where his agent was on this one, because I would just say, look, if you guys want to develop this, let’s do it right. Now, if they were like, “No, we just want to pay WGA minimum for a rewrite, I smell a rat. They’re making a very low commitment for something that’s valuable and disruptive to the chain of title and I would just advise my client to say, no, hold out, let’s sell this. If they have a plan for how they want to develop it, convince a studio that they have a plan, and then have the studio buy the script and finance the development of this property. That’s the way we do it, or in the network or the television production company. I agree with you. I commiserate with Tom completely.

**Megana:** Richard asks about another project that hasn’t gone as well as he’d hoped. He says, “I’ve recently finished my first film, a short on a very low budget, and it stinks. I tried so hard, put everything into it, but it’s rubbish. I’m not too disappointed, as it’s my first attempt and I only had 10,000 to work with. It made me wonder what it’s like to make a flop when the budget is 10 million as opposed to 10,000. More specifically, when do you know it’s going to tank? Audience viewings, opening weekends, or way before? Secondly, how do industry people dress it up? Are they honest and admit that it’s a turkey or do they wrap it up in ‘maybe it will have a second life on DVD’ sort of rhetoric? Thirdly, what’s the follow-up for the writer specifically? Do you lose work? Do people start answering your calls? Is there resentment from the people who took a chance on you, or is it understood that some films just sink without a trace?”

**Craig:** Oh, man. Richard, I’m sorry. For what it’s wroth, we’ve all been there, except for Lord and Miller. I don’t know, Chris and Phil have never tasted the… No, I take it back. They have. They have. Every time I say this to them, they’re like, “Ah, [unclear 01:02:36].” I’m like, “Oh, yeah, right.” You got fired before any… Okay, you were fired, but you didn’t have a bomb under your name, see, so your track record is 100%. I still hold them up as the rarest of rare unicorns.

For the rest of us humans, it happens. It often happens early on. It is devastating. It is particularly devastating the first time, Richard. Yes, it’s your first attempt. Yes, you only had $10,000 to work with. This was going to be a small thing. I’m sure you also were thinking to yourself as you were making it, people have done things with $10,000 before and made big, wonderful things. You know it. This one hurts. It hurts more than it will ever hurt again, because you have nothing else to compare it to. You are currently oh for one. Oh for one is rough. When you have one victory under your belt, it buys you at least a certain amount of emotional ability to withstand another flop or two, because you feel like, okay, I’m not just Ed Wood, but most normal people are walking around nervous that they’re Ed Wood as they’re trying to do something good. Feel your feelings.

I’ll tell you that the difference when the budget… Budget’s irrelevant, to me. I think for producers and network and studio people, that’s a huge part of it. They don’t care. Oh, whatever. They’re looking at budget cheats and they’re looking at what they’re accountable for. As an artist, humiliation is humiliation, and failure is failure, no matter what the budget is. Sometimes the only factor is how much you cared. If you care a lot about the thing that cost $10,000 and you cared sort of a little about the thing that cost 10 million, the $10,000 failure will hurt more.

When do you know it’s going to tank? Audience viewings are definitely a big indication. There’s no question about that. A bad opening weekend, unless you are one of the .01% of movies that somehow just keep on trucking and build and build and build, that’s a pretty good indication. The first time you watch it, you may think it’s… If you just watch it and you go, “That’s just absolutely unsalvagable,” then it’s unsalvagable.

How do industry people dress it up? There’s a certain layer of people in our business that are paid to lie and will do so. The way they dress it up is just by announcing that everything’s fine and it’s great. They use that to get their next thing. I think the non-creators, the business folks, when they sense a flop is coming, they just work hard to make sure that they’re protected and already have the next thing working, so that they can’t be fired and ended permanently. For the rest of us, not so easy.

What is the fallout for the writer specifically? Depends. If you have created a television show, you are the showrunner and it fails spectacularly, that is on you. I do think there’s going to be a bit of a work your way back in process. If you are a writer in feature films, generally speaking you are not going to be blamed. People will blame the director. It is the only upside to a system where the writer is demeaned and deprived of any positive credit whatsoever. It’s that when there is a disaster, they just blame the director. Is there resentment from people who take a chance on you? Only if you fought them tooth and nail every step of the way and told them they were idiots and insisted on things and wouldn’t change things and then it failed and then, yes, they will absolutely resent you.

Do you lose work? Not if you already had work ahead of time. Always keep the treadmill going. Do people stop answering your calls? No. It doesn’t really function that way. People weirdly love to talk to you when something has just failed. It makes them feel better about themselves. Is it understood that some films just sink without a trace? Yes. Sinking without a trace, vastly preferable to being noticed while you sink. Lots of boats sank, but everyone remembers the Titanic. Be one of the boats that quietly sank that no one talks about.

**Megana:** Gosh. John is so good at segues. I’m really appreciating that skill level now.

**Craig:** You’re missing segue man.

**Megana:** I’m missing segue man.

**Craig:** That’s an interesting point. The thing that you just said has nothing to do with the next question. So-and-so asks…

**Megana:** Speaking of films…

**Craig:** Segue lady.

**Megana:** Ryan asks, “Screenplay examples for instructions come in waves. Tootsie, Star Wars, Casablanca. Which scripts from the last 20 years do you think should get taught in film programs?”

**Craig:** Oh my god. Of the last how many years?

**Megana:** 20 years, so 2002.

**Craig:** I’m the worst person to ask this question of, because I don’t know. Taught in schools?

**Megana:** Taught in film programs, your favorite institutions.

**Craig:** None of them. None of them, because it doesn’t matter what they teach you. There are things that are instructed to me that don’t mean anything to anyone else. There are things that other people seize on that just blow their minds and make them be in love again with movies. The answer is what blows your mind. The premise is flawed. Indeed, it is the premise upon which these programs are constructed, which is to say there are objectively valuable, wonderful films that if you study and dissect all the way down to the atomic level, you too will be able to create. You will not. The people who created them created them. You’re going to create what you create. There’s no Codex.

What are the movies that film schools obsess over? We all know that they have an unhealthy obsession with 1970s and particularly with Spielberg and Scorsese and Coppola, but also then they like to go to the Italians of the earlier years, ’60s and ’50s, Sica and Fellini, and they should. They’re wonderful movies. Also, what are we looking at there? Those guys all sound alike. They all look alike. A lot of the movies come from certain schools of thought and ways of being. All those men came out of the years they were born, in the ’30s and ’40s and ’50s. Now when we talk about the movies that come out now, all those people were born in certain years and they did certain things and it doesn’t matter. You just like what you like. If you don’t like The Godfather and you don’t like Reservoir Dogs and you don’t like Casino and you don’t like The Bicycle Thief, that’s okay. You don’t like them. That’s fine.

What do you like? Why love it? Some of these movies, you watch them and something sings in you, starts singing. Listen to the thing that starts singing in you. In the end, these schools and all of the thousands of para-academic discussions that happen around films, on Reddit and everywhere else, are just people being critics, not in a boo I hate it or yay love it way, but rather in an analysis way. People are critiquing films. They’re analyzing films. They’re discussing them. They’re breaking them down. What they’re not doing is creating anything. They’re just contributing to the howling tornado of film opinion. In that howling tornado, there are about three or four people I’ve ever listened to where I thought, oh, I’d like to listen to them more talk about movies. I’d like to listen to them more talk about television. My answer is, the ones that make you sing. Those are the ones.

I don’t care what they choose to teach in film school, at all. In fact, I almost feel like don’t watch those movies. Go find other ones, because all you’ll end up doing is you’re in a camp where they’re all teaching you how to play Kumbaya. Then you leave and you start writing Kumbaya-like songs. Just go listen to your own music. Do your own thing. Do I sound like a hippie or do I sound like… I don’t know.

**Megana:** It also relates to the thing you were saying about My Favorite Martian. If you were going to an institution where someone was teaching you something, they’re teaching you the things that were important or meaningful to them, but those references have changed because you are a different age than them. You are a different person than them. I feel like there’s a lot of parallels to what you were saying earlier on that too.

**Craig:** I just feel like I’m on an island sometimes. I feel like I’m alone.

**Megana:** I guess you are your own sort of little cult leader, like, “Do what makes your heart sing.” I don’t know what you would call your acolytes, your followers, the Mazinites?

**Craig:** I wouldn’t have any. I would say that that’s already disqualifying. You fail to be a Mazinite if you’re following me.

**Megana:** That wouldn’t stop them.

**Craig:** Really what I’m saying is be your own cult leader and make sure that your cult is a cult of one person, which is you, and show us something new, or just show us something you. Why do we care what six grouches in a conference room that smells like bad coffee think we should watch? Bicycle Thieves, by the way, not The Bicycle Thief. I’m an idiot.

**Megana:** We’re almost done with the 20 questions. We have one more.

**Craig:** Great.

**Megana:** Spencer asks, “I’ve heard from a few different sources that one learns more from writing a large number of scripts and focusing on quantity over perfecting a single project over the course of several drafts. However, no one talks about the point at which one should put that script down, after just one draft, after two or three. While I feel comfortable putting a script down when I feel like it’s good, what is the point at which the learning stops and I should start a new project?”

**Craig:** Wouldn’t it be nice, Spencer, if there were a graph, we could just go, draft amount quality increase, chart it, hit the sweet spot, and stop there? I don’t know if one learns more from writing a large number of scripts and focusing on quantity. Focusing on quantity is a weird way to start. Over-perfecting a single project over the course of several drafts, here’s the uncomfortable truth. If you want to be a professional writer and continue to work and have a lengthy career, you need to both focus on quality and perfecting a project over the course of several drafts, and quantity. You have to do it a lot.

I think sometimes when it’s early, you think, is it better to write eight different scripts or is it better to write eight different drafts. The answer is, write 400 drafts. That’s the answer. You can say that those 400 drafts are over three movies or they’re over 58 movies. Doesn’t matter. You just have to write way more than you think. Way more. If you’re worried now about whether you should be doing two or three drafts a script or should you be doing five drafts a script, those numbers are not different. They’re the same number, as far as I’m concerned. Quantity of scripts will create a lot of pdfs. Nobody cares. You want to talk about a quantity of scripts, the collective screenwriting humanity has written a massive quantity of scripts. You are competing against the rest of the world. You’re not going to hit their output, which is four million bad scripts a day. I would try and write one good one. How about that? You know what? There we go, Spencer. Just start and say you are allowed to write and focus on quantity when you’ve written one good one.

Now when people say you learn more from writing a large number of scripts and focusing on quantity, I have no idea how that functions. It could be that if you write lots and people give you lots and lots of feedback and each one gets better, then yes. I wouldn’t call that quantity as much as evolution and improvement. At some point you need to be able to write good enough to be a professional screenwriter.

Is it better to perfect one pitch or learn five pitches? Doesn’t matter, if you’re never going to be a Major League Baseball pitcher. Probably a false dichotomy. Most of these questions I just end up disputing the premise and then saying a lot of things that must cause tremendous discomfort in people, because what I do is I sow uncertainty. I sow uncertainty because indeed it is uncertain.

**Megana:** We all have to be more comfortable with it. I think you’re doing us a service, all of us Mazinites.

**Craig:** Dammit. I don’t want anyone in this church. Get out. That’s how all my sermons begin, with, “Get out.” All right, well, if you’re not going to get out…

**Megana:** You can’t help but speak in slogans. Like you said, what did you say, be you, be…

**Craig:** See how bad that slogan was?

**Megana:** No, you had a really good rhyme. I wish I could rewind this and go back.

**Craig:** You’ll be able to later. I have perhaps the trappings of a cult leader, without any of the ambition.

**Megana:** What is the line?

**Craig:** They always say you want to elect someone who does not want to be president. That’s the person you want to elect as president. I do not want to be a cult leader.

**Megana:** It will inevitably happen precisely because you don’t want to be a cult leader.

**Craig:** I can’t wait to just disappoint people on a weekly basis as I refuse for us all to live in one compound, and I insist that we do not randomly murder people to make a point.

**Megana:** The cult is wondering, Craig, what is your One Cool Thing for this week?

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing for this week, so everyone is caught up in Wordle, of course, Wordle Qordle Septidurdle Schmurdle Fertile Framle Lamle. That’s exciting. As somebody who is an avid solver and loves puzzles of all kinds, I love it when everybody nerds out over puzzles. I wasn’t surprised to see the New York Times, of course, bought them, and we discussed this before. I wanted to call out a little bit of old-school New York Times variety, since people are interested now in what I would call a variety puzzle. It’s not a crossword, for instance. The New York Times also features variety puzzles. If you have a subscription to their puzzle service, which is not too expensive, and I think much worth it, they have the typical things like Sudoku and so forth. They have, every Sunday, in addition to the Sunday Times crossword puzzle, there is a variety puzzle.

There’s a kind of puzzle called Split Decisions, where there’s pathways of letters that then split and then resume. There might be three letters in a row, and then it splits, and on either side there’s two letters, and then it resumes with another four letters. There are words where the only difference between them are those two letters in the middle. As you fill them through and they cross each other, you’re able to fill the whole grid. It’s fun. I think one of the more venerable forms is the acrostic. Have you ever done an acrostic, Megana?

**Megana:** I’m Googling it now. Is this just a crossword puzzle?

**Craig:** It is not at all. An acrostic is, in its traditional form, is a quote, some sort of pithy quote. Maybe it’s 20 words long. It is presented to you in grid format, just straight across, white squares, black squares separating the words. Then you are given a list of clues below. They’re not for the words in the quote. They’re their own things. As you fill those in, under each letter is a number. All of the letters in the quote have a number. You’re answering one kind of clue and then assigning those letters to various spots in the quote above. As you begin to fill in the quote above, you can start figuring out some of the clues below. As you figure out the clues below, you can figure out the quotes above. It is a really interesting way of doing things.

There is a lovely reveal at the end, because you get a really interesting answer and all of the letters, the first letters of these things will ultimately also spell out the name of the author and the book or source from which the quote comes. It’s all very clever. It’s well done. You can do it online, which is the best way to do it. When you do it on paper, it is tedious. “Okay, so this letter goes to, oh, here. This one goes to this.” Online it’s super easy to do.

I believe they’re a husband and wife team, Emily Cox and Henry Rathvon, have been doing the New York Times acrostic for as long as I can remember. Every two weeks, without fail, they deliver. It’s wonderful. It’s like a mystery. It resolves itself a little bit like a mystery. It’s fun to watch it all come together. If you love puzzles and you do have a New York Times crossword puzzle subscription, definitely on every other Sunday online check out under variety puzzles right there the acrostic by Emily Cox and Henry Rathvon.

**Megana:** Very cool.

**Craig:** How about you?

**Megana:** My One Cool Thing for this week is a podcast called Not Past It. It’s produced by Gimlet and hosted by Simone Polanen, who is one of my dear college friends. That’s why it’s also not weird if I say that if honey could speak, it would sound like Simone.

**Craig:** Oh, my.

**Megana:** She has a lovely speaking voice. She’s very smart and very talented. The premise of the podcast is each week they look at something that happened that week in history and provide more cultural context and history around it. She has a lovely episode called The Last Queen of Hawaii. Spoiler alert, the US government does not look good in this story.

**Craig:** Wait, what?

**Megana:** Yeah, I know, shocking.

**Craig:** We’re the greatest country on Earth.

**Megana:** I know. She has another episode called World’s Most Famous Virgins. It’s spectacular. In 30 minutes she goes from the Virgin Mary to the Jonas Brothers and George Bush purity politics.

**Craig:** That’s amazing.

**Megana:** Lots of fun episodes. Really bold swings. Give it a listen. It’s called Not Past It.

**Craig:** I love that you’ve referenced in the notes here Mary’s immaculate conception. Even Catholics a lot of times will mistakenly believe that the concept of the immaculate conception refers to the conception of Jesus, but it does not. It refers to the conception of Mary herself.

**Megana:** This is so fascinating to me. The biological mechanisms that they traced sin with are so interesting. Something she talks about is how I guess the Catholic Church determined that original sin from them taking this bite of the forbidden apple was then solidified or manifested in Adam’s sperm, so all of us who are the product of sexual relations are burdened with–

**Craig:** We’re tainted.

**Megana:** We’re tainted. We’re tainted.

**Craig:** We’re tainted. Something had to break that line, and they had to break it when Mary was born.

**Megana:** Mary could not have been a product of sin because then she wouldn’t have been pure, but then what about Mary’s mom?

**Craig:** Mary’s mom was sinful and that’s the miracle is that somehow Mary was born without sin. You could say, hey, Catholic Church, if you can just stop it wherever you want, just stop with Jesus, or what about Mary’s grandma, whatever, the rest? That’s when you realize that all of modern religion in this fashion is as if 8,000 years from now people discovered this ancient record called The Simpsons, believed it was true, and then built an entire series of laws and moral determinations around it. There was no Garden of Eden. It’s so stupid, but it’s very organized.

**Megana:** It’s the power of storytelling, Craig.

**Craig:** I know, cult. It is a cult. That’s what it is, just all cults.

**Megana:** That’s our episode for this week.

**Craig:** Who’s Scriptnotes produced by?

**Megana:** Megana Rao.

**Craig:** What? Who’s it edited by?

**Megana:** Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Our outro is by whom?

**Megana:** Let’s just go ahead and say Matthew Chilelli. We haven’t picked one out yet.

**Craig:** If you at home have an outro, to whom or to where should you send a link?

**Megana:** To ask@johnaugust.com.

**Craig:** Oh. That must also be a place where they can send longer questions, but for shorter questions on Twitter–

**Megana:** Where are you at, Craig?

**Craig:** I am @clmazin and John is @johnaugust. We must have T-shirts. They’re surely great. They’re from Cotton Bureau. Megana, where can we find the show notes for this episode and all episodes?

**Megana:** At johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

**Craig:** That’s all great and fine, but what if I want to sign up to become a Premium Member? Where do I go?

**Megana:** You can sign up at scriptnotes.net, which is also where you can get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record.

**Craig:** Right now. Megana, that was a joy. Honestly, if people at home aren’t clamoring for you and I to do this every day, there’s something wrong with them.

**Megana:** You guys can request more content with hashtag #craigana.

**Craig:** Yes! Hashtag #craigana. Thank you, Megana. That was fantastic.

**Megana:** That was fun. Thanks for a fun episode, Craig.

[Bonus Segment]

**Craig:** What should we talk about today on our Bonus Segment for these fine folk?

**Megana:** I think that it’s time for us to face on issues of millennials.

**Craig:** It’s happened. I’ve been clamoring for this for a while as well. Megana is a millennial extraordinaire. Unlike a lot of my grouchy generational cohort, I love millennials. I think they’re great. Millennials are better at a lot of things than we were. Also, millennials, as they get into their dotered ages, the dotage, as they arrive at dotage, meaning they’re in their 30s and 40s, they’re going to be running this business. I’m going to need a job. I need millennials to take care of me. I think it’s time for us to dig in a little bit more into this generation that a lot has been said about, but probably quite a few misconceptions have been formed about, and who are indeed going to be shortly assuming the mantle of being in charge of this whole place. Megana, it hasn’t happened yet. Millennials have not yet taken over Hollywood, but surely it’s coming.

**Megana:** I think I would argue that it is happening. Phoebe Waller-Bridge is a millennial, Greta Gerwig, Michaela Coel, Chloe Zhao. I think that there are a lot of millennials who are doing exciting things in Hollywood right now.

**Craig:** There are a lot of exciting millennial artists. The question is, where are the millennials who are in charge? I think about Hollywood, and Hollywood has always been very good at exploiting the young. They practically invented the art of it. When it comes to running things, I do remember when I started out, most of the people that were running things were white men who were seemingly between 50 and 60. Right now the people that seem to be running things seem to largely be white men and women between 50 and 60. Is that always going to be the thing? Are millennials going to get there a little faster? It certainly seems like the one thing that your generation is not patient about is changing stuff.

**Megana:** Are you saying in terms of studio heads and executive leadership?

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m saying why haven’t you stormed the Bastille yet and taken over? In I think it was the ’80s, CAA was swarmed from a bunch of, they called them the Young Turks, but I think they were all in their 30s. They were the millennials of their time and broke away from the old, frumpy agencies and began their own thing. It seems like that some sort of millennial revolution is going to happen sooner or later. There are some things that are built in to the way life functions right now that might make it a little bit more difficult for them than it was say for Baby Boomers in the ’80s, specifically the fact that our world is falling apart, slightly.

**Megana:** I don’t know. I wonder if there’s some economic reasons why it would be tougher for millennials and the industry to assume that sort of risk.

**Craig:** Oh, really? You seem to be suggesting that perhaps there have been some sort of multi-year pandemic and shutdown and that housing costs were at an all-time high and that the entertainment industry itself had undergone some sort of minor upheaval, like the disappearance of the theatrical film business. Things are changing too damn fast. It’s hard to get a hold on it.

**Megana:** Also, things aren’t changing fast enough. As we’ve talked about with the Pay Up Hollywood stuff, the cost of living in LA is increasing very quickly, but other things like wages are not matching that.

**Craig:** Millennials found themselves trapped in between two things. The business is transforming, but on the other side all this other stuff isn’t transforming, but just continuing, including, I think probably, as much as Hollywood likes to pat itself on the back, diversity at the higher levels of things probably is not where it ought to be. I think we can say for sure. I don’t know, from my point of view, as Oldie Olderson, to seem rather hopeful, I will say from my longer point of view, things are definitely better now in lots of ways than they were back then. Shall I count the ways or will it be depressing?

**Megana:** No, I’d like to hear it.

**Craig:** For one, the consciousness around diversity didn’t exist. I’m not going to say that it’s higher now. It literally did not exist at all. No one talked about it. If you were to say something like, “Oh, that’s weird, everyone in this room is a man,” then somebody would be like, “Whatever. Shut up.” No one would care. Much less, “There’s no one in here who is a person of color.” No one cared about anything. It just was not a topic at all. That has changed dramatically, and certainly for the better. The ability to make yourself known to the world was a zero back then.

Now everyone has a megaphone to the planet. What we do with the megaphone, certainly there are toxic impacts. Everyone does have a megaphone to the planet. The amount of material that’s made now is I believe larger than it was then. We can say, “Hold on, they made lots and lots of movies back then.” Yeah, true, but there were essentially three networks, and now there are streamers that put out so much context. Netflix alone I think makes more stuff in a year than everybody combined made in 1994. There is more stuff, but I suspect that you’re going to tell me, there are some areas where things are worse or have not improved at all.

**Megana:** I think with more content and the more shows that we’re getting from streamers and places like Netflix, we’re also seeing shorter season orders and smaller rooms, and so whereas on a network show in the ’90s you would have, what, a 22-episode season?

**Craig:** Yeah, or 26 episodes, something like that, something nuts.

**Megana:** If you were a staff writer on that show, there’d be so many opportunities for you to write an episode or go to set, because there’s just more material to be written and to be worked on. Now it seems like you have to elbow your way in to get one out of six or eight episodes on a streamer.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. That’s a great point. The streaming business has introduced a slight McDonaldsization to how we employ people. The people who are always going to get squeezed by that are the people who are on the younger end of things. In your cohort, is there any sense that at least you’re no longer the rookies, that it’s Generation Z are in the rookie zone, and you guys have a little bit of seasoning, picking up a little bit of authority as you progress through this business?

**Megana:** Gosh, I don’t know, it’s hard because right now the mood feels so like we’re all sort of coming out of this sluggish, depressive few years. I talked to so many millennials who have been assistants for sometimes over 10 years and I don’t think that that’s something that older generations necessarily dealt with. I would imagine that it’s more like welcome to the bottom.

**Craig:** Oh, my. Welcome to the bottom, that’s a decent title for… That’s depressing.

**Megana:** Not for all millennials. I don’t know whether that’s because the idea of pursuing film and television as a career has become more popular, so the people who are pursuing this, the pool has expanded. I don’t know, I’m curious what you think about that.

**Craig:** Everyone talks about everything more, so yes, it’s possible that everybody wants to do this. I think there is more of a sense that everybody can do anything they want, because access in a way became both worse and better at the same time. I guess when everybody has a megaphone, nobody’s listening to anyone, so there is that problem. I’m part of the weirdest generation, Generation X. We don’t know what the hell we are. We never considered ourself really generational. Nobody likes Baby Boomers. I think we can all agree on that. They’re the worst. Even they agree. They know. They know they’re the worst. I don’t think we ever thought of ourselves as a cohort in a really weird way. I just didn’t. Is there a sense among millennials and/or Generation Z that Generation X is the problem, that we’re the ones that are blocking the path up or creating that kind of permanent bottom?

**Megana:** No. I think we should just continue to blame everything on the Boomers.

**Craig:** Great. Thank God.

**Megana:** Do you think it’s Generation X that is the problem? I don’t think it is. Generation X, let’s define terms, that’s 45 to 55?

**Craig:** Yeah, I think that’s about right. Let’s see, Generation X is born between 1965 and 1980, so I’m a younger Generation X kind of person. It seem like actually you can go even up to 62 kind of thing. Oh no, 1965 is just 57. Then 1980 is young. Now we’re talking about 42. 42 to 57. Let’s just call it 40s and 50s. That seems reasonable. The 40s and 50s people, we are mostly in charge of this business. There are definitely some Baby Boomers sitting on boards and thing, but not too many that are still in charge, I think. It seems like we’re the ones that are in charge. I don’t know, I hope that we would be doing better than our Boomer people before us.

For a generation that has been labeled as soft and afraid and fragile, it’s endured quite a bit. I don’t see that as a reality. I worry about this permanent bottom thing. That’s bad news. There’s something that happened, I noticed, in the feature business, where studios empowered producers, and producers became incredibly abusive of screenwriters, and it got to the point where essentially we were running out of screenwriters, because everyone just left. Nobody wanted to do it. Either they never got a chance to get good because they were replaced constantly and treated like widgets, or they fled to television. We were running out of feature writers.

Towards the end of my feature career, because I started really concentrating on TV, I was getting a stupid amount of calls for work, to the point where I’m like, “I am not this good. I don’t deserve this number of phone calls. No one’s left. This means no one’s left.” When I say no one’s left, no one’s left who has 20 years of experience. No one was allowed to become experienced. Everybody who wasn’t allowed to become experienced was punished for their inexperience, and so all that was left were the few people from my generation that had been allowed to become experienced, who essentially had been allowed to fail, because they kept making movies. They were doing things. We were taught.

There’s no system for teaching. I’m worried that the same thing is happening everywhere, that no one is allowed to learn and be taught, and so we run out of people to come and refresh the troops, to be the new A-list people of tomorrow. For all the lip service that we pay to bringing new kinds of people in, it doesn’t matter if we don’t teach and nourish the next group. This is nerve-wracking to me. Actually, I’m shooketh, as millennials say. I’m shooketh.

**Megana:** I have a question for you, because I think feature films are interesting, because I had a friend who also pointed out that a part of this problem with trying to have a career as a feature writer as a younger person is that the mid-range studio films don’t really exist anymore.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**Megana:** It’s very hard, and reflective of what we’re seeing is that it’s almost impossible to go from being someone who’s making these low-budget indies to then being granted the reins to a major studio tent pole. To your point about teaching, who taught you? What was your process like? Do you think that it was the opportunity to make some of those mid-tier movies?

**Craig:** Yes, which is all I made for a while, because the movies that I made, generally speaking, cost between $18 million and $50 million. That was the meat and potatoes of our business, movies that weren’t tent poles, that weren’t massive budget items, that were producable and shootable and makable and releasable. If they failed, they failed. If they hit, they really hit. That was great. Everybody loved that. That was where you learned. There was a lot of it. Then there were rewrites and there’d be other rewrites, but you learned, because there was stuff to move around in between. Then it all just went away. Who do people hire? When they don’t have a lot of stuff to make, they hire the most experienced, quote unquote, best writers they can find who are available, because there’s not that much stuff. Then what happens? Those people age up.

As we get older, we start to lose touch. Our goodness becomes more narrowed to certain areas and we are less good in other areas. Comedy, notably. I’m not being ageist. I’m just being factual, that people who are in their 60s cannot possibly be plugged into what is culturally relevant to people in their 20s in the way the people in their 20s are. Just factually impossible. There was nobody then left to turn to, because so few people had been trained, because there was nothing to train them with.

It was like if you get rid of the Minor Leagues in baseball and you just go, look, everybody has to just come from high school and then we’re going to throw you into the Major Leagues and you’re good or you’re not good. No one’s trained. You just keep going, okay, well let’s just trade for the people who have been trained in the Minor Leagues when they existed. Then those people all get old and then what do you do?

I’m worried that the same thing is happening in television because of the way, like you say, the shorter season orders, the mini rooms, how fast things go. People don’t get trained. They cannot grow up with this system. They start carping at each other and blaming each other for things, because when there’s scarce resources, people start to hurt each other in their attempt to get those scarce resources. It’s a mess. Basically, what I’m saying is I’m worried about your generation, especially when I’m saying, okay, people have been an assistant for 10 years. Some people want to be assistants. There’s nothing wrong with that. If you don’t, and you’re on your 10th year, that’s problematic.

**Megana:** Last question for you, I see the benefits of what you’re saying and how it would grow the next generation of writers, creators, directors, executives, people to move up into leadership roles. Do you think that there are business benefits towards doing that, because I don’t think that it would necessarily change unless there was an economic impact that studios would also see.

**Craig:** A massive benefit for studios. It’s research and development. Other industries understand this inherently, but in Hollywood, everyone is so focused on what you just did and are you making money right now that they don’t have time to think about sowing a field for the future. As far as they’re concerned, they’re going to get fired soon anyway also. What are they doing? Growing the next generation of brilliant writers to benefit the person that knocked them off the perch? This is the issue. I’ve said as much to people who run studios, that ultimately somebody is going to be left without a chair in the musical chairs game, and they’re not going to have people who are any good to write these things, because they’re not being trained properly at all and they don’t care. They don’t care, because that’s going to be somebody else’s problem.

If I were the chairman of one of these corporations, not just the person running the studio, chairman of one of these corporations, the answer is pretty simple. Look, there’s certainly plenty of good in what they call their training programs, which are almost exclusively focused at increasing diversity in the hiring pool. Those are fine, but they’re not the same thing as getting hired and working. The experience of being hired and working in the real situation, not a simulation, but the real deal, live fire on the battlefield, there’s nothing like it. That’s how you learn. That and that alone is really how you learn. They are not going to get, they meaning the businesses, are not going to get the people they need at the level they want unless they start increasing those opportunities and that means paying people and keeping them on longer so that they can live and afford a home and can have a family and learn and get better. We had this for, I don’t know, 100 years, and then we just suddenly went, meh.

**Megana:** That’s really helpful. I’m also interested to hear what other people have to say and would love for people to write in with their experiences.

**Craig:** Yes, and as always, tell me I’m wrong. I would love to be wrong about this, but I’m worried.

**Megana:** Unshake Craig.

**Craig:** Yeah. I want to be an optimist. I do. I think every pessimist wants to be an optimist. This is not a rosy picture. The fact that my generation’s cranky about your generation isn’t going to help. Tell me I’m wrong or tell me I’m not even right enough. That’s my other favorite kind, like, “You weren’t angry enough.” Sorry.

**Megana:** As always, do what makes your heart sing.

**Craig:** Do what makes your heart sing.

Links:

* [Logitech K860 has Bluetooth!](https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/keyboards/k860-split-ergonomic.920-009166.html)
* [Take this typing test -](https://www.typingtest.com/test.html?minutes=2&textfile=benchmark.txt) Craig got a 110 wpm!
* [Barton Fink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Fink)
* [Chernobyl](https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl), [Chernobyl Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-chernobyl-podcast/id1459712981) and [The Dropout](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dropout)
* [60 Seconds With Emily Cox and Henry Rathvon](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/crosswords/who-made-my-puzzle-cox-rathvon.html) and puzzle [here](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/27/acrostic)
* [Not Past It](https://gimletmedia.com/shows/not-past-it) Podcast
* [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 Matthew Chilelli ([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/544standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 540: Nice to Meet-Cute You, Transcript

April 18, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/nice-to-meet-cute-you).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 540 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, how do we get characters to meet each other, and can we make it adorable? We’re looking at the history and mechanics of the meet-cute in rom-coms and beyond.

Then we’ll be digging into our overflowing mailbag to take a look at listener questions on brands, managers, and what a novelist should expect when selling a book to Hollywood.

In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we’ll discuss onboarding. How do you get somebody started in a story, and particularly in reference to a new game called Elden Ring, which Craig and I have been dying in a lot.

**Craig:** Yes, indeed. John, I just noticed that I should bring this to everyone’s attention that because we’re going to be doing some listener questions, that means that Megana’s going to be with us. You mentioned that we had some questions on managers. I just noticed that managers anagrams to Megana Sr, so I thought it was important to share that with her.

**John:** Oh my gosh, that’s really important. Now we know.

**Megana Rao:** You have such a special brain.

**Craig:** Isn’t it?

**John:** It’s a good special brain.

**Craig:** It sure is.

**John:** We can’t get started on this show that we’re recording on the 5th day of March, 2022, without talking about the change in the world order that’s happened this last couple weeks. Your boy Zelenskyy of Ukraine, who you met doing Chernobyl, is trying to keep Ukraine from falling to the Russian invasion. It’s a lot going on here.

**Craig:** It’s such a mess, and it’s so tragic. Ukraine, which regardless of what Putin says, is in fact a nation with an incredibly long history, has been invaded for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than Putin being a dick. Currently Ukraine is fighting back. If you know Ukrainians and if you’ve been to Ukraine, that part shouldn’t be a surprise. Similarly, the kind of Keystone Cops clown party that is the Russian military is also not surprising. If you have an incompetent massive army versus an incredibly competent and small amount of people, of course it means that there are going to be and there have been Russian casualties and Ukrainian casualties, but also quite a number of civilians have died in Ukraine. This is absolutely heartbreaking.

President Zelenskyy, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has proven himself to be just about the most remarkable leader I think I’ve seen in my lifetime in terms of a political leader. I just don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like this in my lifetime. There were people that you and I have been taught about in school and Megana’s been taught about in school, and they seem so fricking far away from what we’ve had. Here is this guy who’s just been absolutely heroic, dodging assassins, remaining with his people, and rallying the world. He’s a wonderful person.

He’s also one of us, John. He’s a writer. He’s a performer. He’s an actor. He came out of the industry. He very famously played the part of the president of Ukraine. He was a comic writer and a comic actor, and a very good one. I was actually supposed to meet with him again when he came to the United States a few months ago, but he had to change his schedule so that he was going to meet with Biden. There’s your answer.

**John:** He made choices. It’s a tough choice but he made his choice.

**Craig:** There’s your answer. Anybody was wondering who’s more important, me or the President of the United States, Joseph Biden, the answer is Biden. I’m very grateful that he’s still alive. For all the people that I have met in Ukraine, I’ve talked to a few of them who are there or have left but are safe and sound, I’m very pleased that they are all still alive. I don’t pray, but I surely do hope fervently that this ends quickly.

**John:** Watching this over the course of the last week, I’ve just really been struck by the degree to which it does feel like we’re seeing history being made, because clearly, one order is falling and a new order is beginning. Whenever you’re seeing history happen, you’re always wondering, okay, how is this going to end. You try to think of this as a story, try to think of what are the next beats, how does this all go. It’s a natural instinct. I was frustrated by the desire to cast the movie at the very start, because it’s just in the opening pages of this.

It can be useful to look back in history and find the story in it, but finding the story in the moment as it’s actually happening I think can be a very dangerous and destructive thing, because it can take you away from the actual realities of what’s in front of you, because then when reality doesn’t match the story you’ve had anticipated, you’re caught flatfooted. I felt caught flatfooted by when Russia clearly going to invade, I kept thinking every morning I was going to wake up and see, okay, Ukraine has fallen. Then when I didn’t, I was like, oh, it’s awesome that they didn’t. Then it sets this pattern for… I keep trying to rewrite the story and it doesn’t match my expectations, rather than looking at what the actual facts are on the ground. Stories are fantastic, but facts are more important.

**Craig:** Just the way that when you and I were kids, nobody really cared about the Box Office. The news didn’t report the Box Office. Then suddenly it became something that everybody talked about and cared about. The adaptation of history into the dramatization has become so prominent and so frequent, and the window between event and dramatization has shrunk so dramatically, that people immediately start doing this. I find it rather upsetting actually. People are fighting for their lives, and I’m getting tweets like, “You should do Chernobyl part two.” I’m like, guys, that’s not how this works.

**John:** When we do a How Would This Be A Movie segment, obviously we’re not doing one on Ukraine. When we do those, it’s because there’s a unique slice of story that is finished, that we can look at and have some relatives to things. I don’t think anything about the Ukraine situation is finished to a degree that we should be looking at the adaptation.

**Craig:** No. There are small events or interesting bits of true crime or weirdness that you can just go ahead and make a story about, but when you’re dealing with unfolding history, the most important gift to the dramatizer, assuming that they are doing the right thing, is perspective. Perspective requires time. How in God’s name could anybody write a… You can’t write Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s List in 1943. It’s insane. We need time to see what happens and to absorb it. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but in the long run I have to believe that Ukraine, a nation and a people that have suffered dramatically throughout the 20th century and now here in the 21st, will prevail. That’s just my great, great hope. I don’t know how, and I don’t know how long it’s going to take, and I don’t know what it’s going to look like.

**John:** All you can do is watch and take the actions that hopefully will get you to the place you want to end up, rather than assuming the story’s going to end up there.

**Craig:** You know the way people now will go back, listen to early episodes of our increasingly long running podcast and say things like, “Oh my god, listened to you guys before Donald Trump was elected, ha ha. Lol so innocent.” That’s the point.

**John:** We didn’t know what was going to happen.

**Craig:** No, and we don’t know now. If you’re listening to this 12 years from now, you might be giggling at how absolutely stupid we were, because it turned out that everything ended on… They recorded it on March 5th. March 6th the Russians left and then blah blah. Then it turned out that Zelenskyy was terrible.

**John:** Zelenskyy was not who you think.

**Craig:** I’m sure you are laughing at us. That’s the point. We don’t have perspective yet at all.

**John:** That’s why you should not even be thinking about making the movie now or telling the story now, because there’s not a story to tell.

**Craig:** What we’re saying, Megana, is stop writing the script.

**John:** Stop your adaptation.

**Craig:** Stop it, Megana.

**John:** Megana, what you can do for us is give us some follow-up. We have a letter here from Derek in Provo, Utah.

**Megana:** Derek wrote in and said, “In Episode 536 you gave a lot of great explanations for why the movie is never as good as the book. I just watched a really interesting video that explained the human mind’s bias for thinking that, even when it’s not statistically true. Here’s where the bias comes in. We humans don’t generally care about bad adaptations of unremarkable books. When thinking of adaptations of good books, we can think of lots of good and bad examples. It’s likely that the only adaptations of bad or unremarkable books you could think of right off the bat are all pretty good, because that’s the only situation in which that kind of adaptation would be remarkable.

“It turns out this is a phenomenon that applies to various attribute relationships called Berkson’s Paradox. That means these biases act sort of like a filter, accentuating the correlations that are already there, to the point where people feel totally comfortable making ridiculous claims like the book is always better than the movie, or even Hollywood ruins books.”

**Craig:** Makes sense.

**John:** I wasn’t familiar with Berkson’s Paradox, but it also reminds me of the phenomenon of silent evidence, which is that you can see these two things and say, oh, there must be a correlation here, but then also you’re not actually looking for all the other examples of things that would show those aren’t correlated or that there’s other things out there that you just haven’t paid any attention to because they weren’t what you were looking for. That does feel true to this idea that all book adaptations are bad book adaptations, because you’re only looking at the ones you happen to notice.

**Craig:** That is really interesting. Thank you for sharing that with us, Derek. Let’s file Berkson’s Paradox under our big header Our Brains Stink, because they do. Every time I hear about one of these things, I do think, oh, I’m going to try and avoid doing that.

**John:** I’ll push back. Our brains don’t stink. Our brains were designed to do very specific things. They’re designed to keep us alive, to regulate our body temperature and our internal processes and to make sure we didn’t get eaten by predators. The things that we were selected for got us here. They’re great, but they’re not really good at judgment calls about which book adaptations turned into movies in a good way and whether that’s systematically true.

**Craig:** What’s more important than that though?

**John:** Nothing’s more important than that. Literature to film adaptation, the cinematic history of that is the most important thing. It’s much like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, absolutely at the top, or the base. It’s the whole pyramid.

**Craig:** We can do calculus, and that’s super amazing, but we’re blowing this fundamental requirement we have to properly analyze the relationship. Anyway, I like hearing about these new biases and logical mistakes that we make.

**John:** We’re all fallacies. We’re all fallacies. Let’s get to our marquee topic. This is the meet-cute. This is based on last week’s installment of the newsletter Interesting, where Chris looked at the original of the term meet-cute. It turns out, I didn’t know where this actually came from, but it goes back to 1941. I thought it was much more recent. There’s this book, this mystery novel, Case of the Solid Key, in which a character says, “We met cute, as they say in story conferences.” It’s already in existence by 1941.

From Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter, a character explains, “Dear boy, the beginning of a movie is childishly simple. The boy and the girl meet. The only important thing to remember is that in a movie, the boy and the girl must meet in some cute way. They cannot meet like normal people, perhaps at a cocktail party or other social function. No, it is terribly important that they meet cute.”

**Craig:** I actually thought that this phrase meet-cute or this term meet-cute was older than that, because it is so damn weird. It has always bothered me. It should be meet cutely or cutely meet. Why is it meet cute?

**John:** Cute may be one of those words that can function adverbially.

**Craig:** It cannot.

**John:** Maybe it could at one point. I think that’s why you thought it was archaic.

**Craig:** I refuse. I will not use cute as an adverb. Also, it’s backwards. It’s German. Instead of cutely meet, it’s meet cute.

**John:** Meet cute.

**Craig:** It’s meet cute. It always bothered me. It was one of those terms, Megana I’m curious if you have had this too, when you first get to Hollywood and people start throwing jargon around, I had no idea what the hell they were talking about when they said meet cute, to be honest with you. I also didn’t know what a set piece was. They kept talking about set pieces, and I was like, “Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.” In my mind I’m like, “What’s a set piece?” Megana, see, back then we did not have the internet. Actually, there was an internet, but it wasn’t really the internet. There wasn’t even Google. I don’t know, Megana, now does everybody know everything because of the internet before they get here?

**Megana:** You would think, but I don’t think that the internet has really helped people.

**Craig:** That’s curious.

**John:** I’d be curious whether a non-screenwriter person would know what a meet-cute was. Is that just a thing that’s just out there in culture? I think we’re going to commission a Scriptnotes survey of a thousand households and figure out whether they know the term meet-cute and if they’re involved in the film industry at all. It’d have to be a non-Los Angeles sampling of people.

**Megana:** As rom-coms have become more self-aware, I feel like they do reference them in The Holiday, the Nancy Meyers classic. They have a whole scene about the meet-cute.

**Craig:** It’s become meta, in other words. Got it.

**John:** When we had Greta Gerwig on the show, she was talking about the structural changes she made to the adaptation of Little Women so that she could introduce the eventual love interest very early on in the story, because she said that the first person you see that character with is the person you feel like they need to end up with at the end. I think that is also just what we’ve learned about romantic comedies, watching romantic comedies. She recognized that the audience was not going to be happy with her ending up with this guy who showed up late in the story.

**Craig:** That makes total sense.

**John:** They need to have a meet-cute.

**Craig:** They need to have a meet-cute. I guess part of this concept, and it connects back to what we were just talking about with stories and history and things, when we meet other people in a non-meet-cute way, another couple, eventually someone’s going to say, “How did you guys meet?” with the expectation that there’s going to be good story, when in fact it’s never really good.

**John:** Almost never. Puts weird pressure on things.

**Craig:** You know how I met Melissa? I was running across the street because I was late for a big meeting where I was going to get a promotion or be fired, and she was running the other way with an armful of books, because she was on her way to an exam, and we smashed together and everything fell down and I picked up and I met her in the eyes. Then somebody honked at us and we laughed and then we left each other and then I had to find her. No.

**John:** I met Mike on a gay dating site that doesn’t exist anymore. He had a profile. I responded to it. We had talked on the phone before we actually, because pre-texting. We exchanged emails. We talked on the phone. We met for a coffee at The Abbey.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** The Abbey was not even a bar at that point. It was just a coffee shop.

**Craig:** It was a coffee shop, I remember.

**John:** Before they had a liquor license. That was our first. That was our meeting.

**Craig:** The Abbey was such a coffee place that I would just go there for coffee sometimes, because it didn’t feel like a club. If I went to The Abbey now, I think I would feel like, okay, I’m–

**John:** You would have to push all the bridal parties out of the way.

**Craig:** Oh my god, there’s so much bitterness smashed into that sentence. So much gay bitterness. Get out of my club. This is how it functions. It’s not cute. Of course, the entire concept of a romance or a romantic comedy is the enormous lie that gives us the most, as you said, adorable, heart-swelling, awe golly gee version of human relationships possible, so of course it must start in a wacky way.

**John:** Let’s take a look at first the rom-com meet-cute and then let’s generalize it back out to any two characters meeting each other, because that’s going to happen in all of our scripts. We’ll start with rom-coms. There’s basically four different patterns you can see with this character meets that character and what is the dynamic there. Sometimes they immediately have chemistry. You can see, oh, they should be together and there’s an obstacle in the way. A great example of that would be Her, is that you have Joaquin Phoenix’s character and you have the AI character, and they clearly have a spark and a thing, but she’s just an AI, so there’s an obstacle in the way there.

**Craig:** It wouldn’t be an obstacle for you.

**John:** No, not for me. Just 100%, just plug right in there.

**Craig:** Just one subroutine running into another one.

**John:** They have their mutual attraction. There’s also the mutual hatred of each other. When Harry Met Sally is a great example of that. We meet the two characters at the same time. They just do not like each other.

**Craig:** (singing)

**John:** Another dynamic that’s common is one is really into the other, and the other can’t stand the first person. The Notebook is very much that, where he’s a stalker pursuing her and eventually wears her down. Then the fourth dynamic I’d say is when they don’t know who the other person is. That’s what they did in Big Fish. That’s also Romeo and Juliet, where these two characters have this immediate spark. They don’t recognize what the obstacle is between the two of them. They can’t find each other.

**Craig:** All of these are way outside the bounds of normal human relationships. It’s actually quite rare that people meet each other and hate each other instantly or people meet each other and one hates the other instantly. The only time in my life I think I met somebody and hated them instantly was Ted Cruz. Instantly. Does that count as a meet-cute? I don’t think so.

**John:** It would count as a meet-cute if ultimately you did, down the road, fall in love together.

**Craig:** Exactly. All the vomiting has just happened. In general, when people meet each other and hate each other, they will continue to hate each other. What we like about these circumstances is the notion that we as humans just can’t quite get to where we belong, and so God or fate is going to nudge us together, because like most of the stories, ultimately it boils down to fear. I’m afraid of something, and so I am not living the best life I can. I’m living according to a different theory. Fate smushes me together with another person. If it were easy, there wouldn’t be a story. It actually has to be hard.

The point is, the nature of the meet-cute sets up, in a way, or exemplifies, in a way, the problem, that one or the other or both people have. That meet-cute is a little microcosm of why they are not with somebody that they love. By the end of the movie, they will overcome their problems and be with each other.

**John:** In any rom-com or any romantic movie, the premise of the whole thing is that central relationship. It’s understandable that there’s such a spotlight on how those two characters meet. Of course, all of our scripts and all of our stories have characters meeting each other for the first time.

Let’s generalize this to look at how you introduce two characters to each other. This can be, a few examples that Megana and I were thinking through, 21 Jump Street, how those two guys meet the first time. Only Murders in the Building was all about how those three characters meet and get hooked up. There’s this whole special mentor meet-cute situation, Training Day, Devil Wears Prada. In all these cases, you’re setting the audience expectations for where this relationship is going to go. Even though it’s not a romantic relationship, we know that that relationship is going to be important, we’re going to be following those two characters and ups and downs together throughout the course of the story.

**Craig:** For our friends out there who are writing, hopefully most of you, let’s talk about how we start. As is so often the case, we have to think about how we want it to end, and then go all the way backwards, as far as you can, as close to 180 degrees as you can get. It doesn’t have to be 180 degrees in some obvious way, but really more about the internal thing. Don’t think so much about how they care about each other in the beginning of the story or how they care about each other in the end. Think about who they are in the end. Think of who they must therefore be in the beginning. Then you might get a sense of what would be the most natural kind of thing. Even though the meet-cute is an extreme circumstance or a weird circumstance, the characters in that moment behave in the most them way possible. That’s the problem for them. That maybe will help you build your meet-cute.

**John:** Indeed. Obviously, we talk about protagonists. These are the characters who have to grow and change and face the obstacles. You can also think about that relationship as being the protagonist, the idea of that relationship growing and changing over the course of the story and facing struggles. If you think about that as idea as the protagonist, you can maybe really see the arc of what that relationship is changing to over the course of the story.

Let’s think about the situations in which characters meet. The most common one in our stories is that the audience knows one character, generally your hero, and is being introduced to the second character. That’s going to happen not in every scene, but so many scenes, where we’re getting information about this new character the same time the character, our hero is getting information about it. As a writer, we can just choose what information we want to get out, because we don’t need to tell the audience anything new about our hero necessarily. Our hero is pulling information out of this other character, or if anything, we are seeing some new side about our hero about how they are describing themselves, how they are introducing themselves to this new character.

**Craig:** It’s an interesting question, I guess, listening to you talk about that. Are there examples or would it be advisable at this point, given how many meet-cutes there have been and how now, like Megana says, there’s a meta meet-cute discussion that happens in these movies, to meet not cute, even to disregard or violate the rule that George Axelrod laid out and say meet boring? Is there value in a meet-boring?

**John:** Megana and I were talking about this. I think there’s an example of characters who know each other, but over the course of the story, that overlooked character or recontextualized character becomes important. That red shirt in Star Trek who actually does have a name and becomes useful, Hermione when she shows up in the dress. She was always just a friend. Now you’re seeing her now as a romantic character. Paul Rudd’s character in Clueless, which is that he wasn’t perceived as being a romantic character, so therefore he doesn’t get a meet-cute really as we introduce him into the story, I think very cleverly, not making him seem like a potential love interest down the road.

**Craig:** That’s an interesting method is that it’s not so much about a meet-boring, it’s about a not-meet-at-all, that even though characters are meeting, there are meetings and there are meetings. If you happen to be introduced to somebody, along with three other people in a scene, then you haven’t met that person in a meet scene. Now you just know them. That’s an interesting notion of just avoiding. It’s not so much the cute you might want to consider avoiding. It’s the meet itself.

**John:** Now, we were trying to think of examples of situations where we as an audience meet both of our central characters at the same time. This is how we’re getting information now. When Harry Met Sally is basically that situation. We’re with Billy Crystal for moments before they get in the car together. Licorice Pizza from this year literally just is this long tracking shot where we’re meeting both of these characters for the first time. They have this very long conversation, where we’re getting all the information about both of them. That’s an example of they really are setting this up as a two-hander, like these are the two people we’re going to follow and we’re starting this on equal footing.

**Craig:** As we get smarter and smarter and more and more sophisticated, because we have seen more and more versions of the same things over and over, the idea that maybe the way we approach shopworn but necessary moments like two characters meeting is to just fling ourselves in one direction or the other really far, just triple down or underplay it completely, because I don’t know if there’s room any more for Matthew McConaughey to bump into Jennifer Lopez in the middle of the street. I don’t know if we can do it anymore.

**John:** There’s no way to do it without making it feel like it’s that kind of moment, where just you can hear the music behind it. I was watching Worst Person in the World, which is I think one of the best movies of the year. I really absolutely loved it. Norwegian film. Everyone should check it out. Nominated for Best Screenplay for the Oscars, which is pretty remarkable. It does a really interesting thing about the two love interests, the two men that she meets up with and connects with over the course of the movie. Both of those meet-cutes are handled in… The first one’s just an offhanded way. She’s just talking to different people, and she talks to this guy, and that becomes the guy. The second one is a much bigger spotlight on this meet-cute moment that just extends and extends and extends in a way that’s really rewarding. The example of the first one slips in through the back door and the second one is just really aware of the tropes that… The characters are aware of the tropes that they’re entering into, which is fun.

**Craig:** That’s good, because I think smart filmmakers, smart television makers are aware, at least in part, of all the stuff that’s come before them. It’s harder and harder to say I’m doing something in a new way that hasn’t been done before, but that’s not necessary. Sometimes you just need to let the audience know that you know. I never want people to think, does he not know that that already happened a thousand times? Does he think he invented that? Because that’s just an annoying, prideful sort of thing.

**John:** Last scenario. We talked about the audience knows one character’s meeting another character for the first time. We’ve talked about where the audience knows neither character. The last example is where the audience knows both characters separately, and then we see the characters meet each other for the first time. This happens a fair amount. It happens, obviously, if you’ve seen the villain separately, and you’ve seen the hero separately, and they’re suddenly crossing paths. Think about Jack and Rose in Titanic. We establish both of those characters for a long time separately before we see them together.

**Craig:** That’s a good point.

**John:** Crazy Ship of Love does that. You’ve Got Mail does that. Even later seasons of Game of Thrones, it was just really weird when Jon Snow and Dany finally met. We spent years with these characters and they’re just meeting each other for the first time. It’s a thing that does happen.

**Craig:** That was weird.

**John:** It’s also just strange how we are so ahead of the characters in that moment, that if they were to talk about where they came from, what this stuff was, it’s not interesting to us, unless you can find a way to make that interesting, because all that we’re learning new about the characters is how they interact with this character we’ve already established.

**Craig:** It’s funny, I was just thinking about one of the strangest and most effective meet-cutes in cinematic history is in Titanic. I don’t think you would be able to do it like that today.

**John:** Remind me of the actual scene, because I’m not picturing where they first meet.

**Craig:** Rose is going to kill herself. She’s preparing to throw herself into the ocean to avoid having to marry this awful man. She is seconds away from committing suicide. Then Leonardo DiCaprio wanders out, being all cool and everything and like, “It would sure be a shame for you to suicide yourself there.” Then he pulls her back and she’s like, “Oh, sir.” The thing is, I don’t think you could do that today. On the other hand, for the tone of that movie it was perfection, just utter perfection [crosstalk 00:27:24].

**John:** Everything being elevated to where it was going.

**Craig:** You got the sense that she wasn’t actually going to jump, that she actually suddenly panicked and didn’t want to jump, which I think was very important for the tone of that, but you remember it. Actually, you didn’t.

**John:** I forgot in the moment.

**Craig:** I remember it.

**John:** Gave me an extra 20 seconds, I would’ve remembered it.

**Craig:** There you go. Very good.

**John:** It’s got that iconic imagery there. Takeaways from meet-cuting, I think it’s useful to think about all the ways characters meet in rom-coms, because if you’re writing a romantic comedy or something that deals in the general space of a rom-com, you’re going to be dealing with all the expectations of what that initial meeting’s going to be, but then to just generalize it back out to your characters are always meeting each other, so what are the situations that they’re meeting, and can or should this be an interesting, unlikely, surprising way of these two characters meeting, or should you deliberately not do that, because otherwise it sets this expectation of some kind of future for this relationship which may not be realistic.

**Craig:** Certainly don’t think that you are limited to this question for romances. There are meet-cutes across almost every genre, but in particular, when there are people that are partnering on a job together, when they are thrown into some sort of collective dramatic scenario that they didn’t know each other and now they do, whatever it is, it doesn’t have anything to do with romance. It’s really about relationship. It’s about two people who are going to have a relationship. It doesn’t matter if there’s romance. It doesn’t matter what their age is, gender, any of that stuff. Think about the meet-cuteness of things and how to apply it to the specific situation that your characters are in, as it relates to who they are and what their damage is.

**John:** Last takeaway I’ll give you is that whenever you’re introducing characters to us as the reader, as to the audience, and there’s another character there to talk with, don’t do the thing which I’ve seen in so many bad movies and so many bad scripts, where characters feel like they’re introducing themselves to a character they already should know, where you as a writer are trying to get information out, and so they’re saying it to a character who would already know that. That’s just a bad habit we need to get out of. You can feel the development notes that got into that.

**Craig:** “It’s John, the assistant DA in Trenton. It’s been a while since I’ve seen you. As I recall, we didn’t get along too well last time.”

**John:** “How’s the wife and the kids? How’s your dad who’s suffering from PTSD?”

**Craig:** Boo.

**John:** Boo, don’t like it.

**Craig:** Boo.

**John:** Now, we’ve done a lot of shows. I kind of feel like introducing a new segment to the show.

**Craig:** Great, let’s do it. (singing)

**John:** Love it. Megana, do you have a question for us?

**Megana:** I do. I had a busy week this past week.

**Craig:** (singing) On to our next thing.

**Megana:** For me, because of my entry point, I think of the writing behind a project as the genesis. I guess I had this naïve assumption that everyone else also thought that the writers and their idea or take was the most important part of a project, the foundation, but through some of my recent conversations, I am realizing that that’s not necessarily, in fact it’s very rarely the case, whether it’s this hot piece of IP or a talent attachment that’s driving the project. I guess I just had this moment where I was like, oh, that’s the shiny thing, and the writers are just this tool you can slot in to make the shiny thing shine. I’m curious whether that’s always been the case. Is that just normal for the industry? Is it normal to feel that way? Is this a more recent shift? Have I just been sheltered?

**John:** In the context of general meetings or meetings on a project, to realize, oh, okay, I’m not the most important part of the project, yes. I would say yes, certainly at my early stages in my career, but even as recent as this past week. There was a project that was sent to me. It was a book adaptation, a good book. I wanted to meet with the producers ahead of time to see what is it about this book and why are they coming to me. It became very clear that these producers, they like me, they like this book, but man, they really, really, really like this director who’s attached to the book. That was the most important part of the project, really, honestly. That was fine. That’s the way sometimes these projects go. It did influence my decision about is this a project that I should necessarily pursue based on relative value of things? At an early stage of my career, but even as of this past week, yes, I’m rarely the most important part of the project.

**Megana:** To Craig’s earlier point about jargon that you learn in Hollywood, mandate is a fairly new word for me.

**Craig:** What the hell? What does that mean? Oh, like the company’s mandate is to create a franchise-friendly event film that blah blah blah?

**Megana:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Oh, lord. You mean like what you want? Mandate.

**Megana:** I’m not saying this against… I’ve met such lovely people. This isn’t anything about them. It’s more like this coming-of-age realization where you realize the world doesn’t revolve around you and Hollywood does not revolve around writers.

**Craig:** This is fascinating. This never occurred to me. I always presumed that I had to work my way up from the baseline, which was here’s a writer that we don’t care about, who we want to spend as little money on as possible, and unless they save everything for us and make a green light happen, we want to fire them into the sun. It never occurred to me that I would be the most important part of anything. Now in television, yes, if I say, “Look, here’s a project. I want to do this thing. It’s going to be this many episodes. I will be the showrunner. I will write the episodes. I will be there every day,” then yeah, okay, clearly then I’m the producer, I’m the boss. I’m the most important part of the thing. In movies or anything else, it just never seemed possible.

**Megana:** I don’t know, we’re all writing heads over here. Even if I wasn’t in this industry, the storytelling is usually the thing that I am most attracted to in a movie anyways.

**Craig:** Of course.

**Megana:** Not that I as the writer would be the most important thing, but that’s what I think is most important. It’s a weird recontextualization where, oh, actually nobody else feels that way.

**Craig:** I’ll pretend to.

**John:** Everyone pretends to. Here’s the useful thing I think you can take out of that, is that in any project, you can just look for what’s really driving it and what is the reason why this project is exciting to this studio, these producers at this time. It goes back to what you’re asking about a mandate. What are they trying to do? What is their overall stated goal of the things they are trying to do? What things are they trying to not do? For example, this place is like, we’re not doing musicals. That’s just clearly a mandate. It’s like, great, it’s good to know that musicals are not part of it.

If you can go into a project and get a sense of what are they actually looking for and who is driving this and are they trying to make this kind of movie or that kind of movie, is incredibly helpful just in terms of both which projects you’re going to pursue and figuring out how you’re going to pursue these projects and whose notes you’re going to listen to the most. Is this really being driven by the producer? Is it being driven by that director? Is it being driven by the studio head, the actor? You got to know those things, because that’s going to really influence the work you’re going to be doing for them.

**Craig:** Megana, have you ever seen Barton Fink?

**Megana:** No, I haven’t, actually. It’s on a long list of movies.

**Craig:** It’s on a long list of things. Move it up to the top, because aside from being an absolutely brilliant film by the endless brilliant Joel and Ethan Coen, it is a fantastic exploration both of what it means to be a writer in Hollywood and what writing is and what writers block is about, and about managing your desires with what is required of you and also managing your own romantic notions of writing with the reality of writing. It’s brilliant.

There’s a couple of scenes with Tony Shalhoub. John Turturro plays a playwright, loosely based on Clifford Odets, named Barton Fink, who’s brought up to Hollywood in 1941. He’s brought out to Hollywood, which was often the case. They would bring out these playwrights to put them to work, like Fitzgerald, also a novelist. Of course these brilliant people were then put to work writing nonsense, and really struggled with it. John Turturro’s struggling a little bit. He’s been assigned a job. He’s supposed to write a Wallace Beery wrestling picture, which would be the equivalent of a Steven Seagal movie now or 10 years now. He’s struggling with it. Tony Shalhoub plays his producer, Ben Geisler, who basically says something to the effect of, “What are you talking about? It’s Wallace Beery. It’s men in tights. He hits him, he falls down. Write it.”

This is where Barton Fink just suddenly realizes, this is machinery. I’m in a machine and nobody cares about me at all. The way that the more sinister studio head, played by Michael Lerner, makes him feel like he is the center of it, and then what happens after is so brilliantly, wonderfully true. Highly recommend it. It’s a very funny movie. It’s a very weird movie. John Goodman is incredible in it. Strongly recommend Barton Fink.

**Megana:** I can’t wait. My new analogy for how I’m feeling is like a sunglass salesman at the beach. You know when you’re hanging out at the beach and these guys come up to you with their tarps full of sunglasses? I just feel like I’m going up to these different companies and I’m like, “I can unroll this and show you all the cool things that I’m working on.” They’re like, “Yeah, I’m good. I actually brought sunglasses to the beach.” I’m just going to continue bumbling down.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** There’s also a moment in those meetings where they are unrolling their sunglasses. It’s like, “Here are the sunglasses that we have that we like.” You’re not sure if you’re actually allowed to touch them or put them on. They’re talking about the things they’re working on. I do find though, looking at their sunglasses that they have laid out gives me a sense of what I could actually provide for them and what they think they need. That’s useful as a part of that conversation too.

**Craig:** It’s like some weird singles bar, where every time you show interest in somebody, they run away from you until they finally show interest back, at which point you run away from them. It’s so weird. The worst thing you can do in Hollywood is actually get what you wanted, because I always feel like… John, you’ve had this thing where people pursue you and they’re like, “Oh my god, we need you, we need you, we need you. You’re everything,” blah blah blah, “Anything, anything.” Then you’re like, “Fine, I’ll do it.” Then they’re like, okay, now we’re going to treat you like crap.

**John:** 100%. Situations like there was an animation project that was stalking me for so long. I finally said, “Okay, yeah, great.” I went back in and pitched them the thing. They were like, “Oh yeah, I don’t think we could do that.” It was like, ah, so much time has passed doing this.

**Craig:** So much.

**John:** So much time.

**Craig:** Basically we’re all Barton Fink. (singing) and it was good.

**John:** Let’s do our other listener questions. Let’s start us off with Katie here.

**Megana:** Katie writes, “I’m a novelist and an avid Scriptnotes listener. My husband’s a screenwriter. While my career has taken off, a book deal with the Big Five, healthy advance, lead title status, and a film TV agent at WME, my husband’s has not. We both understand that we’re just at different stages right now, but I have so much confidence in his talent. I know with hard work, he’ll break through. I’m at the beginning of my career, so I’m reluctant to shove his scripts at my agent. At a certain point, I’ll feel comfortable doing so. How do creatives at different points in their careers manage the early/late/staggered arrival of success? How can I practically support him when screenwriting seems so much more Sisyphusean than traditional publishing?”

**Craig:** I don’t know the answer to this, because I’ve never had any experience with it.

**John:** No, but it feels like a good story. I can visualize the tension between these two people, in one person being successful, one person not being successful. I guess Marriage Story had a bit of that, where her career was taking off in one way, his career was taking off in another way, but not as quickly. You don’t want to be in a story. You want actual practical advice right now. I can’t give you great practical advice right now other than to be there and positive and supportive to what he’s doing. Make sure that it never feels patronizing. Help him where you can help him. Introduce him where you can introduce him. Also, he’s going to have to find his own way into his screenwriting career, and just as you found your way into your novel writing career.

**Craig:** There’s some danger here, Katie, it seems to me, that you have to be aware of. While you’re asking the right questions, I would strongly advise you to be directing these questions towards a professional, rather than your favorite podcast hosts, because this is the kind of thing that can wreck stuff.

Don’t think that if I just say or do the right things in the right order, it won’t wreck stuff, because it can, because what happens is, you are people who have dreams and desires and hopes. You meet each other and you fall in love with each other, and then it happens to somebody and that person is changed because of it. I’m not saying you’re changed because suddenly it went to your head. Not at all. It’s just your life changes. When you become successful at this particular thing, your life changes. Your partner can feel left behind or shut out or less than if they’re trying to also change their life in the exact same way. The cascade of issues, I don’t have to list them for you, quite large. Regardless of who gets there first, there are so many issues.

I would urge you, if you have concerns about this or if you feel like your husband has concerns about this now, start talking about it now with somebody. I think that’s the important thing is communicate. Really communicate about this. Honesty is incredibly important. What you will never want to feel, I think, I hope, is a sense that maybe anything that does befall him was only because you begged and somebody threw you a bone.

This is a storyline we did in Mythic Quest where a woman gets married to a man, she becomes this incredibly successful novelist. He is not. He only publishes a series of books that are not well-read, and only with the publishers that she was publishing with. Clearly, people were throwing him scraps, and he knows it. This can be a real issue. I feel for you. I don’t know the answer myself, other than to say take it seriously. Don’t let this fester.

**John:** I would also want to acknowledge there’s a gendered component to this. The valance shouldn’t be any different, but I think societally the valance does feel a little bit different when the woman is so successful and the man is not successful. I agree with Craig that I think getting some help now and just talking through it will be helpful down the road. Also just make sure, Katie, you’re not ever self-sabotaging to make this feel better, because that is another worry I would have is that you might not take some opportunity because you feel like it’s going to feel bad for your husband.

**Craig:** Just take it seriously. It sounds like you are. I would say escalate it. You’ve called the first level of customer service, which is your favorite podcasters. You haven’t said that we’re your favorite podcast. I’m just deciding. We’re going to escalate this to a supervisor, aka therapist.

**John:** Next question, Megana.

**Megana:** Baggage asked, “For the first time in my career I’ve been asked to be on set for several weeks of international filming. Do you have any packing advice or travel hacks? Should I only bring athleisure and sensible shoes, a jacket for every possible weather? Are there certain items you’ve learned to never leave home without, things that can help make an extended stay in a hotel feel more cozy?”

**Craig:** Oh boy, I wonder what this would be like, to figure how to live somewhere else for a long, long time.

**John:** For a long time. A couple things that Baggage is already suggesting is that you need to make sure that you’re going to feel comfortable on set, and so wearing stuff, honestly dark clothes that you can keep wearing a lot can work great. You may not always have great laundry facilities, so always be thinking about, okay, if I need to use hotel laundry that takes two days to get back, how I’m going to get through that. Make sure you have enough changes of clothes.

Make sure you have something nice to wear out to the occasional dinners with actors or producers and anyone else who comes in. Depending where you’re at, that may mean a jacket and a tie or it may mean a dress or whatever it is that you need to wear to be a little bit more formal.

Shoes for on set, just think about you’re going to be on your feet a lot. Think about how to not be on your feet. Think about actually sitting down where you can sit down. Just be comfortable. I would say layers is good, and if you’re any place that can get cold, just anticipate being cold, because being on a set is honestly standing around a lot, and that can just get really cold.

**Craig:** I suspect that Baggage is a lady. Men generally are slobs and have way less… We just get caught unaware all the time. We just show up somewhere and it’s freezing, we’re like, “I got my hoodie.” Here’s the thing, Baggage. When you’re on set for several weeks, you will have access to the lovely folks in the costume department. If you need a hat or something, they’ll just give you one. You can’t keep it, but they can lend you something. Don’t feel like you need to cover everything. You don’t. Cover the basics. Make sure you’re comfortable.

Going to dinner with actors, lovely, happily, most actors that I go to dinner with are also slobs, so everybody can be a slob together. Sloppiness, it depends on your role. If you are a producer, executive type of person, generally yes, you do dress a bit better. Everyone expects the writer to dress like Barton Fink.

I am a big believer in comfort items. Here’s what I have learned to bring with me: my slippers, my robe, because my slippers and my robe are my morning things, and my pillow. I like my pillow. I want my pillow. I don’t want their pillow. I want mine. Then just remember the little things, sometimes it’s just easier to just buy them there. Yes, you can absolutely pack your luggage full of every possible little, tiny, tiny thing you would need, or you can just remember that unless you’re going somewhere particularly remote, you can just buy some stuff that’s cheap there and you’ll be okay. Just remember, you’re not going to the moon. You’re going probably to a place that has lots of other stuff.

**John:** If you’re filming Mad Max: Fury Road, then yes, you’re going to the moon, but anywhere else, you’re in a city where you can do stuff. I was thinking about a pilot I shot up in Vancouver. I thought I had rain gear, but I did not have Vancouver rain gear. I did not have Vancouver production rain gear. I needed the absolute, not just breathable GORE-TEX it needs to just be pure rubber that you’re wearing and the rubber boots and the rain pants and everything. That stuff you get there, because that’s the place where they sell it. The producer just sent me off with a PA, saying, “Go get him… ” I went, tried on the stuff, put it on the card. That became my rain gear. Some stuff you’ll just pick up locally.

Do think about what’ll make you comfortable. For Craig it was his slippers and his robe. Maybe the kind of tea you like that’s hard to get other places, pack a bunch of that so you’ll at least have the tea that you like there and have a way to get started in the morning or wind down at the end of the day, something like that to enjoy yourself.

**Craig:** Way more important to have those little things than 14 different weights of pants.

**John:** I will say, we do travel with our Apple TV. Apple TV is a nice way to get all the stuff that I want to see at home. It’s a little bit of a hassle to set it up on a hotel WiFi, but I’ll put a link in the show notes for how to get your Apple TV to connect to hotel WiFi, because when you don’t have the ability to type in the WiFi password, it can be a hassle, but there’s ways to do it.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Cool. Another question.

**Megana:** Luke from LA asks, “I’m another aspiring screenwriter currently doing a screenwriting graduate program at UCLA. The other day a professor in class said something that troubled me. He said when we’re starting out, we have to know our brand.”

**Craig:** Oh for God’s sakes.

**Megana:** “When trying to get an agent, the two or three scripts that we show them should be of the same type/genre, instead of, for example, trying to show our versatility, and go with a couple of different types of products. That way the agent can quickly see how to sell this new writer.”

**John:** The question is should your samples be similar to each other or should they be wildly divergent? I remember at the Austin Film Festival we had an agent and manager on the stage with us, and we were talking through that, did they want to see the range of what you can do or do they want to be able to target and focus you. I think the answer we got from them was a little bit more focused. It wasn’t all that dissimilar to what this professor in the class said.

**Craig:** The dissimilar part was that, the key was you had to have a script that they could sell. If you had five scripts that were all B minuses, then they were probably going to look at you and say, “I don’t know what you are. I don’t think you know what you are.” That’s not about brand. That’s just about your voice. If you walk in and you have an A-plus script and a C script, they’re going to say, “Okay, guess what? We actually don’t like that script at all, no big deal, but we do love this one. We’re going to put you out there with this one. You may get offered jobs in the genre that this one is in because it’s a good script.”

My thing is, how in the hell are you supposed to know beforehand? How do you know beforehand? If you write two or three scripts that are all the same genre and type, they might also say, this person really just is writing the same script over and over again. Maybe one day a professor at one of these places will say something that I like, but we’ve been doing it a long time, and I just find that all of this advice is circling around the most obvious thing, which is they don’t sell you at all. They sell a script.

**John:** I’ll put an extreme example, but an example that could make a little more sense here. Let’s say your samples are here is a historical war drama, it’s a retelling of 1812, battles of 1812. They have a half-hour multi-cam script, and they have this weird quirky sci-fi indie thing. That is a hard thing for an agent or manager to put their hands around and say, oh, you need to read this writer, because, oh, I’d love to read another thing, something completely different that won’t actually validate this experience.

The other thing, I’ve talked with a lot of writers who are thinking about, oh, I want to be starting TV, give me examples of some things you think I should be writing for this. I often say, I love to read a sample that is so, so good that I cannot wait to meet this person. Then when I meet this person, I’m like, “Yes, that’s exactly the person I hoped wrote that script.” Something that feels like it introduces you and your voice and why you would be asked to be in that room, these are great things. Writing something that is unique to your experience is a great choice if you’re thinking about how am I going to be an asset in that room or on this project. If my script can give a sense of what my personality is like, what my unique voice is like, that’s great. There are going to tend to be things that will speak to a genre.

**Craig:** I don’t see it that way.

**John:** That’s fine.

**Craig:** I just think that basically everyone is reading a fire hosed volume of crap every day, every script stinks, and then one day they read one that’s good. I don’t think they’re going to even care what the other ones are. They’re so happy that they found somebody who can write. If that person has written other scripts, and they’re like, “I want to read another thing that you wrote,” and it’s completely different, then that person might say, “Okay, you know what? I just like this one.” Reading two scripts and going, “Okay… ”

Here’s the deal. If you can write a good script, you’ll write another good script. Any good writer can write at least something that is competent in any genre. I may not say I want to make this movie. You give me a genre to write, I’ll write it. At least I will apply basic writing skill to it and things like characters and relationships. Everyone’s trying to figure out the secret or the way you’re going to get through. The way you’re going to get through is you’re going to write something good. I’m not sure if you have a script that you love and you wrote, and then someone’s like, “You got to write it again in that genre,” and you want to write something in another genre, your thing in the other genre might be even better. I would never dissuade anybody from that, nor would I ever ding anybody for having things in different genres. I guess then again I’ve weirdly become the poster child for somebody whose genres are completely all over the place.

**John:** Now I will say I was hired and getting work before Go, and my script was a romantic tragedy. It was funny enough, but it wasn’t a great sample for some of the things I was getting, which were How To Eat Fried Worms and Wrinkle In Time, kids book adaptations. My other sample was the novelization of Natural Born Killers, which was not a laugh riot. The useful thing about the script for Go was that people could read it and see anything they wanted to see in it, and so it could serve as a sample for any kind of genre you wanted to put me out for.

**Craig:** It was good.

**John:** It was good. I would say just write Go, and then your problems are solved.

**Craig:** Write Go and then add an OD to it and you’re there. Just write something good. That’s your brand, good writer, because literally everyone else’s brand is bad writer.

**John:** Megana, another question.

**Megana:** Cranky Screenwriter writes–

**Craig:** That’s me.

**Megana:** “I started working with a manager a year ago. My manager has not set up a single meeting for me in this time, although there’s always an excuse, and usually ignores my emails unless they pertain to projects on which director she also represents is attached, meaning the manager would get paid twice if they’re successful. Recently she had me write a treatment for a remake of a major studio picture for a Hollywood super producer with an all-around streaming deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I was not paid for this treatment. My manager didn’t provide notes, nor did she ever even confirm that it was even sent to the producer. Obviously, there’s no meeting forthcoming either. Is this sort of behavior normal and do I just need to be more patient, or is it time for me to cut her loose and find someone who will work harder on my behalf?”

**John:** Craig, I don’t know, it sounds like… Cranky Screenwriter is so lucky to have a manager. I don’t know why they’re… Why are they emailing us? Because listen, you’re so lucky you have a manager.

**Craig:** What’s the level below cut her loose? What can you do that’s even more extreme than cutting her loose?

**John:** You need to fire her into the sun.

**Craig:** Fire her into the sun. By the way, this behavior is normal among terrible, predatory, crappy, peripheral managers. She’s awful. She’s awful. Having her as a manager is worse than having no manager. She is exploitative. She’s not helping you at all. While she’s hurting you, she’s also not even balancing it out with help. She’s terrible and you should, yes, cut her loose.

**Megana:** Angel of After School Specials asks, “Last year a script of mine was produced for what I thought would be a streamer, but ended up being a cable channel. I was a little bummed, as it wasn’t what I’d envisioned, but something made is a win, right? Another script was recently optioned is gearing up for production on a streaming service, but through their TV arm. Two scripts, two TV movies. I kept telling myself I didn’t need to be nervous, but something just happened that has me wondering. I’ve sold two projects and pitches, one to a major studio and another to a streamer. Yet, I just had a call with my reps about a project I’m really excited about. I saw it as a big theatrical play, but they told me I should aim for cable, again. I’m not sure if that’s because that’s where they have more relationships or if this is the box they’re putting me into, but either way, I’m not happy about it.

“Honestly, I’m scared. Currently, I have a team. That sounds good. It feels safe. They know me, and I don’t feel like I have anything to prove. Honestly, no other reps have shown interest. When you’ve had success that’s quantifiable in sales, but not produced work, how do you move up the ranks, and what should my expectations be? I think my biggest concern is that I see myself one way, but they’re pushing me into a smaller category because that’s where my work actually belongs.”

**John:** A lot going on here. Angel has some self-doubt, but also some success and some perspective, but also is feeling frustrated and trapped. It’s the flip side of our last question. You don’t have a terrible manager. The manager’s getting you work. Stuff’s selling. That’s great. You got a career started, but you’re also getting pigeonholed as being a cable person, and you really see yourself being able to do bigger, more exciting things than that. Craig, what do you advise?

**Craig:** Angel of After School Specials, the one thing that you said that made me the most nervous for you is at the very end. You said, “I think my biggest concern is that I see myself one way, but they’re pushing me into a smaller category because that’s where my work actually belongs.” I want to tell you, that is not why they’re doing that. Your work doesn’t necessarily only belong on cable. By the way, cable used to be good. We’re talking about smaller cable channels here.

You may feel like, am I missing something? Is there something super cabley about what I’m doing? No. They’re moving you there because that’s who’s paying them. That’s who’s paying you, so that’s who’s paying them. Representatives in general will take the path of least resistance to money. There are some that are smart enough and have enough perspective to take the long view, to turn things down, to aim higher. Most, especially when you’re starting out and you’re early on, do not. They just want to go where they know it’s easiest. What they’re telling you is that’s what’s easiest. Certainly when you say, I want to write a theatrical play, what they hear is, oh, we’re not getting paid at all, because–

**John:** [Unclear 00:58:34].

**Craig:** 99% of theatrical plays don’t generate a penny. They’re saying, look, over here are people who basically they have a checkbook out and they want to do it again. Let’s go over there where the checkbook’s at and let’s do it again. I understand why you’re scared. It is scary. Here’s my very practical advice for you, Angel of After School Specials. You can divide your time and work and energy into two modes. You can write things that you know are going to get picked up and put on that thing, table, and you’ll get money in your pocket and you pay your bills, but write the other thing. Write the other thing too. See what happens. If you see this one as a big theatrical play and they say aim for cable again, you can say, “You know what? I actually am going to aim for cable again with another thing that’s very cabley, because I like getting paid too.” Then you work on your big theatrical play.

You can’t live only by one way or the other. You won’t survive if you’re just writing passion projects for yourself that nobody’s going to pay you for. You also won’t survive if all you do is what you’re being told to do. Carve out some time, one for them, one for me. It’s a classic bit of advice that I probably should’ve heeded sooner in my career than I did, and protect that. You will feel much better. If they don’t get it and they don’t want you to do that, they don’t even need to know about it, do they?

**John:** No. I agree that you should be doing this, writing the stuff that you actually want to see happen on your own time. Make sure you’re splitting your time. I agree with Craig with that completely. I think there’s an opportunity to switch agencies though. I think that time is probably going to come pretty soon. It sounds like you have another thing that’s going for a streamer that’s ramping up to be in production. Once that’s in production, once that’s closer to coming out, that may be a good moment for you to start meeting with other places.

How do you find those other places. How do you find people who might be interested in working with you? It’s talking with the executives and on projects you’re working on or projects that are in development, to see, hey, where do you think is a good place for me to end up, or talking to other writers who are having good experiences with their agents or managers, because switching agencies, Craig will tell you, I will tell you, is an opportunity for a bit of a reset in terms of how the town is seeing you, going out on new generals, meeting with new people, and getting people re-excited about the next thing that you want to do. I think you need to do the work for yourself, but then you also need to really look at changing agencies, because it’s going to be hard for you to make that change at the same agency where you’re at, because they’re just used to you being a certain kind of client.

**Craig:** There’s going to be a space open with Cranky Screenwriter’s manager soon.

**John:** That one seems fantastic.

**Craig:** Sounds amazing.

**John:** Those are our questions. It’s now time for our One Cool Things. Craig, start us off. What’s your One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is just a little shout-out to a very faithful listener of ours over the many years. Her name is Cara Anderson. I’m just flagging her for everybody, because she is also not only a listener, but a fantastic member of our special effects squad on The Last of Us. She’s based out in Vancouver. Special effects people spread out all over the place, because they have their laboratories where they’re blowing things up and then they have their places where they’re buying things and moving stuff in and out of warehouses. Then of course we have our team that’s on set blowing things up in person or spraying blood on things. I’m giving away stuff. Spoiler alert, there’s blood in The Last of Us.

**John:** I can’t believe I can’t watch the show anymore.

**Craig:** Let’s see if [cross-talk 01:02:22] deadline. Cara Anderson has been doing such a good job for us for so long. I just wanted to say hi to her and let her know we’re very happy to have her as a listener.

**John:** Now Craig, just because you brought this up, special effects versus visual effects, at what point in the pre-production process do you figure out which team is handling this thing that you’ve written into the script, like this is an explosion. When do you know that it’s going to be special effects being done on set versus something that’s being done later on in post?

**Craig:** The interesting thing is pre-production never ends when you’re making television. You’re always in prep and production and post-production. This conversation never stops. Once the script comes out, everybody breaks it down, goes through it. The first AD usually spends a little bit of time with the effects and special effects, asking the questions. Some things are obvious. Some things are clearly going to be visual effects. Some things are going to be special effects. A lot of times the real question isn’t should this be special effects or visual effects, the question should be is this going to be visual effects or should we just build it or should we be there? That’s more of a discussion. The special effects stuff is pretty well defined. There was one, actually just shot it last week, the sequence where there was a huge discussion about whether it should be special effects or visual effects, and where we landed was it should be both, and indeed it will.

**John:** Nice, I love it. My One Cool Thing is the half-marathon, just the half-marathon as a concept. This last week I ran a half-marathon in Las Vegas.

**Craig:** Congrats.

**John:** It was really fun. It was called the Run Rock and Roll Half-Marathon. What I loved about it, it was a nighttime one. I hate the sun. It was nice to be able to run at night, and the Strip is a fun place for that. I don’t like the sun.

**Craig:** You look like you don’t like the sun.

**John:** I’m a very pale person. This was fun because it was all on the Strip, and it was pretty well lit. You could see things. It was a giant crowd. It was fun for all those reasons. I want to talk about the half-marathon as a distance, because I think it’s actually one of those really good benchmark things, because it’s difficult but it won’t kill you. I don’t think I could ever do a marathon, but a half-marathon I can do. It’s 13.1 miles. If people are curious about running, because I was never a runner until [unclear 01:04:37] so during the course of this podcast I became a runner.

The first app we used was called Couch To 5k, which basically just trains you how to start go from walking to actually being able to run short distances and ultimately run a 5k. During that first year, I did a couch to 5k, then 5k to 10k. I ran my first 10k. I ran a 15k. Now I’ve run two half-marathons, which is 21k. Running is pretty great. I’m surprised to be saying this now, because I was never a runner before this time, but human beings are uniquely well-designed to run. Once you learn how to do it, it just feels great to have that kind of fundamental skill under your belt. If you’re curious ever about running a marathon, I would say don’t. Don’t run a marathon, but try to build up to run a half-marathon, because it’s a thing I think most people could probably do.

**Craig:** It’s just a quirk of history. Maybe the half-marathon should be the marathon, and the marathon should be a double marathon.

**John:** Sure. That would make a lot more sense, because a half-marathon’s, it’s 13 miles, but 10 miles is also a pretty good distance. It’s a lot of work, but again, it’s two hours of your day, rather than four hours. In fact, four hours really kills you in a marathon.

**Craig:** Four hours and heat stroke.

**John:** Heat stroke, yeah, all those things. Never good. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** You know it.

**John:** It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. A special thanks this week to Chris Sond [ph], who put together all the initial research for the meet-cute segment. Our outro this week is by Nico Mansy. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. 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 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. Almost all the T-shirts we’ve made, you can now get as a pullover hoodie. Our special zip-up hoodies are… Craig, I guess you still haven’t gotten your zip-up hoodie.

**Craig:** Not yet.

**John:** Our special zipper hoodies are back to print. For the next two weeks, you can order a zipper hoodie. You can find those at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments like the one we’re about to record on onboarding. Craig and Megana, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, this week as we were preparing to play Dungeons and Dragons, you and I got into a long discussion about Elden Ring, which is the new video game that we’re playing. I think the short review of it is that it is a gorgeous-looking game, it is a game in which you die a lot. You know that you’re going to die a lot going into it. We were also both struck by the weird onboarding and, to me, unsuccessful onboarding in this game. I thought we’d talk about onboarding as it relates to video games, but also of course every movie and every TV show has an aspect of onboarding too, where you’re getting the audience familiar with how your show is going to work.

**Craig:** This is a term I’ve become obsessed with ever since I heard Neil Druckmann say it. This is a concept in video game production. How do you get the player from I just hit start for the first time to where you need them to be to start playing the game? We deal with this all the time. Somebody sits down, presses play, probably on their iPad or their television or weirdly maybe sits in a movie theater, and they have to go from nothing to something. You have to get them there so it’s okay. Elden Ring is an extension of the Dark Souls series, which the company FromSoftware is notorious for this kind of brutal format where you’re constantly dying. I knew that part was [unclear 01:08:39] but what I didn’t expect was that I would have no goddamn idea who I was, where I was, and why I was. It’s really weird, because there’s an incredibly long opening sequence that you have to watch.

**John:** Written by George R.R. Martin apparently.

**Craig:** It explains nothing. No offense to George.

**John:** It’s like, what is the Elden Ring? I have no idea. Is it a person? Is it a place? Is it a thing? I don’t know.

**Craig:** I don’t know. I can’t blame it on George, because he probably wrote quite a bit, that then they took and put together. There’s so much happening. It was the weirdest thing, because they told you everything and nothing at the same time, because there was no progression. I think about how the Lord of the Rings, I still think about how brilliant that screenplay was for Fellowship of the Ring, because they onboarded you through this narration by Galadriel and an explainer about the rings and what they were, who made them, why there was a problem, how there was a big fight, how one of the rings got lost. By the time you get to the hobbits, you basically know what you need to know.

I think, weirdly, everyone’s been chasing that forever, and now it’s at a place where there was so much of that crap in there and none of it connected to anything. It felt like it was written by somebody who didn’t speak English, to be honest with you. I thought it was a bad translation maybe.

**John:** It felt poetic. It was a poem that took me to a good place. One of the real challenges here, and we should both acknowledge that we’re in the early stages of playing the game, and so as I look at these reviews, everyone’s just like, oh, 40 hours in you realize, oh my gosh, what a big world this is and how it all fits together. I’m like, I’m looking forward to that, but also, just as the screenwriter in me, I think I should be beyond the inciting incident by now. I don’t think I am. I don’t know what my objective is. I don’t know who I am or what these forces are around me. That is frustrating. Now, it’s unique to video games but also to apps, because I am building Highland for the Mac. There’s also an onboarding process where you’re teaching people how to use the controls, how to do the things that they want to do with that.

**Craig:** Tutorials.

**John:** Tutorials. There are tutorials in Elden Ring, just as there are tutorials in Highland to get you started. I largely figured some stuff out, but I think I would not have been able to figure them out if I didn’t have my phone next to me and I could Google, how do I do this thing.

**Craig:** It’s a failure of onboarding then.

**John:** Is it a failure of onboarding in 2022?

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** We have an expectation that people can look stuff up. I just feel like they were expecting I would look some stuff up other places because I couldn’t figure out where these controls were.

**Craig:** That’s just crazy at that point, or just say to people, “Google it.” Literally have the video game by like, “Sorry, Google it.” I’m okay with them wanting to throw you in the deep end and everything, but for instance, in Elden Ring, after you watch the endless and indecipherable prologue, you’re asked to choose what kind of character you want to be.

**John:** Essentially a character class.

**Craig:** What character class. You have no idea what any of them mean. They don’t tell you what is interesting or special or good or bad about any of them. It seems almost like it’s just a random choice.

**John:** Of course what I did is I Googled to see what do the choices mean, what are they good for.

**Craig:** My whole thing is, no, you owe me.

**John:** That’s not how it works.

**Craig:** I bought this. You owe me. What’s next in television or movies? We put up a card that says, “Press pause here and Google what is confusing to you,” or, for instance, at the end of the second Matrix movie, it should just say, “If you didn’t understand what the architect said, please Google it.” No. That’s a failure. In my book, it is a failure of onboarding.

**John:** I do get and acknowledge that. The other experience of onboarding I had recently is I switched over from using Mac Mail to using Superhuman, which is a web-based mail system which I really like a lot. They do not let you use the app until you go through onboarding with a live person on Zoom talking you through how to do it. This seems incredibly restrictive and silly, because I should be able to figure it all out just through the app, but you can’t, or you could figure out how to do it, but you wouldn’t actually recognize the smart ways to do it. It’s like in Elden Ring, someone came to your house and sat beside you, Craig, and said, “Okay, let’s talk through this and let’s figure out, get you really good on controls. Let’s try to do some dodge rolls and do a guard so you can actually get that power attack in there.” It was strange to have this experience with Superhuman, because honestly kind of great, because I feel like I’m a really good user of the app now, because they forced me to go through that training.

**Craig:** Do you think that I would like it?

**John:** Superhuman?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah, I’ve told you about this before.

**Craig:** I know. I remember. I think I probably stumbled over the, sorry, you’re making me do what? I guess I would say to you, is it way better than the other experiences? I ditched Apple Mail years ago.

**John:** I would say it’s way better. In terms of the actual being able to replay to things and get down to inbox zero, just not have stuff sitting there, is really good. How it filters stuff out, and your important stuff and your not important stuff, is really good. It’s worth a shot. Should you stop your life right now to do it? Maybe wait until after you’re done with some production.

**Craig:** Done ruining my life.

**John:** It was Rachel Bloom who put me on to it. I think that she and I both agreed it’s a good app.

**Craig:** Rachel Bloom was already a superhuman, so it makes sense.

**John:** Back to our Elden Ring experience, I feel like also part of what you’re dealing with with any video game or any sort of piece of entertainment is you’re dealing with expectation. I have certain expectations about what buttons are going to do what kinds of things. I find myself drinking all of my potions because I’m expecting the square button to be–

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** It’s not just me.

**Craig:** No. It’s so frustrating. Megana, I know that you’ve literally slept past into the ninth level of coma at this point, but hear me out. You’re wandering around in a world where you have no idea where you’re supposed to go really and whether or not you’re facing off against creatures that are way too strong for you or not. All you have to keep you alive are three swigs of your potion.

**John:** Your vile of crimson tears.

**Craig:** Which they don’t tell you that’s what it is, but you eventually figure it out.

**John:** It was red so of course it’s [crosstalk 01:15:11].

**Craig:** It was red, yeah. The way they’ve said, usually in these games, you’ll have to hit a button to bring up a little menu, and then you press a button to drink it. You can’t mistakenly do it. In this game–

**John:** Glug glug glug.

**Craig:** The button that generally is crouch for every other game is drink your very, very limited amount of health potion. I’ve done it twice. I’ve drank two health potions within seconds and just wanted to just jump out my window.

**John:** I’ll be in the middle of a fight and my character will stop to drink a health potion and I’ll get stabbed in the back. That’s what’s going to happen.

**Craig:** I’m at full health. Everything’s fine. I’m walking across the thing. I come to something, and then I just drink a health potion for no reason. The other thing is, most video games will not let you drink health potions if you’re at full health. They’re like, no, you don’t want to do that. This game’s like, do it, lol.

**John:** Lol.

**Craig:** Lmao.

**John:** We’re going to get so much email about this, because we’re–

**Craig:** Video game players.

**Megana:** No.

**Craig:** Sorry, Megana.

**John:** Megana’s going to get so much mail about this.

**Craig:** Megana, if it makes you feel better, the fans of FromSoftware games are even more intense than most video game fans. The thing is I’m going to keep playing it. It is gorgeous. I can see where after 40 hours, once I get out of this training area, that I’m also ill-equipped to survive in, it’s going to be amazing. Neil Druckmann has been playing it, and he tweeted some things. He’s gotten pretty far. He’s really good at video games, isn’t a big surprise.

**John:** No surprise there.

**Craig:** He’s gotten pretty far, although now that I’m thinking about it, I’m like, hey, I emailed him the other day, and he was like, “Oh sorry, it took me a while to get back to you.” I’m like, you know what?

**John:** Game.

**Craig:** I know what’s happening. I know what’s going on here.

**John:** I limit my time to 30 minutes. I will set 30 minutes on my watch when I play and then I will just stop at a certain point, because otherwise hours just dissolve.

**Craig:** For me, I don’t think I played more than one hour at a time, because it’s so frustrating. Instead of setting an alarm on my watch, I just listen to myself wanting to kill myself, and then I think, oh, I should probably stop playing this right now.

**John:** I’m playing this video game.

**Craig:** This video game is way too frustrating for me. There are some wonderful videos online of people almost beating a guy and then losing it and freaking out. It’s wonderful. Sorry, Megana. I apologize for everything, Megana. I got to be honest. Everything. Everything we’ve just talked about.

**John:** That’s Megana’s job to apologize for everything.

**Craig:** She’s like, I’m sorry that you’re so sorry. We’re sorry. We’re all sorry.

**John:** Everyone’s sorry.

**Craig:** Everyone’s sorry.

Links:

* [Volodymyr Zelensky](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/volodymyr-zelensky-profile-cmd-intl/index.html) and the ongoing war in [Ukraine](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/07/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/)
* [Does Hollywood Ruin Books?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUD8h9JpEVQ) by Numberphile on Youtube on Berkson’s Paradox
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://us9.campaign-archive.com/home/?u=2b0232538adf13e5b3e55b12f&id=aeb429a997) and the [Meet-Cute edition here](https://us9.campaign-archive.com/?u=2b0232538adf13e5b3e55b12f&id=edbc06bed5)!
* [Scriptnotes 433: The One with Greta Gerwig](https://johnaugust.com/2020/the-one-with-greta-gerwig)
* [Elden Ring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elden_Ring) (https://www.fromsoftware.jp/ww/products.html)
* [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/540standard.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 (490)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.