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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 542: Betrayed! Transcript

April 18, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 542 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, Craig, I thought I trusted you, I believed in you, and now for you to do this.

**Craig:** You got what you deserved, my friend.

**John:** Today we’re discussing betrayals, back stabs, and double crosses as they occur in film and TV, and real life to some degree.

We also have lots of follow-up and listener questions. Plus, Craig, what should I do about my keyboard? We’re going to talk a little bit about keyboards, which is a fundamental piece of hardware technology we don’t discuss nearly enough on the show.

In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we didn’t come here to make friends, we came here to win. I want to discuss which reality competition shows you and me and Megana would enter and what our strategies would be, because I would say you’re probably not a big Survivor-y kind of fan, but I could see you on a cooking show, for example, and you would kill it.

**Craig:** The question is, what kind of cooking show? There are so many.

**John:** We’ll get into all of them, but only for our Premium Members. First, there’s some stuff that happened in the news. Obviously, Disney’s handling of the Florida Don’t Say Gay bill was a big topic in discussion this last week.

I was at a premiere for Better Nate Than Ever, which was a Disney Plus movie, directed by Tim Federle, a former guest, which was delightful. Tim was asked on the red carpet, “How are you feeling about Disney’s response to Florida’s Don’t Say Gay bill?” He said that “good representation does not cancel out bad legislation,” which I just loved. I liked that he found a way to rhyme that and actually make the point that you can do everything you can do, like in Tim’s movie, which has incredibly important gay representing, but it doesn’t actually change the facts on the ground of people living under bad laws.

**Craig:** This is one of those spaces where the corporation is so far away from the content they make. It’s now run by a new guy. It was Bob Iger, and now it’s Mr. Chapek. What’s his first name, Bob?

**John:** I think it’s Bob Chapek.

**Craig:** Another Bob. There you go, just by not knowing my first name, I’ve put myself on some sort of blacklist. You have people that make these things and they care about these things and put all of their love into these things. I know that one of the producers of that was Adam Siegel, who’s a wonderful guy and a lovely friend of mine and just a good human being. They are putting all their love in this, and it means something to them. They mean what they say when they say that good representation isn’t going to cancel out bad legislation. That’s absolutely a great point. The boardroom is 4 million miles away. The boardroom might as well be on another planet. The question is, what will the boardroom actually do about this.

It is a very tricky thing for Disney, because I think they all know that this law is terrible. If this law were somewhere else, I think they would have a strong corporate response, especially Disney, which has always been, I think, the gayest of studios, just in terms of who’s been running it and who’s been there and who works on their movies. It’s just been a very gay-friendly studio, at least for employment. Disneyland has always had Gay Day, and yet their biggest investment in park is in Florida. What do they do? How many people do you think they employ in Florida? God.

**John:** I saw it was a huge number.

**Craig:** It’s insane.

**John:** I want to say it’s 30,000. They’re one of the biggest employers in Florida.

**Craig:** It’s like a city of employees. On the one hand, they do have to make sure that they take care of those employees and keep them working and all the rest of it, but on the other hand, what do they do? This is actually quite fascinating, because they have an oversized influence on Florida, but it seems like Florida’s leadership right now, under Governor Dipshit, doesn’t care. They just like being mean. I don’t know what’s going to happen here. Do you have any prediction?

**John:** I don’t have a great prediction. I think it’s [unclear 00:03:55] the folks who spend so much on Disney, which great to put pressure there, but also we need to remind everybody that Disney didn’t do this, it was Florida that did this. It was those terrible people. There are other companies that are working there who could also be pressured to do things. I’m thinking back to at the NBA making choices about when to pull games out of places because of things. This is just a bad law that will hurt people. It’s just a performative law, so not a thing that’s designed to actually have any measurable impact on people’s lives. It’s just going to do terrible things for kids who are in danger.

**Craig:** That’s a great point.

**John:** That’s the frustration is that it’s not even a thing where–

**Craig:** It’s not even a real law. They’re just posing, for their stupid core.

**John:** Sometimes what’s even more dangerous than a draconian law is a vaguely written law anybody could choose to sue over. It’s a horrible mess.

**Craig:** It’s so stupid. It’s so stupid. You got to know at least a bunch of the people that were sponsoring that are very secretly and quietly gay, because that always happens.

**John:** Yeah, or they’re going to have gay and trans family members, because that’s life.

**Craig:** I hope they all hear from all of them. You make an interesting point, which is we sometimes focus all of our fire on the friends who aren’t doing enough, and not on the enemy. I think it’s important to hold our companies to task and to make them be responsible. I think it’s important to remind them of their responsibility. First things first, let’s get rid of that governor, change the way the government works in Florida, because it’s just horrendous.

**John:** We also need to find some way to change the incentives to just make the most performatively stupid things possible, so basically that everyone has to keep running further and further to the right in order to avoid the challenges.

**Craig:** That’s easy. Just get rid of Facebook. Just get rid of Meta, and that’ll take away Insta. Then get rid of Twitter, and you’re on your way to a society that is mildly functioning.

**John:** On our way. Also, this past week, MGM officially was acquired by Amazon Prime Studios. There was a question of whether that would go through or it would face regulatory hurdles. It did not. It was approved for sale. MGM of course is the legendary lion-led studio behind the 007 movies and a huge back-history. As we’ve said before on the podcast, their catalog is really complicated because it’s been sold off in bits and pieces to various places, but it is a big acquisition. I will say that even over the past couple weeks, I’ve been out with a pitch, and I pitched Amazon and I pitched MGM, and they were two completely separate companies. They were at pains to describe themselves as two different companies. MGM could not buy this project for streaming, because they did not have any relationship with a streamer.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Now, of course, they do. It’ll be interesting to see what happens to the theatrical side of MGM, the degree to which Amazon uses MGM as a theatrical distribution mechanism for the things that they make that should have a theatrical release. We’ll see what happens.

**Craig:** It made me sad, and not because I hate Amazon or anything. It just made me sad that… Then I thought, oh my god, this upstart internet company has purchased this 100-year-old studio. I’m like, actually, Amazon’s been around for a long time.

**John:** It has.

**Craig:** Actually now, they’re kind of an old company. My daughter has never existed in a world without Amazon.

**John:** If TikTok were to have bought MGM, I think we’d be a little more concerned.

**Craig:** I would’ve jumped. You’re absolutely right. The MGM catalog is bizarre and fragmented. You could argue that what they really bought was James Bond. That maybe is what they really bought, because that is all that MGM has been doing for a while. It’s pretty much a guaranteed hit, assuming that you pour the resources in that are generally required. Obviously, it’s a big turning point, because James Bond is about to get a new James Bond. What it means ultimately is one less buyer, not that MGM was really a buyer. They were. They were pretty minor. What’s going to happen to those two sets of people, some of those people are getting fired. I think that’s probably what’s going to happen. It’s the same thing when Disney bought Fox. It just happens.

**John:** It does, which is a bummer. I will already remind people that I don’t think that deal should’ve gone through. In a different administration, that deal would not have gone through, because I think it was just too big of a merger.

**Craig:** I don’t disagree.

**John:** Megana, we have some follow-up. Do you want to get us started?

**Megana:** Yes. Malgosia writes, with genuine love, “In Episode 540, Baggage asked for packing advice, and to my shock and horror, Craig said something to the tune of, ‘Don’t worry about bringing a hat and such. The lovely folks at the costume department will hook you up.’ No. Please don’t. We are not your mom. We all wear clothes every day, and therefore we at the costume department are often taken for granted as an extension of your closet. We’re absolutely not though, just the same as set deck is not there to help you decorate your hotel room, and hair and makeup are not there to brush your teeth. Baggage and Craig, please bring your own hat. If something happens and a nervous PA spills coffee on your shirt, we sure as hell will help. Just don’t treat us like your extra suitcase that you decided not to bring. Bring that extra suitcase. Production will cover it.”

**Craig:** Jeez, Malgosia, you’re tough. Maybe because I’m the showrunner.

**John:** I was going to say, Craig. I think there’s a little privilege there that may be coming in.

**Craig:** Yeah, which I’ve earned. They’re always so nice. They’re like, “Do you need a hat?” I would say that’s probably fair. That’s true. They’re not your mom. I can’t imagine that the occasional polite request would be met with quite this much horror and shock, or shock and horror. Shock and horror seems strong, Malgosia. It just really does.

**John:** It sounds like an invasion technique.

**Craig:** I know you’ve got a room with 100 hats. “Can I borrow one?” doesn’t seem like it would… Of course, no one’s relying on the costume department. I’m just saying if you forgot something, if you were like, “Oh my god, I don’t have a raincoat and it’s pouring,” it’s okay. Unless you’re working on a show where Malgosia’s got her arms crossed in front of that wardrobe truck, generally speaking, people are actually quite nice. I recognize that I’m the boss, so it’s probably why they’re nicer.

**John:** This is reminding me of a conversation I had way back when shooting Go, my very first movie. On that film, video taps were relatively new on cameras, because it was a film camera, but it had a video tap so you could see what was happening on screen.

More importantly, we also had a wireless video tap, which weren’t even I think technically even allowed at that point. It was just broadcasting on a UHF channel. We all had little TVs that we had, little handheld TVs, basically Game Boy size, so we could watch the shot if we weren’t right at set. It was incredibly handy, but those things just ate batteries. Inevitably, we’d run through our batteries, and we’d go to the sound department and say, “Hey, can I get some AA batteries?” At some point the sound department said, “Yes, but also, you’ve blown through our entire battery budget for the show.” We were counting on the sound department to always have batteries. Really we should’ve made some other arrangement for where are we going to get this or just acknowledge to the sound department, “Yeah, I know we’re eating all your batteries. Let’s talk to the line producer or somebody else, so it’s clear that this is what’s happening here.”

**Craig:** You only need one hat. If I came every day and was like, “Where’s my new hat?”

**John:** “Where’s my new hat?”

**Craig:** “Where’s my new hat?”

**John:** I burned this hat.

**Craig:** “Where’s my new hat?” Point taken. Assess your position and your need and act accordingly.

**John:** Sounds good. More follow-up, Megana?

**Megana:** Meedo wrote in, “On Craig’s question about meet cutely, yes, though not grammatically correct, cute could function adverbially in the same way hard does in die hard. On the subject of bad grammar, what are some instances of titles or catchphrases where such a distortion of the language has worked to great effect, and when does it not work? Instances of the former that come to mind are Gone Girl, Me and You and Everyone We Know, Never Say Never Again.”

**John:** Basically the question is, meet cute feels like bad grammar, but you can argue that it’s functioning adverbially.

**Craig:** You could try.

**John:** In titles we often do strangle some grammar there for effect. Gone Girl is the girl who’s gone, you get it. The Me and You and Everyone We Know, that feels actually pretty natural. I guess in titles we do get away with some weird grammar because we just accept it.

**Craig:** I just Googled a little bit here just to find some good ones, and there’s actually quite a few of them that are fun. You Got Served. No, you were served. You were served. Two Weeks Notice is missing a possessive apostrophe.

**John:** It is, yeah.

**Craig:** The Ladies Man, that was spelled the ladies, ladies plural, and the man. That just makes no sense. They’re titles, so you can do whatever the hell you want. Doesn’t matter. I remember I did a paper in college on Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song by Melvin Van Peebles. There are so many A’s and E’s. I had to learn, because I had to type it so many times, how many, because the spelling was obviously whatever it wanted to be. Get away with Honey I Shrunk the Kids. Honey, I’ve shrunk the kids. I think you can get away with anything, Meeto.

**John:** Honey, I shrank the kids. Honey, I shrunk the kids. Oh yeah, it’s honey, I shrank the kids.

**Craig:** Yeah, or honey, I’ve shrunk.

**John:** Also that’s one of those words that’s… Shrink. You could almost get to shrinked. It’s one of those words that’s going to be a transition going back to the more normal -ed things rather than switching vowels. [Cross-talk 00:13:35].

**Craig:** I think you can do whatever you want in a title.

**John:** You really can.

**Craig:** Titles are fine.

**John:** Later on in the show we’re going to be discussing BlacKkKlansman or mentioning BlacKkKlansman. As I’d try to type it into the Workflowy, I just could never remember how they spelled that.

**Craig:** That’s another good example.

**John:** Multiple K’s. Finally, some follow-up in Intelligence versus Charisma. Let’s start us out with that.

**Craig:** Em wrote in, “I think what’s missing in this conversation, and really missing in the Twitter fracas, is the connection between writing a great sample and figuring out what a great sample is in the context of the industry, which is something that’s largely learned via social connections with peers, which in turn is largely a function of charisma or at least social intelligence. A great sample in 2014 might not be a great sample in 2022, at least in TV, since the spectrum of what’s on the air has changed so much.

The best way to learn about that is talking to other writers and executives, usually in nonprofessional social context. It’s much harder I think to break in with low charisma, even if you’re a great writer, because you’ll have fewer friends, not because those connections are what will give you that first break, but because those connections are what might attune you to the industry so you can figure out what you should be writing.”

**John:** I think Em makes a really good point, but Craig is going to disagree.

**Craig:** Look, if you want to find out what the industry is doing, you can just watch TV. Also, if you’re in that spot where because of your high charisma you are now plugged into what’s being made, you may be in danger of agenting yourself, where you think, “Ah, I know what they want now. I will chase that.” It’s possible that that might help you a little bit, but not as much as something that’s fresh and original. I think now more than ever, actually, there is space for stuff that is different, because of television and the way television has functioned. Yeah, of course you could always do things that other people are doing. I’m not sure you’re going to need a lot of charisma for that.

**John:** Here’s my defense of what Em is saying, is that we talked on the previous episode about how there’s intelligence and charisma and wisdom, and wisdom is that knowing what to write, recognizing patterns, recognizing trends. Some of that also just comes with experience. Your wisdom stats will go up with some time. I think what Em is describing in terms of just getting a sense of the chatter and what people are actually talking about, because you can watch TV and see, oh, this is what’s on TV, but that’s what was purchased two years ahead of time and where the trend was. Getting a sense of where the puck is headed is a function of talking with people and being I that chatter. Yes, there’s a danger of overdoing that and chasing too hard the next trend, but it’s appropriate to be thinking about that in terms of not writing something that no one is going to pick up because of other things.

Right now I will tell our listeners, it’s really, really hard to set up a musical, I can tell you this from firsthand experience, because everyone’s afraid of musicals because so many musicals have failed recently. That’s just a thing I can tell you because you’re my friend and you’re listening to this on a podcast. If you didn’t have a friend who was listening to this, you might say, “Oh, I’m going to go set up a musical.” It’s going to be really hard to do it this week or this month. That’s just the reality. I think some charisma would be the way of being out there in the space, chatting with people at bars, doing that sort of stuff that happens, where you get the sense of what people are working on and what people are excited about. Some charisma there is helpful.

**Craig:** Look, I suppose also if you were just a careful reader for the 4 billion articles get fire hosed at us about everything, so if you Google Dear Evan Hansen, I think a thousand talk pieces will appear, and you’ll probably get a sense of why there is a trend right now. It’s understandable. I never want to come across as somebody who’s suggesting that social skills don’t help. I think I have pretty decent social skills, and they help. I don’t want to say wisdom doesn’t help, because I think I have some of that too. Of all your stats, really the one that is so outlandishly more important than the other is your intelligence here or–

**John:** Your writing intelligence.

**Craig:** What we call talent.

**John:** Obviously, this conversation was all about starting out a career. I will say that as my career has progressed, I reached a mid-level tier, where my writing was important, but my ability to be in a room with heavy hitters and survive was probably more important in terms of being able to keep that job and keep the project going. The words I was writing were very important. It was my ability to be present in a room and keeping up with the conversation and recognizing the psychological aspects of these difficult people in a room was more key to my success than actually the words, for some projects and some points in their production.

**Craig:** I agree with that. I think we talked about the whole concept of the screenwriter plus. Especially in features, that makes absolute sense. If you’re going to break through to the next level in feature writing, and we’re talking about you’ve got a career, you’ve had a credit or two, things are going well, you’re getting work steadily, the next level up, if you’re trying to get to the famous A-list, is you now need to have quite a bit of charisma and quite a bit of wisdom, because you are now going to be more than a screenwriter. You’re also going to be an interlocutor, you’re going to be a producer of a kind, you’re going to be a therapist, you’re going to be a conflict manager, and you’re going to be a de-escalator and a hostage negotiator. You’re going to be a lot of different things, and you need to know how to do that well. If you can’t, you will not be that person. You will still be somebody they might hire for a week or two, because you’re wonderful.

I don’t think anybody that hires Charlie Kaufman for a week or two is looking for a therapist, screenwriter plus producer. They’re looking for somebody to come in and be Charlie Kaufman for two weeks and to get that stuff. Guys like him have removed themselves from any need of being on any list. He’s just his own list. Yes, I completely agree, as you go on in your career, once the talent has been established, that other stuff makes a huge difference.

**John:** We should also acknowledge our screenwriting bias here, our feature bias, and that if you’re a person who’s working in television, you’re going to be working with groups of people a lot, so other writers in a room often, but then on a set you’re going to be doing lot of other work where you’re going to be interfacing with people and not just doing your writing skill. You’re going to be doing other persuasion skills and ability to communicate, and that does come down to charisma at some levels. It is important, especially in television.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** On this show, over the history of this show, we’ve talked some about keyboards. I’ve definitely blogged about my keyboard travails over the years. I noticed I think the last time I think we were doing DnD or something, I saw your keyboard. You are not using any traditional keyboard right now either, are you?

**Craig:** No. I have not used a traditional keyboard in forever.

**John:** Great. Let’s talk about that, because I started using a split keyboard. It’s basically the one where the keyboard is divided in half and a little bit at an angle, some sort of Microsoft keyboard, ergonomic keyboard, 20 years ago, 25 years ago, because it was helpful because I was having some issues. That keyboard alone was not enough to stop some really serious carpal tunnel problems I was having, and so I had to escalate to bigger, more serious, weirder, stranger keyboards. The one that I’ve been using for the past 15 years is a recommendation from Dana Fox. We’ll put a link to it in the show notes. Craig, you can see it also in the Workflowy. This is my SafeType keyboard. Craig, could you describe for our listeners at home what this keyboard looks like?

**Craig:** If you imagine a regular keyboard and then you keep the middle where it… The middle would be your number pad and stuff like that, which normally wouldn’t be in the middle. Then the other two sides, the left and the right side, you take and tilt up 90 degrees. If you’re a touch typer, you know you have your left-hand letters and you have your right-hand letters. All the left-hand letters and the right-hand letters are now on an upright thing. Instead of typing with your fingers pointing down, you are typing with your fingers pointing toward each other. I guess your hands are now perpendicular to the desk.

**John:** This is the keyboard I’ve been typing on for a very long time. It’s weird to learn how to do it. In the photo that we’ll include in the show notes, you can see that it has little rearview mirrors that fold out so you can see the function keys. No one ever uses the mirrors. I’ve tucked the mirrors away for all these years. It works for me. Because I’m a touch typist, I can type at a good normal clip on it. I’ve been happy with it enough that I got a backup keyboard just in case this one breaks, although this past week I was featured on this little blog post called Writes With, which is basically what different tools writers use. I linked to the SafeType keyboard. The guy who does the blog said, “Oh, that link doesn’t work anymore.” I’m like, “What are you talking about?” It turned out that SafeType has not actually existed as a company for at least three years.

**Craig:** John, they’ve been dead for 100 years.

**John:** I’m typing on a dead keyboard. I’m typing on a keyboard that is–

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Who knows, maybe it’s going to last me 20 years and I don’t need to think about anything else. This keyboard may not be around forever. In fact, the keyboard I’m using, it’s not even USB. It’s an ADB thing that has a little USB connector.

**Craig:** Oh my god, ADB. Oh, jeez. Wow.

**John:** It’s sketchy.

**Craig:** Megana has never seen that. Megana has never seen that in the wild, I don’t think.

**John:** Apple Desktop Bus, or it’s whatever the PC equivalent to that, but it’s not a USB connection, which is strange. Because it’s also hard for this keyboard to do keyboard command shortcuts, like command X, command C, command A, I have those mapped out to an external gaming keyboard.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** Which I absolutely love. It’s just the Razer Tartarus Pro. Unfortunately, they stopped making drivers for it for Mac, so I need to have this Frankenstein combination of other things that don’t reliably work. I’ve been in frustration anyway. I’m now considering switching keyboards. I wanted to talk with you about this and see where you’re at but also have a discussion about why keyboards are so crucial but why they are so problematic, often for writers.

**Craig:** As long as I can double up. The new keyboard I have is my One Cool Thing. I’m going to double up. As long as I get credit for that.

**John:** You get credit for an early One Cool Thing.

**Craig:** I had, same as you, a lot of wrist issues. I’m a touch typist, as you are. The old keyboards were just horrendous. The new keyboard that, for instance the No-Frills Apple keyboard, I don’t know what they call it, Magic Keyboard, whatever they call it, it’s terrible.

**John:** Nice and straight.

**Craig:** Horrible. The reason it’s horrible is because ultimately your wrists have to pronate. Your hands are going in. It’s an unnatural position for your elbows and your wrists. Ergonomically, it messes you up. I found a little cushiony thing that I was using for a while. It helped a little bit, but not a lot.

Then eventually I did find my way to split keyboards. A standard split keyboard, unlike what John uses, which is essentially an affront to God, a normal split keyboard just takes the keyboard and separates the left and right slightly. Imagine putting a triangle between them. Instead of your hands pronating in, they can just relax in a natural place. It does take a little bit of getting used to, but not much. I can go back and forth between a split keyboard and a regular keyboard without any fuss at all. I can’t remember what the original one I was using was, but eventually it did break, and so then I switched over to Microsoft, of all people, for a long time.

**John:** They had some good ones.

**Craig:** That’s what I’ve been using for a long time. It was Microsoft. I think the first one was called the Sculpt Keyboard. It’s still called the Sculpt Keyboard. Essentially it just became their Sculpt Ergonomic Keyboard, which if you look it up, you can see a picture of it, you can see exactly what I’m talking about. It’s curvy and it’s got a built-in hand rest and it’s lovely. Here’s the issue with this and a lot of them. Most keyboards now want to be wireless. These third-party ones use Bluetooth, but they require dongles. This is enraging to me, but I guess there’s no way around it. If you lose the dongle, at least for Microsoft, you have to buy a whole new keyboard. They don’t sell the dongle.

In looking for a better option, because there were certain things I just… The way the command keys and things mapped I didn’t really enjoy, even though I could remap them. I did just recently switch to a new keyboard, and that is the Logitech Ergo K860 wireless split keyboard, also with dongle, but connects much easier and quicker. It’s more comfortable. The key action is nicer, I think. It does everything I need it to do. It worked instantly with Mac, no drivers required.

**John:** The keyboard, for folks who are listening at home, like most split keyboards, it’s divided in the middle and then rotated slightly out. Also, it has a hump in the middle so that the middle part of the keyboard is higher than the outside part of the keyboard. That is so your wrists are turned slightly at an angle. They’re not completely flat, which is better for your wrists and is a very natural typing form too. People don’t react to that poorly. I think this will not be enough for me. I think I would probably still have the problems I would have on a keyboard like this, which is why I’m trying out as a backup keyboard, this thing which I will also put in the show notes, if you want to look at the Workflowy here. This thing looks insane. This is the Kinesis Advantage 2.

**Craig:** I saw this one when I was researching.

**John:** This is a much more ambitious rethinking of what a keyboard should be. You still have the keyboard split in half, but those two halves are set far apart from each other and inside little wells, and so that you are still on your home keys, but those home keys are set down into little bowls, and all the other keys are facing into them. Your muscle memory can still do its thing and still hit the letters, but it’s a very different experience. Your space bar is–

**Craig:** Where is that?

**John:** Your space bar is your right thumb. Backspace is your left thumb. Return is next to the space. It’s one reach over from where the space bar is.

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

**John:** It’s a strange thing.

**Craig:** The one thing that I can’t deal with is, return should be to the right of the apostrophe, which so the right of the L. That’s where it goes.

**John:** I get that.

**Craig:** Anybody that moves it is a criminal.

**John:** That is a natural feeling. I think the logic behind this is that your pinky is by far your weakest finger, and your thumb is by far your strongest finger, and so therefore, putting those things you hit all the time on your thumb saves your hand. It saves your pinky from doing that work, which is a large part of the problem with repetitive stress.

**Craig:** I could see that. I do enjoy slamming the space bar. People have commented to me that I am a very loud typer.

**John:** I can imagine that.

**Craig:** I type fast, but I type furious. It’s just ba ta ta ta ta ta ba ba ta ta ta ta ta ba ba ba! It’s just my thing. I’m just a furious typer.

**John:** I always say I always envy the people who like, “Oh, I’ve been making a custom keyboard. I’m replacing all my letters with these things and I have these mechanical switches.” That’s wonderful for you. I’m trying to find the keyboard that will make my arms not go dead at night, where I would literally have zombie arms at night, where I would wake up and I could not move my arms, until I replaced my keyboard with this one and also replaced my mouse with a vertical mouse, which was much better.

**Craig:** Sorry, the way you said that, for a moment it sounded like you had zombie arms and you kept having zombie arms that night, until you reached over and dialed something with your nose and then got a new keyboard to come in.

**John:** At night. When I say zombie arms, literally both my arms would be dead. I would have to physically flop my body over to get out of bed. I couldn’t even use my arms to push myself out of bed.

**Craig:** It’s so funny. I wish it still happened.

**John:** It’s hilarious.

**Craig:** You’re like a Muppet basically where the–

**John:** I’m a Muppet. I’m a Muppet who’s lost the little sticks to the puppeteer. I think our conclusion here is that if you’re experiencing pain after typing, you should do something about it, because it will not just magically get better by itself. You just need to look for solutions. Some of those solutions are a new keyboard, a new mouse, but honestly, just changing your work setup could also be helpful. So often I think people try to type on a surface that’s too high or too low. Just look for those proper angles. For me, I need arm rests on a chair that can support me as I’m typing. For other people, that’s a bad solution. Do what works for you and do what’s going to not make your arms hurt, because you will not be a productive writer if you cannot write productively.

**Craig:** You’re going to spend a lot of time typing.

**John:** Got it.

**Craig:** Side note, learn how to type.

**John:** Learn how to type. People who don’t learn how to type, learn how to type.

**Craig:** Learn how to type.

**John:** Just take one of those online little classes if you need to. I learned how to type, and it was just an absolute godsend.

**Craig:** In fact, all this talk about charisma, wisdom, intelligence, sometimes there’s this weird little stat that you forget about. Typing, let’s put that under dexterity.

**John:** It is what dexterity is.

**Craig:** There’s a minimum dex. Believe it or not, typing will make you a better writer. If it happens faster between your brain and the page–

**John:** Less friction, yeah.

**Craig:** Less friction will make you better. Actually, you do need to bump that dex up to a minimum number for typing.

**John:** You know who’s a very fast typist?

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** Andrew Lippa.

**Craig:** What’s his number?

**John:** It’s well in the hundreds.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** He’s a pianist. He has incredibly strong fingers and just can brrrrt.

**Craig:** I’m about 100.

**John:** That’s great. I’m nowhere near that.

**Craig:** When you talk about people that are 150 and 160, it’s terrifying to watch them go. Even for me, it’s weird. The 100 is when I’m transcribing something. I’m looking at something and I’m typing it, and my mind turns off and my fingers are just going. At some point it even weirds me out how it works. 150, or whatever, 175, that’s steno tool stuff from the ’60s. I’m impressed.

**John:** My fastest typing is I had to do not even really a pitch, but get ready for a meeting, and so I just had an open Highland document and with just brain dumping. Brain dumping is incredibly quick for me. It’s just a great way of just getting all that out. I don’t know how many words per minute it is, but I can just very quickly plow through stuff. I find that very liberating.

**Craig:** It’s fine. It’s fine. Megana, do you type?

**John:** Weirdly, Megana doesn’t know how to type at all. You would think that between Harvard and Google, she would learn how to type, but no, it never came up.

**Megana:** I made it this far. I had to Google what touch typing was though, because–

**Craig:** Wow.

**Megana:** They just called it typing. I don’t know, I just think of it as typing.

**John:** You probably had a keyboarding class in school at some point.

**Craig:** Keyboarding.

**Megana:** They called it technology. I used to fall asleep in that class a lot, and then my output was just where my head had fallen asleep on the keyboard. I learned to type because I grew up during AOL Instant Messenger and so I was just constantly chatting with people on the internet. I became a quick typer that way.

**Craig:** Did anything bad ever happen? “I was a 10-year-old girl constantly chatting on the internet.”

**John:** With strangers. AOL.

**Craig:** Yes, the perverts’ playground. Megana, I think you need to bump the dex up. It’s just something to think about, and it actually goes faster than you think. Learning how to type properly goes faster than you think.

**Megana:** I think I did learn how to type properly, but I didn’t practice well until I started internet chatting.

**Craig:** It’s gone?

**Megana:** No, it’s there.

**Craig:** Oh, you do type.

**Megana:** I do type.

**John:** She does type. I’m kidding. I was kidding.

**Craig:** Oh, I just took John at his word–

**John:** Sorry, I’m never joking again.

**Craig:** Because I trust John. You have nothing. Your dex is fine?

**Megana:** Yeah. It’s strong.

**Craig:** It’s strong. You have strong dex.

**Megana:** Across the board I’m really everything that we’re measuring here.

**Craig:** You mean you’re a well-rounded bard.

**John:** That’s what she is. She’s really a performer.

**Craig:** You know what? That’s important. You need a jack of all trades.

**John:** We love it. Let’s get to our marquee topic, which is betrayals and back stabs and double crossing. This was prompted by, two weeks ago in Interesting we were talking about these topics and some good examples from different films or TV shows or the nature of what betrayals look like in film and television. While we’ve talked about lying on the show before and how important lying is, we’ve never really gotten to betrayals, which I think are important, because we have cases where obviously the villain betrays the hero, or someone who’s supposed to be a friend betrays our hero and that becomes a big thing. We also have situations where our main character has to make moral and ethical choices which do result in a betrayal.

A very obvious example from Jurassic Park is the notion that one of the employees was actually working behind the scenes to steal the material and sell it off to another thing. That betrayal became an important plot point, and once it was revealed, put other characters in danger. Also leading up to this discussion of The Departed and the betrayals and deceptions within The Departed and how that comes out and comes across.

There’s so many movies you can think of, movies in different genres. It’s not just the con men genre. It’s not just heist movies. In a lot of our science fiction and a lot of our other films, you have characters who seem like they’re working together, and then one will turn on the other. Let’s just talk about how that functions and how we should think about that as a writer, both so that it’s as rewarding as possible within the film, but so that a character being betrayed doesn’t feel like the audience being betrayed.

**Craig:** It’s an incredibly useful technique, because you can create plot through a simple need. In Jurassic Park they could’ve had our bad guy just need money because his grandma was sick. He’s like, “I’m desperate. I know this is wrong, but I need to do this for money.” That’s perfectly fine, because that character isn’t somebody we’re probably going to be emotionally invested in. The wonderful part about double crossing and backstabbing is that it creates an emotional response in us from a character that probably isn’t essential or is secondary. This can happen all the time. It’s exciting. It means that we haven’t figured out exactly what’s going on yet.

The movies that I think about all the time for backstabbing and double crossing are the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. It’s baked into everything. What was wonderful about those films and what Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio did was have main characters backstabbing and double crossing each other, so that whenever you got a little too sentimental about the characters, whenever you bought in a little too much to kumbaya, they reminded you that they were pirates, agents of chaos, who would absolutely betray each other. We have an ability to keep the audience on their toes. When they get fooled, they don’t get angry at you, the writer. They get angry at the character for doing it, which is great.

**John:** Other great examples, Aliens is of course one of my all-time favorite movies. Paul Reiser’s character and his betrayal in that is crucial. We’ve mentioned BlacKkKlansman before in terms of who is he really working for. Parasite. In the first Charlie’s Angels, the relationship between Sam Rockwell and Drew Barrymore is about that. It’s about a deception and really the question of he’s revealing his true identity at the moment it’s going to hurt her most, not even for the most useful moment in plot, that he actually is a bad person for what he’s doing there. The Social Network is basically a betrayal of when did you decide that this company was worth more than our friendship, when did you know you were going to screw me over. There’s lots of genres in which this can take place.

Maybe we should define our terms a little bit first, because let’s think about what a betrayal actually really means and why it has this moral valence to it. Betrayal is you’re breaking an oath. There’s a trust between two characters or an expectation of trust that has been broken in a way that causes harm to one of the people. It’s not just like you disappointed me. A disappointment is not a betrayal. There’s some lasting harm you’ve done because of this betrayal. Betrayal I think can really only be a conscious choice. You can’t accidentally betray somebody. You can betray your principles. You can betray your inner promise that you’ve made to yourself. A betrayal’s often also a revelation of something, a revelation of some secret or some nature that you didn’t want to get out there.

**Craig:** Good betrayals I think have an interesting perversion of power dynamics. A lot of times the people that are doing the betraying are not people in power. People that have the upper hand often don’t need to betray the people beneath them. When there is a slight power imbalance, it doesn’t always work like this, but when there is, the betrayals can be particularly delicious, because the powerful person didn’t see it coming. If they’re a villain, you get very excited. if they’re a good person, it just really affects us.

This goes back to the Gospel. Jesus is betrayed. The person who betrays him does not have the power that Jesus has, but he gets him in the back. In the movie 300 there’s something just brutal about the way the lowliest person is the one that betrays the Spartans and so they all die. I do remember as a kid watching the, I think it was CBS, (singing), the animated special of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Do you remember that one, John?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** When Aslan, Jesus, is captured, and because he’s betrayed by Edward, and they shave his mane, aka putting the crown of thorns on him, I felt something terrible in me. It affected me deeply, because it seemed so brutally unjust, this violation not only of trust between people, it’s a violation of what we understand about justice and how people ought to be. That’s why being stabbed in the back is the ultimate expression of betrayal, because no one can defend against it. The highborn, the lowborn, no one.

**John:** The reason why a back stab works is because a false friend is doing it. You did not defend your flank because you didn’t think you had to. You were vulnerable to that person because you let them get close to you and they can stab you in the back. I would say every back stab is a betrayal, but not every betrayal is a back stab, because there’s many ways to betray something that’s not a back stab.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** The other thing to talk to, which I didn’t know the whole history of, is a double cross.

**Craig:** Double cross.

**John:** The first apparent reference to it is 1834. It’s from the Thieves Slang. To cross is to refer to something dishonest, which is the opposite of be square or straight with something. If you have a crook that’s going back on his partners, that would be crossing the crossers, which would be a double cross. In this case you’ve agreed on a plan with somebody and then you were deliberately doing the opposite. You had a second plan that they did not know about.

**Craig:** When you watch Casino or Goodfellas, Martin Scorsese is so good at portraying these petty double crossings. As you’re watching you’re like, “Oh my god, just don’t do that.” Then you realize, that’s what criminals do. They’re criminals. If they’re the sort of person in the first place that’s willing to break all of society’s codes and morays for selfish purposes, they’ll probably also do that to you. No honor among thieves.

**John:** The crucial thing about all of these betrayals is to remember that you can’t betray somebody if you never trusted them in the first place. There has to be some relationship between the two of you in order for betrayal to actually make sense. There has to be some, doesn’t have to be friendship, but it has to be some relationship, some assumption of mutual benefit between the two of you for this betrayal to actually work in there.

As we’re looking at setting up our characters and where they’re headed and what they are expecting, it does come back to what characters want. Obviously, our approach is from what our hero wants and what their goals are and what they’re trying to do and how they’re trying to do it, but looking at those characters around them, what do they want, and at what point are the things that they want that are in contrast to our hero is enough to motivate them to actually do this thing. We’re going to want to make choices about did they come into this relationship with the intention of betraying them? Was it all a setup from the start or did the circumstances on the ground change and therefore they are making the best choice for themselves at the moment?

**Craig:** I think a small peripheral character can just be defined as betrayer. In Jurassic Park, his name is Nedry. Nedry is a scumbag. He’s a scumbag. They always make him sweaty. He’s shifty and sweaty and he’s disgruntled and he’s a scumbag. When they figure out it’s his betrayal, I don’t even think anyone’s like, “What?”

**John:** “Never saw that coming.”

**Craig:** They’re like, “That’s about right, that shifty, beady-eyed sweaty guy who was grumpy all the time did us bad.” Side characters, you can do a classic, typical betraying side character. Die Hard has a wonderful moment like that with Hart Bochner. If you want your main character to be betraying, if you want the betrayal to be something that’s carrying you through, as opposed to just being a little kickoff incident, then I think it’s important that you do show the choice. If there’s this pointless or blithe betrayal, we will not care as much about it. It won’t make us as angry. We need to see the choice.

**John:** Always remember that just seeing your characters have relationships with each other, you as the writer have a relationship with your audience and making sure that the betrayal that you’re portraying doesn’t feel like a betrayal of the audience. There are notable examples of movies that did pull a sudden switcheroo at the very end, and you’re like, “Oh, that worked great, and I was surprised, but I’m delighted, because I could see it all make sense.” The Sixth Sense is a case where that turned out really well. No Way Out is an example of that, where information is being held from the audience, that when it was revealed is like, oh, I get what was happening there, and that feels great. Those are the notable exceptions.

In general, if we get to a place in the movie where you’ve pulled the rug out from underneath us and, okay, that was just not even cool. I thought we had a deal here. You’ve broken that social contract between us. That’s going to be a problem.

**Craig:** Twist endings are dangerous things. You have to get them right. As you’re writing these characters, and one of the issues with the twist ending is, at some point, like we say, we need to understand the double cross. It can’t just be ha ha! There has to be some sort of sadness to it. There has to be a humanity to it.

Again, thinking about 300, I think his name is Ephialtes. I think it was Ephialtes. He was deformed. He was physically deformed. He was supposed to die, because the fascists in Sparta would get rid of any slightly imperfect, quote unquote, children. He’s disabled. He cannot physically be a Spartan soldier, even though he desperately wants to be. King Leonidas in a kind way just says, “You aren’t able to do the things physically we require.” He’s very angry, and he sells them out, because he wants something for himself. He wants honor for him. He wants dignity. He is denied it. He lashes out. In the end, he regrets. I understand why he does what he does. In fact, it’s Xerxes as portrayed as a weird demigod who basically plays on all that stuff, so we understand. It’s similar in The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe. There’s temptation.

If you think about all the things that can feed into betrayal, you start to realize how juicy it could be for you and how exciting it could be, particularly if as you’re writing you start to feel like everyone can see what’s coming next. Then it may be time to think about betrayal.

**John:** Let’s get to our listener questions. Megana, do you want to start us off?

**Megana:** Imposter from New Jersey wrote in asked, “I’ve been listening to the back-episodes, and from the very beginning of the podcast, you’ve been warning listeners about supposed screenwriting gurus. A bit of context, I graduated film school about seven years ago and have worked in various jobs in the industry, UPM work, AD-ing, a bit of acting. Though professional screenwriting is my aspiration, I’ve never made much money at it. I’ve written a few small shorts, and I’ve been hired to do rewrites of independent features, but my credits are meager. To pay my mortgage, I’ve started teaching. Through a local nonprofit, I teach beginner screenwriting to teens and adults. When I say beginner, I mean ground zero, what a slug line is, why you shouldn’t use Google Docs to write a script, how to format dialog. Though the classes are through a nonprofit, students still pay to enroll.

“I’ve always felt a bit ethically icky about teaching these classes. Who am I to give instructions on the right way to write a script when I have so few credits to my name? Why should anyone take my advice? Have I become the most repugnant of all specialists, a screenwriting guru, or is this just another imposter syndrome flareup? Should I step aside and wait until I have more produced credits before I try to teach others how to write scripts?”

**Craig:** Imposter from New Jersey, that’s my name.

**John:** Let’s think about this. Imposter from New Jersey is concerned ethically whether it’s reasonable for him to be teaching screenwriting since he’s not had much success as a screenwriter himself.

**Craig:** I get that. I think the best news here is that he’s thinking that way, because the people that I despise never think that way. They think the opposite way. They think they have something special to offer the world and they’re going to charge them quite a bit. Here are all the positives here, Imposter. You are working for a nonprofit. Let’s just start right there. It’s a nonprofit. The gurus that I love teeing off on are very much for-profit people. They are charging people hundreds of dollars to get notes on their screenplay or master class sessions when they are themselves nowhere near master or even apprentice.

You’re working at a nonprofit. As you point out, you’re teaching beginner screenwriting, ground zero, fundamentals. They pay to enroll. They are not paying you directly. They are paying a nonprofit. I presume the nonprofit pays you. I suspect because it’s a nonprofit they’re not paying a whole lot. The fact that you have always felt a bit ethically icky means you’re okay. You’re right up against the guardrail of what you think you ought to be doing. If you went further, I think your own decent self would say, I cannot justify presenting myself as somebody that should do the following.

Where you are right now, I suspect you’re doing a fine job, teaching them what a slug line is, why you shouldn’t use Google Docs, and how to format dialog. I think that’s okay. Under no circumstances would it seem to me that anybody showing up in your class at a local nonprofit would describe you as a screenwriting guru. I don’t think you’re presenting yourself as one. I think you have a very healthy conscience. As far as I can tell, you’re doing just fine.

**John:** A couple scenarios here to talk through. I remember in junior high or high school, I went to this creative writing program that was done through our school district that was once a week. The guy who taught it was nice, well-meaning, had maybe had some short stories published, but had never actually done a full book. Would they learn as much as they possibly could? Was he an expert in the subject of creative writing? No, but it got me a structured situation in which I could be writing for this class, turning in stuff, getting feedback, working with other writers. It was incredibly valuable to me. If that is what Imposter is doing is providing a situation where he is teaching some very fundamental basics to these students who can also be in a group and learn from each other and learn some stuff about screenwriting and have conversations about screenwriting, I see that as only a win. If Imposter were teaching a Spanish class but did not actually speak Spanish, that would be a problem.

**Craig:** That would be a problem.

**John:** Where he actually has no business doing that thing, that would be not just ethically icky, that would be actually bad. That would be not acceptable to do. In this case, he is teaching what he knows, which is these fundamental things. He’s not teaching, “This is how Hollywood works,” because Imposter doesn’t know that. He is doing some fundamental Lord’s work in terms of getting those basics about how screenwriting works out there to these students. Go for it.

**Craig:** I agree. I think you’re fine. I think you’re a good guy. That’s what I think.

**John:** Cool. Next question, Megana.

**Megana:** Bruce asks, “I’m not a professional screenwriter, but I am a professional scientist, certified with a PhD, a bunch of papers, patents, etc. Over a number of podcasts, you fielded questions on people’s skill level and feelings. Sometimes your advice requires the person to take an honest look at themselves and ask, do I actually have it? This self-assessment is a critical aspect of life. It’s a reality, that unfortunately gets pushed aside for a general ‘you can do anything you put your mind to’ approach. In corporate America, the HR policies tend to coddle people. For example, in a managerial training on giving constructive criticism, I asked, ‘This is great and all, but what do you do when someone just doesn’t get it? Can I say we have a problem and the problem is you?’ ‘No,’ HR responded, ‘Please stick to the talking points and hope they get it.'”

**Craig:** That’s so great.

**Megana:** “Do you have the same issue in film and television production? What is the role of constructive criticism? Can you be honest when someone just isn’t cut out for what they’re trying to do?”

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** Wow. Great question, Bruce. I love this. These are two great questions. Couldn’t agree with you more, by the way, Bruce, that “you can do anything you put your mind to” is utter horseshit.

**John:** It’s a trap.

**Craig:** You cannot. In fact, you can do almost nothing you put your mind to. That’s the God’s honest truth. There’s only so many things we can do. It just doesn’t work that way. Follow your dreams? I don’t even know what dreams. You’re putting your finger on something important, that is to say that some people, their talent stat is just not high enough to do the job they’re doing. They’re are underpowered in an over-leveled area of Elden Ring. What do we do with folks like this? Do we say, “We have a problem, and the problem is you.” You could. It’s unnecessary, I think.

If I were your HR advisor, I’d say, look, I understand exactly what that is like. It doesn’t help much to say it like that, because it makes you potentially seem like somebody who also doesn’t get it, because what if they have a problem and their problem is you? What happens in Hollywood and film and television production is expectations are placed. If at some point it just seems like that person just doesn’t get it, then the production parts ways with them. They just say, “You know what? It’s just not a good fit. Hopefully you can do a two-week transition while we bring somebody else on, and then that’ll be your time with us.”

**John:** What I like about this question is it’s not specifically talking about screenwriting, because we’ve talked so much about screenwriting and how it’s hard to get a clear metric on whether a person has talent or doesn’t have talent. It’s challenging. If you think about it, film and TV production, or if you think about a set or post in an editorial situation, yes, you could say, this assistant editor, we’re going to let them try to cut a scene, try to cut another scene. At a certain point editors can say, “Oh, this person just doesn’t get it. Editorial choices are not their strong suit.” It becomes tough to say, “Oh, I think you should not be doing this. I think you should try to find some other career in the business.” That’s just really hard to do.

I think one of the weird luxuries we have in film and television is because it’s all gig work and you’re just going from job to job to job, the next time the person is up for a job and they call the previous boss and say, “Hey, is this person good?” you can say, “Honestly, no, they’re not very good.” I do worry that we’re never on the hook to give the honest feedback about someone’s not up to snuff in this thing, that they’re spinning their wheels and should try something else. Again, one of the luxuries of film and TV production is because it’s gig to gig to gig, you can just not deal with some of those problems, but it’s certainly not helping those people who are never getting the honest feedback they should be getting.

**Craig:** I completely agree. Great question. We should talk about this stuff more. We should. I think it’s important. By the way, we never talk about HR.

**John:** HR exists in certain capacities within our business, but it’s invisible in other parts.

**Craig:** Now that I’m–

**John:** You’re a boss.

**Craig:** Yeah, A, and B, there’s just more HR than has ever been before. Just the presence of HR and what HR does and how much they have to deal with has gone up dramatically. Maybe we’ll have an HR person on to talk about this.

**John:** We should have an HR person on the show. Your experience doing a longer project like an HBO series is going to be different than a person on an independent film who won’t have an HR department at all, and yet some of the same things will still come up, these same issues, harassment at work hours and other problems will come up, and so much of what we’ve been dealing with from Pay Up Hollywood to Me Too are HR functions, just incredibly strained because of the weird way we work.

**Craig:** HR, boy, it’s a hard job to do, because they get a lot of stuff that comes in. I think my guess is that quite a bit of it feels eyerolly a little bit. The case gets opened, the case gets closed rather quickly. Then there are these real things that come through where HR makes an enormous difference in someone’s life, probably in a number of people’s lives in terms of the people who are perpetrating bad deeds, but also, more importantly, the people upon whom bad deeds are visited. HR matters. It’s a huge part of what goes on now in the world, more than it… When we started out, HR, they were just the people that were like, “Here’s what you get paid. Here’s the sick days. Here’s your parking spot. This is what the medical is.” No one ever said, “I’m going to HR.” You’d be like, “Why? You mean the people that tell us what the raises are?”

**John:** All that being said, one needs to remember that HR is fundamentally there to defend the company and to defend the company from horrible things such as employee lawsuits. That’s reasons why with certain kind of complaints, you need to be going into HR with somebody else and not be going in there by yourself. That’s why we have gills and other people there who can intercede, because there are occasions where HR is just there to protect the company.

**Craig:** HR, they work for the company. There is an interesting synergy where part of protecting the company is making sure that somebody doesn’t sue them because they’ve done that person bad. That’s where it aligns. I think that good HR people really do have humans in mind, even though human resources is the most Orwellian term possible. They do have resources that are I think independent. I believe that HR departments, the big ones do have independent therapists and people that are not responsible to the company and keep patient-client privilege and all that, I think, but I could be wrong about that.

**John:** When it comes to legal challenges, there’s reasons why, and there’s all sorts of issues about what things can actually go to court and what things cannot and have to go to private arbitration. It’s a challenging thing, which I agree, we should get back into, but if we have an HR person on, I think we should also have someone who’s critical of our HR system to also be a counterpoint there.

**Craig:** Who’s that?

**John:** We’ll find somebody. There are some good examples of people out there who have some–

**Craig:** Dear Twitter, who does not like HR?

**John:** Who doesn’t like HR? Come on our show. That’ll be a fun one. Let’s do some One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a show I’ve enjoyed on Netflix, it’s just six episodes, called Murderville. It stars Will Arnett, developed by Krister Johnson. It’s based on this British showed called Murder in Successville. The central premise of Murderville is Will Arnett plays this homicide detective in some unnamed city, and he has a dead partner and all these tropey things about this. It’s a scripted show. Things are happening. They’re going to solve a case. There’s going to be a murder every week, and a murder’s going to be solved. Every week he gets a new celebrity partner, who is just some random actor who’s being brought in. That person is not given the script and has no idea what’s actually happening. Therefore, they have to improv, again, what’s going on. It works, I think, surprisingly well. My two favorite episodes of the six are Kumail Nanjiani’s episode and Annie Murphy’s episode. They’re all good. There is some serialization that happens between episodes, so you probably shouldn’t watch them out of order.

I just really dug it. It’s a good, fun, light watch if you’re in the mood for something goofy. It reminded me a bit of Children’s Hospital, the David Wain show, and David Wain actually shows up in an episode.

**Craig:** I think Krister worked on that. I’m pretty sure. He’s a great guy. This has been on my list of stuff. When we stop shooting in 15 years, I’m going to sit down and just start watching stuff. It’s going to be a joy.

**John:** So many good things to watch.

**Craig:** I’m going to go find a hotel somewhere, hole up, and just watch.

**John:** You’re going to be away from your wife and your family in Los Angeles even longer, just so you can watch the TV, catch up on the really important things.

**Craig:** Oh no, I’m bringing the wife. Not the kids. My One Cool Thing is, as ibid, Logitech Ergo K860 wireless split keyboard. It is not super cheap. Here’s the thing about these keyboards. It’s $150 is what their retail list is. Keyboards, especially the ones these days, should last forever. Keyboards seem to be made out of the same material that PlayStation controllers are made out of. They should build anything important out of that material. PlayStation controllers I think have been tested within god knows what tolerances, because they presume that gamers are going to be smashing them on the ground in frustration, particularly while playing Elden Ring, and they never break. This very sturdy material should last for a long time.

Excellent key feel, connects instantly with a Mac, and unfortunately does require the dongle, which comes with it. Boy, if they sold the dongle itself… I don’t know, that’s a great question. If they sold the dongle itself, it’s a no-brainer.

**John:** Love it. We’ll put links in the show notes to also the keyboards we talked about, the other ones, for choices. I really do recommend a vertical mouse if you’re having any problems, because the one I am using is great and helpful for that.

That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nico Mansy. 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. We have T-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. We also have hoodies that are delightful. We have a non-zip-up hoodie available in all our different patterns. Is it the 10th anniversary one, green one, which I quite liked a lot. I wore it for St. Patrick’s Day. Check that out and get your hoodies.

Show notes for this episode and all episodes are 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. 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 reality television and competition shows. Stick around for that. Craig, Megana, thank you for a fun episode.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Megana, this was your suggestion, so set us up.

**Megana:** I had a question. If you guys could be on any reality competition television show, which one would you pick and what would be your strategy?

**John:** Let’s define reality competition shows, because Megana and I were discussing it in the office, it would be tremendously fun if Craig’s wife were cast on Real Housewives of Hancock Park, and that Craig would be that husband who’s interviewed every once in a while, like the Kelsey Grammer who shows up. That’s not really what we’re talking about. We’re talking about some show in which there’s a winner and a loser and each week someone gets sent home. That’s what we’re thinking about. Anything from a Survivor to Big Brother, but also Project Runway, Great British Baking Show. Craig, what are you thinking in terms of your reality competition show?

**Craig:** It would almost certainly be the Great British Baking Show, because it doesn’t seem like winning is important to anyone. Everyone is trying to just do something that is not going to embarrass them, which is basically how I approach everything, what can I do to not shame myself and my name. Then if it works out, they’re just stunned and delighted. If you’re picked, you’re like, “Oh. Oh, my. I was just hoping to not be eliminated.” On all the American racing and surviving shows, it’s like, “I’m going to win this thing and I’m going to destroy you.” I don’t want to destroy anybody. I love baking. It’s fun. If I mess up, you know what? I think everyone’s going to be like, “Oh. Oh, didn’t quite come together, did it?” I’ll say, “No. No, it didn’t.” They’ll be like, “Quite a shame really.” I’ll be like, “I know. I’m so sorry.”

**John:** Craig, how did your crème brûlées come together? As we were playing DnD this last week, you were working on your crème brûlées in your oven that was not heated properly.

**Craig:** I really struggled. I dumped that batch and made a second batch in Jaq Lesko’s oven, because she’s in the building next to me and her oven’s just better than mine. I’m suspicious of this batch as well, to be honest with you. I’m a bit terrified, because there’s a dinner party this evening. I’m going to be giving people the crème brûlée. If it’s not quite right, I’m just going to be embarrassed and ashamed. You know what? I think what I’m going to say is, “Look, this is a bit British Baking Show. If it doesn’t work, I think you should all just say, honestly, ‘Didn’t quite come together, did it?’ and then I’ll say, ‘No, afraid no. Oh, pity really. Did try. Not sure what went wrong.’” Then I’ll go home. I think that’s the way I would do best.

**John:** I like the Great British Baking Show a lot. I agree with the criticism of it, that the middle segment where they’re given this blind instructions for things can sometimes be a little absurd. You’re trying to make this thing. I have never heard of this thing. The instructions are so absurd. Yet that also feels like a puzzle situation that Craig might enjoy.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s scary. If you don’t know what you’re doing and you’re baking, it’s terrifying. To be honest with you, I’m a recipe baker. My daughter, she can actually just take things from the pantry and make something, and it’s good. Just wizardry. I’m a directions follower. I like the science of cooking. What about you, John? I assume you’d be on some sort of brutal… You’re going to want to be on Survivor, right? You’re going to want to [unclear 01:05:32]?

**John:** A younger me would want to be on Survivor. Mike White, another screenwriter–

**Craig:** He was on The Amazing Race.

**John:** He was on The Amazing Race and on Survivor. He’s been on both of those shows.

**Craig:** Jesus.

**John:** There’s been a precedent for pale gay screenwriter on these shows already. I can certainly survive it.

**Craig:** Do you think they would notice the difference? “Oh, Mike White’s back.”

**John:** “Mike White’s back.” I don’t have the blond eyelashes.

**Craig:** That is true. He’s very, very pale.

**John:** Very, very blond. That much sun freaks me out. That’s the thing that would scare me most about being on a Survivor kind of show. I think we’ve established on the show, I’m actually remarkably good at making fire. I can make fire [cross-talk 01:06:15].

**Craig:** You were an Eagle Scout.

**John:** I was an Eagle Scout, yeah, so I’m good at that. I can make it with a magnifying glass. I know how to do that stuff.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** That doesn’t scare me. I just don’t want to be out there in the sand for 30 days. I think instead I would probably, if I had to choose one, it would either be Big Brother, because you’re indoors a lot. I like being indoors. I can get along with people well. I would definitely the hide the fact that I was a screenwriter and that I had some success. I’d just make up some other career, I was a teacher in something. You just make a consistent story about that. Or Amazing Race, which is a fun show that takes you around the world. My husband and I, we do travel a lot. We could theoretically be good on that show. I just refuse to fight with him on national television. I’ve made a rule that we’re not going to fight on national television, because that’s what we would do, and it would not be fun.

**Craig:** I’m so not interested in winning. All these people want to win. I think that’s fun for them. Mike White, he also wanted to win. I don’t. That’s why I need to go on a show that’s not about winning.

**John:** Lowest stakes possible.

**Craig:** Yeah, just the most gentle, calm… Even the person who wins doesn’t really win. Then there’s a winner at the end, but it’s fine.

**John:** You get a glass plate.

**Craig:** It’s all really about just spending a nice time under a lovely tent in an area that’s reminiscent of the shire in Lord of the Rings.

**John:** That’s lovely. I would say, if I could invent a reality show for me to compete upon, it would be a gift wrapping show, because I’m really good at wrapping gifts. I would greatly enjoy the craft of wrapping gifts.

**Craig:** Literally just talking about this yesterday, because Bo’s birthday is coming up.

**John:** I know. It’s a national holiday.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** It’s here on the calendar.

**Craig:** It’s huge. It’s Bo day. I bought her a present. If she listens to this, she’ll know that I bought her a present. I was talking about this with Jaq last night in fact, because I was like, “Normally, I would have Bo wrap this, but I can’t have her wrap her own gift.” I’m just going to give it to–

**John:** Craig, can’t you take it to wardrobe and have them wrap it for you, because they help you out of all other binds.

**Craig:** That’s actually not a bad idea. They probably would know how to wrap it. “Can you guys just put this in a shirt?”

**John:** Megana, what would be your competition show? What would you compete on?

**Megana:** I don’t know if this counts. I think I would do the Bachelor.

**John:** The Bachelor totally counts. There’s a winner.

**Megana:** There is a winner.

**Craig:** Is there?

**John:** We’re all losers on the Bachelor. Tell us about your strategy on the Bachelor. What do you want to do? How much are you interacting with the other women who are competing, or are you the Bachelorette? It’s your show, so tell us how it’s going to work.

**Megana:** In order to become the Bachelorette, I would have to compete on the Bachelor. I think you brought up an interesting question, which is you can take one of two strategies, and one is to become a personality within the franchise, and the second one is to win. The prize of winning is being with a super milk toast man who’s never interacted with a woman.

**Craig:** Wait. Really? That’s who they put on the Bachelor?

**Megana:** Yeah, they always cast these guys who have the same talking points where they’re like, “Thank you so much for sharing that,” or like, “I appreciate you opening up to me,” but they don’t have an interesting point of view, or I don’t know, they’re just bad at dealing with conflict.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** Your strategy is I’m the iconic personality that they’re going to want to bring back, right?

**Megana:** Exactly. I think it’s an interesting social situation, because nobody has phones. I am always here to make friends, but I would really try to adopt the “I’m not here to make friends” strategy and pull some shenanigans, and I would be totally unchecked, because nobody has the internet.

**Craig:** Interesting, so you want to be the villain.

**Megana:** Absolutely.

**John:** Wow. This is surprising, but exciting. I think your mom is disappointed.

**Megana:** Do you think she would be disappointed? I think my mom would thrive on this.

**John:** I have played board games with your mom, and your mom, you said, cheats. Your mom is a known cheater at board games.

**Megana:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Also, does your mom have any investment in you getting married?

**John:** A little bit.

**Craig:** I think that she would be totally into this. She’s like, “I don’t really care what you do. Get married.”

**Megana:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** “I want a wedding.” Oh my god.

**John:** They’ve tried, there’s been various efforts to do a gay version of the Bachelor, and it doesn’t work, because everyone could just like, “Oh we don’t need this guy. We can just hook up with whatever.” It doesn’t actually pay off to the same degree. I would not be opposed to have been in my single life to be on one of those dating shows, because I feel like, why not? It could be fun.

**Craig:** Wait. I don’t understand. Why? I would actually prefer to watch gay Bachelor, because I would learn something new.

**John:** You would learn something new, but why are all those guys competing for the one guy, when all those guys who are also hot could just be hooking up with each other?

**Craig:** I see.

**John:** That’s the problem.

**Craig:** I see. I see.

**Megana:** That’s still great television though.

**John:** Still great television.

**Craig:** Yeah, but I get it. It’s like if you’re the Bachelor, you’re like, “Wait, where is everyone?”

**John:** Now, Megana, you’ve watched enough Bachelor. There’s been situations where women have hooked up on The Bachelor too, right?

**Megana:** Not that I can recall. I don’t think so. Not in the American Bachelor franchise.

**John:** I may be thinking of Too Hot To Handle or one of the other–

**Craig:** Love Island?

**John:** Love Island. I think it’s Love Island is maybe what I’m thinking of.

**Craig:** Love Island, just the name alone implies that everyone is hooking up with everybody. Everyone is pansexual, like Youngbloods.

**John:** Like Youngbloods. It all comes back to Youngblood, in the pre-show conversation. At some point we’ll start recording the pre-show stuff and we’ll get the real dirt on all this stuff.

**Craig:** So much better than the show.

**John:** Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Megana.

**Craig:** Thanks, guys.

**Megana:** Thanks, guys.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [‘Better Nate Than Ever’ Filmmaker on Disney’s Handling of “Don’t Say Gay” Bill: “Good Representation Does Not Cancel Out Bad Legislation”](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/disney-dont-say-gay-bill-tim-federle-better-nate-than-ever-1235112555/)
* [MGM joins Amazon Prime Studios](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/entertainment/mgm-joins-prime-video-and-amazon-studios)
* [Kinesis Ergo Keyboard](https://kinesis-ergo.com/shop/advantage2/)
* [John’s Old Keyboard set up with SafeType](https://johnaugust.com/2004/my-new-keyboard-setup)
* Subscribe to the [Inneresting Newsletter](https://johnaugust.us9.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=2b0232538adf13e5b3e55b12f&id=aeb429a997) and read our issue on [betrayals here](https://us9.campaign-archive.com/?u=2b0232538adf13e5b3e55b12f&id=2a12aa9fcb)!
* [Murderville on Netflix](https://www.netflix.com/title/81193104)
* [Logitech ERGO K860 Wireless Split Keyboard](https://www.logitech.com/en-ca/products/keyboards/k860-split-ergonomic.920-009166.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 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/542standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 543: 20 Questions with John, Transcript

April 18, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

**Craig Mazin:** My name’s Craig Mazin.

**John:** This is Episode 543 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

While it may sound like a normal John and Craig episode, it’s actually not. Craig and I couldn’t find a time to record together this week, so instead we’re recording two separate episodes in which we attempt to answer 40 listener questions.

I am going to tackle the first 20. Of course, all this wouldn’t be possible without our intrepid producer, Megana Rao. Megana, welcome to the show.

**Megana Rao:** Hello.

**John:** I say welcome to the show, but you’re actually always on the show. We can hear your laughter sometimes in the background, even when you’re not asking questions. Today you’ll be asking so many questions.

**Megana:** I’m ready. I’ve done all my vocal exercises.

**John:** Sounds good. Now next week you’ll be doing the same exercise with Craig, who will answer 20 more questions. I’m curious who’s going to have the better answers. I will be listening to this without having any exposure to it. It’ll all be a surprise to me when the next week’s episode comes out.

**Megana:** Yes, but it’s not a competition, because they’re different questions. I couldn’t bear to pit you guys against each other.

**John:** Also, we’ll have a Bonus Segment, as always. This week, Megana and I will discuss murder architecture, specifically how it relates to the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Fresh. Basically, who are these architects and contractors who are hired to build these houses in which all you can really do is kill somebody? I really want to get into the backstory behind how these houses exist, because they’re really cool and cinematic, but they’re also not practical for things other than murder. It’ll be fun.

You and Craig, I suspect you’re going to discuss millennial stuff, because Craig is obsessed with you as a millennial.

**Megana:** I hope to represent us well.

**John:** Represent us, but not me, because I’m Generation X. You’re representing your people.

**Megana:** Correct.

**John:** Your millennial identity. Last week’s episode, we were talking about keyboards. Craig mentioned that he was incredibly fast typist, he was over 100 words per minute. I was joking that you were a slow typist. We actually took a typing test and found out that you are a faster typist than I am. What number did you get?

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

**John:** I had 62 words per minute and 100% accuracy. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the test that we used, so if you want to compare yourself to the Scriptnotes folks to see how well you did. The 100% accuracy, I did make some mistakes and then back up and fix some things.

**Megana:** It counts against your total time, so I think that’s fair.

**John:** I think it’s fair too. That’s with my current weird keyboard. I do feel like the typing test, obviously you’re looking at stuff and you’re trying to type what they’re having you type, but that’s not necessarily reflective of how I really type in real life, which is basically dumping my brain out onto a page, which I think could be a little bit faster than that.

**Megana:** Because this typing test was you had to accurately notate what words they were giving you, it wasn’t–

**John:** Yeah. If I wanted to write their words, I wouldn’t be a screenwriter. In our discussion of ergonomic keyboards, several listeners also pointed me towards the ZSA Moonlander, which is a very cool looking keyboard. I always wanted to try it out, because it does look neat. It’s one of these very split keyboards where your left half and right half are completely separate units that you can position however you want to position them. They look neat. I’m eager to try something. An advantage to it may be that it’s much more portable, because one of the challenges I have with my weird vertical keyboard is it’s a bitch to pack. It’d be great to have something I could travel with if I need to travel. I’m going to be traveling this next week, so we’ll see.

**Megana:** Do you normally travel with that keyboard?

**John:** I don’t. Normally if I’m just traveling, I’m just using my MacBook, which is fine for short times, but it’s harder for longer periods of time. The year I was living in Paris, I did have to travel with my big keyboard, and so I had to find a whole setup there for how I was going to make this work with the keyboard. It’s a fragile thing to be packing and traveling with this stuff.

**Megana:** It’s massive.

**John:** It’s massive. It’s big.

**Megana:** This thing’s gorgeous though. I hope you get it.

**John:** You’ll see it. It’s coming in about two weeks. By the time I’m back from my trip, it’ll be here and we’ll try it out.

**Megana:** Cool.

**John:** Cool. It’s time for all these questions. Usually on the show, the questions get pushed to the end of the episode. Now we’re going to start with the questions and go through it. You and I were both looking at the 72 Questions with Phoebe Waller-Bridge from–

**Megana:** Vogue.

**John:** Vogue, yeah. This will not be nearly as scripted, but hopefully we’ll have some good answers to questions that our listeners actually really truly have.

**Megana:** Cool. Are you ready?

**John:** I’m ready. I’m ready. I’m stretched. I’m limber. Let’s go for it.

**Megana:** We’re going to start with a short one. Steve asked, “Are Stuart Specials a bad thing?”

**John:** Stuart Specials are what we call when we get a Three Page Challenge that starts in a way where a situation, a scene has happened, and then at the end of the three pages, then we flash back to the real time. Essentially, it’s opened in a flash forward. I don’t think Stuart Specials are always a bad thing. They become a cliché in the Three Page Challenge.

Here’s an argument for the Stuart Special is that you’re giving the reader and viewer a taste of where your movie is headed to and what it’s going to evolve into, which may not be indicative of what the normal start of the movie would be. It’s attention-grabbing in that way. Go opens with a Stuart Special. That’s fine. It is a little bit of a cliché. Megana, as you’re reading through Three Page Challenges, do you find yourself avoiding any of them because they are cliché within our little domain?

**Megana:** I think that’s exactly it. I like Stuart Specials when I see them on screen, but when I’m reading through so many Three Page Challenges, I think I get frustrated because I feel tricked by the end. I’m like, “Where is this going?” because I only have the three pages.

**John:** When I see them in real movies, they can be really effective and it gives you a sense like, oh, this is where it’s headed. You’re also waiting for that scene to happen. Sometimes you can become impatient for that moment to happen, because you know it’s supposed to be there.

**Megana:** I also realized this as I was reading this question. I forget about the beginnings of movies a lot.

**John:** That’s fair too. A movie that’s doing well, a movie that’s setting us up well and going well scene by scene by scene, you forget what you saw before, and you’re really just in it in the moment, so therefore you’ll forget about the Stuart Special. Hopefully, it caught your attention, but it’s not making you think back to it. If you’re thinking back to the opening halfway through the movie, something’s not working halfway in the movie. Cool.

**Megana:** Sam asks, “I’ve encountered a lot of advice over the years about dealing with scripts that are too long, but I rarely see people talk about what to do when a script comes up short in length, like when a feature draft is 75 pages. I realize I might just write 75-page features, but I have a hunch that I rush through things. I’m a video/podcast editor as my day job, and I think my instincts to cut things down take over during outlining and writing. I have a hard time not going as quickly as I can from wherever I’m starting a script to the ending I have in mind. Do you have any advice for how to allow scripts to breathe or for how to take a short script and look for what might be missing from it?”

**John:** Sam, I think the real problem here is you probably don’t have a second act. I’m guessing that what you’re really writing is a first act and a third act, and you’re not really allowing a second act to breathe and develop and grow and change. By that, I mean you’re creating a situation and then you’re resolving that situation, without building and conflicts and other developments in between. I suspect it’s not that your scenes are too short, that you’re running too efficiently. It’s just that you’re not actually creating enough obstacles along the way for your story to finish. There’s nothing inherently wrong about a short script. I think we all love things that can clock in at under two hours. You are probably just not actually creating enough moments of conflict and development and suspense. You’re just not doing enough there. It really is probably an outlining phase problem.

Before you start your next project, really look at where are you starting, where do you think you want to end up, but where are the surprising things along the way that can happen? What are the detours that will be rewarding? Remember, you as the writer know where it’s all headed, but the audience shouldn’t know where it’s all headed. Really, what does the character want in the moment? How can you send that character down a road that makes sense for the character, that point, but is going to lead to new obstacles and new complications? I think you’re just probably missing beats. You’re just not letting yourself explore and enjoy the story the way that you want to in a feature film.

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

**John:** A couple things. I’ve talked on this show a lot about how I have a stack of index cards scattered throughout the house. If I need to write something down, like a note, an idea, a thought, I’ll just grab an index card and write it down and put it some place where I can find it again. If it’s in the middle of the night, I will take that and stick it by the bedroom door so that it’s there and I can take it downstairs in the morning and process it and put it in my notes of things to do.

I will also use the Notes app on my phone for things like casting lists or like, that’s a good idea for this person in this role. The Notes app is really helpful for that. We certainly share notes between me and my husband for things like the grocery list and stuff like that, stuff we want to be able to easily access and add to and share at any moment.

For things that I want to hold on to and I don’t have a thing to do with them right now, but I need to not forget them, I started using Roam, R-O-A-M. It’s called Roam Research, which is like a personal Wiki where you can just dump information. I’ll have broad categories of places where I’ll put stuff. It wants to enter everything into a daily view, so you can track what day you entered some stuff. Then it’ll have little category labels for things. If this is related to a project, I’ll just use that project category and dump in my notes for that. That’s how I’ve processed those individual index cards full of information, make sure I don’t forget those things. I don’t do a great job of going back through that, honestly, and remembering it, but I know it’s always there. It keeps it from being a loop in my brain.

I think one of the best things about taking notes is it just frees your brain from having to remember stuff yourself. The only way you can remember things is by looping it and keeping an active memory. Put it in that long-term memory, and then you don’t have to stress out about it.

**Megana:** Super helpful.

**John:** Megana, what do you use for your notes? I see you doing different things. What are you using right now for your notes?

**Megana:** I mostly use the Notes app on my phone, but it’s an absolute mess. I found a note on there the other day that just said “animals” and I have no idea what that means or why I wrote that. I will write things in the middle of the night or whatever, I have an idea, I’ll create a new note for it, but it’s not organized and it’s not functional in any way.

**John:** We don’t have phones in our bedroom, and so I don’t ever turn on my phone in my room. Having just physical paper is good, because it lets me get it out of my head, but it doesn’t invite me to do anything more with it. I can’t look something up in the middle of the night, which is really helpful for me.

**Megana:** That’s very cool. I’m going to try the index card thing.

**John:** If you’re reading a book and you need to take a note about something in a book, how do you do that?

**Megana:** I guess I take a picture of it on my phone.

**John:** Then do you do something with that picture or it just sits in your photo roll?

**Megana:** It just sits in my photo album.

**John:** I think using the camera as a memory tool, it’s so helpful and it’s just so handy, but it’s hard to doing anything with that after the fact. Now with the iPhone, you can select the text in a photo and copy it out. It’s a thing to do, but you have to actually remember to do that.

**Megana:** You can search by text now, which is cool, because I’m always quoting things that I read, but have no sense of where they came from, so that’s helpful.

**John:** It’s nice. If I’m reading a book and there’s something I do need to remember, I will grab an index card and just write it down, because the actual process of having to actually write it makes me think about it more and makes me think of the context of it. I will, again, try to just use paper when I can.

**Megana:** Do you ever annotate your books?

**John:** I’m not a person who marks them up a lot. I don’t underline or mark stuff up. You’ll see some books around the house where I’ve done that, but it’s really the exception. Are you a marker-up of books?

**Megana:** If it’s something I’m using towards my writing, then yes, but otherwise, not really.

**John:** Makes sense.

**Megana:** It’s a lot of effort.

**John:** I feel like I’m never going to see that again. I have that shame about not marking up books, because what I was taught in grade school and libraries is you just don’t mark up books. I always feel bad for the next person who’s going to get that book.

**Megana:** Exactly, or embarrassed that they’re going to think the things that I marked up were lame.

**John:** It’s always fun when I read a book on Kindle. You can see that a bunch of people have marked, have highlighted a passage. It’s like, oh yeah, I can see why everyone has highlighted that one passage.

**Megana:** I know, but I judge them for that. I’m like, oh really?

**John:** So basic.

**Megana:** Clint asks, “Since shorts move so quickly, I’d like your opinion on ways to do character development. It feels like there isn’t much time to develop a character. Should we strive for longer shorts of characters more the focus rather than plot?”

**John:** Clint, I wonder if you’re not thinking about shorts in the right way, because I think we talk so much on this podcast about character development and characters having wants and needs and going through a journey, and there’s this whole sense of leaving home and emerging transformed, and it’s all about a onetime journey that transforms a character. Shorts aren’t necessarily that. Shorts are often just a situation. Shorts are like short stories. They’re really describing what a character is experiencing. They’re like a snapshot in many ways, more than a full journey at times.

I think maybe you can ease off on your pressure to have this massive character development, because there’s not really a time or space for that. It’s not really what a short film is designed to do. A short film is more like a joke. It has a setup, development, and then a punchline, a delivery. That’s great. You don’t have to think about, oh, I need to make a longer short in order to have better character development. No. I think as long as you’re really exploring the question that the short film is asking and delivering a good answer, that’s really the goal.

What you may also be thinking about is how many characters you’re trying to introduce into your short film. I think some of the best short films are really constrained in the number of characters they’re giving us, so it can really follow one person’s short journey in it. You may not have time or space to have meaningful characters set up who are having real conflict with each other. Really, it’s about one character encountering a situation and getting through a situation.

**Megana:** I agree with you. I think maybe the expectation for a short is different. Even as an audience member, I’m not expecting to see character development. I just want to see something, a little slice-of-life sort of thing.

**John:** Absolutely. It’s a postcard rather than a full book.

**Megana:** 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 that you don’t own.”

**John:** I tend to think about music pretty early on in the process, because I’m really trying to figure out what does this movie feel like, what does this show feel like, what does it sound like. I will try to build playlists for myself in Apple Music pretty early on, just like, this is what reminds me of this movie that I’m writing. Those songs won’t necessarily make it into the soundtrack. They may not be part of the script, but they’re just giving me a sense of what this all feels like.

There’s a new project that I may be doing. I’ve already started pulling some songs that make me feel like, oh, I would love to see this in context of the show, or it just reminds me of what I want this to feel like. This is a composer that I think would be fantastic for it. This is a vibe that I think is fantastic for it. Pretty early on, I do think about the music.

Yes, there are practical concerns about what songs you’re going to actually be able to get or not get. That’s going to come down the road. I don’t try to stress out about that too much at the start. For my movie The Nines, I wanted some musical kind of numbers. There would be two songs that would be sung in the course of the movie. Quite early on, I knew those would be important story scenes and that we needed to actually license the rights and prerecord them and do all that stuff. That was great and that was exciting. That’s not the norm for most scripts you’re going to be writing for someone else to read.

I would say just use thinking about music as a way to help you build the world in your head, but also don’t let it become a time suck where you’re curating the perfect playlist for this movie that you’re never actually writing. All these kind of things can be distractions from the actual real hard work of sitting down and putting words after each other to actually build your movie.

**Megana:** I get to listen to that music sometimes when you and I are driving around or something, but are you sharing that with anyone else?

**John:** Generally not. There’s one project which I had a collaborator on, so he and I have a shared playlist for that. No, I’m not usually sending in a bunch of tracks along with the script to the studio. If it is generally musical, then of course we’re all listening to the same things or making sure we’re talking about the same songs. At this stage, I wouldn’t be sharing this with anybody else. For one project I’m working on, there’s a very specific vibe of music that I’m trying to do. I think it may make sense for me to put in links in the script to some examples of what this is going to sound like, because otherwise people may not really have a sense of what it is I’m describing. You’ve actually talked about one of your projects, you just put links in the pdfs to the songs, and that was helpful. I’ve done that with another project, on your suggestion.

**Megana:** Cool. I’ve never seen you reference a particular song if it wasn’t a musical in your script before, but I definitely feel that the vibe that you’ve created in your playlist translates.

**John:** In my script for Dark Shadows, Let the Sunshine In was an incredibly important song for one sequence. That’s a thing where I did script into the movie, like, this is going to happen here, but that’s really an exception for me.

**Megana:** Cool. Nick asks, “What are some of the ways seeing your work produced has influenced your writing style, particularly seeing actors perform your characters and their dialog, and possibly the questions they ask you about it?”

**John:** It is a big difference when you first see something actually happening in front of you. The first thing I had produced was Go. I remember sitting on set. We were shooting this scene which is no longer in the movie. We’re in this apartment building. I’m sitting on the floor outside of camera view and watching this first scene get shot. I was just so excited. I’m seeing these things happening. These words I wrote are actually now… Actors are saying them and it’s all happening in front of me.

Then you realize it all becomes small technical questions on the day. You approach the scene with this perfect idealized version of how it’s all going to be. Then when you actually get there, you realize there are a thousand compromises and some wonderful discoveries you make along the way, like, “Oh, I didn’t see that as a possibility. This is really great. I love that line reading they’re giving. I love how the director’s staging this thing.”

More importantly and more present are the compromises that are being made based on the reality of the locations you have, the time you have, who you have, the number of setups you can get into. I think a thing you learn over time is what’s easy and what’s difficult in production. The things that are going to be obstacles along the way could be the number of night scenes you have, the number of kids you have, the number of really complicated setups, the number of characters you have in a scene.

A thing I don’t think I realized was when I was just pushing words around on paper is that if you have a character who is not doing anything in a scene, it’s really tough for that actor to be present in a scene but not actually have lines or have a specific thing they’re trying to do. They just become dead weight there. When we’re reading a script, we don’t really notice it in there, but then you actually shoot a scene, you realize, oh wow, that character’s standing there and has nothing to do. That becomes a problem. That’s a conversation you end up having with directors and actors and finding business for them on the set.

A thing you also recognize once you’ve actually had things produced is recognizing that scenes that aren’t absolutely necessary will probably get cut, because there’s just this ruthless pressure to have everything build to the next thing and build to the next scene. If you have a scene that you really need to keep in there for tone reasons, for comedy reasons, make sure there’s a plot reason why it also needs to be in there, because otherwise, it’s in real jeopardy.

When you talk with actors about what they’re doing in the scene or what their motivation is, it’s important, as a writer, to remember that they are there to be the character, they are not there to be the movie. Always frame your answers in terms of what it is they’re trying to do right now and what is right in front of them and not what the scene is supposed to do or what’s happening in the movie, because they don’t know, they don’t care, that’s not their responsibility. Their responsibility is to their performance in this moment. That can be a thing that’s hard to remember, because you are the person who has this God’s-eye view on the whole thing. You remember why that character’s saying that line, because it’s setting up something down the road that doesn’t matter. What matters is why they are saying in that moment.

One of the things I think is really useful about being the screenwriter though who does have a God’s-eye view is sometimes there can be an instinct in a scene to make a little change. It doesn’t matter. It flows a little bit more naturally, but you know it sets up something very important later on. It echoes something later on. You may need to stop and say, “I get why you’re trying to do that. This becomes important later on for these reasons,” and you can have that conversation. That’s another good reason to have a writer on set, because you can sometimes point to things that they wouldn’t otherwise see.

The last thing I would say is that you’ll see in director Q and A’s about a movie that came out, it’s like, “Oh, I had this long scene, and then we decided that actor can just do it in a look. They don’t need all this dialog. They don’t need all this stuff.” Sure, that happens some. Often, you do need the dialog, or at least without that dialog you wouldn’t have gotten to that look. It’s recognizing that you are giving them things to say and stage directions to help create that mood. Sometimes they can cut things out, because we got it with a look. That doesn’t mean it was a failure on your part as a writer. It means it was a success that you were able to create a situation in which they could give a performance that didn’t need to have all the words you originally could’ve put there.

**Megana:** That’s super helpful. You and I both watched a movie recently where you could say all of the actors are in their own different movie. That’s a really helpful thing to keep in mind. Your point about having actors who are necessary to the scene reminded me of that Patton Oswalt clip in, I think it’s the King of Queens, where he’s in the scene but doesn’t have any dialog, and he just stands perfectly still in the background. Have you seen it?

**John:** I haven’t. That sounds great.

**Megana:** It’s amazing. I’ll include it in the show notes and Slack it to you. It’s so good.

**John:** That surprises me with something like King of Queens, because I feel like an ongoing show would have a really good sense of like, okay, we have to service all these characters and all these actors. They probably wouldn’t put somebody in the scene who didn’t absolutely need to be there. Sometimes they needed him for one line, which was coming at the very end. There are these wide shots that you can just see him there in the acts. It’s tough.

A thing you don’t appreciate when you’re writing scenes is how they’re going to be shot and how coverage is going to work, which is basically when the camera is focused on one actor versus another actor and when you’re in wider shots, when you’re in medium shots, and how differently it’ll play than the master shot that you’re probably thinking about as you’re writing the scene. Generally, we’re writing scenes to reflect reality, like what is actually really happening in this space. We’re not hopefully thinking too much shot by shot by shot by shot, but ultimately it is going to be shot by shot by shot by shot, and understanding that some things are going to change and feel different because of that. The rhythms and the tempos will change. That’s just the compromise we’re making for the media that we’re chosen to write in.

**Megana:** I’d love to hear you guys talk more about just the mechanics of characters entering and leaving scenes.

**John:** Absolutely. Let’s put that on the board for a future episode, because entrances and exits are so crucial. We try to cut them as much as possible, because they can be shoe leather, but they can also be really essential when they need to happen. On stage, they have to happen, because bodies have to move on and move off. There’s a whole art to that. There’s a very different art to how we do it on film and television.

**Megana:** Great. Next question, Katie in LA asks, “I’ve been wanting your perspective on the intersection of parenting and art, specifically in regards to Euphoria. Do you watch it? Do your children? As a parent of a five-year-old, it gives me panic attacks, but as you are further along in your parenting journey, I’d love to know if it’s a thing for you and/or how you’re talking to your kids about it.”

**John:** As a parent of a teen, Euphoria also gives me panic attacks. Listen, it’s a show about high schoolers, which means that junior high schoolers really want to watch it. They want to watch it most. Yet it’s a show that’s really made for adults.

I want to both support the show in terms of it has its vision of showing high school life through a very different lens, and I want to support that vision, and yet as a parent I really wish the show didn’t exist. I can say that. I wish the show didn’t exist as a parent, not as a writer, because I think it is so dangerously attractive to exactly the teens who shouldn’t be watching it. It’s not trying to glamorize that life, and yet it is glamorizing that life, because these are ridiculously attractive people doing really dangerous things in this perpetual Southern California fog somehow. For all the reasons it is so attractive to teenagers, I think it’s also not a great thing for certain teenagers to watch. I think it can be really triggering for some kids who should not be seeing it.

Katie’s talking about she has a five-year-old. You can control access to media for a five-year-old. It’s much harder to control access to media for a 13-year-old, a 14-year-old who has the internet and who can find stuff, even if you were to put a password on your HBO Max account. That’s a real question. I think the issues of responsibility kick in there too. Yet I don’t want to take away their specific vision of somebody who wants to make this show about this experience. It’s just tough.

I have to hold both things, that I want the show to be able to exist, because it’s a show with an artistic vision and really great performances and all the things that are noble about it, and as a parent I don’t want it to be out there for teens who shouldn’t see it. It’s really hard to keep your teens from seeing it. I do feel like sometimes people who create things like this aren’t aware of how challenging it is to keep things from teens who want to see it. Megana, what’s your take on Euphoria? You’ve watched it.

**Megana:** I’ve watched it. I watched the first season. I haven’t seen the second season yet. I also don’t know if I’m ready for it. They are impossibly cool and hot. I could totally see how if I was in junior high school it would set up this expectation. I think kids are able to parse things out and know that that’s not reality, but it is a little bit harder to discern when you’re that age and you’re that close to it. I totally hear what you’re saying. That makes a lot of sense.

Jerry asks, “I’m intercutting between two scenes that happen at the same place, but at different times. This will be sustained for three and a half pages. Is it best to use slug lines in transitions or offer an action line detailing the nature of the transitions early on in the scene?”

**John:** The word Jerry wants is intercutting or intercut. What he can do, and this is common, you’ll see it in a lot of scripts, is let’s say there’s two basic scenes happening. There is a bank robbery happening and there is a scene in a diner happening. They’re happening at the same time. You’re intercutting between the two of them. They have some sort of play between the two of them, but they’re not the same scene. They’re two different spaces. Generally, you’ll set up one moment. The bank heist is happening, and we’re seeing what’s happening in the vault. That’ll be its own scene header. New scene header for INT diner day, and these two characters are having this meal.

Then at a certain point you say intercut. Intercut means both scenes are going to be happening. From that point forward, you can just use the scene description to talk about what’s happening in those moments. You don’t have to keep going back to scene header, scene header, scene header. For most situations, this will get you through it and it’ll feel nice and natural, because you’re not stopping the flow constantly the way you would be if you were throwing in scene headers all the time. It makes it really feel more like the sequence would be in the movie then just a bunch of scene headers on a page. Intercut or intercutting is your friend there.

At a certain point when you’re done with that, you say, END INTERCUTTING. That’s all uppercase, generally with a period, basically like, hey, we’re done with that sequence and now it’s time to move on. Then either you stay in one of your moments, in one of your situations, or you go to a whole new scene header for a new place that you’re going to end up.

**Megana:** I see. Would you also delineate when you are going to see a certain scene by using voiceover from the other scene? Does that make sense?

**John:** If it’s important that we’re not seeing the character on screen doing it, but that it’s a voiceover, sure, you put the VO after them. I think you would probably want to indicate, from Max side, Molly VO, they’re coming right towards you, or something like that. That’s a situation where you might want to try to make that more clear. In most cases it will just make sense. You can find ways just with scene description to have it make sense. We know who the characters are. We know where they are. You don’t need to hold our hand through it all.

**Megana:** That’s super helpful.

**John:** That was a good palette cleanser there. We can go back to something a little bit more challenging.

**Megana:** Enthusiastic But Not Ignorant asks, “I’m a mid-career mid-list novelist. I’ve written several books which have been published by commercial houses and well-reviewed in major outlets, but I’m not a bestseller. Now an established production company with a solid track record has made an option offer on my latest book, with the aim of making a limited series. My question is this. If I wanted to use this opportunity to get some TV writing experience, what is the best way to go about it? Should I ask to take a crack at the pilot on spec? Should I wait to see if something goes into production and try to get in the writers’ room? I want to be involved, but I also want to give this the best chance of success, which probably means allowing people who have actually done this before to take the reins.”

**John:** I love Enthusiastic, because Enthusiastic sees what they want, but also recognizes why going after what they want too aggressively may hurt the thing down the road. You’re coming at this from the right perspective. Congratulations on writing the books, and this book in particular which may go to limited series. Take that victory for what it is.

I think your goal now should be, how do I help this series be as awesome as it could possibly be? That is by being supportive and enthusiastic about the project, supportive and enthusiastic about who are they bringing to be the showrunner on this project, who hopefully you will meet with. Try to be that resource for them, so that they always feel like you’re on their side, you are that person who can help them achieve greatness with this.

I would not try to write this pilot yourself, because you don’t know how to do it. All the natural problems that are going to come up with writing this pilot are going to be amplified, because they’re going to be worried about you as a new screenwriter trying to adapt this thing. You could turn the same script that somebody else could turn in, but they’re going to judge it weirdly because you don’t have experience actually making the show. I think you should not try to write it.

I think you should offer to read absolutely anything, give enthusiastic, positive notes, really try to help the process, but not intervene very much in it, because I do worry that you’re going to probably derail it more than you’re going to help it. In success, then you have the opportunity to be more involved on the next project, and you’ll also read a bunch of these things, you’ll have seen how this all happened and how the sausage was made.

**Megana:** Would you recommend that Enthusiastic try to get into the writers’ room down the line? I hear what you’re saying about the pilot, but should they, I don’t know, try to position themself for any sort of writing credit on this project?

**John:** I don’t think that’s a great idea, because I think if you were going to be in the writers’ room on a project, there’s going to be this weird power dynamic between you and the showrunner, because you are the person who created the original material, and this is the showrunner, and if they’re changing things, people look, like, “Oh, is it okay that they’re changing this thing? I don’t think that’s a great idea.”

If people can write with other experiences where it’s worked out great, fantastic. I know on The Leftovers, Damon Lindelof and the guy who wrote the book The Leftovers, they did collaborate on stuff, and that sounded great. If the person who wants to adapt your book wants to adapt it with you, that’s great. That’s a fantastic dream scenario, but that’s not likely. It’s going to probably be a very special situation if that’s the case. I think Tom Perrotta is the man I was trying to think about for The Leftovers. Maybe that’ll happen, but I don’t think it’s going to probably happen in this case.

**Megana:** Got it. Francesco asks, “I’ve been watching the Dirty Harry series on HBO Max recently, as well as Bullet, and found myself wondering why we don’t get a lot of movies set in San Francisco anymore. In the ’60s and ’70s it seemed like a reasonable place to set movies, but in the last couple of decades, everything seems to be set in either New York or LA. The exceptions are biopics about people from SF, like Milk. Even a movie that was written and set in San Francisco like 500 Days of Summer ended up being switched to LA. Is there some financial or logistical reason for this, like San Francisco not offering good tax credits, or are cities other than Los Angeles and New York not considered relatable or interesting anymore? I ask about the lack of San Francisco-based movies because it’s my nearest big city, but I suspect if they were making Rocky now, it wouldn’t be set in Philadelphia. Thoughts?”

**John:** I think Rocky would still be set in Philadelphia. I think San Francisco is a weird special case that’s worth looking at. San Francisco, from what I understand from producers who try to shoot there, it’s just ridiculously hard to shoot there. It makes you recognize how much LA and New York City bend over backwards to make it comparably easy to shoot there. When it comes to permits, policing, neighbors, parking, basically the infrastructure within a town to make it simple to shoot a film there are just much robust in cities that shoot a lot. There’s a virtuous cycle where because things shoot here, it’s easy to shoot things here. Because things aren’t shooting in San Francisco, it’s harder to shoot things there. You don’t have the crew and equipment infrastructure, because there aren’t crews ready to go in San Francisco of a size for a big studio feature, because there aren’t people living up there who have been doing that all the time.

There are some logistical problems in San Francisco apparently also just because of it’s so hilly. Where you park the trucks is a real challenge. If you don’t have good cooperation from police and traffic and everybody else to move cars off the road, so you can actually park places where you need to put those big trucks, that can be a challenge.

That said, there are movies that are shot there. I’m thinking back to Diary of a Teenage Girl. Marielle Heller came on to talk about that. That was shot in San Francisco. Again, it’s a smaller movie. It has a smaller footprint, which makes a lot more sense for that. The HBO show Looking that I loved was also set in San Francisco, shot in San Francisco. They made it work, but I bet it was more challenging in San Francisco than it would’ve been here in Los Angeles. They made the choice to really do it in San Francisco, which is great for that.

I do think Rocky would shoot in Philadelphia. That was iconic for that movie, that place. You’re also close enough to New York City that you can pull in a crew from New York if you need to. It’s not that challenging.

When we made Big Fish, we were in Montgomery, Alabama and Wetumpka, Alabama. There was no crew, and so we had to pull people in from every place else. The city was really accommodating for us because we were the first big feature to come in there, but they didn’t have the kind of infrastructure that other places would have. We had to wing it. We had to spend money that we wouldn’t have otherwise had to spend, just because of the challenges of shooting in a place that was not used to filming.

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

**John:** I think Zoom pitches are here to stay. Right now in Los Angeles as we’re recording this, it’s safe enough that people could go back in the room to do things in person. I actually think they’re going to go back to doing stuff in person. All the meetings and the pitches I’ve had recently have been on Zoom, and producers and other folks who aren’t even in Los Angeles. It would be really impossible or very unlikely to get them to fly to Los Angeles to do this one pitch. I think Zoom pitching is here to stay. I think 70, 80% of pitches coming up will be Zoom pitches, at least for the next few years. It’s not just the pandemic. It really is an easier, better way to do some of this work.

Megana, you’ve been helping me out so much on pitching recently. I have these slide decks I need to use. We discovered it’s much easier for you to join the Zoom call as well and be the person driving the slides while I’m just talking. I’m not responsible for clicking forward and switching stuff from one input to another input. I think it does just make sense for pitching really. When you’re on Zoom, everyone can look at the same set of slides or everyone’s looking forward. You’re not having to pay attention to one person in the room or other people in the room. I just think it’s better, and I think Zoom pitching is here to stay.

**Megana:** All the things about, I don’t know, your bodily awareness you don’t have to worry about in a Zoom pitch, like, oh, this outfit I’m wearing is scratchy or I’m too hot in this room. You can control it, because it’s your house.

**John:** Megana, you’ve been pitching a ton, but you’ve only done Zoom pitches. You don’t really have the experience of pitching a project in a room, correct?

**Megana:** Correct, but I love Zoom pitches. They’re fun. I guess I’ve adapted to the Zoom of it all. I’m sure I would love in-person pitches too, because I like meeting people and chatting. I think the Zoom, and now that we’ve all gotten a little bit better at the logistics of sharing kino and the tech behind it, it’s become really seamless and everyone knows what to expect.

**John:** What I do miss about in-person pitching and in-person meetings, general meetings too, is I think you get a sense of whether you vibe with somebody better in person than you do on Zoom. That’s just a reality check. I remember very early meetings with Andrea Giannetti, who’s at Sony now, but back when she was at TriStar, she calls me into her office and she’s like [unclear 00:37:46] going through stuff and just get a sense of, oh, I get who you are. I don’t think I would have that same experience with her now on Zoom, just because a Zoom meeting is just much more functional. It’s not hang out and vibe and chitchat a bit. It’s different on that level. I will miss a little of that, but on the whole, we’ve had the chance to pitch to, as you saw, 12 places that would’ve been impossible to pitch if we were trying to do this in person.

**Megana:** Oh my gosh. That’s a great point. I’ve had a couple of generals that have been in person. From the logistics of meeting someone and figuring out who they are at the coffee shop or where to go in the office, all of that in-between stuff, I do think you get a good sense of your dynamic and who the other person is that you don’t via Zoom.

**John:** There’s going to be some function of in-person stuff for certain kinds of things, but if we’re actually going out to pitch a project and trying to pitch to 10 places in a week, Zoom is just so much better. I remember when we were trying to set up Prince of Persia, and Jordan Mechner and I were literally driving studio to studio to studio, and it was all like, could we get from this place to that place, or suddenly we’d have to go from Sony to Warner Bros.

**Megana:** Oh my gosh.

**John:** It’s tough. The folks who don’t live in Los Angeles are like, what’s the difference between Sony and Warner Bros? It’s an hour in bad traffic.

**Megana:** What else is nice is I feel like it frees up your day, because there are certain times of day in Los Angeles where no one should be driving. Now you can pitch at 4 o’clock and it’s no big deal.

**John:** There was a company who wanted to do Arlo Finch, and so I remember going out to have a meeting with them in Santa Monica. I liked them, but the fact that they were in Santa Monica made me really a little bit down on them as a place. Now, much less of a deal, because I recognize I would never be driving out to Santa Monica.

**Megana:** Moving on to Ben, Ben asked, “I finally got a job at a major film studio. I’m a receptionist/office coordinator. On my break, my boss’s boss’s boss saw me working on my script. We talked about story for a while, and as she was leaving, she invited me to send her a, quote, solid script, and that she would forward it to the head of the studio. I told her that I had just started on this script and I wanted to take my time. She said, ‘No worries. This is an open invitation. Take a year if you need. We aren’t going anywhere.’ My question is, can I really take a year? I’m worried that she’ll forget about her offer or she might move on to another studio or something like that.”

**John:** Ben, you can take a year. Don’t burn this offer too quickly on something that’s not great. Whatever you do decide to give to her, have some other people read it first and tell you, oh, this is good, because don’t give her something that’s not good, because it’s not going to help anybody. She says she’ll forward it to the head of the studio. We’ll see. She’ll forward it to the head of the studio if she really, really, really likes it. More importantly, she’s a person who could be a fan on your side, so that’s great.

It seems like Ben is back in person where he’s working, because someone’s walking by and seeing him do something. That’s exciting for Ben. That is one of the real advantages to being in person is that casual notice somebody’s doing something and have it work there. It reminds me of when I was an intern at Universal. I was responsible for really menial filing of paperwork and stuff. Doing my lunch breaks, I would type up my script. I had handwritten pages, and over the lunch break I would type them up on my little laptop in the commissary.

**Megana:** Aw.

**John:** Some people would ask to see stuff, and I just knew that I wasn’t ready to show this to anybody. It was nice that they asked. They could see that my goal wasn’t to be a clerk filist, my goal was to be a screenwriter, and they were rooting for me in some way, which was nice. You had more experience though with this probably recently with folks in your writing group and when they show it to superiors or folks they’re working with. What is the consensus you’re hearing out there on the street?

**Megana:** I agree with you. I think a year is totally fine. I think in LA there’s just a weird sense of time because we don’t have seasons. To me I wouldn’t even notice if someone sent something to me a year later. The other point that I was going to make is I think definitely have your friends or your writing group or writers you respect read it. A piece of advice that my friend Joey Siara from my writers group gives is, at a certain point though, if your friends have been reading multiple drafts, they’re no longer objective readers, and they’re your friends, so they can’t always give you harsh feedback. I think at a point like that, using something like the blacklist or having a third-party reader who’s not been invested in your project since the genesis of the idea is really helpful to get some more measured and neutral feedback before you send it to a professional like your boss’s boss.

**John:** For sure. [Unclear 00:42:37] next.

**Megana:** Mark from Tennessee asks, “Can you give examples of scenes that you wrote that you realized would be difficult to shoot and how you rewrote them to be more shootable and/or production-friendly without compromising the quality or purpose of the scene?”

**John:** Great, I can think of a lot of examples of those kind of rewrites. In the original script for Big Fish, there is a sequence about how Edward Bloom was born. It came from the book. It was this big mythological birth moment that happened. We got to Alabama, and Tim Burton said, “I just don’t have a place to shoot this. It just doesn’t actually work here. Can we do something simpler like he’s really slippery?” I’m like, great, he can be a slippery baby. It became a much shorter, simpler scene. Also, it got a laugh and it was the right kind of change. It was really a production change. It was a money, budget, couldn’t actually shoot it change, but it was a better change for the movie, so I was happy to make that alteration.

In Go, the original script, there is an additional character who appears in the third section. I always called her the Linda Hunt character. She’s a supervisor to Burke. She got written out because she had nothing else to do. It was logistical in the sense of we just couldn’t really afford the scenes, but also it just didn’t need to be there. It was a good cut. Then when we went back and did the reshoots for Go, originally the three sections of that movie branched off from different scenes. It was at the supermarket, but they were different scenes. That’s what kicked them off. It was recognized, oh no, we should go back to the exact same scene each time that jumps us off to the new place. It was this simplification there that really helped.

For The Nines, I think one of the things that was really helpful is we found a way to shoot LA for New York City. When we did the actual real New York City stuff, our footprint was super, super small. It was just me, a camera operator, and a local sound person. We didn’t have any trucks. We didn’t have anything. We could just shoot the New York exteriors we needed and sell that. We didn’t need to bring anybody else there to New York. A lot of the stuff that takes place in the New York section of the movie is all LA, including the New York jewelry district, just because our downtown LA can look like New York if you frame it right.

The other thing which was so crucial for The Nines was recognizing that usually when you’re trying to schedule a movie, you’re trying to schedule around locations. You’re trying to shoot out a location and move on to the next location so you don’t have to go back to a location. In this case, we had to optimize for what part of the movie we were in, and really it came down to the state of Ryan Reynolds’s hair and beard, because we were cutting his hair, we were coloring his hair, he had a beard, he had no beard, and so we had to optimize for that. Because we were shooting the main set as my house, we could shoot at my house, go do something else, come back to my house, go do something else, and so we could dress the house and do the house, just be really flexible in that location. That made all the difference, because the movie would cost so much more if we had to do wigs and other things to make all the rest of the things work so we could shoot out a location. That was a big factor.

The general things you’re looking for when you’re trying to figure out for production concerns are, does it have to be night. If it can day, it’s going to be just simpler. Can we not have children? Can we not have animals? Those are things that add complexity. If you can avoid those, you’re going to save some time and some frustration.

**Megana:** Can I ask you a question about this simplifying out the Linda Hunt character? I know that you worked on movies that are shooting as you are rewriting things. What is your methodology for that? I feel like my brain would explode.

**John:** That got dropped out before we had really even budgeted. We knew that that was going to go away. If you’re in production and you’re recognizing, okay, all these things are shifting… The Charlie’s Angels movies are examples of everything was shifting every day, and you had to figure out what we shot, what’s coming up next, what was public. You really just try and optimize for what is the movie we’re trying to make right now and not be too beholden on what the original plan was behind things. If there’s a simplification to be had, do it. If it’s not going to materially affect the story you’re trying to tell or the production value you’re trying to achieve, you do it. Things like if you have to move the crew from one place to another place, that’s a huge drag, unless it’s not.

An example in Big Fish is we were shooting in Montgomery, Alabama, and we would shoot exteriors at the river, but then if the weather turned or the light was not good, they could just pull up the trucks at lunch and move back to our stages, which was just this warehouse, and shoot stuff in the afternoon at the stages. Being flexible and recognizing what is the priority. In the case of Big Fish, sometimes the priority was let’s get really good light for these exteriors, and you could optimize for that.

**Megana:** Very cool. Moving on, Ryan asks, “Screenplay examples for instruction comes in waves. Tootsie, Star Wars, Casablanca. Which scripts from the last 20 years do you think should get, quote, taught in film programs?”

**John:** My first instinct was to say Aliens, but then I realized Aliens is more than 20 years old, which makes me feel so, so, so old. Listen, I think there’s so many great scripts to be picking there. A lot of indie films should also be higher up there. I think Booksmart is a great movie and does a really good job of its storytelling and character wants being explored and expressed, and it has a sense of fun and a sense of style, which is great. All Lord and Miller’s work is creative and fun and does really interesting things with audience expectation, so I’d move those up higher there. Wow, other great, recent movie examples…

I think the reason I was reaching back to Aliens is that was such a seminal script for how we’re writing action on the page, and I feel like it’s been duplicated so thoroughly and modeled so much in movies after that point that you could probably read any action film over the last 10 years and it’s still going to have some of that quality to it. Megana, I’ll throw this back to you. You’re newer to the screenplay format. Of the stuff that you’ve read that’s more recent, what do you think is going to be very teachable?

**Megana:** I guess a couple of other examples that I think seem fresher to me are The Wolf of Wall Street or Adam McKay movies where there’s just so much breaking the fourth wall and exposition done in a different way that feels new. Is that true?

**John:** I think that is also true. I think it’s playful with the format. You look at The Big Short and it’s how it’s getting that information out there. We’ve talked about The Social Network as being a really good movie to watch in terms of how it is telling a story, how it is using real life just as a springboard to make a very specific point about this environment. I think those movies will be on the short list.

It’s also worth noting that so many of the classic movies we’re pointing to, say like Tootsie, Star Wars, Casablanca, white guys wrote them, and so I think making sure that the canon that we’re teaching from isn’t just like, these are the white male screenwriters of that era. There’s really amazing films being made by filmmakers of all different backgrounds, and making sure that we’re not just teaching one kind of thing.

**Megana:** Totally. Eliza asks, “I’m an aspiring writer, and I’ve recently learned about the TV fellowship programs and decided to apply. Fast-forward to a month later and I’m bleeding out of my eyeballs and pulling out my hair.”

**John:** Oh no, Eliza.

**Megana:** That was so graphic. “The truth is I find TV spec scriptwriting to be incredibly hard. The number one tip that I’ve encountered is, spec what you love, but I love highly serialized shows. When I sit down and try to find some tiny crevice where I can maybe explore something further, say on a season of Killing Eve or The Morning Show, I run out of steam by the end of Act One. I just can’t for the life of me come up with a spec story that has legs long enough to travel for 60 pages, which lines up perfectly with what occurred in the preceding episode and what will occur in the succeeding episode.

“Writing a TV spec has been so shatteringly difficult that it’s making me question if I have potential as a writer at all. It’s supposed to be a straightforward exercise that amateur writers can use as a steppingstone to become professionals. In other words, it’s child’s play, right? Is this an indication that I should just pack up my stuff and head to the exit?”

**John:** Yes, Eliza, you should give up now. You should completely give up. No, Eliza, you have, I think, some wrong expectations. Let’s disabuse you of your wrong expectations. First let’s talk about what spec writing is for TV. When someone says a spec script when it comes to TV, they’re probably referring to this is an existing show, I’m going to write an episode of this existing show, not because they’re paying me to do it, but to show that I know how to write and that I could write a show like this. You write one of these things not because you’re trying to get hired for that specific show, but as a sample for you to get staffed on a show that could be kind of like it. If you’re writing The Morning Show and you’re hoping to get staffed on Bridgerton or something, you have the ability to do an existing thing.

These kind of spec scripts have fallen a bit out of favor. They were much more common when I was starting. Some showrunners really like them. I remember Mindy Kaling tweeting about how much she loves reading specs, because you get a sense of can this person write this voice, can this person really understand how this TV show works.

Useful exercise, but just understand that it has its limitations. One of the limitations that you’re encountering is that you really can’t try to fit your episode into the existing narrative and existing plot lines of a serialized drama that same way. You can’t make this be an alternate Episode 3 of Season 4. It’s just not going to work. Take that pressure off yourself. Instead ask, what is something you would love to see the show do at a certain point. Don’t try to be so serialized.

Find a way to take these characters and have them do something interesting that feels like it could be an episode of the show, it just wasn’t an episode of the show. The characters feel consistent with the universe of that original TV show, and yet they’re not trying to directly slot into something else that has happened in there. I’m going to reach back to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You don’t have to make it fit into one season mythology or one big bad mythology. Just have it be something that feels like a classic, good episode of that show. Maybe if you’re going to do something interesting, take those characters somewhat out of their normal environment, put two characters together who don’t generally have opportunities to interact.

Do something that is both the voice of the show, but also stands out and is unique, so that a writer who may want to hire you, a showrunner who may want to hire you, says, “This person not only understands the show, but understands how to do something interesting with those characters and the elements that they’re given.

**Megana:** Totally. I think some of the expectations that Eliza has are a little too high. I don’t think anyone who is reading these fellowship applications is going to be tracking at one point in the season or the plot line this goes. They probably don’t even watch that show. They just have a sense of who the characters are or maybe they’ve seen an episode. I think that you’re absolutely right, and taking some of that pressure off will really help.

**John:** Don’t bleed out your eyeballs and don’t give up on this, because you’re trying to do something that’s really difficult, and it’s not a normal job at all. It’s not a normal thing to have to write an episode of a show you’re not getting paid to write, that you don’t have the writers’ room as a resource. You’re trying to do a weird thing, so just try the best job at it you can. I think honestly these kind of spec pilots make more sense for comedy. They show your comedy chops and your ability to write characters’ voices in a way that make more sense, which may be why I think so much of staffing has moved to reading original stuff rather than specs of existing shows.

**Megana:** I think specking what you love makes a lot of sense because you know the world of the show, but I’ve never specked something that’s a highly serialized drama. I wonder if that’s also making it harder for her. I wonder if there’s a procedural she likes enough that she could write a spec for.

**John:** That’s such a great point. It reminds me of that Ira Glass quote about, at a certain point you recognize you have taste, but you don’t have talent. She probably has really good taste when it comes to The Morning Show, so she knows exactly how it’ll all work and she knows what a great episode this is, and she’s comparing what she’s writing to the very best episode of The Morning Show ever, and not being able to see the process to get there. I do think picking something that she loves so much may be part of the problem.

**Megana:** Totally. Moody asks, “What’s the deal with streamers and residuals? For example, do the writers of a Netflix Original or another subscription-based streamer make close to what a writer for a studio is going to make with purchase and rental fees? Are residuals even relevant the way they used to be?”

**John:** Oh yes. The question of streamers and residuals is an ongoing one. It’s going to be inevitably a focus of negotiation for the next MBA negotiations. Let’s talk through the current state of, if you write something for a streamer, how residuals work.
The important thing to understand is right now it is a fixed residual. Let’s say you got story and teleplay on a credit for a one-hour that you write for Netflix. This is an example here. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the WGA document that talks you through how you actually calculate what these things are, based on the current deal. For this one hour written for Netflix, the residual base would be $29,657. That’s not money you’re getting right now, but that’s what’s called the base of it. That’s how much the residual pot is worth for that.

Then it depends on how big the streamer is. There’s this thing called subscriber tiers, which is by how many people, I think only in North America, are subscribers to that service. In the case of Netflix, it’s the highest tier because they have the most at more than 45 million subscribers. It’s called a subscriber factor. You multiply that original 29,000 by 150%, so it increases that. Working off that, there’s what’s called an exhibition gear percentage. Basically, each year, a percentage of that total money, you’re getting paid out as a residual. It starts at 45% in the first year. It drops to 1.5% in years 13 and beyond.
For this hypothetical show that you’ve written that you got written by credit on, you would be getting a first-year residual of $20,000, and then it would drop dramatically year after year after year until 13 years where you get 1.5% of that, or one 40th of that really is the best way to think about that.

It’s really hard to compare this residual to what you would be getting in cable or in broadcast, because cable and broadcast, they are generally not fixed residuals. There’s a fixed residual for the first rerun in broadcast, but really your residual in normal TV is based on a percentage of the licensing deal. When Friends sells, for licensing, there’s a certain amount per episode, and you as a writer get a percentage of that. An incredibly successful show like Friends, that licensing fee is huge and your residuals can be huge. A show that is not a big hit could be a lot less.

Right now the deal with the streamers is, probably for some shows you’re getting a little bit more residuals on it, because it doesn’t matter whether it’s a success or not, but for the big hits you’re getting really screwed. You’re not getting any piece of that pie on a giant hit. If you write Stranger Things, you’re still getting the same crappy fixed residual. It’s not great right now. It could be a lot better. It’s a reason why I think there’s going to be so much focus on trying to improve how we’re doing this and to really make the success of a given show be reflected in the residuals that a writer gets for having written that show. Did that make sense? I’m trying to talk through a lot of numbers.

**Megana:** It does. We’ll link to this WGA article, because it’s really helpful, these graphs, and then the calculations and the examples that they walk through make it easier to follow. It is surprisingly complicated. I didn’t realize how much these percentages dropped off year over year.

**John:** Yeah, I think it falls off a cliff. Some caveats here, we’re talking about high-budget subscription video on demand, which is what you call the expensive stuff made for something like a Netflix. There’s a lower-budget thing, which obviously the results aren’t going to be as good, and the calculations work differently. If you’re making a movie that is originally intended for a theatrical market, but then it’s released on Netflix instead of being released theatrically, in that case they have to calculate what’s called an [unclear 00:59:01] license fee, which is basically how much they think the movie would be licensed for if it were out on the open market. That becomes harder and harder to do as there are fewer movies out there who then are showing up on streaming later on. There’s ways to calculate it when it’s not clear that it was made for this market, but it’s complicated.

When you’re in one of those situations, you get the Guild involved to check on it, and the Guild is constantly arguing about how certain things should be counted, so it’s tough. Let’s say you have an existing show that is then licensed through a streamer. That goes through a more normal residual process, which is basically there’s a license fee, Netflix is paying a certain amount per episode, you as a writer get a percentage of that amount in your residuals.

**Megana:** I have a lot of follow-up questions. Is that why day-and-date release stuff that came out during the pandemic was more complicated? Did that affect drastically how writers were being paid for movies that were simultaneously being theatrically released and put on streamers?

**John:** The fact of the residuals to some degree had a bigger impact though on box office bonuses, which is one of the ways we get around the problem of not having backend participation or having a meaningful backend gross is that we say in our contracts, okay, when this film reaches $50 million in the US box office, I get a bonus check of this. When it hits $100 million, I get a bonus check of this. It’s a way of giving us a backend. If something’s released day-and-date, your box office is going to be greatly lowered because of that. The Scarlett Johansson lawsuit over Black Widow was really about that, which is basically she had bonuses in her contract that she was not going to be able to hit because they released the movie day-and-date theatrically and in theaters.

**Megana:** Got it. Cool. We have four more questions left.

**John:** Let’s do it.

**Megana:** They’re pretty quick. Mattias asks, “Other than writing, what’s something aspiring writers who live in LA should be doing?”

**John:** A quick checklist of things you should do other than write while you’re in Los Angeles. You should see movies. You see a bunch of movies. See the new releases, but also go to things like the Academy screening series. Go to any sort of retrospective stuff. Those are great to see. Anything where there’s a Q and A afterwards, especially with the filmmakers, with the writers, those are terrific. Whenever the ArcLight reopens, they do those. Directors series at Film Independent is really good. I host some of those events. Go to festivals. Go to festivals like Outfest or the indie festivals. Volunteer to crew at one of these things. You’ll meet some people. You’ll see a bunch of movies.

Go to plays. Go to comedy shows like Groundlings. You’ll see stars before they become stars and see how all that works. Take a class if you feel like taking a class. Again, you’ll meet other people who are trying to do what you’re trying to do, and writers, which is always good. If you’re in LA, you should hike, because you can, because there’s just a ton of hiking around Los Angeles.

Make sure you’re exploring different parts of the city. It’s really easy to get stuck in your one little bubble in Los Angeles, but LA’s giant and there’s so much to do. If you’re in Silver Lake, make sure you make it out to the ocean every once in a while. Vice versa, if you’re on the West Side, make sure you’re hitting downtown and other parts of the city.

Crew on your friends’ films. Find films that need PAs and be a PA. Just get some experience on a set while you’re here, because there’s always so much shooting. Learn how to shoot something. Get a camera. It doesn’t have to be an amazing camera. You can do it on your phone as well. Write a short thing and learn how to shoot it, because that’s a skill you’re going to need to learn to have. Understanding how shot by shot by shot you put something together is crucial. LA is where film was born, so do that while you’re here.

Finally, there’s a bunch of events that are always happening in Los Angeles. It’s one of the biggest cities in the world. Go to concerts, go to museums, make an art date with yourself to get out of your apartment and see things and do things, because there’s no reason to stay trapped indoors in Los Angeles. Go out and do stuff. What other advice would you have for Mattias here?

**Megana:** I think all that’s great. It’s made me more excited to live in LA. I think also specifically do things that are not related to the industry or not going to help you in any way. I think working in the industry and living in an industry town is really overwhelming and sometimes just suffocating, and so having things that are completely separate from that is helpful, like hobbies like swimming or pottery or things where there’s no way for you to network or be thinking about anything professional.

**John:** Agreed.

**Megana:** Great. We have a question from Flustered. Flustered asks, “Later this year we’re shooting my first US studio feature. I’m not a total newbie. I have experience in my home country, but this film is definitely my biggest moment to date. I pride myself on being a pretty chill person. I’m used to working with actors. I’m someone who’s never really been into celebrity culture. People are people. That is, until they attached our lead.”

**John:** Oh, no.

**Megana:** “They booked someone who would have made my 16-year-old self fall out of my chair. What I want to know is how do we as screenwriters be chill? I’ve had a couple of meetings with him to discuss the character pass I’m about to do, and he’s been bloody lovely, of course, so I’m off to an okay start, but come production, I’d love to get a photo with him. Ugh, just typing that feels so cringe. I just need tips on professionalism, and if asking for things like a photo is crossing some invisible line. This is a total nonissue in the scheme of things, but I literally didn’t know who else to ask.”

**John:** Don’t ask for the photo, Flustered. Celebrate the fact that you are interacting with this actor in a way that they see you as a professional and that they are excited to have you on board as the writer of the project. Don’t be a fan. Don’t ask for the photo.
It can be hard to be chill around people who are really famous and who are rich and successful and just gorgeous and all these things that overwhelm you. I find it helpful to be specific and really focus on what is your job, what do they need, how do you help them get the best performance, what are they interested and into.

My first meeting with Drew Barrymore was about Charlie’s Angels, and we really could talk, really vibe on what is the movie that we are trying to make, what does it feel like. We could arrive at a shared vision for how the movie should feel. That was a really good experience. Yeah, she was very famous at that moment, but she was also focused on the work. It sounds like this actor is focused on the work too. Don’t make it a fan situation by asking for a photo.

Here’s when you’ll get your photo. You’ll get your photo at the premier, which will be fantastic, because you’ll be on the Red Carpet and get a photo together, or on set, or the stills photographer on set. There can be some fun way for you to get that shot that you really want, but really focus on the movie rather than the photo.

**Megana:** This is the perfect time for fake it ’til you make it.

**John:** 100%.

**Megana:** Rena asks, “Do you have any tricks for not falling into patterns and dialog? For example, I find myself using the word honestly a lot, and honestly, it’s getting old.”

**John:** Oh Rena, I hit the same situation, and I find myself doing things like that where I’m just like, “Oh my god, I used the word actually three times on a page.” The only thing you can do is just be aware of it, and when you see it, stop it. Having someone else read through it, having, honestly, Megana read through stuff and say, “You used this word twice,” is how you’re going to notice it. Then when you do notice it, you will find a way to stop yourself from using it so often.
Now, in terms of dialog, yes, you’re trying to make characters sound like themselves. I think what you may be noticing is that if one character says “honestly,” another character shouldn’t say “honestly” that much. If one character says “honestly” a lot, that can feel authentic, because individual characters should fall into loops where they do say things the same way and have the same structure to things. That’s why Jim Halpert sounds different than Michael Scott. People have the natural things they go to, the patterns that they go to. I think Rena’s going to be okay.

**Megana:** Yeah. Also, with a tool like Highland, you can Find and Replace and just search for those things once you notice them.

**John:** Absolutely. If you notice “honestly,” just do a find for “honestly” and see all the times you’re using it and see when you don’t need that word. “Honestly” is one of those things where it generally can just be cut, and it’s a stronger sentence without “honestly” in front of it. If you need a softener, just find another softener to get you into it.

**Megana:** I have a problem with my action lines where I’ll say “starts to” instead of just whatever the action is. I do a pass where I edit all those sentences.

**John:** Good plan.

**Megana:** Last question, Shewani [ph] asks, “How do you handle balancing writing your own passion projects versus pitching on assignments?”

**John:** That’s a good question. I don’t always balance it great, but I think I’m always aware of these are things that I want to write. I have a short list of projects that I do want to hit at some point, or either start writing or come back to. These are things that are just things that I own and control that I want to be my own stuff. Whenever I turn in an assignment for someone else, I will try to prioritize going to one of those passion projects for at least the time I have, while I’m waiting on notes back or whatever, just so I do get some time to spend with those projects.

In terms of pitching versus writing your own stuff, if I am pitching something out there, I still have a lot of free writing time. I’ll try to use that free writing time on my passion projects. Am I trying to pitch these passion projects? Sometimes. Sometimes it feels like this is the time to get that thing out the door and get people reading it, but more often, the stuff I’m pitching on is stuff that exists that I’m trying to get to the next point or I’m trying to either get the job or get this project, this book or other property, set up some place. I still have the time to go and write the new stuff that is for myself.

Basically, I would say recognize that your writing time is crucial and important, and if you’re not doing work for somebody else writing, make sure you’re doing that work for yourself writing. Megana, we got through 20 questions. Was it only 20 questions? It felt like 9,000.

**Megana:** I’m sorry. I hope that wasn’t me asking the questions, but yes, that was 20.

**John:** 20 questions. 20 questions done. Let’s see Craig Mazin beat that. Should we go on to our One Cool Things?

**Megana:** Yeah.

**John:** My One Cool Thing is this video by Paul Stamets, who is a mycologist. He studies fungi and mushrooms. He as a scientist developed this fungi that attracts ants and termites, and they eat this thing and they bring it back to their nest where it kills them. It’s a pesticide, but it’s a very specific, clever pesticide where they bring it back into their nest and it kills them, but also makes everyone else stay away from it. It’s very site-specific, which I think is a really good idea. His patent is expired. He got his patent 17 years ago. Patents expire.

What I liked about this video is he was describing how excited he was that this is now open for anyone else to use, that this is now in the commons and people can build products off of it. Also, he was never able to actually bring it to market. He could never actually find a way to do it. I liked his honesty about like, “I really thought this would be a great thing and revolutionary, and I couldn’t do it. Maybe somebody else can. Also, here are the challenges you’re going to have, because it doesn’t have this patent protection anymore.” I just really liked his approach to this thing he developed which was really cool, which was not successful commercially, but is still good for the world. It’s just a good mix of the open sourcing and public goods and the real challenges of capitalism all wrapped up into one little video.

**Megana:** That really fits with the ethos behind your work.

**John:** Fountain is an example. It’s a public good. It’s screenwriting syntax, which is good for a lot of people. It’s had some success, but it hasn’t revolutionized the world in ways I would’ve liked. It hasn’t been the ever-attracting mushroom that has destroyed other entities, but it’s had its own little, small successes.

**Megana:** Very cool. I guess thematically related, my One Cool Thing is Under White Sky: The Nature of the Future. It’s this book by Elizabeth Kolbert. She won the Pulitzer Prize for this book The Sixth Extinction. I haven’t finished it yet, but I think there’s nine different examples of ways in which humans have tried to fix certain problems that have happened in ecosystems or the environment, and now she looks at things 30, 50 years down the line, and how we are now trying to remedy the ways that we have interfered and caused greater problems in the environment. She looks at the Mississippi River and carp. I was just telling you this example about these pupfish that are in Devils Hole in the Mojave Desert. While that land has been protected, 100 miles away in Nevada they were doing nuclear testing, and how that has influenced this very specific species’ survival rates is so fascinating.

**John:** On the inspiring-depressing scale, where would you put this?

**Megana:** I was thinking about that before I recommended it, because I was like, it does depress me, but you know I love some dry nonfiction to get me to bed.

**John:** Oh yeah, me too.

**Megana:** It’s pretty bleak, because so far it doesn’t feel like we as humans can do anything right. If we do something that seems to temporarily help the environment or help the world in some way, this takes the long view look at it, and it’s like, nope, you actually messed things up far more than you realized. It is pretty bleak. It’s depressing.

**John:** I’ll add it to the list, but I think I have a few more cheery things to get through before I get to a mass bleak book.

**Megana:** Fair enough.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Thank you again, Megana Rao, our producer, for all those questions, and for everybody who sent in their questions. That’s so, so helpful. Our show’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Out outro is by Ben Gerrior. 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 am @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. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can also 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 murder houses. Megana Rao, thank you again.

**Megana:** Thanks, John.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Megana, let’s talk murder and architecture, because you had encouraged me to watch this movie Fresh. It’s only a very mild spoiler to say there is a killer in this movie who has a really stylish house, a house like, oh, I would love to have this house. It’s a little bit remote. It’s not a creepy cabin. It has good, natural wood finishes and details. It feels nice. It also has a basement that is set up for murder, but not a grungy, grimy murder. It’s much more sophisticated. It feels like a spa. It’s like a spa where you get dismembered.

**Megana:** Like one of those places where you can get plastic surgery but you’re still at this retreat.

**John:** Oh yeah, completely. Like where she goes in Hacks.

**Megana:** Yes, exactly.

**John:** Like that. It’s all tasteful, all well-done. You might be chained to the floor, but it’s got good aesthetics to it. You got your stainless steel toilet. You got a little drinking fountain. You’ve got some things you need. Even the bars closing off your cell, they’re wood. It looks like teak.

**Megana:** It’s like Scandinavian.

**John:** It’s very Scandinavian, which is also a good tie-in to Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, a Scandinavian thriller in which ultimately we discover this murderer who has this house. It’s like, okay, part of your house is just designed as an abattoir. It’s clearly set up to just slaughter people.

**Megana:** I re-watched that scene from Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. He also has this whole setup in the basement where instead of a sprinkler system, it fills the room with gas and he has his own personal gas mask that he just attaches, I guess, when he climbs down the stairs. It’s just all part of the process. I feel like he must have rigged that, because how do you get a contractor to do something like that?

**John:** Are they just really good do-it-yourself-ers who just have really good skills for this, because I was thinking the main character in Fresh is an accomplished surgeon himself. I don’t understand how he’s doing all the work he’s doing as a surgeon and as a dismemberer of bodies and as really an entrepreneur. Also, he has clearly some facility with how to build concrete structures and these things. Assuming he does have a contractor and an architect, what is the cover story for why these rooms are being built this way?

**Megana:** It’s like, yeah, I need you to build these guest bedrooms with metal chains that are bolted into the ground.

**John:** Maybe the chains are something he could do himself, or he could have just one lackey in on it with him. The bigger construction things, you got to have a crew there. There’s stuff that has to happen. Even with the pretense of, oh, maybe he has this private surgery center, yeah, I guess, but I find it suspicious, or maybe I find it as an opportunity for a movie or a docuseries about the people who build murder houses, like a home-flipping thing, but it’s really about murder houses.

**Megana:** You’re someone who owns a house and has remodeled your house. My understanding is that any time you want to make a change, you do have to get a permit from the city. Is that true? Is that true for everywhere or just LA?

**John:** I think that’s why murderers are moving out of Los Angeles, because it’s the bureaucracy really. It’s all the permitting that’s really getting in the way of innovation and murder houses. You have other things listed here in terms of the aesthetic. Parasite, of course, a great example. There’s the whole basement in Parasite. Essentially it’s a bomb shelter, I get that, but also it feels like a murder hole.

**Megana:** Totally.

**John:** Invisible Man. Look at this house that he built, that also seems set up for devious deeds. In that case, I can’t remember any specific room in there that feels like, okay, this is just a room that could only be used for evil, but maybe.

**Megana:** He has that room where he keeps the suits. I don’t know what about these really ultra contemporary homes is so frightening. I think maybe it’s all of the glass and then the concrete.

**John:** That sense of it’s all transparent so you can see everything, and yet…

**Megana:** It’s so disorienting.

**John:** Yeah, disorienting. Everything’s being hidden. It’s hiding in plain sight in some way. Concrete does feel fairly industrial and brutalist and confining and soundproof. They’re always a little bit remote so no one can hear you screaming as they’re cutting you apart. I see here in the Workflowy you have other examples of things that are tied into murder architecture or really questionable, like why would you build this this way.

**Megana:** Correct. One TikTok sensation that our whole office was obsessed with was Samantha Hartsoe, this woman in New York who discovered a secret… I guess she was getting a breeze through her bathroom and so she discovered that through her bathroom mirror, her apartment connected to an entirely different apartment.

**John:** Basically she could take out her medicine cabinet and climb into this accessory hallway that went into a completely different apartment which was empty. Why would you build that accessory hallway? It was all just unsettling.

**Megana:** So unsettling. Then I have this other story in here. I remember when I was in college, I was reading this story, the headline was Ohio State Students Discover Stranger Living in Basement. In the article, it actually really warmed by heart, because I was like, this is so Ohio. These boys were living in this house on campus. There were 10 of them. Strange things were happening in the house, but because there were 10 of them, they just always attributed it to a different roommate. Halfway through the school year they discovered that there was a squatter living in their basement. In the most Midwestern turn of events, all of the quotes are, “He seems like a really great guy. We wish we could help him out. Would’ve loved to be his friend or get to know him, but it’s actually not okay for him to live here.” It’s so apologetic and accommodating. It was so sweet.

I texted one of my friends from high school, my friend Sean, and I was like, “This is so funny and this is so Ohio.” He was like, “Yeah, man, that’s my house. Yeah, I was living there. He’s a great guy. He’s a philosophy major just trying to get by.” I was like, “This is so funny and heartbreaking.”

**John:** It reminds me of the people who are squatters in the Hamptons. Off-season in the Hamptons, they’ll just pretend that they should be living in these houses, and live in places where they don’t actually have any right to be there.

**Megana:** If Craig was here, he would talk about the nature of higher education and how cost-prohibitive it is, but yes, it is very similar to that.

**John:** College is the problem. Which would probably end up on Room, because you think about it, Room, it’s not within the house, but this guy has a structure in his backyard that it’s just designed to hold these people in. It’s apparently soundproof. I’m trying to remember. It’s underground? Basically, you can’t easily get out of it. A similar thing happened in one of the seasons of Search Party, where there was a secret underground bunker room that was all soft and padded and where she couldn’t hurt herself. Again, I ask, who are the contractors who are building these things, and what do they think is actually happening? I just think there’s a, I think if not actually a docuseries, then at least a good Onion article about the contractors brought in to do this project and what they believed that they were doing.

**Megana:** I think that there’s maybe too much overlap, and we need to be more suspicious of doomsday preppers and murderers. I don’t want to miscast doomsday preppers, because it’s like, do your thing, but I think maybe we should just be a little bit more skeptical or ask a few more questions around some of those precautions.

**John:** 10 Cloverfield Lane is a great example. It’s both a survivalist prepper bunker situation, but also a creepy murder shaft. The two things do seem like they fit together. If you have gratings in your floor and the ability to spray down blood into the floor, I don’t think that’s normal doomsday prep. It’s just me. I think those should be some things that if it’s on the spec sheet for the construction project, I think you’d intervene there.

**Megana:** Not only are these people committing crimes or murder, but they’re also probably violating some zoning laws.

**John:** 100%. Got to be strict here. Thanks, Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks, John.

Links:

* [Patton Oswalt in King of Queens Scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2QE3JpWfTo)
* [ZSA Moonlander](https://www.zsa.io/moonlander/)
* [Compare Your Typing Speed Against ours here!](https://www.typingtest.com/test.html?minutes=2&textfile=benchmark.txt)
* [Phoebe Waller Bridge – 73 Questions with Vogue](https://www.vogue.com/video/watch/phoebe-waller-bridge-on-fleabag-british-humor-and-her-creative-process)
* [Residuals for High-Budget Subscription Video on Demand (HBSVOD) Programs](https://www.wga.org/members/finances/residuals/hbsvod-programs) from the WGA
* [Paul Stamets on Seven Mycoattractant and Mycopesticide Patents released to Commons!](https://paulstamets.com/news/paul-stamets-on-seven-mycoattractant-and-mycopesticide-patents-released-to-commons?mc_cid=5d4ff8f8e6&mc_eid=8952ca1075)
* [Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future by Elizabeth Kolbert](https://bookshop.org/books/under-a-white-sky-the-nature-of-the-future-9780593136270/9780593136270)
* [Murder House Architecture](https://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/1506362648887136256)
* [Samantha Hartsoe’s TikTok NYC Apartment](https://www.tiktok.com/@samanthartsoe?lang=en)
* [Ohio State Students Discover Students Living in Basement](https://www.thelantern.com/2013/09/ohio-state-students-discover-stranger-living-basement/)
* [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 Ben Gerrior ([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/543standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 539: Science Movies, Transcript

April 11, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 539 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we ask the eternal question, how would this be a movie? This time focusing on stories and topics related to science. To help us out, we have two special guests joining us. First, Erin Macdonald is an astrophysicist PhD and a tattooed one-woman career panel for the field. She lives in Los Angeles, working as a writer and producer, and is currently the science consultant for the entire Star Trek franchise. Welcome, Erin.

**Erin Macdonald:** Hi. Thanks so much for having me. I’m really excited to be here.

**John:** I have so many questions about the science in the franchise, and specifically space science as it relates to Star Trek, which feels like it’s a long history there. Warp drives, we’ll get into all that stuff with you today hopefully.

**Erin:** Excellent.

**John:** Next up we have Leigh Whannell. He is an Australian screenwriter, actor, producer, and director, known for co-creating the Saw and Insidious franchises with James Wan. He made his directorial debut with Insidious: Chapter 3, and has since directed 2 more films, the widely acclaimed Upgrade, and The Invisible Man, which was the last movie I saw in theaters pre-pandemic. Leigh, welcome back to the show.

**Leigh Whannell:** Thanks for having me again.

**John:** You were on Episode 354, which was an episode that Craig recorded without me. Now we’re recording this episode without Craig. Essentially, we always have to keep one of us off the podcast when you’re there, because you’re just too dangerous.

**Leigh:** It would be too dangerous, like combining the wrong type of chemicals.

**John:** It’s all risky. In our Bonus Segment for Premium members, speaking of risk, we are going to talk about Leigh’s proposal for a period shopping mall theme park experience. I’m strongly in favor of this happening, for the record, and so I want to really work through all of the possibilities for Leigh’s proposal to create a theme park experience period mall.

**Leigh:** Excellent.

**John:** We’ll do it. Before we get into sciencey stuff, we have a business question. Actually, it’s here from Megana. Megana, can you ask your question that I see here in the outline?

**Megana Rao:** I saw this tweet from Ed Solomon about the accounting for Men in Black. I spent an embarrassingly long time looking through these documents, and I feel so confused about what I’m looking at. I was hoping you guys could explain some of the movie accounting to me. He says, “Sadly, Men in Black lost over $5 million this period alone. Someone needs to call Sony and tell them to stop building sets. Seriously, does nobody know how to run a business?”

**John:** Ed Solomon is putting up links here to the profit definition, the profit statements from Men in Black, obviously a huge, huge hit, one that spawned many sequels. He’s one of the credited writers on it. He has a net profit participation in the movie. The movie is not into net profits, even having generated gazillion dollars. Leigh Whannell, you are a person who’s written movies that have generated hundreds of millions of dollars. Is this at all familiar to you?

**Leigh:** I did enter the film world through a different door. It wasn’t the front door. Obviously, Men in Black was a film that was made very much within the studio system. Big studio, big money, big movie stars. The first few films especially that I was involved in were definitely independent films. The first Saw film was actually financed by the producers. Two of the producers did what they say you should never do in Hollywood, which is spend your own money. They mortgaged their houses to pay for that movie. It’s a very different financial map. I guess it’s the old saying of betting on yourself. I think with those movies, by betting on ourselves, maybe we saw more backend and more profits.

What I hear about these big studio films, and maybe you can enlighten me, John, is that they always find some creative accounting to show why, “Oh, no no no, you see, the standees that we made in Malaysia mean that you don’t get your profit participation checks.” That’s what I hear from people who have worked more in the big budget studio system.

**John:** I’ve made many movies for Sony and for other places. I made Aladdin. I will guarantee you the movies will never turn a technical profit. The reason behind it is that setting out to make this movie, the studio takes a loan out to make the movie. They’re borrowing $150 million or whatever to make this film. Your film Invisible Man is probably similar sort of [unclear 00:04:20] because it was not that expensive, but it was still expensive enough that it will never turn a technical definition of profits.

These studios are taking out this big lump of money to make this film. They’re spending the money to make the film. They’re charging interest on that loan for the whole time. Even though they are both the bank and the person borrowing the money, they are essentially continuing to generate interest on that original loan, and that original loan will never pay down. They’re also throwing every conceivable expense against the film, including a distribution fee, which is money they’re paying themselves to distribute the film, basically all the other overhead and accounting they’re throwing at it. These films will never achieve technical profit, based on the definitions. Those definitions are laid out in the contracts that you and I have signed as writers when we are doing this. Even the attorneys who we’re paying good money for tell us never to expect to see real money in the backend on these things.

**Leigh:** You say the studios take out a loan, are you saying… This might prove my naivete on these matters. Are they taking out a loan from themselves? Don’t these studios have vaults full of cash that essentially when they finance movies, the money, it doesn’t come from a bank, it comes from those vaults? It comes from the studio coffers, right?

**John:** Yep. You would think that you could not loan yourself money in that way, but that is technically what they are doing. Each of these films, just like your Saw film or Insidious film, it is its own company that is formed and set up to do the thing. They’re loaning money to that production to do this. There’s many ways they could be structured. It could also be structured as an international situation. They are designing things in ways to maximize the amount of money that the studio gets back in without the film itself getting paid money.

**Leigh:** It is interesting to hear about things. I had a friend of mine who was directing a film for Universal, and he wanted to shoot some scenes on the studio back lot, in one of the studios. One of the producers was saying, “It’s too expensive.” My friend said, “This is a Universal film and we’re shooting on the Universal lot.” The producer said, “Yeah, you don’t get a discount for that. They will charge us.” I just found that an insane version of double dipping.

**John:** There might be circumstances where a studio will require a production to use its things, for certain good reasons, but they will still charge that full freight for using their own facilities. That’s just how it goes. This can be frustrating, but it’s also, I think, because it is unlikely that a writer will ever be paid these kind of net profits on things, that’s why you find other ways as a writer to get some backend participation. Obviously, residuals have nothing to do with the profitability of the film, and so we get paid residuals no matter how much it shows on this statement, which is great.

We might also ask for box office bonuses. If we know that our film is going to be theatrically released, which is never a given in 2022, we can say, “When the US theatrical box office on this film hits $50 million or $100 million, you have to write me a check for X.” That’s one way to get around these impossible net profit definitions. Megana, did we answer your question to any degree?

**Megana:** You did. Basically, it’s not supposed to make sense to me, but yeah.

**John:** When you’re back in the office, I can show you Aladdin statements or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory statements that show that they are similarly money-losing propositions on paper, even though they’ve made the studios good money.

**Megana:** Thank you very much.

**John:** We just played the role of business consultant here, explaining to Megana how this weird thing in accounting work. I’m only vaguely qualified to do that. I’m not qualified to talk about space or astrophysics. Luckily, Eric Macdonald is qualified to talk about this. Can you give us, Erin, a sense of your history studying astrophysics and how that segued into your working on the Star Trek franchise?

**Erin:** I’ve always been interested in film and television and the entertainment industry. I made that fork crossroads decision when I went to college, or university, to decide to study physics. As I went through there, I realized I didn’t quite like it as a career. I did research for many years, specifically in gravitational waves. I went through, did my PhD in Scotland, had a great experience, but when it came to the postdoc life of research, that wasn’t really for me.

When I left academia, I was looking for things that would scratch some of the things that I enjoyed doing in academia, one of which was teaching. I started going to sci-fi conventions to teach about the science behind things like Star Trek. I would go and give these science talks, and they were hugely popular. People just really lined out the door to see these talks. I started going to multiple conventions all around the country. I started to meet a lot of writers, creators. Then when I moved out to Los Angeles, a lot of them started to give me a call and start folding me in. I found my way in a very indirect route to now be a part of the entertainment industry, which I’m thrilled about.

**John:** Can you talk about those early calls you’re getting, asking for your advice, your input on a project? What are the kinds of things that, at a writing stage, they want to know from an actual scientist?

**Erin:** Typically, it’ll just depend on when they find out that I exist, whatever the stage the project is in. Typically, it’ll be in that story development period, where they’re coming up with a high concept, especially for some hard sci-fi. They’re going to ask me questions about like, this is the method of faster-than-light travel we use, or this is the energy source that this population’s using, or here’s the inciting incident that is somehow science-based. Can you just give me a pass on it to see how it feels? I always say, all right, if I can read it and it doesn’t make me throw up in my mouth, that’s a good pass.

**Leigh:** Erin, I have to say, this is really strange kismet that you’re on this episode, because I recently in the last six months started writing a sci-fi, horrory type thingy and needed to talk to an astrophysicist because our film was about that. Everything you’re talking about is exactly what I’m basically sitting someone down and saying, okay, how ridiculous is this?

**Erin:** I love that, by the way. I try to take the approach with writers that I’m going to “yes and” your project. I’ve heard a lot of stories of people with very negative experiences with science consultants, where they have a friend or a friend of a friend who has a background in that story, and then they send them the idea, and the response is like, “Nope, that doesn’t work. Science doesn’t work like that.” I really try to take a more positive approach, like, “Okay, if that’s what you want to do, let’s see how we can make this work and let’s see to what extent we need to explain it.” That’s sometimes a lot of what I do too is just say, “Yeah, you can do it. Just don’t try to explain it.”

**John:** Let’s think about the kinds of questions a writer might ask. A lot of times these are bigger conceptual questions. If it’s gravitational wave, faster-than-light travel, this is the means of faster-than-light travel I’m planning to use in my script, so great, and talking them through the options there. In some cases are you also talking about what the lingo is, what an actual astrophysicist would say in these moments? We had Zoanne Clack on the show, who was originally hired as a writer’s consultant on Grey’s Anatomy. She was there as a medical consultant, not just for like, this is the medical procedure, this is the disease, but also like, this is what a doctor would actually do or say in those moments. Do you get involved in this is what an astrophysicist would be like?

**Erin:** Absolutely, yeah. I think that’s where the direction of my career has gone. I still have those early concept conversations like you were talking about, Leigh, but now when I’m folded into a writer’s room or into a specific show, it can be all the way from story development and most of my days reading scripts. I will give little tweaks to the dialog here and there. Then like you talked about, maybe not necessarily getting the technological language right, but more the conceptual drive of what a scientist does. That’s something I’ve done for a number of episodes, where they have a scientific problem, and I’ll help the writer’s think through it as you would a scientist to build that story and to drive that forward.

**John:** We had a conversation two weeks ago with Mike Schur from The Good Place. He was talking about as it came time to do the moral philosophy on his show, he had done a lot of reading on moral philosophy, but he needed an expert who could really talk about this the way that a philosopher would talk about it. He enlisted Todd May and another philosopher on to do that. It sounds like you’re involved in a similar place where the writers may have a good sense of what they’re trying to do in general, and they’re coming to you for specific help and making this actual fit with everything else that’s around it. Is that right?

**Erin:** Yeah. What’s really interesting about my role now is I’m available to the whole Star Trek franchise. That’s five shows right now that are currently in development. They all use me very differently. Some of it is based on the fact that I’ve been with them for multiple seasons, and so that trust and that relationship has grown. I’ll be in from breaking season arcs all the way through to sitting in the writers room to reading scripts, but even be involved with the post-production aspects and help with graphics. Other shows, I’ll just get the script and I’ll just edit little dialog and just do a little wordsmithing here or there.

Any time I’m approached about a science-fiction project, I always like to ask, okay, science fiction is a huge spectrum of science to fiction, and tell me where you want to live, and we’ll tweak the science to fit that appropriately, because there’s a lot of different types of sci-fi out there.

**John:** Speaking of different types of sci-fi, Leigh, your film The Invisible Man involves a scientist who’s developed a means of invisibility, which is very different than in the original film. He’s really using optics to become invisible, and a suit that lets him do this. At what point in the development of the script were you really figuring out, oh, this is what is believable to me for how this invisibility technology works?

**Leigh:** It’s a good question, because Invisible Man and Upgrade were both films incorporating a lot of sci-fi elements. I am definitely not a science major. If you started quizzing me about the Periodic Table, I would draw a blank, but yet I have my imagination. It’s been strange to watch certain things that I’ve invented in my mind somehow create some link to the real world. In the case of The Invisible Man, I thought, what if you had a suit covered with cameras, and each camera was taking thousands of pictures and then simultaneously projecting a hologram, so it’s almost like this hologram suit.

We were well into pre-production in Sydney, Australia, when we went and talked to some scientists at the Sydney Institute of Technology. We were explaining to them that it would work. They were thinking, and they were like, “Yeah, that could work.” They said the technology’s not there yet, but if you had a camera that could render fast enough and take these images and project. It was almost like I was retroactively given the green light on what I was thinking, but by that point the ship had sailed. It is interesting, this meeting ground between your imagination and real science.

**John:** For our topic today on How Would This Be A Movie, it’s interesting, some of them actually are things that started out as science fiction and then crossed more into scientific discussion. There are ideas that were first broken in the pages of sci-fi, yet the underlying concepts were interesting enough that given enough time, real science could catch up to these ideas.

Let’s segue right into some How Would This Be A Movies. For this installment, I asked our listeners on Twitter for suggestions on articles, topics to explore, and as always, they delivered. We picked a mix of some astrophysics, social science, some biology. I want to dig into some of the reality of each topic, but then also, what are the fictional possibilities based on the topic. This first one is an example of something that we first see in science fiction and then explored more. This is the Dyson sphere. Erin, maybe you could help us explain what a Dyson sphere is and why we might be looking for those out in space.

**Erin:** Yeah, totally. I love Dyson spheres. I’m very excited about this. Dyson spheres are a theoretical construct, kind of a thought experiment that people have put together about trying to find advanced life out in other solar systems. Really quickly, we live in our solar system, which is a bunch of planets that orbit a star, and then there’s millions and millions of stars in our own galaxy, and then there’s a bunch of galaxies out there. Typically on this scale we’re just talking about within our galaxy, but outside of our solar system. The idea of a Dyson sphere is that you essentially build a giant sphere, sometimes starts as a ring, then that ring starts to grow, that goes all the way around the star, and it’s essentially solar panels, that you’re able to harvest all of the solar energy off of this star. It’s an insane amount. If your civilization is advanced enough to do that, then the idea is they’ll probably need that much energy anyway.

**John:** A Dyson sphere is a way of harnessing all the power of a star. The reason why we might notice those out there is if you’re actually collecting all this energy, astronomers here on Earth, using our space telescopes, might notice that something is weird about that star, and they might be able to see the effects of this Dyson sphere and that it’s collecting all this energy.

**Erin:** Yep, absolutely correct. When it comes to trying to find a Dyson sphere, the big thing is trying to find ways that astronomers can differentiate between an artificial object like a Dyson sphere versus any sort of naturally occurring objects. This actually happened. There was something called Tabby’s Star, where they discovered it had a weird signal to it, that it could be artificial, but upon further investigation, they think that it’s just a bunch of debris that’s around this star that was making its signal look weird. That’s the tricky part about astrophysics.

What I think makes it a great vessel for storytelling is we just have to take what the universe gives us. We really don’t know anything. We can’t create our universe in a lab. We get these puzzle pieces that we have to put together. Dyson spheres are a really exciting one to explore.

**John:** Let’s think about this in terms of a movie, because building a Dyson sphere would presumably take thousands of years, and so it’s not a thing that’s going to be happening in the course of one of our movies, most likely. It could be a character who is encountering a Dyson sphere that exists in the world, finding proof of an alien civilization, because they have one. Leigh, what’s jumping out to you in terms of a way that a Dyson sphere could appear in a film that you want to make?

**Leigh:** The first thought I had was of those two options. Are we building a Dyson sphere to save our universe or do we come across a Dyson sphere? I feel like you solved the first problem. It would take too long to really make a film about building one. Maybe this is a film about finding a Dyson sphere. It’s so funny, because the film I’m writing right now, I could really incorporate some of these elements. I would say coming across or seeing a Dyson sphere at a distance, and then where do we go from there?

**John:** It feels like it’s a setting, it’s an initial incident, but it’s not the actual thing itself. Erin, you can tell us… Obviously, there’s probably NDAs for future stuff, but have Dyson spheres already appeared in the Star Trek universe?

**Erin:** They have, actually, totally NDA-free. This was in The Next Generation. There was an episode where they discovered a Dyson sphere around a star system. It was a Next Generation episode, but they were able to bring back Scotty from the original series, that his ship has crashed into this Dyson sphere. That’s exactly what it was. It had a huge gravitational pull. That’s why his ship crashed, because it was just so massive. In this case it was a fully closed sphere, which it doesn’t need to be. The gravitational attraction of this is what caused the ship to crash. It’s been seen before.

**John:** We can’t talk about search for extraterrestrial life without maybe bringing up the Fermi Paradox, that sense of, there should be so many civilizations out there, given the time span of the universe, and there should be more things out there. It’s the question of why does it seem like we’re the only people, or at least we don’t see any other civilizations out there.

That paradox could be answered in a couple different ways. One of the possibilities is that no civilization actually gets up to the point where they would build a Dyson sphere that we could see them, they all collapse first, or there may be other reasons that we can’t understand why we’re the only ones who are visible. Maybe people are out there and they’re hiding because it’s a good idea to hide. There’s all sorts of interesting, provocative questions that are raised by the lack of evidence out there.

**Erin:** I love the Fermi Paradox. You touched on a couple good ones. Like you said, it’s this idea that it takes so long to create this advanced capability, whether that is a Dyson sphere or something like warp drive to be able to visit other star systems. A big one for me is not the philosophical aspect, but just the probability that your civilization is going to have an extinction event from space, like a gamma ray burst wiping you out, is much higher than you having enough time to build that. The analogy I use, it’ll take you 200 years to build a house, but you live in a 100-year floodplain. It’s going to wipe you out before you do it.

**John:** It’s all very dispiriting.

**Erin:** It is.

**John:** Leigh, let’s think about characters in this situation, because it feels like if we’re out in space doing things, we have such tropes about what space [unclear 00:21:38] are like, but is there any other way to get into the characters who would be in this story?

**Leigh:** I think if we’re talking about the human characters here, it sounds like a film about humans meeting obviously a much more advanced civilization. What’s interesting to me about a lot of these films is that a lot of sci-fi films that involve creatures from space or other civilizations still couch it in very human terms. A spaceship is a very graspable concept for human beings. It’s a flying car and the aliens look just like us except their skin is green or something. I find the mysteries of space so much more enticing, like the last 15 minutes of 2001, where what’s happening is so far beyond your comprehension. I do think Arrival was a recent film that, it made the aliens very mysterious. I thought their language was very provocative. For me, I see a movie about us primitive humans, the ants on the side of the freeway, meeting this super advanced civilization and learning about them, I guess.

**Erin:** I can throw out one fun science thing that you can maybe play with for the story, which is the fact that it takes light time to reach us from other stars. We might detect a Dyson sphere that’s, let’s say 100 light years away, but we saw them as they were 100 years ago. You can always factor that in in space exploration stories, especially about humanity, that can sometimes talk about the passage of time or the futility of existence, because hoping that they’re still there by the time you’re able to talk to them.

**John:** Or that they might be on their way to us. Can you give us a quick primer on warp drives, both the warp drives that exist in the Star Trek universe and what the other versions of warp drives we see in the Star Wars universe? What are the basic edges of faster-than-light travel in these different environments?

**Erin:** There’s typically about three flavors of faster-than-light travel. Warp drive is the one most people think of. That’s this idea that when you’re on the surface of space time, this bowling ball on the trampoline visual some people are familiar with, you cannot go faster than the speed of light. Once you have no mass, then you just coast in a straight line. Warp drive is saying, what if space time goes faster than the speed of light and you wrap that fabric of the trampoline around your ship and then that moves you faster than the speed of light. That’s essentially how warp drive works.

Other fun examples include things like wormholes, whether they’re artificial or naturally occurring, which is, again, thinking about that fabric, that trampoline, you take two points and you have a tunnel between them that’s actually shorter than the whole distance from traveling along the surface. We’ve seen a lot of those.

**John:** I think it’s Carl Sagan I first saw on Cosmos, who had the piece of paper bench and a pencil sticking through. That’s a very classic image of the hole through the plane.

**Erin:** Bingo. Exactly. That’s it. Again, wormholes are something similar to warp drive that mathematically our understanding of space time, they could exist. It’s just we’ve never seen one or we don’t have enough energy to create that. Then the final way to travel faster than the speed of light are things like we saw in Battlestar Galactica or Dark Matter, which were jump drives or blink drives, which is where you spool up. It’s as if you’re pulling that fabric toward you, using a ton of energy, and then you make a small jump, and then you let go and you get catapulted to where you were wanting to go. Also takes a ton of energy to do that.

You mentioned Star Wars, so I’ll just explain briefly. Star Wars is hybrid between a wormhole and a jump drive. It’s as if you’re building the wormhole as you’re traveling through that. Yes, I’ve tried to science Star Wars.

**John:** Let’s go from these big cosmological problems to really small, inside your DNA problems. We have a tradition of movies that explore science that goes too far. We have these human-animal hybrids, Island of Dr. Moreau. It turns out that hybridism is actually much more common than we would’ve guessed. Specifically chimerism, which is where a human has two different sets of DNA in themselves. We’ll put a link to a couple different articles about this. Oftentimes it’s from in the womb. You’ve absorbed your identical twin, and so both of your sets of DNA are in there. In real life, there are examples of a woman who was suspected of murder for her young children, and it turned out that she actually had a chimerism disease, disorder, that was causing these kids to be dying, or their DNA samples didn’t match who they should be, or they were not the father of their own children, weird situations that come up like this. Let’s think through some movie options, story options for chimerism. Leigh, is anything jumping to mind?

**Leigh:** I feel like my brain, it must be stuck in bad ’90s thriller mode or something, because the first thing that comes to my mind when you’re talking about this hybrid is it’s one bad twin, one good twin. They’re one human being, but it’s almost a Jekyll and Hyde situation with two personalities fighting each other and maybe one personality not remembering what the other person’s doing.

**John:** That’s literally the plot of Stephen King’s The Dark Half, which is that it’s an unborn twin.

**Leigh:** One of my favorite Stephen King books when I was a teenager. Underappreciated. That’s right, in that book he ingested his twin and it became his pen name. That’s where my brain first goes, but maybe that’s just the first piece [unclear 00:27:07] that you get out all the bad ideas before you get to the good one.

**John:** Erin, it seems like part of the issue, why we’re just discovering chimerism right now, is that there’s really no reason to check a person’s DNA unless there is a problem. It’s only in these weird fringe cases like a crime or a paternity thing that we would even notice that someone had two sets of DNA in them.

**Erin:** That seems to be the case. I think when you look up examples of chimerism, a lot that you see are aesthetic duality. You can play a lot with visuals there, where you have one half of the flower is one color, one half is another one, or a cat that’s half one type of cat and half the other type of cat, because it seems like… Again, I’m not a biologist, but it does seem like this DNA almost, it’s like they merge but they exist side by side as opposed to existing throughout the whole body. It’s really interesting.

**John:** It is. Let’s think about the kind of characters we would find in this story. Thrillers are natural, but maybe there’s options for comedies or other kinds of stories. It could be the main character is a chimera, actually has this double set of DNA. It could be like The Dark Half or it could be some other reason why they’re manifesting as two selves. It could be also the investigator who’s trying to find out how it’s possible this crime was committed by somebody who doesn’t match up to this thing or the DNA’s not matching. It could be a scientist exploring this. Leigh, any thoughts about who you’d want to see in this story?

**Leigh:** I like it from the point of view of the person living it, rather than the investigator, which turns it into a twist, like aha.

**John:** It feels like a Law and Order episode.

**Leigh:** Exactly, whereas I think a movie from the perspective of somebody who’s actually sharing their consciousness and their body with some other set of DNA, I think this could be really interesting, like a first-person. Maybe the two sides could be communicating with each other. You have these long blackouts where the other guy’s in charge. Then the two sides of the personality are communicating about what the other one’s doing. I think that’s a more interesting thing.

**John:** Erin, I’m thinking back to Star Trek: The Next Generation, or sorry, it was a later show. There’s the Dax character who has… It was a person who, they have another consciousness inside them. It feels like a trope that Star Trek has played with a bit.

**Erin:** Oh yeah, for sure. I think whether it’s a dual personality or whether it’s something that exists somewhat separately. Like you said, the Trill were these alien species that had a symbiont that would pass from a host to another. Instead of it being a chimerism thing, then you’re thinking it’s almost like two sentient entities. You’re talking a little bit more about a parasite symbiotic relationship, which is really fun. Then when I see chimerism, the first thing I think of is the original series episode, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, where you have the people who are white on one half and Black on the other. Black on the other half and white on the other half. It’s a not so deep metaphor.

**John:** I can’t imagine an analogy for anything.

**Erin:** They hate each other. Again, that’s more visual, whereas what you’re talking about is much more psychological, which I think would be a fun area of this to explore.

**John:** It’s also easier to envision a world in which chimerism was so common that people visually did look interesting. You could tell that they had multiple people in them at all times. We’ll put examples too. These people whose skin tones don’t match from side to side, but you can have more extreme examples than that. That doesn’t go quite to the black and white Star Trek, but it could be an interesting look for a character. If Craig were here, he’s always talking about hair, makeup, and wardrobe and how characters look. It could be an interesting detail for how a character looks. I like that.

When Craig was on the show, a couple weeks ago, we were talking in the Bonus Segment about population and how growing up I was always taught to fear population growth, that basically we’d run out of resources, that the world’s population was going to get too big, and now suddenly we’re facing, like, oh, populations are declining in a way that could be very detrimental, and population loss is a thing.

I want to talk about the scientific concepts behind sudden population loss. Asked on Twitter was, how much of the population do you have to lose where you go from a Leftovers situation, where they lost 3% of the population, it was sad, but life goes on, to Station 11, where they lose almost all of the population and you’re suddenly back in agrarian times. I’d love to talk through the math and science behind how much of the population you can lose before everything changes and everything falls apart.

**Erin:** When you think about population, there’s an interesting aspect, which is the exponential growth. I think I remember those messages sent from the past about how population growth is out of control. There is true to some extent, but when you really think about it, let’s imagine the blip, where half of life gets wiped out.

**John:** In the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

**Erin:** Yes, correct.

**John:** The Thanos snap.

**Erin:** I remember seeing something where people were like, if you just got rid of half the people now, our global population would be down to what it was in 1970.

**John:** Which doesn’t seem so bad at all.

**Erin:** Right, but half seems like a lot. That’s just our understanding of exponential growth, which I think we’ve also seen a lot this past year with how exponentially things can spread from one person to another. It’s hard for us to wrap our heads around sometimes. I’d probably err on going on the more extreme example of that.

**John:** It’s also this question of how quickly you lose all the people. If you lose 50% of your population in the snap of fingers, you’re also going to have a lot of collateral lost, based on the planes that were in the air and the people who are stranded and things falling apart. I think my question, which it’s hard to answer scientifically, but I think is good to grapple with as writers, is what other institutions of our civilization would just completely collapse if we didn’t have enough people to do them, that the human infrastructure behind things would be really challenging? Leigh, as you’re thinking through this space, we always talk about post-apocalyptic and we always think about, oh, there are zombies now or there’s some other problem, but honestly just having not enough people can be its own struggle.

**Leigh:** I was going to say, maybe the most interesting thing for me would be somewhere between the Leftovers and Station 11, whereas Leftovers was a chunk of the population and they were just dealing with the weirdness of it, and then Station 11 is everybody. What if it was like all of a sudden, there’s still a lot of people, but it’s half what was there before, and suddenly it’s like, wait, nobody knows how to make this anymore. We lost most of our scientists. It’d be interesting to suddenly see people having to grapple with minds that have been lost. A lot of people who were maybe working on things that were going to improve the planet are suddenly gone.

**Erin:** That’s so funny you say that, because I really feel… When I worked in engineering, and in academia, we had a lot of people that were like that, that had been in the industry for 30, 40 years, and make the morbid joke, like, man, he better not get hit by a bus. We’re in so much trouble.

**John:** Think back to the Y2K bug and all the problems that could’ve happened if we’d not been able to pull people out of retirement to fix the computer systems that were written in. Was it Coble?

**Erin:** Yeah.

**John:** They were the folks who actually knew how those things were built. If you lose certain people who know certain things, that’s going to be a huge impact, the folks who actually know how to run the nuclear power plants or know how to run our water systems. You look at the zombie shows, you look at The Walking Dead, and the zombies are terrifying, but not being able to use a sink is also terrifying.

**Leigh:** You think about time travel, I remember talking to a friend once and saying, “Yeah, I’d love to go back in time, 200 years. I would just rule the population by holding up my iPhone.” My friend was like, “Yeah, but could you explain to them how it works?” I was like, “No.” He was like, “What happens when it runs out of batteries? What would you do? Could you explain to them how a toaster works?” I was like, “No, but I could tell them what it was.” He was like, “You would very quickly be flayed and hung on the castle and you wouldn’t amount to anything because you can’t actually make anything or explain it.” He was very right about that.

**John:** That’s where I think it’s so interesting about sudden population loss, because it’s like time travel, where you’re having to revert back to an earlier time, even though you’re moving forward in time. It’s like certain things just can’t be done anymore because you don’t have those capabilities. As you think about this as a movie, let’s think about what characters we may want to see in this story, which also I guess depends on what time frame we want to tell our story in. Station 11, it’s both present day and jumping forward 20 years to what happens after that.

**Leigh:** What if it was a scientist character who was building something that maybe was going to some sort of climate technology that was maybe going to improve the world, and then suddenly he was part of the population that disappeared, and his teenage children or adult children are suddenly left with this thing that they don’t understand how it works, that their father was the mastermind of. He’s creating a tension there of we have all this stuff, but we don’t know how it works anymore.

**Erin:** Yeah, or even their colleagues or their people that they were mentoring or that are now having to piece together what they were working on.

**Leigh:** Exactly. There we go. Let’s [unclear 00:36:22].

**John:** In the second South Park movie about COVID, that actually is a plot point, where this one guy has built this thing that no one else can figure out how to do. It’s definitely an idea that’s out there, that sense of the person who’s created the situation is the only person who can solve it, and we can’t find the person who created the situation, which feels great. That person is probably not the central character. That’s the obstacle, the McGuffin we’re looking after. It’s either children of that person or someone else who is searching.

**Leigh:** Perhaps the thing that caused the massive population loss could be what the scientist character was working on. Suddenly he’s one of the people that’s gone, and his children or his colleagues, as Erin said, have to figure out how it works before everybody’s gone. There’s this ticking clock of how do we figure out how this thing works before we all disappear and there’s not 50% of the people here, there’s 0%.

**John:** At least pointing out that we have to have continuous stakes. If it’s a onetime event where we lose half the population, that’s horrible and there’s repercussions, but what are the ongoing stakes? What’s the ongoing narrative tension that’s being built up through the situation? Something like it’s going to keep happening.

**Leigh:** Maybe if there’s a rip in the dimensional fabric. Now we’re getting into Marvel territory. If there’s some sort of cataclysmic event, cosmic event causing the population loss, and this machine or device that the scientist character, she or he has been working on and is suddenly gone, I think as that tear in the cosmic fabric gets bigger and bigger, you’re like, there’s something to work towards.

**Erin:** I really like the idea of it being a continuous event and that ticking bomb of like, all right, we have to make this as accessible and as understandable to anyone, because we don’t know who’s going to go next.

**John:** Let’s talk about accessibility and understandability, because our characters in the movie are trying to understand it, but also we as an audience have to understand it. I think back to, Leigh, your explanation of how the suit works in Invisible Man. It was really clear. You were showing it to us. We were seeing it happen. It’s like, oh, I get what it was, and there wasn’t anything more to it. Anything that’s involving a scientist concept, we have to think about what is the simplest, most logical way to explain what’s happening here without over-explaining it.

**Leigh:** I always love people explaining something to a child. It’s always helpful, because then again, I think it’s a way to dramatize exposition. I feel like one of the gold standards for this is the scene in Jurassic Park when they sit down and they get the kids animation that’s like, hey kids.

**Erin:** 1,000%.

**Leigh:** Here’s how dinosaur DNA works. I remember the 13-year-old watching that movie in theaters. Within 30 seconds, the writers and the filmmakers had completely explained this hugely complicated concept of extracting dinosaur DNA from mummified mosquitoes. All of a sudden I was like, “Great, got it,” and they can just move on with the monsters and the crashing and the bashing. It was beautiful. I feel like if you involve a child, and the child’s like, “I don’t understand,” and you just have a character saying, “Look, this McGuffin over here is going to fix all our problems,” I feel like that’s a good way to explain it to the audience.

**Erin:** It’s a classic trope we use in Star Trek all the time. It started with Spock over-explaining something and then Kirk giving a blank stare and getting a much more simple–

**Leigh:** [unclear 00:39:50].

**John:** Then you have McCoy saying, “No one could possibly understand this.”

**Leigh:** I’ve noticed a tic in screenwriting. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, John. I’ve noticed a tic with screenwriting, like in Marvel movies and stuff, not to keep calling them out, but they’ll have one of their characters… I’m just making this up on the spot. They’ll have one of their characters say something like… It has to sound creative scientific and very complicated. One of the characters will say, “No, listen, what we need to do is take the interlocker and connect it to the vectranon and then when we plug it twofolds back into what we would consider dimensional da da da, then we’ll be okay.” Then one of the other characters will say, “Time travel. You’re talking about time travel.” It’s like, oh my god, they do it every time. I look around the theater, and I’m like, is it only our screenwriters noticing this tic?

**John:** I do want to give a shout-out to Episode 419 of Scriptnotes with David Koepp, where we actually talk about the film strip inside of Jurassic Park that explains all.

**Leigh:** Can I ask you, John, is there an actual industry screenwriters nickname for that thing of saying, “Time travel.”

**John:** In some ways it’s like hanging a lantern on the exposition. Basically someone’s explaining jargony stuff, and they do have some character comment on the fact that you’re explaining jargony stuff. It’s a little bit hanging a lantern, but if a listener has a suggestion for, oh, that’s what we called this, we’re happy to popularize a term for that phenomenon that I’ve definitely noticed.

**Erin:** I have no problem with it, because it’s been my entry into the industry is to write them, is to write those scenes.

**Leigh:** You do the jargony part for the screenwriter, and then the screenwriter comes in and goes, “Flying. You’re talking about humans flying.”

**John:** I love it. This whole thing has been a thought experiment on different story topics. Our next one actually is a thought experiment. It originated on a rationalist message board. It’s called Roko’s Basilisk. Basically the greatly simplified version is that a future artificial intelligence might punish or otherwise take action against anyone who stood in its way, including those in the past. It gets a little hand wavey, but essentially, because for all we know, we’re living in a simulation, AI could torture us, or torture indistinguishable copies of us, and so therefore, we shouldn’t try to stand in the AI’s way.

**Leigh:** John, just in reading the article, I did have one point of confusion, which was just how does this hypothetical AI torture people in the past? Does it have time travel capabilities?

**John:** Basically, because it could create a simulation with us in it, that would be indistinguishable from us, it’s torturing a version of you, even if you, Leigh Whannell–

**Leigh:** Right, but I would not be affected by my simulation being tortured. My simulation wouldn’t be having a good time, but I myself would not be–

**John:** If you stick it in the framework under which all these other discussions are being had, if a version of you is being tortured, it is you being tortured, if that thing is indistinguishable. That’s my best understanding. Help me out, Erin.

**Erin:** As far as I understand it, and this is one of those things that does result in crying in the shower in the middle of the night, but the way I have thought about it is it’s… This is why they talk about it as a doing thought experiment.

**Leigh:** I love when the article says, “Be warned. Just reading this article may send you insane.”

**Erin:** What they’re trying to get across is, once you’ve learned this sentient, all-knowing artificial intelligence could exist in the future, you now have a decision if you’re going to be one to help that or to not help it. Your decisions as you make along the way could influence that one way or the other and it could eventually punish you. Again, as John mentioned, there are versions of this where it’s in a simulation or we’re living already in that simulation. Extrapolating the probabilities of your own behavior, like when we code NPCs in video games, non-player characters in video games, we’re assuming they’re going to make decisions based on what you do. It’s the same idea that this artificial intelligence will make a decision based on what we’re deciding to do. It’s very philosophical.

**Leigh:** Maybe the movie there, so as not to skirt too closely to the Matrix, although maybe it already is, maybe the movie there is that there is an anti-AI scientist, somebody who is a distinguished scientist who believes that AI is the wrong direction to go in, if we give it too much power, suddenly starts to find their life falling apart. Things are happening. Maybe people they know aren’t recognizing them anymore. Starts to work out that the AI that this scientist colleague invents in the future is now inflicting pain on a simulation, but somehow that simulated version of this main character is affecting her own life. Somehow the simulation is bleeding into her own life, and it becomes this almost Jacob’s Ladder version of what’s real, what’s not, how can a supercomputer in the future be tearing apart my current reality.

**Erin:** It brings up good things you can play with with free will. Am I going to choose this? I’ve been predetermined to choose this. Everything I’ve been exposed to in the past says I’m going to choose this, but now I know that it knows I’m going to choose that.

**Leigh:** Maybe the main character’s life starts falling apart so much that the AI in the future sends her a message somehow, be it through somebody else or whatever, but saying, “This can all stop if you get on board and help your colleague to make me what I am today.” She has this moral crossroads of do I stop this tearing apart of my life and help my colleague create this thing that is tearing apart my life, or do I keep on my current track of trying to stop something that I think is bad for humanity.

**Erin:** I got to say, this reminds me of a film, Superintelligence, with Melissa McCarthy. It was really similar to this.

**Leigh:** Oh wow.

**Erin:** Really weirdly similar to this.

**John:** Let’s pull back a little bit and look at the article in context, because the headline is, are there basically ideas that are too dangerous to think. That reminds me of The Ring. Once you’ve seen the videotape in The Ring, you are cursed and you are going to die in seven days. I think there’s some aspect of once you’ve been exposed to a thing, you can’t ever get away from it, feels like an evergreen topic. Everything we’ve been describing feels like a horror film [unclear 00:46:23] in some ways. That knowledge could be a curse that you carry with you.

This also reminds me of, there’s a book that Megan McDonald and I both like a lot, called There is No Antimemetics Division, which has a sense of ideas that you can’t actually see or think, because they are anti-memes. They’re memes that are so powerful that they worm their way into your head. There’s something that feels scary about this, but also not necessarily super cinematic. I’m having a hard time picturing a thing that a camera would be pointed at.

**Erin:** I could picture it being a very heady hard sci-fi, psychological sci-fi horror about how do you forget you learned something, truly forget it.

**Leigh:** Also, if you have an AI in the future that’s torturing you, I almost see it as a science fiction Jacob’s Ladder where the character’s life is falling apart in really eerie and scary ways because this entity in the future is messing with her reality somehow. I can see things to point the camera at.

**John:** You’re quire a director. I’m also thinking early Darren Aronofsky. I’m thinking Aronofsky around Pi and that sense of people who get so obsessed with ideas that it takes over their life. [unclear 00:47:40].

**Leigh:** I want to pitch what I’m working on right now, because every time you guys are talking about seeing things in space that don’t make sense or a character becoming so obsessed with an idea, I’m like, I just want to pitch it, but [unclear 00:47:53] so I can’t.

**John:** Let’s go back out to very, very wide and things we can’t point a camera at, which would be solar storms. I’d love to talk about the reality and dramatic potential of solar storms, which are basically… The surface of our sun sometimes puts off these giant plumes of fire and radiation that can mess up life on Earth. We have records of these things that happened. There have been telegraph lines becoming charged and paper catching fire. That was before we had all the modern technology. If we were to be hit by one of these right now, it would be really, really bad. Erin, can you give us a sense of what a solar flare or solar storm could be like? You’d mentioned gamma ray bursts earlier on. There are things out there that are just really bad if they hit the Earth.

**Erin:** Yeah, space will kill us. I love that you brought this up. The big bad solar storms are called coronal mass ejections or CMEs. Actually, we wrote this into an episode of Season Three of Star Trek: Discovery, where the engineer referred to it as a star burp. We will simplify it to that. Like you said, it unleashes a huge amount of radiation, a huge amount of heat. Now you’ll survive the Earth getting hit by a CME. A gamma ray burst is such high radiation, you’re just going to fry. A solar storm isn’t going to necessarily hurt you, but what it does do, as you said, is it takes down technology. It’s a huge electromagnetic pulse.

You mentioned the telegraphs and the papers catching on fire. That was from an event in 1859 called the Carrington Event. That was when Earth got hit by a CME right at the early stages of this industrial era. It was so powerful, it took down transformers. It blew out all the telegraph lines. People who were using telegraphs, it set their paper on fire. They got shocked by it. It’s crazy. It’s come close to happening these days. I think in 2012 we discovered a couple years later we only missed one by a couple weeks. It can happen, and the implications are numerous and delightful and catastrophic.

**John:** It’s not hard to envision the big catastrophe movie of this, which would be everything gets taken down. Let’s set a moment to think about the period film of this. If we actually were to make a movie about the Carrington Event and what that would be like, in some ways it could be charming. It would be a disruption and things could happen, but it’d be a good parable for losing this technology we counted on and having to do things the old way or something like you can’t send a message out and so you’re isolated. There’s something charming about that image.

**Leigh:** Yeah, that’s actually a great idea. I actually think just that concept, it almost is by the by now when you talk about the solar storms. It’s like a movie based on what would happen to us all if none of our devices worked anymore, if suddenly everyone teenager’s TikTok in the world was not available to them. I think I can see an interesting dramedy about that.

**John:** As we went through this pandemic, it was bad. Everyone agrees, it sucked, but we still had our technology. Without our technology, it would’ve been much, much, much worse. Our ability to get things and communicate with people, if we didn’t have Zoom and FaceTime and phone calls, it’s hard to even imagine how much worse this would’ve been. Scaling back up to the modern day catastrophe movie, it would be horrible. It would be one of those pre-apocalyptic, post-apocalyptic kind of scenarios. We could get our way back, but it would be really, really hard.

**Erin:** I think it’s fun to explore. I’ve tried playing around with different stories with this too. We could be sitting here having this conversation, a CME could hit us, and it’d just all be gone. All the cell towers are gone. None of the electricity works. All the power lines are down. What do you do in that situation?

**John:** A question for you. I’m envisioning the Earth turning in space. Does it only hit half of us or does it hit the whole planet? Do we know what would happen?

**Erin:** Good question. That’s why we’ve dodged them in the past is because it’s just lined up with Earth’s orbit or not. Yes, if a CME hits us, it will affect the whole Earth, because of Earth’s magnetic field. These are all charged particles. If you think about iron filaments in a magnet, they’re all going to align with that. Certainly the side that’s hit direct will be affected by it, but the magnetic field of Earth will carry that throughout. There are some nuances to it, but it would definitely be a global event.

**John:** We talked through these different scenarios and different story ideas. Obviously, we’re overlapping so much with what Leigh’s already writing that he’s really angry at us now.

**Leigh:** No, I’m not angry at all. I’m desperate to almost chat it over with you so you guys can shoot holes in it and talk about it with me, but maybe to do that publicly wouldn’t be wise.

**John:** Maybe we’ll do that offline.

**Erin:** We’ll take it offline.

**John:** Yeah, we’ll do that. Thank you for talking us through the science behind all these things. If a studio were developing one of these ideas, how would they enlist your help in doing this? How early do you come in in a process? Do you come in when there’s a script done and the director’s figuring out some stuff? What is the best way to involve a scientific professional like you on this?

**Erin:** I’m naturally moving into the writer space. Other science consultants have done the same. Naren Shankar and Andre Bormanis both got their starts as science consultants on Star Trek. It’s very easy now for me to see how that transitions into a writing career, but what I’ve found with other writers is the earlier the better, because we can brainstorm fun ideas. We can break story. We can add layers that you might not have thought of, that have this backbone of science. Then we also don’t have to undo anything, just because it doesn’t quite fit. It’s not that I would never not let you do something, but it just means that we can make it stronger by getting ahead of stuff.

**John:** Erin, if somebody were working on a thing like the chimeras in a story, obviously they can do a lot of research themselves, but what would be your recommendation for finding experts or finding people in the field who they could actually bounce ideas off of? Do you have any guidance on that?

**Erin:** Yeah, there’s a few resources. The Science and Entertainment Exchange is one in LA that is available to writers. I know the WGA has some connections as well, that you’re able to reach out to them. I’m hired as a science consultant, and sometimes I do get asked biology questions. My role for that predominantly is to reach out to experts I know and whom I trust, but also that I have that research background to filter through a lot of the BS, to not waste anyone’s time, and that I can translate that in a way that helps your story. There’s lots of resources. Twitter’s also a great way to reach out to science communicators and people who are good at translating stuff for you.

**John:** Fantastic. We have one question here Megana’s put on Workflowy. Do you want to ask that for us?

**Megana:** Greta asks, “I’m writing a sci-fi horror project about an experimental medical procedure. I’ve gotten really caught up researching the science and mechanics of drug trials, etc, but when I watch other movies in the genre, they don’t seem to spend much time explaining or justifying the premise. My question is, how do I get out of the way of my own backstory?”

**John:** That’s a good question. We talked a little bit about that in the great explainer in Jurassic Park, which is such an efficient talking it through, like this is how this is all going to work. As I think through, so many of my favorite movies that are in a scientific space don’t spend a lot of time on the science. It’s just part of the premise itself. Leigh, with both Invisible Man and Upgrade, you have scientists in those movies, but they’re not sciencing that much.

**Leigh:** I feel like I remember reading an interview with a guitarist once who was playing really experimental, seemingly crazy music. He’s like, “Yeah, but you have to know the rules to do this. You got to learn the rules and then forget them.” I feel like one thing for me is just to know what the science is. In the case of The Invisible Man, I had my theory and had written out how I thought the suit worked, but I didn’t feel the need necessarily to have a scene where somebody explains that in detail.

I feel like sometimes you knowing how the science in your film works can filter through your screenplay in more of a drip feed fashion than this exposition dump. I do feel like audiences pick up on a lot. John, you said before, “I saw the suit and I felt like I knew how it worked,” but I didn’t really have anybody explaining it in the movie. I did have a couple of people say, “You didn’t even explain how the suit worked.” I guess you’ll never please everybody. My policy is just to know it yourself, but not necessarily force that knowledge on the audience in a heavy-handed way.

**Megana:** Do you find yourself ever going through in a pass and taking out some of the science if you’ve overwritten it?

**Leigh:** Sometimes, yeah, because I guess when you get into editing you realize that the essential bone marrow of the film is just the story, and anything that’s not pushing it forward is window dressing. What I actually love is one thing that you’ve talked about, Erin, that you do, is giving people technical terminology. There’s this thing that I love where it’s like when you’re watching a film and you feel like you’re in the hand of authority. If I’m watching a scene with neurosurgeons and somebody’s like, “Hand me the excavator,” is like, “Three milliliters of da da da da,” I don’t need to know what that stuff is. What I do need to know is that the people on screen know what it is.

It works very well in spy movies when somebody sits down and is using terminology that I don’t understand. If somebody sits down, some CIA guy, and is like, “This whole thing’s a blackout. I’m going to need a two-day wash-up on this,” I don’t know to know what those nicknames are. I’m like, “Oh, wash-up, that sounds important.” The scene would be bad if the character sat down and said, “Oh, this whole thing’s a blackout,” and the character they were talking to said, “Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I’m pretty new here at the CIA. What’s a blackout again?” and the guy was like, “A blackout is when an operation goes totally south and we have to pretend it didn’t exist.” If I was watching that movie, I’d be like, “Oh my god, you had me at blackout. What are you doing?”

The script I’m working on right now, just to give you guys… I’ve been talking to someone about telescopes, super duper powerful telescopes. This guy from Cal Tech was giving me all these terms that they use that I’ve been dropping in the script, like, “Check the baffles.” I wouldn’t explain to anybody what baffles are or anything. By the way, if I’m remembering correctly, it’s the black sheeting that keeps light away from the telescope.

**Erin:** Very nice.

**Leigh:** What I would do in the script is have someone on screen say, “Check the baffles,” and then somebody else would be like, “Baffles are all good.” I really don’t think the audience would be sitting there going, “Wait a minute, what about baffles? I’m lost.” All they need to know is that these guys are scientists who know their shit. That’s the most important thing.

**Erin:** The counterpoint too is that it gives a lot of good credibility when you do have that one astronomer or that one neurosurgeon who’s watching it, and they’re like, “Yeah, they used the right word.” [Unclear 00:59:15].

**Leigh:** On Upgrade I got a lot of comments, or I saw a lot of comments on Twitter from hacker types who would say, “He used the right terminology for that hack.”

**Erin:** Makes a big difference. It makes a huge difference. I’d still caution people to throw the techno babble in, as I like to call it, but making sure that it is right. You don’t have to explain it, but make sure what you’ve got is at least as close to possible.

**Leigh:** It’s not important for the audience to know how the science works. It’s just important that they believe the people on the screen know how the science works.

**John:** Exactly the point. You have to believe that the characters know what they’re doing and are doing things properly. The case with Star Trek, Erin, I will say that there’s techno jargon, but it’s also very Star Trek-specific techno jargon, because you want to make sure that you’re referring to the same things in the same way, episode to episode, series by series, that it’s consistent.

**Erin:** That’s a lot of the reason they brought me on to be available to the whole franchise was to maintain that consistency, because that’s five shows. Once shows are off and running, they’re operating pretty independently. Having someone double checking how one show’s talking about transporters or talking about warp drives or imposing any numbers or star dates, all that stuff is in my purview to make sure that that all stays consistent, and consistent with the last 55 years of Star Trek. No pressure.

**John:** I bet we have some listeners who are so envious of your job. It does sound remarkable.

**Erin:** Thank you.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is an article by Annie Rauwerda for Input. She’s talking about the love story behind… In Wikipedia, if you look up High Five, there are these four photos of this man and this woman doing high five, down low, too slow, showing what those actual things are. They’re the public main photos for those things. It’s tracking down who were those people in those photos and what is their deal, because they look to be like they’re in college. It’s not clear, are they a couple? What’s going on? The spoiler for it is they are actually a couple. They are actually married. They have two kids now. It was lovely to see a thing that’s been on the internet forever and tracking through who those people are now. It’s a lovely story that has nothing to do with science whatsoever, but made me happy as I was reading it.

**Leigh:** Very good.

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

**Leigh:** My thing would be, I’ve been reading these short story collections by an author named Brian Evenson lately. I’m really loving his short stories. He writes these, I wouldn’t call them horror stories necessarily, but they are somehow infused with existential dread. Literary horror I guess would maybe be the term. He’s written a few collections of short stories. I just read one called A Collapse of Horses. He has another one that I’m just about to start reading called The Glassy Burning Floor of Hell. Actually, each story is related to somehow, going by the back blurb, each story is related to what we are doing to our environment and our planet. I guess he’s building these stories of eerie dread out of the way our planet’s going. His stories, some of them are very short. They’re just amazing little bite-size chunks to read before bed or whenever, just because we don’t have enough existential dread in society right now. Things are going just fine, and you want to feel more uneasy.

**John:** We love it. Erin, do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

**Erin:** Yeah. I’m taking the opposite approach to Leigh in terms of existential dread and confronting it or running away from it. I have gotten really back into comic books and comic book stories and that lighthearted, fun, skirting around sci-fi fantasy world. I’m reading a book right now called We Could Be Heroes by Mike Chen. It is a delightfully fun book about two characters. One has woken up with no memory, but he’s able to erase other people’s memories, so now he becomes a super villain. He holds up banks in order to buy coffee and books. Then another character is also looking for her past. She can’t remember, but she can go really fast, and so she deliveries fast food. They meet in a memory loss support group and then they team up. I haven’t finished it, but it is an absolute delight to read. It’s We Could Be Heroes by Mike Chen.

**John:** That sounds absolutely great. That was our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Contra Entropy. 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. Leigh, where are you on Twitter?

**Leigh:** @lwhannell.

**John:** Great. Erin, where can people find you on Twitter?

**Erin:** @drerinmac. That’s D-R E-R-I-N M-A-C.

**John:** Fantastic. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where we’ll have links to articles and topics that we discuss today on the show. You’ll also find 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. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on Leigh’s fantasy mall. For now, Erin and Leigh, it was an absolute pleasure. Leigh, thank you for coming back on the show. Erin, you’re welcome back on the show any time. This was a delight having you here.

**Erin:** Thank you. I had a great time.

**Leigh:** Thanks, guys.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Leigh, on Twitter one night I saw you pitch this idea of like, would anyone go to a period shopping mall where basically you were in the ‘80s or the ‘90s and everything inside this shopping mall, presumably a dead mall that you’d resurrected for the thing, would be of that time period. Am I explaining your concept properly?

**Leigh:** Yeah, pretty much. It was interesting. This idea of mine lives in the gray area somewhere between an actual business plan and a stoned 2 a.m. thought. It’s somewhere in the middle there. I just sent up this tweet. It got a lot of attention, maybe more so than my usual tweets. Once you get the attention of the internet, that can be a bad thing. The 17 Scandinavian Saw fans that usually respond to my every tweet are nothing but positive. All of a sudden the darkest tentacles of the internet were like… If we had to think of the internet as a creature unto itself and not millions of individual people, I’m always astounded at the anger of it.

In that tweet that you’re referring to, I said, “Would anyone want to come and visit this period ‘80s themed mall with movie theaters, but if you had to give up your phone to keep up the illusion of it being the ‘80s, would you do it?” It was astounding, the number of people who were like, “You can take my phone when you pry it out of my cold, dead fingers.” I was like, whoa, calm down, random guy, not really posing this. I was also astounded by the number of people who would quote tweet it and write, “So…a mall,” or like, “Hey, what if I took a mall and turned it into a mall?”

No, random people. I will use this podcast as an opportunity to say, basically what it would be is a little nostalgia theme park, that you take a dead mall and you make it all very period, so the cinema just shows ‘80s films. The arcade there just has vintage games that were around in this era of the mid ‘80s, the food, everything about it. Basically it’s essentially a Stranger Things theme park. You’re walking around. I just know that if someone did do this, I would want to be there every day. I would want to drink it in. It is something I’ve thought about a lot over the past year.

**John:** Now Erin, would you visit Leigh’s mall?

**Erin:** I would. Depends how long, but again, I spend a lot of time in malls. I don’t know if I have a ton of nostalgia for it.

**Leigh:** What I think the idea is, it’s not so much a mall, like hey, you’re here in a mall to go shopping. It takes the shape of a mall, but it’s really an adult theme park. I went to this place in Portland, Oregon a few years ago with my friends. It was called the Kennedy School.

**John:** The Kennedy School’s great. Describe it, because it really is a very unique place.

**Leigh:** Incredible, especially for someone who lives in LA, which is a city that I don’t think has great entrepreneurial bar and entertainment options that are happening, new ones. Basically, the Kennedy School, this company has bought this old elementary school, which I think was called something something Kennedy School. They bought it and they’ve converted it into this entertainment complex for adults. It has movie theaters in there, a bowling alley, several different bars. It’s a one-stop shop that you can go to. Instead of doing a bar crawl down a street, you go to the Kennedy School, and you walk in and there’s one little bar here, and then there’s a movie theater, and you can plan a night around it. I just remember being blown away. I don’t know how you felt, John.

**John:** I went there for a lunch. It was cool that it was clearly a public school and everything looked like a public school, but it had just been turned into a bar and restaurant, movie theater. I think there was even a hotel.

**Erin:** That sounds awesome.

**Leigh:** I loved it. Dammit, see, Erin’s loving this Kennedy School idea way more than my mall idea. The great thing about it is you’re walking down the corridor, and it was like an elementary school corridor with the little hooks for the coats and everything. I guess my mall would be like that. It’s not a mall in the sense that you can shop there. It’s restaurants and bars and entertainment options would be the only… There would be a movie theater, a bowling alley, an arcade, three or four different food courts, and different bars. It would all be housed in the shape of a mall. Maybe there would be some performance art. Maybe somebody is doing 80s style robot dancing or something. You could really build this little insular world.

I like this world building thing that’s happening with theme parks. I went to the Stars Wars World at Disneyland recently. I loved the all-encompassing nature of it, that when you walked in, it’s like you’d left this planet and you were now interacting with Storm Troopers.

**Erin:** I love that.

**Leigh:** I guess this would be the ‘80s nostalgia version of that Star Wars theme park. Maybe there’s a video store there or something.

**John:** We need to ask Megana Rao, who’s too young to have ‘80s nostalgia, would you visit Leigh’s ‘80s nostalgia mall.

**Megana:** Yeah. I like arcade games and bowling and things. I miss mall food courts. Would you have that there?

**Leigh:** Absolutely. Absolutely.

**Megana:** Yeah, I’m in.

**Leigh:** It would be good food. You would gussy it up a bit. It would have the look of an ‘80s style mall food court, but the food would be a little bit better.

**John:** Let’s talk about how we manifest this vision of yours, because I would like to visit this mall too. Who builds this? How much control do you want over this? Do you just want it to exist and be able to visit it or do you want to have some role in making it exist?

**Leigh:** It’s one of those things where a lot of people say if nobody’s doing it, you should do it. I’ve read a lot of interviews with people that have opened restaurants or whatever, and they’ve said, “I decided to open this restaurant because it didn’t exist.” If I’m to take that approach, I have no hospitality experience, so I guess I would have to get in touch with someone who is some sort of venture capitalist or had some experience in experiential… I do know there was a guy at Blumhouse who I’ve worked with a few times who was in charge of their maze experiences or anything that was real.

**John:** Escape rooms, that kind of stuff.

**Leigh:** Exactly. Maybe someone in that field who could… Maybe you could tie it in with… For all I know, you could go into Netflix and say, hey, this could be Stranger–

**John:** Stranger Things. If you are a Scriptnotes listener who is probably wealthy, but also has experience in hospitality, that could be great. I think about my friend Ryan Reynolds has a gin company. Ryan Reynolds doesn’t know anything about gin. He didn’t go into this knowing anything about gin. He wasn’t a gin expert. He had an appreciation for it, and he built this company and sold it for a gazillion dollars. I just want this to be your gin, Leigh. I want this to be your Aviation Gin.

**Leigh:** I feel like with your encouragement this might exist one day.

**John:** We’ll hope so. We’ll have you back on the show for that.

**Leigh:** Excellent.

**John:** We’ll do live Scriptnotes from your mall. I promise you that when the mall opens, Craig and I, we’ll commit Craig to doing a live Scriptnotes at your mall.

**Leigh:** Thank you. Excellent. I’ve got two guaranteed customers.

**John:** Leigh, Erin, thank you so much.

**Leigh:** Thanks, guys.

Links:

* [Ed Solomon’s Tweet on MIB Movie Accounting](https://twitter.com/ed_solomon/status/1495249600428523522)
* [What is a Dyson sphere?](https://earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-dyson-sphere/) and [Dyson spheres on Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere)
* [What is a Human Chimera?](https://www.insider.com/what-is-a-human-chimera-and-how-does-it-happen-2017-11) and [Becoming Two People At Once](https://interestingengineering.com/becoming-two-people-at-once-human-chimerism)
* Stephen King’s [The Dark Half](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Half)
* [The Science Behind the Endgame Snap](https://www.fandom.com/articles/avengers-endgame-science-snap) and [Minimum Viable Population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population)
* [Rokos Basilisk: The Most Terrifying Thought Experiment of All Time](https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/rokos-basilisk-the-most-terrifying-thought-experiment-of-all-time.html)
* [There is No Antimemetics Division](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FHHQRM2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) by qntm
* [Are Solar Storms Dangerous to Us?](https://earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us/) and [How We’ll Safeguard Earth From a Solar Storm Catastrophe](https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/how-we-ll-safeguard-earth-solar-storm-catastrophe-n760021)
* [The adorable love story behind Wikipedia’s ‘high five’ photos](https://www.inputmag.com/culture/wikipedia-high-five-too-slow-photos-mystery-couple-solved) by Annie Rauwerda for Input
* [A Collapse of Horses](https://theamericanreader.com/a-collapse-of-horses/) a short story collection by Bryan Evanston
* [We Could be Heroes](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B087JJ5G5K/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) by Mike Chen
* [Leigh Whannell](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1191481/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/lwhannell?lang=en) and Leigh’s [80’s mall tweet](https://twitter.com/LWhannell/status/1490133853607919616)
* [Erin Macdonald](https://www.erinpmacdonald.com/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/drerinmac?lang=en)
* [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 Contra Entropy ([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/539standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 536: Adaptation and Transition, Transcript

March 16, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript, Transcribed

The link to this post can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/adaptation-and-transition).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 536 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we look at adaptation, both how screenwriters approach translating existing properties into film and TV, and how writers adapt to changes in their careers. It’s a big mailbag episode, so producer Megana Rao has a lot of reading ahead of her. She’s stretching, she’s warming up, because there’s a lot of listener mail to get through here today.

**Craig:** Doing those elocution exercises, “red leather, yellow leather,” and so forth.

**John:** So important. Also in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, to be or not to be, what’s the logic behind trying to minimize the use of be verbs in your writing.

**Craig:** That’ll be a short segment.

**John:** What features of other languages do we wish we had in English.

**Craig:** That’s a great idea. That’s a great question. Now we’re talking. All right.

**John:** Craig, MoviePass is back.

**Craig:** Thank God. Thank God.

**John:** The co-founder Stacy Spikes took control of the company this week as part of bankruptcy proceedings. It’s coming back in some form. We can make fun of MoviePass a lot, and we have over the years, but the article I’m going to link to is from IndieWire. Chris Lindahl writes it. A thing it points out is that post-MoviePass, a bunch of the movie theater chains did roll out their own versions of all-you-can-eat things, and those are continuing and may be good for people who do want to go to the cinema a lot.

**Craig:** Yeah, and that’s because they need to right now. The truth with MoviePass was, and why it was never, ever going to work was, the movie business was fine, and they were like, “Give us $20 and you can see all the movies you want.” When the steakhouse business is doing well, that doesn’t make sense to have SteakPass. When there’s been, I don’t know, mad cow disease and no one can go to steakhouses and no one wants to go to steakhouses and there’s steak.com delivering to your home, then yeah, it absolutely makes sense for a steakhouse to be like, “Here’s a crazy plan.” Let’s be clear about it. Regal or AMC, they’re not doing this crap when we get back to, if we get back to regular movie going. No way. No way.

**John:** Craig, they absolutely are, because AMC’s Stubs program was existing way before the pandemic, and it was profitable by all accounts.

**Craig:** That was not an all-you-can-eat plan.

**John:** It was a little bit limited, but it was the same sort of idea as MoviePass. MoviePass was the absurd, extreme example. What they recognized is there were a group of people who go to movies frequently, who would like to go even more frequently, if they can make a discount, and they paved the way for that. Then it opened up for the other theater chains to say, “Oh, we can do something like that.” Alamo Drafthouse had a similar thing.

**Craig:** A club pass always makes sense, because you get a regular thing. You know they’re coming in. They can’t bankrupt you. They can’t put you out of business, because you’re not saying it’s an all-you-can-eat buffet for all three meals of the day for $9.99. They’re going to buy popcorn and drinks and all the rest of that. All the money goes directly to AMC. It’s not through a broker. AMC’s list here, it says three movies per week. That’s reasonable. That’s smart.

**John:** It’s a lot of movies. That’s great. You can see how that makes sense, both for AMC and it makes sense for the customer. I don’t know that that would’ve existed had MoviePass not broken ground there. I just want some acknowledgement that sometimes the crazy thing that was never going to work, the pets.com of it all, does lead you to something down the road which actually makes more sense.

**Craig:** You’re an endlessly positive person.

**John:** I’m trying to be generous with my assumptions here.

**Craig:** I hear you. I see MoviePass as people who are like, “Hey, here’s an idea. We’re going to do something stupid.” Then other people are like, “That’s stupid. Why don’t we do the smart version of that?” I can’t give MoviePass any credit. It was kind of fraud, right? Didn’t they rip people off? I can’t give them credit.

**John:** I don’t know that there’s any fraud. We’re certainly not saying that there was any fraud. I’m reading a book that’s actually really interesting about financial crimes and Ponzi schemes and other things like that. An interesting thing that does happen is there’s a tipping point in a lot of companies where you’re just making promises that you’re not sure you can actually keep.

**Craig:** That’s where they were.

**John:** You got to keep running. MoviePass was one of those things where they could keep getting investment as long as it felt like they were growing. When it became clear, oh, there’s actually not more growth here, that’s when it all collapses down.

**Craig:** Am I just imagining it or wasn’t there a thing where they said you can see as many movies as you want in a month, and then they sent an email out saying, by the way, no. You paid that money, but no, you can’t see all the movies you want in a month. Also they made it really hard for people to cancel or … It’s been a while. We’ve done too many podcasts. Of course I’m not accusing any large newly restored company of fraud. That would be crazy.

**John:** We wish them all success with MoviePass 2.0. We’ll keep an eye there.

**Craig:** Keep an eye on them.

**John:** Some follow-up here. In a previous episode, we had a listener who wrote in asking about software that can help read a script aloud. We had some recommendations, but actually a better recommendation came in this past week, which is ScriptSpeaker.com. We tried it out, and it’s basically what our listener was asking for. You can throw it a pdf or a Fountain file, and it’s taking it, it’s ingesting it, and it’s kicking you back out an mp3 that does what Highland does in terms of taking character names and saying “Mary says” rather than just “Mary” so it actually makes more sense. It does a pretty good job. If you are specifically in the need for just this kind of solution, this is one that’s out there right now that you could try and use.

**Craig:** I like that I see on their website that it was developed with the participation of Creative BC and the British Columbia Arts Council. Since I am essentially Canadian now, it’s good to see. Wouldn’t it be nice, John, if our governments, state and federal in the United States, would help create things like this and help people create art and put things out there in the world that were … Nah, it’s not going to happen. Who am I kidding?

**John:** Come on. Craig, I’ll push back on this. How about the California Tax Credits? How about the Louisiana Tax Credits? That’s all over the place. We’re calling them tax credits rather than foundations and boards.

**Craig:** Those tax credits are for these enormous corporations. Those are the only who can take advantage of them really. Warner Bros, they’re fine. I’m not talking about … I assume that the people who made this, they’re not a large corporation.

**John:** Zach Lipovsky is not a giant corporation. He’s a guy.

**Craig:** An individual who’s making something like this, that’s … We have things like the National Endowment for the Arts, that of course the Republicans are always trying to take away, because it costs literally .001% of one missile or whatever. We don’t have a good tradition of this. As you know, in Europe, a lot of movies and television are financed in part by extensions of the state, state funding, which-

**John:** I always love the Irish tax lottery and how that works and the little finger crossed logo on somebody’s-

**Craig:** I love that. That’s fun. We won.

**John:** Craig, I just want to make sure that our listeners who have been listening for a long time can track Craig Mazin’s journey into socialism-

**Craig:** That’s fun.

**John:** … over the years.

**Craig:** It’s definitely happening.

**John:** It’s always good to see.

**Craig:** I don’t know, am I going in the opposite direction? People generally get more Fox Newsy as they get older, right?

**John:** Yeah. I think you’ve gotten less Fox Newsy. I think you’ve actually gotten more-

**Craig:** Listen, man. I got to tell you, that awful orange game show host has driven me into a deep leftist position, where I will probably remain for quite some time. My life goes back and forth, depending on what’s going on. I’ve never been just one sort of, “I’m only in from this point of view.” I’m about as left these days as I’ve ever been.

**John:** I think that’s absolutely true. Last week we were talking about main character energy, and this was a thing that came out of TikTok. Therefore, we’ve returned it to TikTok. We now have a Scriptnotes Podcast, @ScriptnotesPodcast, TikTok account.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Which has exactly one post and will maybe never have another post. It is your counter-rant about it. Let’s play it here for folks who are not on TikTok.

**Craig:** The quote about romanticizing your life, I can’t think of a better way to encapsulate the exact opposite thing that I think about everything than that quote, because here’s the thing, life is not romantic. You’re a big sack of slowly decaying meat that will eventually stop functioning. Everybody that you know and meet and love will eventually die. You are going to be sick. You are going to ache. You are going to have moments that are wonderful and moments that are terrible. You also don’t deserve everyone’s attention. You almost never deserve anyone’s attention. The best thing that you can do with your life, other than fulfilling yourself and feeling like you’ve achieved something you wanted to achieve, is helping someone else. Go ahead and make a life or help a life or nurture someone or something, teach someone something or something. This romanticization is just really superficialization. That’s what it is.

**John:** That’s Craig’s audio, but this little clip was put together by Drew Rosas.

**Craig:** Thank you, Drew.

**John:** Thank you for putting that together for us and using the same background music as the original clip. We had some feedback from listeners about this. Also, a friend texted me to talk about it. Her point was that there’s a gendered component to main character energy memes that I don’t think we really talked about on the show, that it’s really mostly young women who are leading this thing. One of the central points of it is that people who are not generally centered in the conversation, because of gender, race, or identity, it’s telling them to take control of the narrative, which I fully get, that if you’re not pretty enough or if you’re not white, you don’t get to be the main character in stories, and think of yourself as the main character. It’s really trying to redefine who the main character is. Totally get that. I think we were responding to said meme as the aesthetics of a main character, rather than the putting yourself at the center of the story.

**Craig:** Yeah. Maybe I don’t understand then what all this is about, because I don’t understand how any of this has to do with any conversation at all. From what I understood, it was really just about how you present yourself to the world and not about how you are recognized or participating in anything with anyone else. It seems so self-centered, so therefore outside of conversation. This friend says people who feel decentered from the conversation, which makes sense if we were talking about how to put yourself into a conversation when you have been ignored. That is a worthy pursuit. I understand that completely. My view of this was that it wasn’t about conversations at all, it was really about, what did they say, “I’m going to look out over the balcony with my glass of wine, because that’s what the person in the movie does.” I don’t think that has anything to do with any conversation at all.

**John:** I think that’s what we were both responding to is that a lot of the memes around it really felt like be Emily in Emily in Paris, rather than actually really address the structural things that are keeping you from at the center of it. We had two listeners who wrote in with some really smart thoughts. Megana, do you want to share those?

**Megana Rao:** Katie from Toronto wrote in, “I thought I’d offer my observations as a Gen Z. What I like about the idea of romanticizing your life is that it demands you take your life as seriously as you’ve taken influencers or celebrities. I think the main character conversation asks, why do I care more about Kim Kardashian’s life than my own? Why am I invested in this person’s reality when I can be the star of my own story? Because I’m a liberal arts nerd, I’ve come to see main character energy as another rendition of Nietzsche’s life-affirming philosophy of nihilism. Nothing matters after this anyway, according to Nietzsche, so I may as well live as the main character while I’m still in the movie.”

**Craig:** We’ve wandered into an area that I’m very fond of, which is the philosophy and works of Friedrich Nietzsche. While yes, I could see an extension of main character energy into Nietzsche, Nietzsche is make your own values, hammer of the gods, you are not going to follow other people’s description of what values and good is, you are going to create your own. All that makes sense, but I don’t see that as romantic at all, and I would argue that Nietzsche didn’t either, although early on, in his earlier works, maybe when he was in love with Wagner. Then he fell out of love with Wagner pretty quickly.

What’s such a bummer about this, Katie, is you are and were already enough. You don’t need to romanticize your life to care more about yourself than Kim Kardashian. What you need to do is deromanticize Kim Kardashian. You’re fine as you are. You should take your life more seriously. More seriously, not as seriously. Way more seriously than any influencer or any celebrities, because they don’t mean anything. Kim Kardashian means nothing. Her life means nothing, or at least not as presented as an edited, produced, glossy moving magazine. It’s not relevant. What I would say to you, Katie, is what if you already mattered a billion times more in your existence and in your shoes than any influencer or celebrity you could ever see? You don’t need to romanticize your life. You need to deromanticize all these other people.

**John:** I’m equally unqualified to talk about Nietzsche or Kim Kardashian. What I do hear though is that you can see these lives of these celebrities and imagine what they’re like, but of course you’re comparing your raw footage with their highlight reel. I think what we’re both saying is to really just focus on what you’re actually doing, rather than how it’s being presented to people out there. Don’t let your self-identity be so consumed with the presentation to other people, which is easy for us to say, because we’re not being bombarded with it every day. There’s an aspect of generational drift here that’s also true.

**Craig:** It’s sad. I feel bad, because I think there’s a lot of poison out there. I think there’s a lot of poison out there that people are soaking up, and it bums me out.

**John:** Megana, we had another piece here which I thought was really good.

**Megana:** Rachel wrote in and she said, “I also had a comment on your conversation this week about main character energy. Craig mentioned Fleabag as an example of this. I wanted to note that the trajectory of the second series entirely bares out all that you were saying. The hot priest character starts to comment on Fleabag’s frequent absences, which disconcerts her and which brings home for the audience that every time she’s been winking at us, she’s been checking out of the moment that she’s in. The series concludes with her entering her own life more completely, hopefully to give her experiences and the people she’s with the quality of attention that they deserve, precisely by shutting out the audience and her consciousness of herself as a character.”

**Craig:** Oh, Rachel. Oh, I love you, Rachel. One of the most amazing moments I’ve ever seen in anything was the moment where the hot priest went, “Who are you talking to? Who are you looking at?” She gets caught looking at us and is like, “Oh my god, he saw that,” which yes, I think, Rachel, you’re right, if we interpret it logically, means he saw her check out and go somewhere else in her mind, where she had metaphorized her life into a character as opposed to who she was with. In the end when she tells us essentially, “You can’t follow me anymore. I’m letting you go,” it was wonderful. That’s a great point. That’s a great point, Rachel. That’s smart.

**John:** It’s no surprise that Phoebe Waller-Bridge made something very, very smart about that. Megana, it’s reminding me though, you were talking about people you know who are influencers or sort of influencers and it being exhausting to be with them because they’re never really with you, they’re always lining up their next shot or their next story.

**Megana:** Yeah, and it just blows my mind, because I have this image of them based off of their social media that they’re constantly doing fun things. Then when I’m actually with them, it’s like they’re not eating the food when it comes, because they’re taking pictures of it. They’re not dancing in the club or whatever, because they’re taking videos of everyone else doing it and then immediately posting that. It is a lot of work. I feel like it both takes them out of the moment and … I just don’t like to be filmed like that all the time, so I also don’t find it fun to be around someone who’s doing that.

**John:** There’s an aspect of performance to everything, which of course all of our life is sort of performance, and we’re always putting ourselves out there in certain ways. Our self-esteem is always going to be a little bit based on what we’re getting reflected back to us, but just it feels so much more extreme and so much more immediate with social media.

**Megana:** I also told you the story about the friend that I was traveling with who would do a yoga pose in all of these different European cities. It was like, can we just enjoy going on this castle tour instead of doing-

**Craig:** God.

**Megana:** … Birds of Paradise here, and I have to take these pictures of you?

**Craig:** You’re her camera person?

**Megana:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We had a really interesting conversation with Dan Savage, as I recall, partly about porn and how it had messed people up. One of the points he was making was porn isn’t inherently bad, but you have to understand that those people aren’t actually having sex the way that human beings normally have sex. That in fact is not the sex that we should be having with each other. That’s athletic performance. It’s like gymnastics or something. It’s watching this extreme version of something we do all the time, because it’s exciting. We shouldn’t think that that is what we’re supposed to be doing, or that if we can’t do that or aren’t doing that or don’t look like that, that we’re doing it poorly or bad, because we’re not. It feels sometimes like these influencers have just pornified everything, food, walking around, vacations, being with friends. Everything gets pornified.

**John:** It’s not fun unless it’s capital F Fun that could be filmed and packaged and presented out to the world.

**Craig:** When we’re shooting movies and television and we shoot a scene that’s fun, it’s not fun to shoot it. It’s a long, miserable day, and there are a lot of problems, and no one’s laughing. Everyone’s working really hard to create this thing so that later you get an illusion of an effortless good time. We’re paid for that. It’s our jobs. Then we go home and live our regular lives. We don’t then continue this love affair with production. It’s very strange.

**John:** On the topic of idealized visions of how our life is supposed to be, we have some more follow-up about supportive partners and to what degree your partner should be supporting your career, supporting your ambitions. Megana, start us off.

**Megana:** John wrote in and he said, “I think it’s worth remembering that many of us listening aren’t in a secure part of our careers as screenwriters. Many of us are aspiring screenwriters, and you and Craig are our inspiration. Perhaps it’s worth considering the listener I’m speaking about has a fraction of the self-esteem successful writers like you have. I think you may have verged on belittling his relationship problems, something I believe you probably didn’t mean to do. Although your relationship advice was sound, I believe he would be feeling fairly flat right now.”

**Craig:** It’s possible.

**John:** It’s possible, yes. I think we try to be respectful of people’s feelings. I think we try to address who they are and what they’re presenting, but also we’re presenting to a bigger audience. Sometimes I think I do forget the actual original questioner in these things. It’s always good to remember that. I hope he’s not feeling that we were belittling his situation, because I do remember what it was like to not be sure of myself that I was going to be able to do this thing, that I needed support around me. It’s important for you to have support people, but I think if you were asking for this romantic partner to be an incredibly important support person, that may not always be the right fit.

**Craig:** John and I were both aspiring screenwriters once. I think we try and keep that in mind when we answer questions from aspiring screenwriters. I have never had what I think that questioner was feeling he or – I can’t remember, was it he or she, I can’t remember – deserved. I was not coming solely from a place of, “Ah, I’m a secure screenwriter and I don’t need my wife to tell me how great I am, because look at all these other people telling me how great I am.” There was a time when I was not great and I was not earning money, and my wife still wasn’t like, “Oh my god, you’re incredible,” because we just don’t have that relationship. What I said was true to myself at all stages.

When we get questions, and I think this is important for people to understand, at least for me, I take them at good faith, meaning if you ask us a question, you are saying, “Go ahead and give me an answer,” not, “Give me an answer that makes me feel good,” but rather, “Look, I asked you for a question. What do you think?” In that particular thing, I think the question was along the lines of, “Am I right or what?” There’s another person involved in that, an actual person person, and that is that person’s partner, who I was thinking about. I would imagine that if we had erred on the side of making our questioner feel good through validation, that we might’ve made that person’s partner feel a bit flat. There’s a little risk involved in writing in and asking a question and specifically wondering, “Am I doing this right or wrong?” because you might hear from us, we think you’re doing it wrong, point being if you are tenderhearted – which a lot of people are and there’s no crime in that – think twice before you write in to a radio show. I call us a radio show. Can you believe how old I am, Megana? Do you even know what a radio is?

**Megana:** It’s a thing I accidentally press when I’m looking for Bluetooth.

**Craig:** I love it. Oh my god, that’s the best answer I’ve ever heard in my life.

**Megana:** Also, just so you guys know, the original poster wrote in with a very kind email thanking you both.

**Craig:** Good. I’m glad-

**John:** That’s nice.

**Craig:** … that he wasn’t feeling-

**John:** That’s great.

**Craig:** … bad. Look, honestly, we’re not the kind of people who are like, “Awesome, someone wrote in, we’re going to destroy them and make them feel crappy.” It’s not that. If you ask us a question like, “Did I do something right or wrong?” and we think maybe you aren’t doing it the way we would, then that’s why you wrote in, right? You don’t have to agree with us. That’s for sure.

**Megana:** I think more than, I don’t know, belittling him or making him feel badly, I think you were both supportive of the fact that he was looking for support, but just delineating that there’s a difference between support and admiration.

**John:** Along those lines, there’s another listener who wrote in who had some really good suggestions about how to approach that.

**Craig:** Let’s hear them.

**Megana:** Sarah says, “I’m an actor dating a machine learning engineer with a PhD in computer-”

**Craig:** Wait. Sorry. Hold on. She’s an actor dating a machine?

**Megana:** “Learning engineer with a PhD in computer science.”

**Craig:** I got so excited. I was like, “Oh my god, John. Do we have the girl for you.” Go on, Megana.

**Megana:** She says, “He fully supports my dream to break into the entertainment industry, despite knowing very little about it. He supports me through active listening, making an effort to watch TV and movies together, and by paying much more attention to the industry-related news that pops up on his Apple News app, so great. However, he politely told me when we started dating that he did not wish to watch any of my work until we were further along in our relationship. His reasoning was that he didn’t want his opinions, spoken or unspoken, to influence my future career decisions, and he also didn’t want to open himself up to fantasizing about potential sex-”

**Craig:** What?

**Megana:** “Potential successes-”

**Craig:** What’s that?

**Megana:** “He didn’t want to open himself up to fantasizing about potential successes I could come upon, or conversely, failures that may be ahead for me. Basically he told me that my professional life is my professional life, and our relationship is our relationship. He also made the interesting point that I will likely never gain insight into how good or not good he is at his job, which is the case for most spouses who don’t meet in the workplace. In my opinion, the greatest gift a partner can give, outside of love obviously, is unconditional support toward their partner’s personal endeavors, especially those which do not directly include them. I’m challenging myself to be an equally supportive partner, but wow, turns out Machine Learning For Dummies wasn’t written for actual dummies.

“Anyways, knowing I’m loved for who I am and not what I accomplish professionally is such a great feeling, and I really encourage other creatives to try to find a partner who offers this comfort. I encourage other creatives struggling with feelings of neglect to make a list of the ways they are actively supporting the professional aspirations of their partner before making a list of the ways their partner is failing to support them.”

**Craig:** Oh my god, Sarah.

**John:** Just master class there.

**Craig:** Talk about somebody that doesn’t seem like they need therapy. Every now and then you meet someone, you’re like, “Oh my god, you don’t need therapy.” It’s rare.

**Megana:** Like you’ve won therapy.

**Craig:** Right, like you clearly won therapy. You passed the test. You’re an A-plus in therapy. That’s both.

**John:** Both Sarah and her partner have won therapy, because what the partner said is just right too, because it’s the best way of saying, “I want you to be fantastic and great, but I’m worried that if I see your work, you’re going to get the wrong feedback out of me, so maybe we just keep that stuff separate.”

**Craig:** I guess that they push on everybody, and it seems so obvious until you meet people that aren’t doing it, is communication. It seems like Sarah and her partner are communicating fully and openly and quickly. I think it’s also when you feel something, you communicate it. If you let it fester for a while, it’s going to get weird. That’s great. In all honesty, generally speaking, you’re going to want to try and communicate your feelings to your partners before you write in to a radio show about it, which I’m not saying that our last person didn’t, because they did. This is great. Well done, Sarah. Well done, Sarah’s machine … learning engineer.

**John:** Let’s turn to our main topics here. We’re going to talk about adaptation and transition. There are a lot of questions about adaptations, both how we take existing material and turn them into new film and TV products for the world, but also the struggles and challenges in those. Megana, start us off.

**Megana:** Alexander in New York writes, “I have a question about adaptations, and I hope this comes across as more curious than negative, but why do writers continue to butcher them?”

**Craig:** That sounds so curious. I’m just wondering, why are you all terrible?

**Megana:** “Writers make changes to the source material that often seems completely arbitrary and unnecessary, or worse, actively going against what the original source material does. Why? Is it ego? Do they feel compelled to make changes to the story so that it’s theirs? Is it laziness? Is it the studios? Or am I asking for something I shouldn’t want? Are faithful adaptations less interesting and creators correct for trying to keep things different?”

**Craig:** There’s some fair questions in there, but the setup was a little…

**John:** The butcher.

**Craig:** The butcher.

**John:** The butcher was hard. I would say let’s talk about adaptations in a very general sense. We’re coming in from a book, from some other preexisting material, a video game. Those things are generally adapted because they worked so well in their original medium. That novel was fantastic. That video game was one of the best things you ever played. Film and TV work differently. They don’t run along the same tracks. You’re going to need to make changes to make it make sense as a movie or as a TV show. Structurally, things just work differently. The audience’s relationship to those characters works differently.

As I’ve done books and I’ve done movies, in a book I can go inside a character’s head and explore everything, and I have all the pages and all the time I want. Movies are about two hours, and the whole story needs to fit into about those two hours. TV shows can be longer, but they have their own rhythms to them. I think part of it’s just the basic nature of moving from one medium to another medium. Things are going to change. That’s at the very start. That’s when Craig or I first get the call about adapting this work from something else. We’re talking about, “Okay, these are the things I need to change in order to make this into a movie.” Then it goes through a whole other process of getting from that first script to the final movie. Just everything does just change along the way, and because of who was cast, because of what director comes on board, because of what the studio wants. There are just a bunch of these problems that crop up. Sometimes movies are just bad. It’s not because they just decided to take this original great piece of material and make a bad movie. It’s just stuff happened.

**Craig:** Stuff happened. God, that is true. I think John just listed all the really good reasons why things change. Let’s talk about some of the bad reasons why things change, because I want to acknowledge that a lot of times there are adaptations where I will look at it and go, “What happened?” Is it ego? Almost never. Writers don’t really get much ego. A few here and there, but mostly that’s been beaten out of a lot of us. Are we compelled to make changes to the story so that it’s theirs? Not really. If something is working, it’s a great gift. Is it laziness? Never. There is no such thing as laziness. You may not be great. There may be a limit to what you see. We are all limited in one form or another, but rarely are we limited by just truly not caring. Is it the studios interfering? Yes.

**John:** Sometimes. Let’s talk about why studios interfere, because I think in some cases they got this book and they liked this book a lot and they want to adapt it, but they really want a big commercial movie and that it’s not necessarily in that book. They want to take what the thing is they loved about this book and make it into a movie. Whatever it takes to make that movie, they’ll do it. That will be casting the wrong people in it, making sure it’s set in a completely different place than it originally was set. They’re willing to change a lot in order to get the thing that they ultimately want to spend $100 million on and $40 million to market.

**Craig:** A lot of times, Alexander, when studios buy properties, what they’re buying is a title and awareness. They don’t look any further past that. They don’t actually care what’s in it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been sent a book – some books by not just bestselling authors but household name authors – I get sent a book, “We love the title, and obviously marketing value of the person who wrote it, and the basic concept. The rest we hate. Change it.” Typically I will say no. In fact, always I will say no.

Now there are other cases where in adaptations, drastic changes have occurred and it’s worked wonderfully. The example that a lot of people will often offer is the Shining. Kubrick just went way left turn off the book and ignored huge chunks of it and invented stuff and did things differently, and Stephen King notoriously hates that movie. I don’t blame him, because his book is personal to him. His book’s incredible, by the way. It’s one of the best things I’ve ever read. I love the Shining, the book.

**John:** It’s great.

**Craig:** I also love the Shining, the movie, because I didn’t write the book, so I have a little bit more mental freedom there. Sometimes wild adaptations work wonderfully. Wicked has been running on Broadway for 14 billion years and made $14 billion. Have you read the novel by Gregory Maguire? Because it ain’t like that. It’s a good book. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not knocking the book. It’s just they went way off base when they put that musical together. It’s just not like the book.

A, oftentimes studios are rewarded for going away from the material. B, oftentimes they are punished for being too close to the material, because it’s really hard sometimes to be super close and not feel like you’re just checking off boxes. You also left out directors, Alexander. Directors, especially in movies. Directors are the ones who are basically creatively in charge. They are as prone to error as writers.

You did not come across more curious than negative, by the way. It came across equally curious and negative. I understand your frustration. What I would suggest to you, Alexander, is just so that maybe, and maybe this will give you insight into it, try it. Try it. Try adapting something from one medium into another. You will, at the very least, I think be a little humbled and be at least a little more aware of how perilous those minefields can be.

**John:** A thing I’d ask Alexander to do is to make a list of great adaptations and terrible adaptations. I think right now top of mind is all about he just saw a terrible adaptation of something and that’s what he’s remembering, but he’s forgetting, oh, there are actually really good adaptations or adaptations that are better than the originals, and that also happens too. It’s not always that an adaptation’s going to fall apart or that they’re so often butchered. I don’t think that’s usually the case.

**Craig:** There are adaptations of little things all the time that are just wonderful, and much better than what they came from. It does go both ways. I will just say this. If your suspicion is that it’s writerly ego, it is not.

**John:** It’s not. I guarantee it. Megana, what else do we have?

**Megana:** Sara from Berlin asks, “I’ve been wondering about the phenomena of similar content being released around the same time. I know from my advertising background that sometimes this is indeed just cultural zeitgeist, like the influx of vampire content in the 2010s. However, sometimes the similarities are too similar. For example, I attended Sundance in 2016 and there were two documentaries about Christine Chubbuck, the Florida reporter who committed suicide on air in 1974. The question’s coming up for me again with the Amy Poehler Lucy and Desi documentary and Being the Ricardos coming out at the same time. Any theories or wisdom on this? Is there a secret stash of upcoming content material only certain people have access to?”

**Craig:** Wouldn’t it be amazing if Hollywood were that organized?

**John:** The secret list, oh my gosh.

**Craig:** Wonderful.

**John:** That would be so awesome. I don’t think it’s actually all that different than the vampire situation in the 2010s, because there was suddenly a bunch of vampire stuff. I think it’s just these invisible cycles of things, where the same reason why it was appealing to one person to write that vampire story, it was appealing to other people. They weren’t communicating with each other, but the same cultural forces were pushing them to do that thing, and it fed upon itself. Vampires are a more general case than Lucy and Desi, but I think Lucy and Desi are an interesting couple to be thinking about in terms of power in television and how relationships develop and change. It was a really good idea to do a documentary about it. It was a really good idea to do a fictionalized story about it. They just had the same idea at the same time. That happens a lot.

**Craig:** It does happen a lot. Also, just practically speaking, there are times where people are in development on something, and because there’s no competition, they just spin their wheels for a long time because there’s no pressure to do otherwise. Then they hear that somebody else is starting to prepare something that would scoop them, and they suddenly go into high gear, and voila, there are two projects. Just sometimes the hearing of the existence of one will inspire the other one into being, and now you have two.

**John:** We often do How Would This Be A Movie segments on the show. One thing that Craig always likes to stress is that in many cases you don’t need the rights to anything, because it’s just a true event that happened. The same people are opening the newspaper and seeing that same thing happen. It’s like, oh, we’re both going to write this story about it. I don’t know the backstory on the two Christine Chubbuck documentaries, but my hunch is that there were some articles somewhere that came out about it that inspired both filmmakers to push through it or it just percolated up in some way that it inspired both of them, but they weren’t communicating with each other.

**Craig:** There’s no conspiracies, sadly. It would explain a lot.

**John:** This could be umbrage bait, Craig.

**Craig:** Here we go.

**John:** Megana.

**Craig:** Here we go.

**Megana:** Juliana asks, “What’s up with MTV using a contest to get three work-for-hire feature scripts for a total of $20,000?”

**Craig:** What?

**Megana:** “I notice their FAQ on their contest website says they don’t want WGA members applying. It all seems a bit bizarre. How are they able to use public domain IP – for example they’re using A Christmas Carol – as the basis of the contest, yet retain all rights to writers’ own ideas about how to adapt that IP? Could they really enforce this, if a writer who wasn’t selected went off and used the treatment they submitted to write a script and sold it elsewhere?”

**John:** We’ll put a link in the show notes to, it’s firsttimescreenwriters.com. It’s an MTV contest.

**Craig:** Don’t do it. We’re putting a link there for you to not click it.

**John:** You could click the link and read through the stuff. I don’t think most of our listeners should be doing this thing. I’m going to be generous with my assumptions here, because I genuinely believe this was done with the best of intentions, that it’s a chance to find new filmmakers who are doing interesting things and see new stuff. I don’t think this is a good idea for people to be writing in and doing this thing. The basic gist of this is you say, “Okay, I have an idea for … I’m going to write up one page with … This is how I would do A Christmas Carol related to my life or my experience.” You send that in, and they pick some people out of this to have them do a slightly longer treatment and a slightly longer treatment, and some people are going to be writing full scripts.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** If you’re inspired to write A Christmas Carol story, great, do it, but I don’t think you should send it as part of this thing, because I just don’t see anything listed here to make me believe that you’re going to get feedback or support or anything out of this other than a meat grinder process.

**Craig:** I’m going to be way harsher than you were.

**John:** I knew you would be. I wanted to be the generous version.

**Craig:** First of all, to answer your specific question, I don’t know if it’s Julina or Yelana, how are they able to use public domain IP and yet retain all rights to writers’ own ideas about how to adapt IP? They won’t retain your ideas. Your ideas aren’t anything. They’re not copyright. What they can do with their contest terms is say it’s a work-for-hire and if we pay you, we retain all rights to anything you’ve written down. The specific way you choose to adapt a book, like A Christmas Carol, into another work, like a movie, is absolutely copyrightable. That’s why, for instance, while John and I, I’m sure, and Megana all love Muppets Christmas Carol, we cannot just copy it down and make our own Muppets Christmas Carol, because adaptations are in and of themselves new bits of IP.

Let’s talk about why this is horrendous. Here’s their frequently asked questions. It says, “MTV Entertainment Studios First Time Screenwriters Contest was designed to find fresh voices who tell diverse stories.” Ah, okay, they’ve certainly hit the buzzwords to make us think that this is a progressive, pro-social activity to find writers who aren’t of the usual overly represented ilk in Hollywood, and bring them to prominence. That’s wonderful. That sounds amazing.

It says, “We believe our community is enriched,” remember that word, “when the stories told on film reflect a distinct vision of independent artists from every facet of our multicultural community.” Oh my god, who could have a problem with that? Me. Here we go. “MTV Entertainment Studios will select one project to be the original Christmas Carol movie for production in 2022. Data subject to change at MTV’s sole discretion. The selected winning script’s writer will be awarded,” are you ready for your enrichment, “$10,000 for the purchase of the script.”

$10,000. We have Writers Guild minimums, and that’s not even close. That’s not on the green. That’s not on the fairway. That’s still on the TBox. That is nowhere near what a screenplay for a movie that is being produced by MT-fricking-V deserves monetarily. How dare these people – and I love saying how dare – how dare these people give us this claptrap about how, oh, the community is going to be enriched and multicultural, diverse, blah blah blah, and then go, “Oh, but by the way, if we decide you’re good enough, we’re screwing you. We’re going to pay you so much less than all the other writers that we’re not going for, the WGA writers, all the white guys that we’re trying to say, oh, we want to help people so it’s not just all white guys in the world, but the white guys are getting paid. You, not white guy, are getting screwed by us, MTV.”

Screw you back, MTV. That’s outrageous. They should, at a minimum, pay Writers Guild minimum for a screenplay that is an adaptation work that is being produced. This is exploitative. In my opinion, this is exploitative. It is immoral. They should not be doing this, especially if they’re doing it “designed to find fresh voices who tell diverse stories” and “independent artists reflecting distinct visions of multicultural communities.” As far as I’m concerned, they should be paying more than minimum. Help these people by giving them an actual career, money that they can use to pay rent and write more. $10,000? I’m speechless. I’m speechless. This is embarrassing. Viacom is worth billions of dollars, and this is what they do? That’s gross.

**John:** Let’s say their goal is to find diverse voices of people who have not had produced films and get them writing for MTV and come up with a new Christmas Carol. Could you find those people out there in the world? Yes. It is not hard to find diverse writers of different backgrounds who have written scripts that are not produced, that you could come in and have pitched their version of A Christmas Carol story, and you could pay them to write the movie. You could do that. That’s a thing that MTV could do.

**Craig:** They’re not doing that.

**John:** They’re not doing that. I think the summary is people should not enter this and we think it’s a bad idea.

**Craig:** It’s terrible. I actually think that if enough people, and hopefully people talk about this, that they change this, that MTV Entertainment Studios First Time Screenwriters Contest should change this. There should be more money given. At a minimum, it should be WGA minimum. Note that they say, “If I’m in the WGA, can I apply?” Answer, “The intention of the contest is to find new voices, so at this time we are looking for non-WGA writers.” Also, they don’t have to pay you. They don’t have to pay you WGA. That’s what that’s about, FYI, so you know.

**John:** Everyone should understand that MTV is a WGA signatory, but a signatory can also have a nonsignatory production entity, and so they’re going to hire these people under their non-WGA production entity. They could not hire a WGA writer on this non-WGA production entity. That’s the real reason why they’re not going to have WGA writers on this.

**Craig:** I’m looking at our list of minimums here. If you exclude a treatment, you’re just being paid minimum for a non-original screenplay. I’m going to assume that this is not a low-budget film. I think our low budget is $5 million or less. I want to point out, even if it were a low-budget film, the minimum for a non-original screenplay, so based on an existing work, not including a treatment, which I’m sure they’re going to make you write anyway, $42,000. If it is a normal budget, that is to say more than – and I’ll find out what the, I can’t remember what the actual number is – $5 million or $10 million… It’s $5 million. This movie’s going to cost more than $5 million. The actual minimum, therefore, is $90,000.

They are screwing you to the tune of $80,000 at a minimum, and on top of that, they are denying you the health care that you would get if this were a WGA job and you were paid a normal amount, because both of those amounts would qualify you for health care for a year. That’s what they’re doing to you diverse writers who they are asking to work for them. This is gross. Boy, I really have become a leftist.

**John:** It is entirely possible that this would be done under a movie-of-the-week contract, which is a special TV contract, which could be lower than some of those minimums, but it’s going to be so much higher than $10,000. That’s I think the important point. Whether it’s $40,000 or slightly less than that because they’re doing it under a MOW contract, still, it’s going to be more than this. It’s ridiculous for them not to be paying at least that. There’s a reason why we have minimums.

**Craig:** I don’t think there’s any minimum that we have that gets you a script for $10,000. We know that because they’re telling us, “We don’t want WGA writers.” It’s gross.

**John:** Gross.

**Craig:** Boo, MTV. Come on. Seriously. What are you guys saving? What was the point? That’s what blows my mind is they wouldn’t even miss the difference. It’s a rounding error. It’s nothing to them. They still can’t do it. They just pay lip service but then they don’t actually want to step up and give people who are not inside of this industry and who have traditionally been excluded what everybody on the inside and has been traditionally included gets, which is money. I’m so angry. I’m so angry.

**John:** That went kind of dark there. Megana, can you find us a little bit happier-

**Craig:** Please.

**John:** … question to try to answer?

**Megana:** Bernard wrote, “After being blindsided and fired off an adaptation of one of my favorite IPs, I’m now in the healing process, but looking for tips for moving on. Is the source material dead to you? Do you unfollow creators? Do you burn your physical copies? So much of selling ourselves to adapt projects is showing/embracing our love for the original material, which becomes a double-edged sword if things go poorly. In a world that’s so IP-focused, how do we navigate this, just work on things we don’t love?”

**Craig:** Just enter the MTV contest and you’ll be fine. You’ll get enough money for groceries for three months. It’ll be great. John, this is a good question, actually.

**John:** Oh Bernard, I feel you there. I’ve been there. I’ve been fired off of things that I loved. It kills me. Your instincts are kind of right. You don’t have to physically burn things, but that playlist you were listening to, stop listening to that playlist. Stop thinking about the project. You do yourself no good to obsess over this thing that has sailed on. It’s like you’ve been dumped, and you have to unfollow them on Instagram. You have to not put yourself in that space, because it’ll only make you sad when you think about it. I think the best thing to do is recognize that this sucks and that you’re going to move on.

When you need to talk about it in meetings and stuff like that, it’s like, “Yeah, I really loved working on the thing. I was frustrated that I didn’t get to carry it to the finish line.” There’s ways to talk about it to make it sound like it was a more positive experience than it maybe was, but you have to move on yourself. Don’t try to score any points or wish the project ill, because it’s not going to help you. Down the road, hopefully the movie will get made and you’re going to be invited to the premier, and you can fake a smile and be happy. Maybe your name’s going to be on this. That’s another thing to look forward to.

**Craig:** You know that story about the guy who was the first director on the Island of Dr. Moreau, the Marlon Brando film? He got fired and couldn’t stay away, and essentially got himself hired anonymously as one of the animal people, so he was extra.

**John:** Oh my gosh.

**Craig:** Because he was in costume and a mask, they didn’t know it was him. He was just there watching them screw his thing up. It’s the most amazing thing. I can’t believe that that guy wanted to do that.

Bernard, I feel for you. I think what I loved is that you said you were in the healing process. That’s exactly right. These things are hurtful, and you have to mourn them. Time will be your friend here. Is the source material dead to you? I hope not, but for a while, yeah, leave it be. The source material is unchanged. You didn’t write the source material. What you got fired off of wasn’t the source material. It was an adaptation of the source material. You’ve been soaking in it. You’ve had your own vision of it. It’s been yanked away from you. You just need time.

Above all, don’t turn away from this … When you say, “In a world that’s so IP-focused, how do we navigate this, just work on things we don’t love?” No, unfortunately, you have to keep working on things you love. This one is very much like you get dumped, your heart is broken, should you just never love again? Wonderful poetic quotes about why you should. You should. Just give yourself a little time. It’ll be better. Allow yourself to feel and hurt, and then you’ll be all right.

**John:** I have many of these in my past, but the one I’m thinking of right now involved a director, and whenever his name comes up now in the future, I’m just like, “No.” I won’t work with that director. It makes me happy, that I don’t need to see his movies. I keep getting sent stuff that he’s attached to, they want me to work on. Like, nope, not going to do it. I’m not going to say why. No, you screwed me, and I don’t feel like doing it. That thing that I loved, I recognize now I will never be able to get my version of it made, but I’m on to the next thing.

**Craig:** You got to protect yourself as you go. It’s easier to protect yourself, tying back into the earlier question about established and non-established, when you have made a lot of money and you’re doing fine. Then it’s a lot easier to protect yourself that way. It’s harder when you’re starting out, because sometimes you actually have to … Just to pay the bills, sometimes you have to work with people you really wish you weren’t working with. It’s hurtful, but it’s certainly character-building. You obviously never want to be in a situation where you are in danger or people are actually hurting, but if it’s somebody that you don’t love working with, early on it’s harder to say no. Later on, will become much, much easier.

**John:** Craig, you and I can both think of writers who early in their career they get fired off of a project and they just won’t let it go. You’ll talk to them a year later and they’re still talking about that. I’m like, “No, you need to move on,” because that’s this business. You’re going to get fired off of stuff.

**Craig:** You can’t let it define you. Everybody is going to lose. Everyone’s going to love and lose. Everyone. I don’t know anybody that fell in love once and that was the person they were in love with for their whole life and then they died peacefully. Then they died first. You’ll lose, and it hurts, and then, just as our moms and dads taught us, you pick yourself up, you dust yourself off, you get back on the horse. No one likes to hear that. No one wants to do it until they’re ready. Sometimes you have to push yourself a little bit to do it. I wish I could tell you that being successful makes it easier or makes it hurt less. No, not in my opinion. It still hurts.

**John:** The thing that does happen is that you recognize, oh, I should’ve seen that pattern coming. I’m surprised that I’m blindsided now, because I feel like I have the good pattern recognition to see bad things coming, but it still hurts. It’s frustrating.

**Craig:** If you spend your time vigilant, then you are not giving yourself over. If you don’t give yourself over, there’s no chance it’s going to work. You have to give yourself over. You have to be weirdly un-vigilant and trusting and faithful, which means you might get hurt. Every time I go into something, I just think to myself, give myself completely, and if they stomp on my heart, alas.

**John:** I’m sure I’ve talked about this on the podcast before, but Dick Zanuck, who’s now passed away, is a legendary producer, and there was a project that I was writing for him that I got a phone call from him, 8 o’clock at night, and it’s like, “John, it’s Dick. I got to let you know that they’re going to bring another writer, and I’m sorry, and it’s terrible, but I wanted you to hear it from me,” and basically spent the next 10 minutes talking me through the process. I was still really upset, but I continued to have a good relationship with Dick Zanuck because he was so forthright and honest about what the situation was and why it was happening. It’s still frustrating to me now that so many producers and other folks who were in higher positions don’t take the time to actually close off the loops like that and actually understand what it would feel like to be fired.

**Craig:** There are situations where you don’t have a relationship with the people in charge. If something has gone in an impersonal manner, then it’s okay that that’s the way it ends. When you have a relationship with somebody, then it is essential that they continue that, that they can’t just send you a Dear John letter. Did you ever get a Dear John letter, by the way? I shouldn’t ask everybody named John that.

**John:** No. No one’s ever broken up with me by an email or by letter, an actual letter, no.

**Craig:** (singing)

**John:** I’ve gotten letters that are just Dear John, but they were never about any relationship.

**Craig:** That’s how I’m going to end this one.

**John:** Let’s take a transition question here. Megana, start us off.

**Megana:** A listener wrote in and said, “Diversity inclusion efforts are by their very nature going to be most focused on those at the bottom rung, the entry-level staff writer jobs. Where does this leave those who had the misfortune of trying to break into the business with the wrong skin tone in the wrong year? The white men in power at the top get to continue to champion diversity efforts with zero personal sacrifice, while those of us just desperate for an opportunity continue to be tossed aside and told to toughen up.”

**John:** This was part of a longer email, but that’s the distilled essence of it. I think my first instinct is to attack the argument, like oh, it’s not actually harder for you or it’s still harder for other people, but I wanted to try maybe instead to do the classic thing where we first acknowledge what you’re actually saying, so validate not that you’re right, but that you have this feeling – it’s the feeling you’re experiencing, just to validate that you’re having this feeling – and then maybe try to restate what you’re saying, which to me you’re saying you feel like your opportunities to get these lower-level writing jobs are reduced because you’re a white man and that feels unfair. Craig, is that a fair restatement of what you think he’s trying to say?

**Craig:** It almost seems like he’s gone a bit further, that there are no entry-level staff writer jobs for white men.

**John:** Yes. He doesn’t say that there are none, but he is saying it’s the misfortune of trying to break into the business. He’s certainly saying it’s more difficult than it would’ve been five years ago, 10 years ago. Here’s where I think the next stage is to investigate, is to really check the facts. If you look at the numbers for TV staffing, the percentage of BIPOC writers at those lower levels has increased a lot, and so that’s true. It’s not a zero-sum game, so there’s been more writers hired overall, but the percentage of white male writers at those lower levels is down from where it would’ve been five years, 10 years ago. That sound right?

**Craig:** I take your word for it that those are the statistics.

**John:** I’ve also heard anecdotes and excuses from agency managers about why it’s harder to get white men staffed at those lower levels now, that they can use this, like, “Oh, they’re only looking for people of color for those lower-level positions,” as an excuse for why you’re not getting staffed, and yet there are still white guys making it. You still see people who are getting. It’s not the fact that this listener couldn’t be hired. It’s just the fact that he’s not been hired and that he feels like this is the obstacle.

**Craig:** Let’s just take it like you cited the statistic. Let’s say there are fewer white men being hired at entry-level staff writer positions. Therefore we can say, yes, it’s harder for white men right now to get entry-level staff writer jobs than it used to be. What we’re not saying is that it’s harder than it ought to be or easier than it ought to be. I note that none of us, and when I say us I mean white people, white guys, were going on particularly about “the misfortune of trying to break in the business with the wrong skin tone in the wrong year” for all of the years preceding the last two or three, if you are not white.

Yes, I can see how it is annoying to hear from white men in power at the top, who already have jobs, who already broke in, and who have the luxury, like you and I do, of saying fair is fair, other people deserve a turn. It’s been over-represented for so long that we have to make a change and we have to turn the wheel a bit. Easy for us to say, because we’re not trying to get those break-in jobs.

On the other hand, there’s almost no jobs anyway. What’s a little tricky is, almost no one ever got those jobs. Maybe .01% of all the people who want to have an entry-level staff writer job got one, in the world, or in our industry. It’s certainly not impossible to get one of these jobs if you are a white man. You just have to be better than you used to be. I think anyone who’s not white is going to be very familiar with that, which is you have to be better than the other people in order to get a job.

We can’t go down the road of trying to figure out what the perfect solution to fairness is when it has been so unfair for so long. It’s going to be what it’s going to be until it is basically fair. That causes problems. I am empathetic. I get it. It doesn’t feel good, like it didn’t feel good to everybody who wasn’t white for so long. It is easy for us to say.

**John:** I can understand why listener feels like it’s unfair. I understand why it feels that way. That doesn’t mean that it is unfair or that it is fair or that we’re going to get to a perfect solution here, but I understand why you feel that way. I think the challenge I’d present is what do you actually want to see change? If this were fixed, what would the end result be? What change do you want to see happening right now so that it could be this way? When I see complaints come up about this, I don’t see proposed solutions. If you, the listener, got staffed, would the problem be solved? Is it a structural problem or is it an individual problem? You’re describing both at the same time. I get why it feels unfair. Talk to me about what the system is that would actually be fair and how we’d get there. I think it’s difficult.

**Craig:** If you’re feeling angry or you’re feeling aggrieved, just make sure you direct that anger toward the right cause, which is the institutions and the studios that perpetuated unfairness for so long against people who weren’t white men, because that’s what’s happening now. There is a reaction to that. I haven’t heard anybody suggest that what we really ought to be doing is punishing the people who caused this problem, which were entry-level staff writers who are white men. Entry-level staff writers who are white men don’t hire anyone. Be angry at the studios. Certainly don’t be angry at the people who are getting jobs right now.

Above all else, understand and internalize the following statement. It is absolutely possible for a white man to get an entry-level staff writer job in Hollywood. You’re going to have to go for it. If you need to get better, you get better. If you need to work harder, you work harder. Do what you need to do to break through. That is what anyone has ever had to do. If it’s a little harder this time. It’s a little harder this time.

Some people have the misfortune of graduating college in the middle of a terrible recession. Some people have the misfortune of having a disability that writing rooms have traditionally just went like, “Oh yeah, no, we don’t want that person in here. We don’t want a deaf person in here. It’s too hard.” Everyone has a misfortune. You acknowledge it, you feel what you feel, blame the right people, and then get to work. There’s nothing else you can do.

**John:** Another thing I’d say about writers rooms is think about what are you able to bring to a writers room, and what is it that is unique, that would make you an incredibly valuable asset into that writers room. It’s not going to be that you’re a white guy. It’s going to be some sort of special experience you have, an insight you have, an ability you have, something about your personal experience that you can bring in that writers room, that can improve the show because you are part of that show. Instead of focusing on your skin color, really think about what is it that’s unique about you that is going to help you get staffed and be the perfect person for them to hire. That’s going to be more likely to lead to success. Let’s wrap up with one more question. Megana, can you talk us through Tony in LA?

**Megana:** Tony in LA asks, “I never expected the first time I wrote in to the show to be about this, but life can sure throw some curve balls. My best friend and writing partner died unexpectedly during the holidays.”

**Craig:** Oh no.

**Megana:** “I’m processing and slowly making my way through the grief. Eventually, I will be able to get back to writing. I’m pretty sure I already know what that first script will be, a sci-fi feature dealing with death and what comes after death. I pitched the idea to him about a year ago, and he loved it. It’s been on my mind a lot recently, and I’m hopeful the subject matter will be cathartic for me.

“That said, the idea of diving into a project by myself feels incredibly daunting. Writing with him was always fun and often easy. We kept each other accountable, and no suggestion was ever frowned upon by the other, no matter how crazy it seemed. We were the perfect balance for each other. It’s been over six years since I’ve written anything solo, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t irrationally concerned about trying to write by myself again. I’m not sure I even know how anymore. Do you have any advice on how to make that transition?”

**John:** Tony, first off, we’re just so sorry. It’s a horrible loss. You can’t rush grief. It doesn’t sound like you’re trying to rush grief. You’re trying to think about what happens after you move through this period of grief, but acknowledging that this period of grief is necessary and it’s just going to happen there.

Two things. We can talk about this first thing you’re going to try to write, which I think might be a mistake, because it’s going to be too closely tied in to your memory of your former writing partner. Then I think we should also talk about learning to write in a new way, because you’re going to learn to write without this person who was always there writing with you. Those are both challenging things to tackle.

Craig, let’s start with learning. You have written with a partner before. Then you were writing solo. What would be your instinct for Tony in terms of how to find out what his new writing routine is going to be or how he can start writing solo, if solo is the best way for him to write?

**Craig:** Again, Tony, certainly you’ve gone through it here. It’s awful news to hear. You’ll be okay. Like you said, you’re slowly making your way through the grief. It’s important for you to not try and feel accountable to the writer that the two of you were together. That writer doesn’t exist anymore. You’re a different person now. You’re a different writer. You may not be as good of a writer without him. That’s okay. You may find that you grow into a better writer without him, which will cause its own weird feelings. You don’t know. What you can’t do is be any better than you are right now. In a sense, you’re learning to walk again. You’re learning to run and to talk again, because you’re doing it differently, wildly different.

Of course everything comes back to musicals. Everything. There is a great musical called Curtains, a very funny musical, but also a very beautiful musical. The music was by John Kander. Music and lyrics by John Kander. He wrote a song called I Miss the Music. Partly it’s about a lyricist and a musician, and they break up, and he misses the music that they made when they were together. This was very much an overt love letter to John Kander’s former partner, Fred Ebb, who had died. Kander and Ebb were amazing. Kander and Ebb did Cabaret, they did Chicago. They wrote the song New York, New York. What else do you need to know? They’re incredible. They are all-time greats. Did Kander’s career go as well as it did without Fred than it did with? No. Would John Kander have ever thought it would? No, and that’s okay too. I will say that John Kander wrote one hell of a song with that one.

I like that you’re talking about writing something that has to do with what happened here. I think that could be very beautiful. It wouldn’t surprise me if as you were writing, you heard his voice in your head every now and again. If you do, listen to it. If he’s like, “Eh,” you go, “Mm-hmm, got it. He’s still there in my head and he’s telling me not good enough.” Listen to that. You can’t be better than you are on your own. Give yourself time to be a new writer, because you are now a new writer.

**John:** Whatever you decide to do next as your first full thing, I would just push that back a little bit and give yourself some time to not have the responsibility of trying to tackle a 120-page script. That just feels like a long slog, and I could see you getting really stuck in it and stuck in your head. Maybe pick some shorter projects. Write a short. Just experiment with how you’re going to write, where you’re going to write, what time of day you’re going to write, what is going to be the new things you want to try. Experiment and figure out what that could be, work on something shorter that you can actually finish, and then write something else that you can finish before you get up to that full-speed thing, because it’s going to be new.

You might also be thinking about, am I a person who really should be writing with somebody else? Maybe. That could be a situation where go to a writers group, find some other people who you can try to write with. I guess I would advise you to figure out whether you can write alone first before finding a replacement partner.

Tony, if you could write back in to us maybe a year from now and just give us an update on how you’re doing, I’m just really curious what the next steps are for you and how this next year goes for you.

It’s now time for our One Cool Things. I have two little short ones here. My first one is this comic by the Oatmeal. The Oatmeal’s such a great internet comic. This one I really liked was about creativity. He’s describing when you’re blocked in a project, it’s sort of like how your ears get stuck, like at altitude, and then suddenly your ears pop, you’re like, “Oh,” you have just have this inspiration, and how creative inspiration is like your ears popping. If you think about it that way, you know how to get your ears to pop. You actually have to go up or go down to get your ears to pop and just to let yourself go on that journey to do the thing that lets your ears pop. That’s a good reminder there. I’ll put a link in the show notes to that. Second thing is Australian Survivor. Craig, did you ever watch Survivor?

**Craig:** I watched the first season of Survivor back in 1839.

**John:** Way back when. Jeff Probst is a friend of the show and has read stuff for us before. We still watch Survivor. My daughter watches all of Survivor. She had us watch Australian Survivor Season Six, which is Brains Versus Brawn. It’s set in the Outback. I got to say, it was a really good season. Incredibly high production values, the right amount of twists and things, really good game-play throughout the whole thing. Craig, the Australian Outback is actually really pretty. I don’t know why-

**Craig:** It’s gorgeous.

**John:** Often I see it is as this desert wasteland. It looks amazing in this. There’s water and there’s stuff to do.

**Craig:** Yeah, and then venomous animals everywhere.

**John:** There are. No spoilers, no one dies of a venomous insect or snake in this situation.

**Craig:** I’m not watching it.

**John:** The episodes are too long. They feel a little bit padded, and yet you still love it all. I would say if you’re looking for a Survivor – obviously Jeff Probst, if you’re listening to the show, we still love you, you’re still number one – but Australian Survivor, quite good.

**Craig:** Wait, was he not on Australian Survivor?

**John:** No. Jonathan LaPaglia is the host of Australian Survivor.

**Craig:** You mean it’s the Australian … I thought it was Survivor in Australia.

**John:** No, it’s all Australians. It’s all Australians.

**Craig:** It’s just Australians. To me, Australian Survivor feels redundant. You walk out of your house, and there’s a tarantula. It’s right there. Tarantula.

**John:** Right there. You get a variety of Australian accents. You start to recognize, oh, the guy with the cowboy hat actually has a more Australian accent than the beach-loving people. You start to get some sense of geography of Australia in the course of it. I will say that it’s a bunch of white people.

**Craig:** In Australia?

**John:** There’s not as many people of color in the show, I think even as representative of the-

**Craig:** Of the actual Australian population.

**John:** Yeah. If we’re watching American television, we’re used to seeing people of various races. It’s so helpful when you have 24 people. That helps you remember who’s who. There’s just so many blonde ladies, it’s tough at the start.

**Craig:** Whitey number one, whitey number two. Who’s your favorite? Whitey five.

**John:** The best one.

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is a game, as it often is. Now this is a game on Apple Arcade. I wasn’t subscribing to Apple Arcade, but now it’s come with this new, what is it called, Apple One subscription.

**John:** Apple One, yeah.

**Craig:** Now I have it. Cool. It’s called the Last Campfire. I just started it. I think it’s fairly new. You play this funny little character who’s going on this little journey. I guess the puzzle format is how do you get from here to here kind of thing, move some stuff around, turn a thing. Interesting puzzles, but it’s rather beautiful looking, and it’s also incredibly sweet and a bit mournful. There’s a narrator. I’m trying to figure out what her accent is. It almost sounds Icelandic or something. She has a very specific accent. I got to look it up and see what it is. I don’t know, I feel sad while I’m playing it, but I also feel hopeful. It’s really weird. It’s just got a lovely tone.

**John:** I’m watching the video as you’re talking about it. I can totally see that. It does look really beautiful.

**Craig:** There’s a word that they use. Oh, I found out what the accent is. The word is “forlorn.” It comes up quite a bit. The narrator in the Last Campfire, according to Reddit, is … Somebody said, “It makes me think I’m listening to Bjork,” because she’s … It did sound Icelandic. In fact, it is a British Norwegian Icelandic actor. I think I identified the Icelandicness-

**John:** You hit it.

**Craig:** … because of Hildur Guðnadóttir, who was our composer on Chernobyl. Icelandic is a really specific accent. There you go. It’s beautiful. It’s a beautiful accent.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. Thank you for all your reading today. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Outro by Owen Danoff. 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 and 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 transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at Scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments. Craig and Megana, thank you so much.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** All right, Craig, so this, as many of our bonus topics, came out of a Twitter discussion where somebody had tweeted at you, or you and me, and said, “I try to avoid using forms of to be in my writing, because it’s weak,” or something. Remind me what the setup was.

**Craig:** They had a teacher who told them that the best practice would be, when writing a screenplay, to just simply never use any form of the verb to be, it would make your writing better. They had internalized this as something that was really worthy. I thought it sounded absolutely bananas.

**John:** It is bananas as a blanket rule to try to do this. I’ve seen people experiment with this, where they’ll write an entire blog post without using any form of to be, and it takes twice as long, because you realize that be is not just the sense of existing, it is a fundamental helper verb for constructing our English language. It feels like one of those over-applied rules, because there’s definitely sentences you read where a form of to be is in there and if you actually just use the real verb, it’s a stronger sentence. It’s always worth looking at a sentence to say, oh, is there a way I could make the sentence better? Great. Sometimes that is removing the verb to be, but as a blanket rule, gosh, no, you should never try to get rid of all forms of to be.

**Craig:** I’m trying to figure out how to sing And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going without using a to be. (singing)

**John:** Oh yeah, because you can’t do the present progressive without it.

**Craig:** (singing) I don’t know how to … It’s just stupid. If you overuse something, it’ll be dumb. The example I use was “I made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.” I don’t know, what could you turn that into? “An offer exists in such a manner that … ” Any of those rules, any of them should just be ignored. Any of them, honestly.

**John:** Another language thing that came up this week, a colleague wrote in to me to say, “Listen, there’s a thing I’m noticing,” which I’m wondering if it’s really coming from social media or where it’s from. His example was people talking about the insurrection on January 6th, and the quote will be something like, “I went outside and it was crazy. All around you could see these protesters and police cars.” The colleague was asking, “What is this about? A person is narrating a story, so it’s in the first-person I, and then it shifts into second-person, where you could see these things.” His theory was like, is it because of our writing on social media or how we talk with people? Craig, what’s your perspective on the shift from I to you?

**Craig:** It’s actually an interesting shift. I think it is meaningful. The first sentence is “I went outside,” which can only happen with him. Let’s say it’s a him. He’s inside, and he chooses to go outside. Once he goes outside, there are other people out there. At that point he’s part of a group experience, all around you, meaning you, me, us, we, everyone could see these protesters and police cars. I wouldn’t have written it myself that way, but I understand the shift.

**John:** Yeah, but I suspect if we were to record you or I talking, at a certain point we would do that.

**Craig:** I wouldn’t do it in written writing, but yeah, in talking, sure.

**John:** It’s natural for a character to do it, for example. These sentences here are natural things that we do in dialog. I was looking up a little bit more about this, and it turns out that in English we use you as an indefinite pronoun. When we need to describe so that anybody in that situation could see, we’re using “you” as that. Different languages have different ways of plugging this in. In French we have “on,” which is a “we,” but it’s also just “one.” In the example of the sentence I just said, like, “All around, one could see these protesters and police cars,” “one” is a little formal there. That’s really what it was saying, a person who was in that situation could see this thing, and we’ve just swapped it for you.

**Craig:** There’s nothing wrong with that. We all know what it means. If we know what it means, then it’s good.

**John:** On the topic of pronouns, case usage. I ran into a LA Times article that used a “whom” in a way that was technically correct but absolutely boggling to me. Where are you right now with your whos and your hims and your hes? Do you think you’re using them grammatically correctly almost all the time or are you just using what sounds right to your ear?

**Craig:** I use them grammatically correctly more than most people do, but I do not use them grammatically correctly in all circumstances. For instance, I do not say, when I knock on someone’s door and they’re like, “Who’s there?” I don’t say, “It is I.”

**John:** It is I.

**Craig:** That just sounds ridiculous. Now I sound like a vampire or an earl of something. It is I.

**John:** This sentence is technically correct, “Is that we in the photograph?” You’d sound insane if you were to say that.

**Craig:** Or like you’re in a Merchant Ivory film. “Is that we in the photograph?”

**John:** With a sturdy enough accent, you can get any of those things to pass off.

**Craig:** Certainly.

**John:** It’s such a good thing. It got me thinking too, I said before “on,” which is the French version of … It’s “we,” but it’s also anybody there in that situation.

**Craig:** Like “one.”

**John:** A version of “one.”

**Craig:** It’s like “one.”

**John:** Are there any features of other languages that we want to incorporate into English, if we could just grab them and drag them in, because English is really good at-

**Craig:** Absorbing.

**John:** … using stuff from other languages, absorbing.

**Craig:** I’m hesitant to say this, because I think it might cause more problems than it’s worth, but the way that Germans manufacture single words out of multiple words could be useful to us. We do it sometimes, but we tend to do it more in a portmanteau fashion than in a five words smashed into one word fashion.

**John:** As I look at Spanish and French, sometimes their pronouns are a little bit easier to use in terms of trying to have neutral language, because you’re only worried about the object and the gender of the object, rather than the gender of the subject, which can be useful. His and hers isn’t relating to the subject. It’s relating to what the gender is of the object at the other side, which is not necessarily tied into a person’s identity.

**Craig:** Wait, is that true?

**John:** Let’s see.

**Craig:** There’s definitely in Italian, or in French I think, if there are three boys and it’s our thing, I think it is related to them and not the object.

**John:** [French language]. Those are his sons or her sons. The “ses garçons” is not telling you the gender of the speaker of the sentence, the subject of the sentence.

**Craig:** I see. I see.

**John:** Our his and her are always tying back to whoever the subject is. In other Romance languages, that his or her is only related to the object.

**Craig:** I like that we’ve basically gotten rid of all gender in English. I don’t think that the gender stuff helps. We do have his or her relating back, but it’s so simple.

**John:** It is really simple.

**Craig:** It’s pretty simple, because nouns really shouldn’t have gender. That just seems really stupid and arbitrary.

**John:** It is, even though of course with this podcast, the ability of just using “their” and “them” to take the place of, that has been really helpful. I think if you listen to early episodes, we’re saying “his” or “her” a lot, and now we’re just saying “their,” and it’s easier.

**Craig:** We can absolutely do that. There’s one nice thing about Italian that we can’t do in English. I wish we could. Technically, I think they could get away with it in French, but they don’t, and Spanish. The Italians have conjugations of verbs, just like the French or the Spanish or any other Romance language. What they do generally is they just leave the subject off.

**John:** Spanish does that.

**Craig:** Rather than saying “I” or “a,” they just leave that off, because the verb itself gives you that information. It’s baked in. The French don’t seem to do that though.

**John:** There’s Spanish “hablo español.” You would say, “Yo hablo español” if you had to really emphasize that it was I, but you just say, “Hablo español.”

**Craig:** Yeah, and then “e yo.” French they will say “je.”

**John:** French has to say “je” because all the verbs-

**Craig:** Why?

**John:** All the conjugations sound the same.

**Craig:** They sound the same. “Parle” and “parles” with an S sound the same. Got it. That’s interesting.

**John:** There’s English where we basically don’t even bother conjugating our verbs.

**Craig:** English is kind of smart that way. It’s why, I don’t know, learning other languages is hard for me. It’s not hard for Melissa. It’s not hard for you. The simplicity of English, even the spelling is ridiculous, and we have no good consistency of pronunciation, but boy, the grammar is super simple I think.

**John:** We have weird edge cases. The whole way we use “do” and “did” is just strange, to create past-tense and to create questions and things.

**Craig:** Yeah, but the way that the French use “fair” is weird, I think. “It’s raining” is so much easier to say in English than … [French language] like “he is making the rain.” It’s like, what, God?

**John:** Megana, jump in here. Is there anything that you would like to see imported from another language into English or that you find is fascinatingly different that would be cool to do in English?

**Megana:** Oh my gosh, you’re really putting my AP Spanish on the spot here.

**John:** You speak some Spanish. You speak some Telugu. What else do you speak?

**Megana:** I speak Spanish and Telugu. We don’t really have a formal you in English. You have them in Telugu, but it always results in me making decorum mistakes. I think it’s nicer that we don’t have that and it’s all a little less formal.

**John:** I wish we had a plural you. We have “you all,” which is pretty common, but a plural you is nice, and a formal you is nice too. In the case of Spanish they use “usted.” In the case of French they use “vous.”

**Megana:** I wish there was something better than “y’all” or the “you all” in English.

**Craig:** We used to have formal words. We just don’t use them anymore because we’re not very formal people. We had “thou.”

**John:** “Thou” was the informal version though.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** “You” was the formal version, and “thou” was the informal version.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**Megana:** That’s actually really nice. I’d like to bring more Old English back, if anything.

**John:** 100%. That’s our goal for the next 10 years of Scriptnotes is to bring back the old complicated things. The last thing, a Twitter question I asked. This is related to Australian Survivor. One of the contestants on Australian Survivor said that he “striked while the iron was hot.” He said the word “striked.” I’m like, “Wait, striked?”

**Craig:** That’s not right.

**John:** I turned to Mike and Amy, like, “Striked?” They’re just like, “Yeah, that’s fine. It always feels weird when you say struck.” I’m like, “What are you talking about?” I asked a Twitter poll, and 95% of people agreed with me that “striked” is a weird word.

**Craig:** There’s no “striked.”

**John:** “Striked.”

**Craig:** Is that a word?

**John:** Yes, like “the WGA striked.”

**Craig:** I’m looking in Merriam-Webster.

**John:** It’s a word. Here’s the thing. I looked it up on Google Ngram. “Striked” has a very low prevalence.

**Craig:** It’s not.

**John:** Overall in English, the general trend is that our past tenses where we’re changing a letter from “striked” to “struck,” they’re all going away. “Sneaked” I think is passed over “snuck.”

**Craig:** Yes, okay, but “striked” is not a word. It’s not. It’s just not a word. “You striked out.” You sound like an idiot. I’m looking at “strike” in Merriam-Webster, and “striked” is not there. “Struck” and “stricken” is there, and “striking” of course, but not “striked.” Not a word. “Hanged” and “dived” are interesting cases, because it’s those specific definitions. Scuba diving is “dived.”

**John:** What does “dived” do?

**Craig:** “Dived into the water.”

**John:** “Dived,” yeah.

**Craig:** Or “he dived,” I guess from scuba diving. Then I don’t know why “hanged” for putting a noose around your neck is that and not “hung.” Who cares? What’s the difference? We hung this from a tree. “We hanged it from a tree,” nobody would ever say that. Why are you “hanged” a person? I don’t know why.

**John:** Arlo Finch, the copyeditor and I got into a disagreement about “kneeled” and “knelt” and which one we were going to choose. I think I used two different versions of it. That’s a word that sits right on the cusp, because “knelt” is a little bit strange, and “kneeled” is just taking its place.

**Craig:** Interesting. I would’ve probably said “knelt.”

**John:** I think I did say “knelt” most of the time.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** Apparently that’s a word that’s on the cusp of changing. Really. Craig and Megana, thank you so much for a fun podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**Megana:** Thank you.

Links:

* [Movie Pass is Back!](https://www.indiewire.com/2021/11/moviepass-coming-back-plan-1234678929/)
* [Script Speaker](https://scriptspeaker.com/)
* Check out our first (and only) [Scriptnotes TikTok](https://www.tiktok.com/@scriptnotespodcast) — thank you to Drew Rosas for editing the audio!
* [Fleabag Season 2](https://www.amazon.com/Fleabag-Season-2/dp/B0875W9DJ2), check out our episode with Phoebe Waller Bridge [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRV5O0ZSNc0)!
* [First Time Screenwriters Contest](https://www.firsttimescreenwriters.com/)
* [Your Ears are Plugged by the Oatmeal](https://theoatmeal.com/comics/creativity_ears)
* [Australian Survivor Season 6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Survivor_(season_6))
* [The Last Campfire](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-last-campfire/id973039644)
* [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 Owen Danoff ([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/536standard.mp3).

**UPDATE 3-1-22** The transcript for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/scriptnotes-episode-536-adaptation-and-transition-transcriptc).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.